Quote from: CRKrueger;544239Remember this is the key 4e audience (by the designers own admission), MMOGers.  

Honestly? There was one oblique reference by designers to MMOs for 4e (and for 3e too IIRC) and you managed to jump all the way to that conclusion? Good to see some blind spots opening on both sides of the fence

Quote from: Benoist;544234What if they bolted modules and shit onto 5e to create that D&D Tactics experience though?

I said years ago that the logical next step for 4e D&D was to get rid of the DM and replace with a set of cards or similar that generated tactical options for the monsters as they were encountered. Effectively saying that 4e should move towards an Advanced HeroQuest boardgame paradigm without even a DM . If I recall AM then went off on a rant about how well designed the 4e monsters were and how good a DM needed to be to get teh best out of them.

He might have been right of course. The point really is that a TTRPG fills a niche certainly for me and my mates for us to play a D&D tactics style game it would need to stand apart from a TTRPG so getting rid of he DM and making it a cooperative board game for me woudl be an advantage. Since the DM isn't there to make rulings just assign tactics to the bad guys and fill in teh gaps between encounters I am sure you could come up with a card based algorythm that handled all their jobs quite smoothly.

Quote from: Skywalker;5442424e is very much a lesson of be careful of what you wish for

Nicely put.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233FWIW I think that the design jump from AD&D2e to D&D3e is larger than the design jump from D&D3e to D&D4e. D&D4e is IMO very much the delivering on the promise that D&D3e contained. It was the natural conclusion of that line of development, and not something entirely new that came out of the Forge (sure there were elements obtained from there).

You're comparing apples and oranges. The shift from 2e to 3e was down to the core mechanic of the game, which modified the aesthetic of the game at the level of the rules as well as the logic sustaining the system.

4e was a sort of refinement of the trends of 3.5 with the volume turned to 11, all the way into "not D&D" territory. It's as if they had taken all the sewer crap from all edition and turned it into the most horrible Forge-like experience you could get out of the d20 system.

If you want a comparison, they did to 3rd ed with 4e the complete opposite 2e did to AD&D First Ed, where the game basically retained the core of the mechanics and design but turned it over its head, flushed everything that was cool about it and turned it into a formless blob about encounters and story and bullshit without structure to it. Well. 4e did the reverse, turning 3rd ed into this one-playstyle, one-size-fits-all approach that is consistent with the Forge's design theories describing how role playing games need to be coherent, focus on one segment of the threefold model primarily to squeeze the juice out of it. Here, with 4e, it was the "gamist" focus with a sprinkly of "narrativism" to make it feel like an RPG still.

Hence, shitcake. Because the Forge's theories are shit, and the threefold model's definition of gamist, narrativist and simulationist are shit as well. And Robin Laws's terminology is an extension of that shit, and thus crap as well, by the way.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233As such, I don't see these guys railing against D&D but against a move back down the path that D&D3e began and D&D4e improved on.

No. They're railing against the core game play of D&D, about rulings v. rules, about magic users playing differently than fighter and using different mechanical representations to get there, against the social aspects of role playing games at the center of game play, for the rules as the arbiter of all going-ons, against save or die, against level drain, against 'sacred cows'... against D&D. They're the guys who hate D&D who want to change it into something it's not. Fuck them.

Quote from: Skywalker;544233That is not to say that the path taken in 3e/4e is the right one or good one. But the logic of these kinds of posters is more about continue to advance D&D by using the lessons learned rather than winding the clock back. It only becomes an argument against D&D, if you define D&D as everything up to D&D3e.

It's about them regurgitating the bullshit progress indie Forge kool aid they've been drinking for the past few years. It's crap, and it should be denounced as such. Fuck them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544249I said years ago that the logical next step for 4e D&D was to get rid of the DM and replace with a set of cards or similar that generated tactical options for the monsters as they were encountered. Effectively saying that 4e should move towards an Advanced HeroQuest boardgame paradigm without even a DM .

Well, they did actually do that too. It was called Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon and Legend of Drizzt

Quote from: Skywalker;5442424e is very much a lesson of be careful of what you wish for

Though we disagree on the other aspects of the debate, here we agree. This is very true. I was one of the people calling for more balance during the 3E era. I was just getting tired of the optimization builds that were becoming rampant in some of the groups I played with, and felt the system master issue was a serious problem for many peoples' enjoyment of the game. But I never imagined 4E would be WOTC's solution to this problem. If anything I just wanted things dialed down to where they were in 1E and 2E in terms of game balance (and limiting stuff like class dipping).

Quote from: Skywalker;544248Honestly? There was one oblique reference by designers to MMOs for 4e (and for 3e too IIRC) and you managed to jump all the way to that conclusion?

Based on the design, the advertising and the result, who did you think they were going for, 0-3.5ers?  No company that focus groups like WotC could have made that mistake.  They knew damn well what they were doing.  They were deliberately tossing out the old and bringing in the new.  Who is the new?  They built it, but the new didn't come  and so here we are.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;544253Though we disagree on the other aspects of the debate, here we agree. This is very true. I was one of the people calling for more balance during the 3E era. I was just getting tired of the optimization builds that were becoming rampant in some of the groups I played with, and felt the system master issue was a serious problem for many peoples' enjoyment of the game. But I never imagined 4E would be WOTC's solution to this problem. If anything I just wanted things dialed down to where they were in 1E and 2E in terms of game balance (and limiting stuff like class dipping).

I have heard this sentiment many times. It seems many were expecting a kind of cleaned up and stripped down 3x.

Quote from: Skywalker;544252Well, they did actually do that too. It was called Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon and Legend of Drizzt

Yup Exactly where 4e should end up

I haven't actually played any of them any good?

Quote from: CRKrueger;544254Based on the design, the advertising and the result, who did you think they were going for, 0-3.5ers?

They were aiming for 3.5ers and new players IMO.

They were also reacting to the shift of market position that had been brought about by the OGL. This is the reason why and where most of the burning of bridges took place.

Quote from: Marleycat;544255I have heard this sentiment many times. It seems many were expecting a kind of cleaned up and stripped down 3x.

WotC should have manned up and told us to say "NO" to bullshit builds instead.

But they got caught up in their own lie, that the rules are the game, and the game the rules. Idiots.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544256Yup Exactly where 4e should end up

I don't think it needs to end there. The path from those three board games, to Essentials to full 4e is a nice progression of game concepts and complexity.

Quote from: jibbajibba;544256I haven't actually played any of them any good?

Yep. They are all excellent.

Quote from: Skywalker;544260Yep. They are all excellent.

Do you have any experience with Advanced Heroquest or WarhammerQuest?

How replayable are they?  They seem very focused(of course so is Space Hulk).

Quote from: Benoist;544258say "NO" to bullshit builds instead.

But it's right there in rules as written, you're just trying to stomp all over my fun just because you're not as smart as me or as strong as my character!

Quote from: CRKrueger;544262Do you have any experience with Advanced Heroquest or WarhammerQuest?

How replayable are they?  They seem very focused(of course so is Space Hulk).

I own both and have considerable experience with them.

Neither of the three D&D boardgame are designed to provide a campaign experience like those two you list. So I don't really see them as substitutes. But the game play in the three D&D boardgames is generally more exciting and consumerable IME.