TheRPGSite

Or more specifically a commentary about how people are reacting to that.

The original article is here (http://geek-news.mtv.com/2013/04/17/dungeons-and-dragons-spell-compendium/), and basically says what we've already heard: WoTC is creating Next as a way to bring back in older gamers.

But what I wanted to talk about is more of the very common response on the interwebs regarding an article like that.  Those comments being:

QuoteI keep hearing this. Seriously, what makes them think it's going to work?

Now, in terms of full disclosure, the person who made that comment has repeatedly admitted that he plays OD&D with no interest of ever playing any edition that's come since, so I'm not sure why he's making that statement because obviously he won't care about Next or any other version.  But I posted it because it's a common statement said my many, many others.

But I think the answer to that is pretty simple.  They think it is going to work because despite the loud gnashers of teeth on certain internet forums, there's plenty of people like me who will probably buy Next.  People like me whose last D&D product I bought was in the 90s.  People like me who have stuck with TSR D&D and not moved on to 3e or 4e, but have played Next and thought, "I actually enjoy this because it allows us to play how we like."

I know I can only speak for myself and one person doesn't mean shit, but I'm pretty confident there are others out there like me based on the G+ hangouts I've been on, and with gamers I've played Next with both in person and in Roll20 who like me, haven't bought a D&D product in over a decade, but probably will with Next.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647617They think it is going to work because despite the loud gnashers of teeth on certain internet forums, there's plenty of people like me who will probably buy Next.  

But then, this was true of 3e as well. Lots of players of other systems bought at least the PHB thanks to the enormous marketing and the insane pricing of the initial print run. Lots of players who had no inclination to ever play it. (I owned a game store during those days and saw my customers reactions. Another case in point: My standing order for Dragon and Dungeon Magazine reached its all time low before and during 3e.)

All I bought of 3e was the PHB and the first four or five modules. But at that time I had already returned to Mentzer D&D.

So, given the right buzz, 5e might sell considerably well at first. But it's the number of players and return customers that defines success of a game line.

This happens for two combined reasons.
The first reason is that 4e failed more or less to have a long stay in the market.
The second reason is that to launch a new product they need marketing money. Wotc admits 4e's failure to fans and thus capitalizes on the dissent of the fan base towards 4e while launching a public playtest. It is pretty simple: they try to build a marketing campaign for their product with as few money resources as possible. Instead of trying to invest in something new (as they did with 4e and most probably lost their money), they try to capitalize on what they have already. I cant blame them for this.

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;647637But then, this was true of 3e as well.

When 3e came out, there were lots of people who never bought any D&D stuff for a decade who bought it?  I'll take your word since I didn't pay a lot of attention in 2000.

What I was getting at was that I know a lot of people who haven't bought a D&D book in about 20 years play and enjoy Next, and will most likely buy it when it comes out and play and enjoy it.

QuoteLots of players who had no inclination to ever play it.

I'm talking about people who will play it.  One of the things about the playtests is that we have a pretty good idea how it plays before ever buying the finished product.  I expect some changes, sure, but I don't expect sweeping changes that are so major that they will make us go from buying it to not buying it.  So far the things they've added are pretty easy for us just to ignore.  That means I can play it in a style I like (the quickness of TSR D&D) while offering options I find fun (backgrounds and fighter maneuvers for example).

The "it's like edition X and Y" really is the marketing side of selling Next to past fans of the game. The game itself really is d20 with different tiers of complexity, a reworked feat system and the works. Fundamentally, it's just yet-another-edition, and the treadmill's still on.

What you (Sacrosanct) may not be seeing is that "What makes WotC think Next will bring back players of old editions" and "A lot of people who haven't bought a D&D book in about 20 years will most likely buy Next when it comes out and play and enjoy it" are both correct, because they are coming from different perspectives. You are interpreting "Will it work?" as "Will anyone at all be brought back into the fold?" Old-timers are interpreting "Will it work?" as "Will it bring back everyone, or at least bring back enough to justify all the effort they're making to target old gamers?"

Will it bring back at least some old gamers? Yes, of course.

Will it bring back enough? Probably not.

The reason is because some people don't play 4e because it's locked into one particular "feel" and not enough of the feel of older versions of the game is left to make them want to play, while others don't play because it adds or changes many specific things that they simply do not want. If WotC designs the game to appeal to as many different "feels" as possible, they'll win back the first group, but winning back the second means actually cutting out or changing back a large quantity of things, which WotC is simply not going to do, because then they'd lose all the players they already have, and they'd be bakc where they started.

Quote from: Benoist;647696The "it's like edition X and Y" really is the marketing side of selling Next to past fans of the game. The game itself really is d20 with different tiers of complexity, a reworked feat system and the works. Fundamentally, it's just yet-another-edition, and the treadmill's still on.

It uses the d20 base mechanics, but it plays nothing like 3.x (which has a million modifiers and a dozen attacks each round to keep track of).  And why wouldn't they use the d20 mechanic?  It's a lot more intuitive than looking up a To Hit table or using THAC0.

And yes, of course it's a new edition.  You can't honestly expect them to say, "We've shut down 4e, and decided just to go with AD&D from here on out."


I play TSR D&D because I like combat to move fairly fast, I don't want to be tied to a grid based combat system, and I don't think players should feel limited to what's on their character sheet.  So far, Next has been able to give me the tools to do all of that, as well as adding features I've liked that AD&D doesn't have. Remember, Next is very clear on how to allow players to attempt activities even if they don't have a skill for it.  That is anti-3.x.  And, it's going to be widely supported for the near future until the next version comes along.

Quote from: talysman;647702You are interpreting "Will it work?" as "Will anyone at all be brought back into the fold?" .

No I'm not.  The "What makes them think it will work" is in reference to the team thinking Next will be a success by bringing enough players back, not that will it bring anyone back.

Those are two very different things.  I don't have access to the feedback surveys.  But I imagine they aren't nearly as hostile as comments on internet message boards.  And based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've seen  lot of players who haven't touched anything WoTC say they are enjoying Next and will buy and play it going forward.  Based on that, it is not unreasonable for WotC to think that doing it the way they are doing it will in fact be successful.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647707It uses the d20 base mechanics, but it plays nothing like 3.x (which has a million modifiers and a dozen attacks each round to keep track of).  And why wouldn't they use the d20 mechanic?  It's a lot more intuitive than looking up a To Hit table or using THAC0.

