Quote from: David RJesus, Colonel, since I'm a fan of AU, I would be extremely interested if he did the same thing for WW.

Regards,
David R

If it turns out he'll be using the Storytelling system (even heavily modified), then I will lose interest.  You can only polish a turd so far.

Quote from: hgjsIf it turns out he'll be using the Storytelling system (even heavily modified), then I will lose interest.  You can only polish a turd so far.

I'd heard the expression but had never met someone who tested the theory.

Warning: TANGENT

Quote from: ColonelHardisson... Monte overhauled D&D, and despite what a lot of deluded posters may say, it's still recognizably D&D, not a "whole other system."...

Hmmm.  I don't think that I'm deluded, but I consider D&D 3e+ to be effectively a different system from D&D pre-3e.  I have a simple test for this: how easy is it to use material (e.g. a module) from pre-3e D&D with D&D 3e+?  It is no easier, IME, than, say, translating a module from BD&D into WFRP, or using a WFRP module with Rolemaster.

I'm not saying that 3e is better or worse than pre-3e D&D here.  I'm just saying that it is hardly 'delusional' to consider 3e+ effectively a different system from D&D pre-3e, despite sharing the name and some similar features.  If you want to claim that it is 'still D&D' because it has fighters, etc., going into dungeons to kill evil and take their loot, then by that reasoning Palladium, Iron Gauntlets, GURPS fantasy, HERO fantasy, Rolemaster, HARP, WFRP (played in a certain way), etc. are also 'D&D'.

Oh, please, not the "nature of the Tao/D&D" stuff again...

Quote from: SosthenesOh, please, not the "nature of the Tao/D&D" stuff again...

Well, take some comfort in the fact that I have no intention of pursuing this matter any further here.  I just took exception to the notion that one would have to be 'delusional' to regard 3e D&D as a different game than pre-3e D&D.  I don't think it's 'delusional' at all (as my 'conversion test' demonstrates).  I don't care if the Colonel wants to regard it as the same system, I was just irritated by his unwarranted dismissal of people who happen to disagree with him.

There were quite a lot of "Storyteller" system variants around, too. If it's really the mix-and-match approach, I don't think a complete system reworking would be worthwile from a pure financial perspective. Some optional rules, okay, but not too much more.

I don't think a complete new system would be a viable approach, even with Monte Cook's name attached. If they were interested in that kind of stuff, they could've hired him _before_ they made Exalted 2. (Sadly, they didn't)

So I don't think we'll get new base mechanics. I'm not even thinking that we'll get a D20 conversion. Cook's pretty decent tying the system and the world together, and I think he can do that with the default WoD stuff. Some nip and tuck, but not a complete overhaul.

I think its an arguable point, but it doesn't make you "delusional" to argue it.

Anyways, to me the bigger issue is how people tend to give Monte Cook all the credit for D&D 3.0. I have a feeling that a lot of the best stuff about 3.0 is what Jonathan Tweet gave the effort; and Arcana Unearthed's "too wierd to live" quality is proof of that.

Together, those two were like Lennon and McCartney, but by himself, without people doing creative checks on his efforts (be it Tweet or be it John Tynes for CoC D20), he always ends up sucking.  I don't recall having ever enjoyed a single thing Cook has done by himself.

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaWell, take some comfort in the fact that I have no intention of pursuing this matter any further here.  I just took exception to the notion that one would have to be 'delusional' to regard 3e D&D as a different game than pre-3e D&D.  I don't think it's 'delusional' at all (as my 'conversion test' demonstrates).  I don't care if the Colonel wants to regard it as the same system, I was just irritated by his unwarranted dismissal of people who happen to disagree with him.

Aaron Allston, longtime Hero and TSR game designer (the man who put together the amazing D&D Rules Cyclopedia) told me years ago that D&D was not a system, it was a setting.

Many assumptions about how the game should work, the races, basic class roles etc to achieve the "great Tolkien/Howard mean" where most people prefer their fantasy games to lie, but vast differences in rules between editions.

Look at the barbarian in 1e and the barbarian in 3e. They are radically different mechanically but the core archetype is basically the same.

So in short, I agree, 1e D&D was a different game entirely.