More intuitive to some people, maybe. Not everyone. Adding numbers, no matter how simple, may be harder to some people than looking at a physical table in front of them.

Weird thinking, I know, but this sort of common wisdom that "well adding numbers to a die and comparing it to a target number is way simpler than adding way less modifiers if any to a die and compare it to a value on a table" is bullshit. It depends on people, whether they are visually inclined, math inclined, etc.

Now THAC0 on the other hand can be argued to be more complex because you're not just adding but substracting as well, and that the base Armor Class 0 value may not be as intuitive in itself as comparing a straight addition to a target number/AC. I don't care for THAC0. Never liked it as an ubiquitous mechanic for the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647707And yes, of course it's a new edition.  You can't honestly expect them to say, "We've shut down 4e, and decided just to go with AD&D from here on out."

That's all I'm saying. That the appeal to old edition stuff is just marketing. It's really just all about getting people who might play this or that other iteration to try the new one and hopefully buy into the edition treadmill again.

Quote from: Benoist;647711More intuitive to some people, maybe. Not everyone. Adding numbers, no matter how simple, may be harder to some people than looking at a physical table in front of them.

Weird thinking, I know, but this sort of common wisdom that "well adding numbers to a die and comparing it to a target number is way simpler than adding way less modifiers if any to a die and compare it to a value on a table" is bullshit. It depends on people, whether they are visually inclined, math inclined, etc.

In AD&D you're still doing math.  And when you're done doing math, then you look at a table.  Lord help you if you're also using the weapon vs armor table...

Look, I like AD&D.  You know that.  But let's be real here.  It is not an easier system to find out if you hit than a basic d20 system.

QuoteThat's all I'm saying. That the appeal to old edition stuff is just marketing. It's really just all about getting people who might play this or that other iteration to try it and hopefully buy into the edition treadmill again.

Like I've been saying, seeing as how Next has actually implemented a lot of those factors that have kept me playing AD&D instead of 3e or 4e all these years, it's more than just a marketing ploy.

Right now you're sounding like those 4vengers at TBP by actively ignoring how the game is actually structured, only you haven't resorted to the childish hyperbole or namecalling yet.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647713In AD&D you're still doing math.  And when you're done doing math, then you look at a table.  Lord help you if you're also using the weapon vs armor table...

Well yes, that depends what you are using in the game indeed, and you might not ever have more than a single digit number to add to your roll before the DM (not you player, you don't look at the table yourself, the DM does, which makes things even simpler for you) looks at the table himself.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647713Look, I like AD&D.  You know that.  But let's be real here.  It is not an easier system to find out if you hit than a basic d20 system.

I know you do like AD&D. I still disagree. It depends on people, which means that YES for some people it will seem and be easier, FOR THEM, and for others that's not the case.

It depends.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647713Right now you're sounding like those 4vengers at TBP by actively ignoring how the game is actually structured, only you haven't resorted to the childish hyperbole or namecalling yet.

Well no, I'm just pointing out that (A) the idea that adding escalating numbers to a d20 vs. target number is not as "obviously" easier than rolling and then the DM looks at a to-hit table you player don't have to even care about in the first place, contrarily to common wisdom, and that (B) the appeal to older editions (what's the actual topic of conversation here since that's the title of the thread) is in fact PR, and has really not much to do with what the game (as it stands now) actually is, which is, a basic d20 engine with further optional complexity added through Standard and Advanced rules.

After if you get offended by what I'm saying and just keep getting at me for it, it's on you, really.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647708No I'm not.  The "What makes them think it will work" is in reference to the team thinking Next will be a success by bringing enough players back, not that will it bring anyone back.

Those are two very different things.  I don't have access to the feedback surveys.  But I imagine they aren't nearly as hostile as comments on internet message boards.  And based on my admittedly anecdotal experience, I've seen  lot of players who haven't touched anything WoTC say they are enjoying Next and will buy and play it going forward.  Based on that, it is not unreasonable for WotC to think that doing it the way they are doing it will in fact be successful.

But you see, it *can't* work.

WotC's changes are being made in terms of what the *company* wants or needs, instead of what the *customers* want or need. People who are looking for something different (but not too different) might buy into Next. But if Next is a different game than 0e or 1e/2e or 3e or 4e, it's not going to offer anything the die-hards of those editions need: they have what they need already. If it caters specifically to the needs of one, it will automatically turn off the die-hards of the other editions.

Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

Quote from: Benoist;647715Well no, I'm just pointing out that (A) the idea that adding escalating numbers to a d20 vs. target number is not as "obviously" easier than rolling and then the DM looks at a to-hit table you player don't have to even care about in the first place, contrarily to common wisdom,

I'm afraid this argument is based on a disingenuous premise because on one side (AD&D) you're assuming that there aren't any modifiers in a scenario, but then are comparing it to a scenario in d20 where there are many modifiers.  We both know that the players in AD&D don't just roll, don't do any modifiers, and the DM looks at a table like you're positioning.  A 7th level AD&D character is probably going to have a magical weapon where you have to add a modifier.  Probably also a strength or dexterity score that gives another modifier.  Then another modifier based on situation (are you sneaking?  Is the opponent flanked?  What weapon are you using vs what type of armor does it have?)  There are plenty of modifiers in AD&D.  The difference is that when you're done doing all of those modifiers, then someone has to look at a table.  That's an extra step dude.

Quoteand that (B) the appeal to older editions (what's the actual topic of conversation here since that's the title of the thread) is in fact PR, and has really not much to do with what the game actually is, which is, a basic d20 engine with further optional complexity added through Standard and Advanced rules.

See, this is an example of you doing what the 4vengers are doing.  I've already shown no fewer than two times how this is not true, and yet you have continued to ignore the fact that Next has implemented rules that allow you to play the game the same way it was played in older versions.  That's not just PR.  That's a core aspect of the product.

I'm not offended at all.  I'm just pointing out how in this case, you are being stubborn.

Quote from: talysman;647716But you see, it *can't* work.

WotC's changes are being made in terms of what the *company* wants or needs, instead of what the *customers* want or need. People who are looking for something different (but not too different) might buy into Next. But if Next is a different game than 0e or 1e/2e or 3e or 4e, it's not going to offer anything the die-hards of those editions need: they have what they need already. If it caters specifically to the needs of one, it will automatically turn off the die-hards of the other editions.

Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

And I don't think they are targeting the die hards.  They're targeting a much larger segment.  People like me and my gaming groups (both in person and online) who preferred TSR D&D to WotC D&D but aren't fanatics about it.  And it seems to be working.  A lot of us will play Next.  People like OG and Benoist probably won't.  And that's OK.  But they aren't the people WotC is targeting.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717I'm afraid this argument is based on a disingenuous premise because on one side (AD&D) you're assuming that there aren't any modifiers in a scenario, but then are comparing it to a scenario in d20 where there are many modifiers.

Ah, hm. No. That's not what I actually said, no.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717We both know that the players in AD&D don't just roll, don't do any modifiers, and the DM looks at a table like you're positioning. A 7th level AD&D character is probably going to have a magical weapon where you have to add a modifier.  Probably also a strength or dexterity score that gives another modifier.  Then another modifier based on situation (are you sneaking?  Is the opponent flanked?  What weapon are you using vs what type of armor does it have?)  There are plenty of modifiers in AD&D.  The difference is that when you're done doing all of those modifiers, then someone has to look at a table.  That's an extra step dude.

Now you're going to tell me what's going on at my game table, I suppose? The fact of the matter is that what I see at my AD&D table is players dealing with very few if no modifiers at all at low level, unless you're playing with weapon specialization, which is already something optional, and weapons vs. armor modifiers, which is something I do not use in my games. At most they'll have modifiers of in the vicinity of +1/+4 derived from a magic weapon and high Strength/Dex the like if they are actually really good at what they're doing (e.g. fighter types, not ALL charater types by far), AND IF they acquired a magic weapon at some point in the first place.

Circumstancial modifiers are added by me DM after the fact after the player declared the result, which then I compare to values on the to-hit table. That's basically what happens at my game table, and I've found it easier on both the players and myself.

These modifiers are unlikely to get out of hand into double-digit territory, as far as to-hit rolls are concerned. And no, people do not casually reach level 7 in my games. They got to survive for that, and that's not a given. Now if you get paladins with +5 holy avengers and 18/00 Strength and Weapon Specialization and all that shit on a regular basis in your games, and regularly start characters at level 7 like it's a piece of cake, okay, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but that's not how my games proceed.

Ergo, it depends. Which is all I've been saying from the start.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717See, this is an example of you doing what the 4vengers are doing.  I've already shown no fewer than two times how this is not true, and yet you have continued to ignore the fact that Next has implemented rules that allow you to play the game the same way it was played in older versions.  That's not just PR.  That's a core aspect of the product.

Oh come on. You're the one who's insulting me here. I don't need to call you names. We just disagree, and YOU are the one who's getting his panties into a bunch over this disagreement right now. Come on.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717I'm not offended at all.  I'm just pointing out how in this case, you are being stubborn.

Stop projecting.

Look. I'll even show you how not stubborn I am about this: I'm just going to drop it because you just can't take the disagreement right now. It's on you, really. It's you who are being stubborn and not letting it go right now. So OK. I'll be the adult here and leave the thread. Bye.

Quote from: Benoist;647719Ah, hm. No. That's not what I actually said, no.

Really?

QuoteWell no, I'm just pointing out that (A) the idea that adding escalating numbers to a d20 vs. target number is not as "obviously" easier than rolling and then the DM looks at a to-hit table you player don't have to even care about in the first place, contrarily to common wisdom,

It seems like with d20, you're talking about "adding escalating numbers to a d20" while with AD&D, you're not including any modifiers at all.

QuoteNow you're going to tell me what's going on at my game table, I suppose? The fact of the matter is that what I see at my AD&D table is players dealing with very few if no modifiers at all at low level, unless you're playing with weapon specialization, which is already something optional, and weapons vs. armor modifiers, which is something I do not use in my games. At most they'll have modifiers of in the vicinity of +1/+4 derived from a magic weapon and high Strength/Dex the like if they are actually really good at what they're doing (e.g. fighter types, not ALL charater types by far), AND IF they acquired a magic weapon at some point in the first place.

Circumstancial modifiers are added by me DM after the fact after the player declared the result, which then I compare to values on the to-hit table. That's basically what happens at my game table, and I've found it easier on both the players and myself.

These modifiers are unlikely to get out of hand into double-digit territory, as far as to-hit rolls are concerned. Now if you get paladins with +5 holy avengers and 18/00 Strength and Weapon Specialization and all that shit on on a regular basis in your games, and regularly start characters at level 7 like it's a piece of cake, okay, I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but that's not how my games proceed.

Yeah, you're choosing to ignore a lot of rules with AD&D, but not applying the same generosity to other editions.  That's what I mean by disingenuous.  And by the way, everything you just said?  The same thing can be said for how Next is played, to a "T".  I can literally take everything you just said, and replace AD&D with Next and have it be accurate.  The only difference is that when you've added that modifier or two, in AD&D you have to look at a table, and in Next, you're done.   You seem to be ignoring some rules in AD&D but aren't doing the same for Next.  I'm not telling you what goes on at your gaming table.  I'm telling you that you need to apply the same set of standards to each version you're comparing, otherwise it's disingenuous.  

So when I call you stubborn, that's not meant to be an insult.  If I wanted to insult you, I'd use other nastier words.  But I don't want to do that because I have no ill will towards you.  I'm using stubborn because I don't know another word for someone who is presented with actual data and refuses to acknowledge it and instead holds on to the same position.  This isn't a disagreement on subjective stuff here.  I'm literally pointing out to you where you're mistaken with Next.  If you tell me it's raining and it is raining outside, it's pretty silly for me to say, "I guess we just disagree because I don't think it is."

*Edit*  And while I get that some people like to look at tables and I have no issue with that, the reason I have issue with the "because adding modifiers adds a difficulty that they don't like or don't want" is because damage rolls.  Does your DM roll for damage too?  Because every time a character rolls for damage, they are doing the exact same steps that a player does when rolling to hit in Next.  You roll a dice type, and then add any bonuses.  You don't need to look at a table, and you don't need to subtract from 20 (THAC0).  So unless your players are not rolling their damage rolls, they are already doing a task just as complex as rolling to hit is.  Which is to say, a pretty easy one.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647721Yeah, you're choosing to ignore a lot of rules with AD&D, but not applying the same generosity to other editions.  That's what I mean by disingenuous.  And by the way, everything you just said?  The same thing can be said for how Next is played, to a "T".  I can literally take everything you just said, and replace AD&D with Next and have it be accurate.  The only difference is that when you've added that modifier or two, in AD&D you have to look at a table, and in Next, you're done.   You seem to be ignoring some rules in AD&D but aren't doing the same for Next.  I'm not telling you what goes on at your gaming table.  I'm telling you that you need to apply the same set of standards to each version you're comparing, otherwise it's disingenuous.  
.