Chuck

Quote from: AkrasiaI don't care if the Colonel wants to regard it as the same system, I was just irritated by his unwarranted dismissal of people who happen to disagree with him.

Well, I'm sorry you took it that way. The main point I was making was (and I'm sure any posters here that are EN World or Dragonsfoot regulars will know what I'm talking about) that there is a very prominent (due to numbers or sheer stridency) contingent of D&D players who swear 3e is a completely new and unique system. At its base, it simply isn't. At its core, it's the same basic game with the same basic tropes (toss in "many of" if you want a qualifier), not an entirely new system. Hell, I remember the 3e designers saying they wanted it to still be recognizably D&D. Since Monte was one of those designers, I don't think the assumption that he won't scrap the WoD system entirely and start afresh is unreasonable.

But putting it that way generally assures nobody reads my posts.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think its an arguable point, but it doesn't make you "delusional" to argue it.

Christ, now you're admonishing someone's use of hyperbole?

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckSo in short, I agree, 1e D&D was a different game entirely.

Both 1e and 3e have classes, levels, hit points, weapon damages are not very different, armor class essentially works the same but the way it's quantified has been flipped over...entirely different? Really? When I think of the term "entirely different," I think of, say, D&D (any iteration) and, say, GURPS.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonChrist, now you're admonishing someone's use of hyperbole?

No, just trying to calm Akrasia down. The point is that IS hyperbole, and I don't think you really meant to imply that he was "delusional".

RPGPundit

Quote from: ColonelHardissonBoth 1e and 3e have classes, levels, hit points, weapon damages are not very different, armor class essentially works the same but the way it's quantified has been flipped over...entirely different? Really? When I think of the term "entirely different," I think of, say, D&D (any iteration) and, say, GURPS.

Sure, but Final Fantasy has levels and hit points and Defense. Is Final Fantasy the same game as D&D?

And as for the classes, the classes are mechanically different in every way. Only the name remains the same. I mean... the 1e Ranger could never travel with more than 2 other rangers, could only own what he and his horse could carry, got two hit dice at 1st level and was very focused around killing humanoids.

As opposed to the 3e ranger who's a dual-wielding or bow specialist, who kills, well, something. Maybe humanoids, or anything else.

So we're down to weapon damage, AC, HP and levels as the things that make it "the same system", things almost every game has. If the numbers are derived differently, handled differently, which they most definitely are in 3e, then it's a different mechanic.

For example, in 1e only classes with limited levels got a HD every level. Some classes also got multiple HD at 1st level. The way demihumans work, also totally different. Multiclassing, level caps, these are pretty much alien concepts to the player who started gaming with 3e.

In short, if you handed a human ranger/thief written up under 3e rules to someone who played 1e, but with the class name removed, could he puzzle out what it was? Would he even recognize it?

He'd start with the assumption it was a demihuman, but then the way the HD worked would seriously mess with him. If he decided the character was human, he'd wonder what was up with the scores being way too low (since dual classing required a 17 or higher in the "prime attribute").

He'd also want to know why the AC was so high but could probably puzzle that one out with a little guidance.

The saving throws though, those would throw him. Where's the Rod/Staff?Wands save? The Petrification Save?

And what do you mean it's a modifier? Where's the table? The lower the save the better right?

I think True 20 is as different from 3e as 3e is from 2e.

Quote from: RPGPunditTogether, those two were like Lennon and McCartney, but by himself, without people doing creative checks on his efforts (be it Tweet or be it John Tynes for CoC D20), he always ends up sucking.  I don't recall having ever enjoyed a single thing Cook has done by himself.

So, would that make Cook McCartney or Lennon in your book? (He'd be Paul for me. )

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, just trying to calm Akrasia down...

Hey, I'm always calm.  I was just calmly noting a difference of opinion with the Colonel.  :emot-clint:

Quote from: hgjsIf it turns out he'll be using the Storytelling system (even heavily modified), then I will lose interest.  You can only polish a turd so far.

Obviously I like the storyteller system, so I don't have a problem if Monte modifies it. But hey, if he comes up with something new, I'm open to that too.

It's a win - win situation for me.

Regards,
David R