One of the pieces that made AD&D work was that the game was very friendly to houseruling and to picking and choosing of rules.  For a lot of reasons, later editions of D&D tended to be less robust to tinkering.  A lot of it was the attempt to have a systematic system underpinning everything instead of a lot of disassociated sub-systems.  This dependency had some very well known failure points (polymorph spell) and made house ruling  lot less popular.

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is hard to house rule Axis and Allies too, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

Quote from: talysman;647716But you see, it *can't* work.

WotC's changes are being made in terms of what the *company* wants or needs, instead of what the *customers* want or need. People who are looking for something different (but not too different) might buy into Next. But if Next is a different game than 0e or 1e/2e or 3e or 4e, it's not going to offer anything the die-hards of those editions need: they have what they need already. If it caters specifically to the needs of one, it will automatically turn off the die-hards of the other editions.

Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

I agree this is the problem. I'd say most of the D&D community doesn't *need* what WotC is doing with 5E, and I don't think you have to be a die-hard to fall into that category. The die-hards will merely provide the option for people who aren't entirely sold on 5E to stick with what they have by giving the unsold someplace else to go.

The second part, the people who need an official version played by as many as possible, is an excellent insight, but at the same time I find those people unrealistically optimistic about 5E's likelihood of actually delivering it.

If you are enjoying the 5e playtest, that is awesome.

I don't get it. For me, its just a slap together of 2e and 3e that feels about as authentic as corporate fast food. For me, its soulless. It reeks of compromise, not creativity.

For me, its painful to put 5e next to the DCC RPG. DCC isn't perfect, but it screams out with originality and flavor.  

Will 5e succeed? That depends on advertising and marketing. The D&D fanbase is too fractured to make any new edition do much better than 4e.

In fact, I suspect it will do much worse because there are less gamers today and more fractures in the community.

Quote from: talysman;647716Who WotC is selling to are the people who need an official version of the game who want as many potential players as possible. The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

I mostly agree with this.

In the 5e surveys, I have suggested WotC buy Paizo and focus on supporting Classic, Pathfinder and 4e. The fanbase can not be united, but they can be funneled into becoming customers from WotC.

Because at the end of the day for WotC, edition does not matter. Profit does.

In furtherance of the 'people who need a 5E that unifies everyone' concept, this is a quote from the WotC forums from one of them:

QuoteI'd say at this point you should maybe get a little flexible because if I had to venture a guess...This edition won't be designed to precisely fill your needs by default.  Basically get ready to compromise because we're all gunna have to do it.

Which ignores the obvious answer of not needing to compromise if your happy with what you already have and instead takes it as a given that people will be playing 5E.

Quote from: Votan;647727One of the pieces that made AD&D work was that the game was very friendly to houseruling and to picking and choosing of rules.  For a lot of reasons, later editions of D&D tended to be less robust to tinkering.  A lot of it was the attempt to have a systematic system underpinning everything instead of a lot of disassociated sub-systems.  This dependency had some very well known failure points (polymorph spell) and made house ruling  lot less popular.

Now that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It is hard to house rule Axis and Allies too, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

I absolutely agree that later editions were very hard to house rule.  I also agree that being able to easily houserule is a big plus for me.

And honestly?  Next has given me that flexibility since AD&D to do just that.

Hit Dice healing mechanic?  Easily ignored.
Tactical movement?  Also very easily ignored
Feats?  It isn't nearly a problem for me like 3e is (I hate 3e's feat system because it's all about char op).  But again, easily ignored or modified.

I haven't seen that in a version of D&D since 2e.

Quote from: talysman;647716The problem is: edition die-hards, by definition, do not need that.

You *can't* win them back.

They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

Quote from: CRKrueger;647748They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647749In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

Don't be so sure.  A lot of people are going to buy it simply because it is the current new version of D&D that is going to be actively supported, and that's it.

Obviously they would want more, but to get a lot of former customers back (at least as a secondary game), all that's really needed is the lack of a negative reaction.

The problem is, they want the old gamers, butat the same time they're not designing the game from the PoV of the designers of TSR editions, still holding on to concepts like Feats and other WoTC "innovations" that reflect a completely different gaming and design philosophy from the original game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647617But I think the answer to that is pretty simple.  They think it is going to work because despite the loud gnashers of teeth on certain internet forums, there's plenty of people like me who will probably buy Next.  People like me whose last D&D product I bought was in the 90s.  People like me who have stuck with TSR D&D and not moved on to 3e or 4e, but have played Next and thought, "I actually enjoy this because it allows us to play how we like."

I know I can only speak for myself and one person doesn't mean shit, but I'm pretty confident there are others out there like me based on the G+ hangouts I've been on, and with gamers I've played Next with both in person and in Roll20 who like me, haven't bought a D&D product in over a decade, but probably will with Next.

You're not alone. I'm in the same boat. So is a long-time 1E and 3E DM who I recently started playing with. We're pleased to see an edition of D&D that has the coherence of 3E without the huge amount of mechanical grit. As soon as I found out it didn't presume using a battle grid, I was half-way sold. Then I saw the smart way feats were preconfigured in specialties, and thought yeah, that's the level of character customization I want.

Quote from: Benoist;647711That's all I'm saying. That the appeal to old edition stuff is just marketing.

Nope. Mechanically, it's the first edition since 2nd that you don't have to house-rule the fuck out of to play without a grid. It's also far less complex than 3E.

Really, it's the first rules-medium edition of D&D.  

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647745Which ignores the obvious answer of not needing to compromise if your happy with what you already have and instead takes it as a given that people will be playing 5E.

Battle-scarred edition warriors on forums give a distorted picture of preferences because editions become holy writ that is fought over with fanatical zeal. But in the real world, a lot of players have misgivings and issues with the version of D&D they play. Then end up houseruling their games, or putting up with mechanics they don't like out of simple fatigue or convenience.

I've been working on a houseruled version of D&D for a couple years, trimming down the Pathfinder SRD to something midway between Pathfinder and B/X in complexity. So when I first looked at the Next playtest a couple months ago, I was pleased to see that WotC is doing much the same thing, and will end up saving me a lot of work. And I'm not the only person with that preference. The Pathfinder Beginner Box is widely praised as an excellent streamlining of the system. There have been calls to extend the system to the full level range, but of course Pathfinder doesn't want to split their market with two systems.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647755The problem is, they want the old gamers, butat the same time they're not designing the game from the PoV of the designers of TSR editions, still holding on to concepts like Feats and other WoTC "innovations" that reflect a completely different gaming and design philosophy from the original game.

Are feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D.

And I don't think they're designing things from the POV of TSR designers. They're designing a game that supports a common playstyle from the heyday of the game - flexible, theatre of the mind play with fast and abstract combat. If WotC can actually write some decent adventures for Next, I'll be returning as a customers of official D&D for the first time in many years.

Quote from: CRKrueger;647748They don't need to bring back a diehard who plays one edition of D&D to the exclusion of all others.

Who they need to also play Next are people who played various forms of D&D as well as other RPGs, but refused to play 4e due to it being so divergent.

It's not conversion that's needed, it's getting someone when asked if they want to play Next in addition to whatever other games they are playing say "Sure.", instead of "When my asshole learns to chew gum." (movie quote for extra points)

I'm not being rigid with the term "die-hard". I'm just using it to characterize people who object to the actual mechanics being included or excluded in Next. Or any other version for that matter.

Like, for example, I'm an OD&D person. I have played 1e and (sort of) 2e, ran 1e and Holmes back in the day. I won't run B/X, BECMI, or most other things anymore, but for early TSR D&D characters, it's trivial to include them in an OD&D game, becoming a little trickier as you move to 1e+UA and even trickier with each step thereafter. I'd play in any D&D game where I don't have to put up with character build/optimization bullshit or learn any new rules; in other words, I'll play D&D where I can make my character the OD&D way and not have to bother with added crap.

So I'm much more flexible than the extreme die-hard you're talking about, but I'm still a die-hard in the sense I was using the term: later editions of D&D have lots of crap I don't want or need and have changed or removed things I do want/need. And from the descriptions I'm seeing from people playtesting Next and praising its features, it's not any different.

The question for WotC is: How many people will buy any version of D&D, just because it's D&D, as long as it's at least potentially mod-able to *feel* like the D&D they want? And how many are like me, comfortable with what they have, and not seeing anything they want and some things they don't want? I'm thinking a huge number of 3e people and 4e people are OK playing a wide range of D&D versions as long as they don't have to give up the way they make characters or learn additional rules, based purely on the extreme hatred 4e advocates have expressed for older editions and the defection of 3e people to Pathfinder. I'm thinking Next will not win over those people. It will only "mix it up" a bit and get some 1e, 3e, and 4e people playing together who might not have otherwise.

Basically, they will be treading water. Which is OK, if they're happy with their current sales level, but I gather that they aren't.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Are feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D..

If thats what Feats were modelling, I wouldn't have a had a problem with them. Its when each out of ordinary action in combat is a Feat, to the point where players won't try anything fun unless they have the feat that it really defeats the purpose. Plus, the whole, instead of a Feat +1 to an attribute? From an old school perspective thats downright bizarre.

QuoteThey're designing a game that supports a common playstyle from the heyday of the game - flexible, theatre of the mind play with fast and abstract combat.

I'll ahve to wait and see, but everything that I've read about Next thus far suggests that the game will be nothing of the sort. Granted, a step back from "these rules are your god" -style of design of 4th, which is good, but still not "this game is whatever YOU want it to be" TSR style.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;647749In order to do that, it needs to overcome 'meh'.

To be perfectly blunt, this statement coming from you doesn't have me worried all that much.  As a self-proclaimed 4venger who refuses to have anything positive to say about something that isn't 4e, I'm not too worried that you feel WotC is alienating you.  To be honest, I see that as a good thing.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Battle-scarred edition warriors on forums give a distorted picture of preferences because editions become holy writ that is fought over with fanatical zeal. But in the real world, a lot of players have misgivings and issues with the version of D&D they play. Then end up houseruling their games, or putting up with mechanics they don't like out of simple fatigue or convenience.

Absolutely true.  90% of the people I see in real life aren't nearly as rigid as those of us who post on forums ;)

And really, no edition is ever absolutely perfect.  They can't be.  People all have their own quirks and preferences, and I am skeptical of people who say, "no game can possibly be better than this version."  We all modify things that suit our groups.

QuoteAre feats really 'completely different' from TSR games? Pulling out class abilities like tracking, lay on hands, or backstab and calling them feats isn't some kind of radical departure from AD&D. The specialties in Next give a prescribed set of special abilities a character will receive at certain levels. In practice, this isn't any different from how advancing Druids or Paladins worked in AD&D.

I agree.  Unlike 3e, where the feat system highly encouraged char op by carefullly memorizing and selecting the best DPS for feat combination, NEXT is really stressing packages that are functionally no different than AD&D.  Call them class packages just like you described if you want if you don't like the word feat.  But the way they are pushing "feats", it isn't anything like 3e charop unless you specifically choose to ignore the packages and play that way.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647767If thats what Feats were modelling, I wouldn't have a had a problem with them. Its when each out of ordinary action in combat is a Feat, to the point where players won't try anything fun unless they have the feat that it really defeats the purpose. Plus, the whole, instead of a Feat +1 to an attribute? From an old school perspective thats downright bizarre.

This last Wednesday in a G+ group, we had the fighter flip over a table and attack using a chair while the opponent was off balance.  Nothing in Next discouraged that.  And he certainly didn't have the table throwing feat.

QuoteI'll ahve to wait and see, but everything that I've read about Next thus far suggests that the game will be nothing of the sort. Granted, a step back from "these rules are your god" -style of design of 4th, which is good, but still not "this game is whatever YOU want it to be" TSR style.

It comes down to your group.  Just like in the 80s, you'll have rules lawyers who do that sort of shit.  But as I just mentioned, not only is there nothing in Next that discourages that theater of the mind sort of play, but it actually encourages with, "If you want to do something that isn't written in to a skill, just figure out what attribute works for it and make an ability check."

Just like we did in the 80s.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Nope. Mechanically, it's the first edition since 2nd that you don't have to house-rule the fuck out of to play without a grid. It's also far less complex than 3E.

There is a bit more to old school than "play without a grid". To be honest I'm not even sure it's not old school to play with a grid; I think this is immaterial.

Old school might mean different things to different people -- "rules-lite" for some, "rose-tinted glasses" for others. But for me it's the emphasis on exploring and taming a fantasy world, as opposed to tactical combat which was so important to 3e and 4e.

I'm an Older Gamer, been at it since 1978. I often moved from one edition to the next in a number of systems. But for me, WotC burned the bridges between us. There isn't any way they can get me or my money back. So in my case at least, the 'appeal to the older gamers' strategy is failing.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758Really, it's the first rules-medium edition of D&D.

And there it is. It's not even a difficult idea.

Quote from: Tetsubo;647830I'm an Older Gamer, been at it since 1978. I often moved from one edition to the next in a number of systems. But for me, WotC burned the bridges between us. There isn't any way they can get me or my money back. So in my case at least, the 'appeal to the older gamers' strategy is failing.

Why is that?

For me, returning to AD&D after a long hiatus I found that 3.x was dying and Pathfinder was starting. Thing that got me at that stage? The damn complicated character sheet and a rule book that assumed you'd played 3.x and were continuing. I glazed over, dropped it and the game, and went to and formed my own 'not old enough to be' old school 2E group.

I didn't like the D20 D&D. 4E equally didn't sit well but I can appreciate bits of it, but getting those bits to play well without 'thur gridz' is a right royal pain in the ass.

I suppose it was too much change for the sake of change, unnecessary complexity ≠ fun.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758It's also far less complex than 3E.
Really, it's the first rules-medium edition of D&D.  

That's like saying Federation & Empire is lighter than ASL. Technically true, but ...


I run 5e sometimes to help out at a game store Wednesday Encounters night. It IS simpler but it's still full of nonsense. We are playing 3rd level right now and there's lots of "I take half damage because of Curse of the World Bizarre feat!" and "My friend is 5' away?!!? That let's me backstab him in the face!" bullcrappery. The morons still spend too long adding up their to-hit and damage bonuses as well. Maybe that parts just a habit from 3e/4e though. And maybe the "light" version strips all that crap out and/or it's possible to buy supplements from WOTC again.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;647840I run 5e sometimes to help out at a game store Wednesday Encounters night. It IS simpler but it's still full of nonsense. We are playing 3rd level right now and there's lots of "I take half damage because of Curse of the World Bizarre feat!" and "My friend is 5' away?!!? That let's me backstab him in the face!" bullcrappery.

Annoyingly, the play-test packets have got worse and worse in this regard.

QuoteThe morons still spend too long adding up their to-hit and damage bonuses as well. Maybe that parts just a habit from 3e/4e though.

This seems to have got better though; the myriad bonuses to damage in the packet before last where just insane.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;647838Why is that?

For me, returning to AD&D after a long hiatus I found that 3.x was dying and Pathfinder was starting. Thing that got me at that stage? The damn complicated character sheet and a rule book that assumed you'd played 3.x and were continuing. I glazed over, dropped it and the game, and went to and formed my own 'not old enough to be' old school 2E group.

I didn't like the D20 D&D. 4E equally didn't sit well but I can appreciate bits of it, but getting those bits to play well without 'thur gridz' is a right royal pain in the ass.

I suppose it was too much change for the sake of change, unnecessary complexity ≠ fun.

Speaking just for myself, 4E was such a travesty of a system that I want nothing to do with the company that created it. Their entire marketing campaign during that era seemed to be boiled down to 'toss the loyal customers under the bus and sign on new ones'. As someone on Usenetonce said, I was fired as a customer. I can not in good faith ever give money to a company like that. Nor endorse their products. If someone likes Next, game on. But I will not be joining their number.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;647840I run 5e sometimes to help out at a game store Wednesday Encounters night. It IS simpler but it's still full of nonsense. We are playing 3rd level right now and there's lots of "I take half damage because of Curse of the World Bizarre feat!" and "My friend is 5' away?!!? That let's me backstab him in the face!"

What specific rules in the packet allow this?  I'm curious.  One of the most complex classes, monk, does have an ability that allows to you reduce damage, but that's at level 5.  And the abilities certainly are no more complex than AD&D's monk class.

Quote. The morons still spend too long adding up their to-hit and damage bonuses as well. .

Seeing as how the character sheet has a place for your total bonus to hit and damage right next to the weapon type, and at 3rd level all you have to really add is your attack bonus for class and any attribute bonus, they must be morons.

"You are a 3rd level fighter, so your attack bonus is +2.  You have a strength of 16 (a +3 bonus to hit and damage), so your bonus to hit is a total of +5."

"Adding +5 to my die roll is too hard to figure out."

...morons indeed...

Quote from: Tetsubo;647862Speaking just for myself, 4E was such a travesty of a system that I want nothing to do with the company that created it. Their entire marketing campaign during that era seemed to be boiled down to 'toss the loyal customers under the bus and sign on new ones'. As someone on Usenetonce said, I was fired as a customer. I can not in good faith ever give money to a company like that. Nor endorse their products. If someone likes Next, game on. But I will not be joining their number.

Saying it once, fair enough.

Saying it as many times as you've said it? Makes you sound like a whiny cunt, and no smart company would want anything to do with you.  The more you whine like this, the more you promote WOTC.  Because people look at you, and think to themselves, "If a whiny little bitch moans and complains this much about something, it must be good."  Why don't you give it a rest already, and get over it.  You've been doing this for five years now (http://rec.games.frp.dnd.narkive.com/PdxyCwbJ/4e-in-play-opinions).

The poll we have right now if the fans of a game have driven you away from a game? Yeah, that's you.  Whatever game you like, I'd be inclined to shy away from it.  And please, don't remind me of whatever that game is - I don't want it tainted by a whimpering, sniveling pule like yourself.  Because nobody wants to be around a room full of fans who sound like teenage girls on the rag, incessantly complaining about how the popular girl in class once said something rude to them and ignored them.

It's time to just play the game you like, and stop bitching about the games you do not.  Particularly this many years later, that shit is old, and stale, and makes you look awful.

Quote from: Mistwell;647866Saying it once, fair enough.

Saying it as many times as you've said it? Makes you sound like a whiny... etc

C'mon he answered on topic, was asked to elaborate and then did so in a rather clear and non-emo way.

Talk about slight overreaction

Quote from: Mistwell;647866Saying it once, fair enough.

Saying it as many times as you've said it? Makes you sound like a whiny cunt, and no smart company would want anything to do with you.  The more you whine like this, the more you promote WOTC.  Because people look at you, and think to themselves, "If a whiny little bitch moans and complains this much about something, it must be good."  Why don't you give it a rest already, and get over it.  You've been doing this for five years now (http://rec.games.frp.dnd.narkive.com/PdxyCwbJ/4e-in-play-opinions).

The poll we have right now if the fans of a game have driven you away from a game? Yeah, that's you.  Whatever game you like, I'd be inclined to shy away from it.  And please, don't remind me of whatever that game is - I don't want it tainted by a whimpering, sniveling pule like yourself.  Because nobody wants to be around a room full of fans who sound like teenage girls on the rag, incessantly complaining about how the popular girl in class once said something rude to them and ignored them.

It's time to just play the game you like, and stop bitching about the games you do not.  Particularly this many years later, that shit is old, and stale, and makes you look awful.

And people have asked why I shun you, Mistwell....

Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;647867C'mon he answered on topic, was asked to elaborate and then did so in a rather clear and non-emo way.

Talk about slight overreaction

He's been saying the same thing incessantly for half a decade.  You tell me, when is enough, enough? When is it appropriate for someone to point it out?

Quote from: jeff37923;647868And people have asked why I shun you, Mistwell....

No they haven't.  Nobody cares Jeff.  And you fail even at shunning.  If you meant it, you'd stick me on ignore.  You don't mean it though, you just want others to hear you complain.  I got no problem with you though.  We agree sometimes, disagree other times, and there is no issue between us as far as I am concerned.  But hey, if you do think there is an issue - do the manly thing and stick me on ignore, rather than continuing to bitch.  It's no wonder you white knighted Testubo.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647865What specific rules in the packet allow this?  I'm curious.  One of the most complex classes, monk, does have an ability that allows to you reduce damage, but that's at level 5.  And the abilities certainly are no more complex than AD&D's monk class.



Seeing as how the character sheet has a place for your total bonus to hit and damage right next to the weapon type, and at 3rd level all you have to really add is your attack bonus for class and any attribute bonus, they must be morons.

"You are a 3rd level fighter, so your attack bonus is +2.  You have a strength of 16 (a +3 bonus to hit and damage), so your bonus to hit is a total of +5."

"Adding +5 to my die roll is too hard to figure out."

...morons indeed...

Rogue->Level2 "Distract" is the 1/2 damage thing
"Benefit: When a creature within 5 feet of you that can see or hear you hits with an attack, you can use your reaction to cause the damage of the attack to be halved."


Rogue->Assassin is the bullshit Backstab thing.
"Backstab: Once on your turn when you make a melee attack, you can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there is at least one creature hostile to your target within 5 feet of it."


On a completely unfair/granular level: the 4E adventure conversion sucks. PC's hit at least 50% of the time, players are routinely doing 15-17 points of damage, and creatures have 35+ hit points.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647779Absolutely true.  90% of the people I see in real life aren't nearly as rigid as those of us who post on forums ;)

It's a side effect of constant arguments.

When people are exposed to evidence supporting a position they disagree with, after hearing the evidence they almost always become more committed to their original position, more committed to their disagreement.

Evidence, logic, and debate make people more polarized, and less likely to listen to opposing positions.

So, the people who are the most flexible and adaptable are those who argue and debate the least. That is, the least invested.

And the people who are the most rigid and inflexible — whoops. I mean "most committed and devoted" are those who argue with others frequently.

Discussion — actual, real discussion — tends to affect people differently. But arguing (via evidence and reason) solidifies opposition, it doesn't persuade.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;647879Rogue->Level2 "Distract" is the 1/2 damage thing
"Benefit: When a creature within 5 feet of you that can see or hear you hits with an attack, you can use your reaction to cause the damage of the attack to be halved."


Rogue->Assassin is the bullshit Backstab thing.
"Backstab: Once on your turn when you make a melee attack, you can give yourself advantage on that attack roll if there is at least one creature hostile to your target within 5 feet of it."

So this:

""I take half damage because of Curse of the World Bizarre feat!""

Is more like:

is more "I use my quick reflexes to sidestep the brunt of the attack."

And this:

""My friend is 5' away?!!? That let's me backstab him in the face!"

Is more like:

"The orc is occupied fighting my friend, so I attack while he's distracted and get advantage."

None of those seem all that crazy when the hyperbole is stripped out.

QuoteOn a completely unfair/granular level: the 4E adventure conversion sucks. PC's hit at least 50% of the time, players are routinely doing 15-17 points of damage, and creatures have 35+ hit points.

In general, there are still some balance issues to be worked out using the encounter builder.  I probably won't use it anyway since I prefer to just build encounters based on what makes sense in the adventure rather than making sure PC levels are the primary driving factor.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;647885It's a side effect of constant arguments.

When people are exposed to evidence supporting a position they disagree with, after hearing the evidence they almost always become more committed to their original position, more committed to their disagreement.

Evidence, logic, and debate make people more polarized, and less likely to listen to opposing positions.

So, the people who are the most flexible and adaptable are those who argue and debate the least. That is, the least invested.

And the people who are the most rigid and inflexible — whoops. I mean "most committed and devoted" are those who argue with others frequently.

Discussion — actual, real discussion — tends to affect people differently. But arguing (via evidence and reason) solidifies opposition, it doesn't persuade.

I have to give Brendan credit.  He seems to be the only one who acts on message boards the way most people act in real life.

The rest of us become monsters ;)

Quote from: Haffrung;647758You're not alone. I'm in the same boat. So is a long-time 1E and 3E DM who I recently started playing with. We're pleased to see an edition of D&D that has the coherence of 3E without the huge amount of mechanical grit. As soon as I found out it didn't presume using a battle grid, I was half-way sold. Then I saw the smart way feats were preconfigured in specialties, and thought yeah, that's the level of character customization I want.

I gotta say, as far as D&D Next goes, I am living in wait-and-see town until probably six months after they make the books, but, this stuff is very encouraging because this is exactly what I'd hoped the game would look like. So, here's another marketing data point I guess.

Quote from: Mistwell;647874No they haven't.  Nobody cares Jeff.  And you fail even at shunning.  If you meant it, you'd stick me on ignore.  You don't mean it though, you just want others to hear you complain.  I got no problem with you though.  We agree sometimes, disagree other times, and there is no issue between us as far as I am concerned.  But hey, if you do think there is an issue - do the manly thing and stick me on ignore, rather than continuing to bitch.  It's no wonder you white knighted Testubo.

That's so cute how you rewrote the post to appear that you are the aggrieved party here. Keep it up, I'm sure that someone will be dumb enough to believe you.

Quote from: Mistwell;647873He's been saying the same thing incessantly for half a decade.  You tell me, when is enough, enough? When is it appropriate for someone to point it out?

When you're not on an online forum devoted to discussing RPGs, probably. Complaining about someone complaining about a system on a forum devoted to complaining about RPG systems is kinda "wack", to quote the vernacular.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;647885It's a side effect of constant arguments.

When people are exposed to evidence supporting a position they disagree with, after hearing the evidence they almost always become more committed to their original position, more committed to their disagreement.

Evidence, logic, and debate make people more polarized, and less likely to listen to opposing positions.

So, the people who are the most flexible and adaptable are those who argue and debate the least. That is, the least invested.

And the people who are the most rigid and inflexible — whoops. I mean "most committed and devoted" are those who argue with others frequently.

Discussion — actual, real discussion — tends to affect people differently. But arguing (via evidence and reason) solidifies opposition, it doesn't persuade.

True, unless you force yourself to argue the other side.  Which is what they teach you in college debate - to always be able to argue both sides.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647898When you're not on an online forum devoted to discussing RPGs, probably. Complaining about someone complaining about a system on a forum devoted to complaining about RPG systems is kinda "wack", to quote the vernacular.

Devoted to complaining about RPG systems? I don't view this forum that way...but it's an interesting way to view it.

Quote from: Mistwell;647866Saying it once, fair enough.
...SNIP....

My bad for asking in the first place.

At this point I actively support Tetsubo mentioning it again. It's amusing to see how a failed save v. butt hurt can migrate to other parties. Like magic, it is.
:D

Quote from: Opaopajr;647955At this point I actively support Tetsubo mentioning it again. It's amusing to see how a failed save v. butt hurt can migrate to other parties. Like magic, it is.
:D

Mistwell has been championing butthurt for ages now.

Personally, I've moved on from butthurt to prematurely dancing on 5E's grave.

Quote from: Haffrung;647758But in the real world, a lot of players have misgivings and issues with the version of D&D they play. Then end up houseruling their games, or putting up with mechanics they don't like out of simple fatigue or convenience.

I don't think that's true anymore. Gamers have too many options today.

I have friends who like 3e. They won't play 5e. They will play Pathfinder because it's 3e with new stuff to buy. There is nothing 5e can give them because Pathfinder Society is giving them loads of free adventures and an active community of fellow people who play a suck ass edition.

I run OD&D and a bunch of other RPGs. In the future, I cannot see any reason to run a 5e game. If the Pathfinder guys want a break from suck ass, they will ask me to run Warhammer, OD&D or Mazes & Minotaurs for them.

Would I play 5e at a con slot if no other game was available? Yeah, but I'd would definitely check the minis and boardgame schedule first.

I doubt my situation is unusual. If you love 4e, there will be 4e fans to get together. 3e fans have Pathfinder and non-Pathfinder 3e fans have a load of 3PP D20 products. 0e to 2e fans have a dozen retroclones and a load of TSR products and 3PP OSR products.

I agree that 5e is "rules medium", but I am not seeing who that will appeal to. I don't see that drawing in non-RPG players because that is far more complex than a video game or most boardgames.

I am not seeing 5e as an introductory product. What I am seeing in the playtest would be a game with all its supplements and add-ons shoved in for maximum complexity.

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/431915_10151412698091903_371445612_n.jpg)

I don't think WotC needs people who are still playing old versions of D&D to play Next. They have the PDFs and stuff for them.

Based on what I've seen of the packets and what they've said, it looks like they're more interested in people who used to play D&D, stopped playing RPGs entirely, and might want to get back into it again.

Young people have short attention spans and mountains of games to choose from. We old geezers don't have much time to game. That's an interesting intersection for them to aim at.

If Next allows everyone to make characters in 10 minutes and prep or make an adventure in an hour or less, that's a huge improvement over anything else sold in game stores outside of retroclones.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647684When 3e came out, there were lots of people who never bought any D&D stuff for a decade who bought it?  I'll take your word since I didn't pay a lot of attention in 2000.

I remember that the local Media Play (the now defunct bigbox book/music store) had a midnight release party for 3e.  It blew my mind! Was it successful?  Don't know, but 3e sure was.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Play

Quote from: Mistwell;647908True, unless you force yourself to argue the other side.  Which is what they teach you in college debate - to always be able to argue both sides.

And thus, that explains how "Mistwelling" actually became a verb.

Quote from: Mistwell;647908True, unless you force yourself to argue the other side.  Which is what they teach you in college debate - to always be able to argue both sides.

As commendable this may be in principle, in practice I've found that many people are unwilling to do this.  Largely due to ego and other nonintellectual reasons.

Such individuals see arguing the other side (or for that matter different sides) as a sign of personal weakness.  In contrast, sticking to one's own guns is seen as a sign of strength.  It is largely an exercise in futility in arguing with many people, especially when they are not swayed at all by anything different than what they believe (or want to believe).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647717I'm afraid this argument is based on a disingenuous premise because on one side (AD&D) you're assuming that there aren't any modifiers in a scenario, but then are comparing it to a scenario in d20 where there are many modifiers.  We both know that the players in AD&D don't just roll, don't do any modifiers, and the DM looks at a table like you're positioning.  A 7th level AD&D character is probably going to have a magical weapon where you have to add a modifier.  Probably also a strength or dexterity score that gives another modifier.  Then another modifier based on situation (are you sneaking?  Is the opponent flanked?  What weapon are you using vs what type of armor does it have?)  There are plenty of modifiers in AD&D.  The difference is that when you're done doing all of those modifiers, then someone has to look at a table.  That's an extra step dude.

Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

Attributes:  affects the to hit roll
positions (flanking): affects the to hit roll
magic items: affects the to hit roll
skills (specialization): affects the to hit roll
weapon vs armor table:  affects the to hit roll

That's just off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are others.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;648032And thus, that explains how "Mistwelling" actually became a verb.

Indeed.  It's why I wrote the wiki entry to begin with :)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;647707It uses the d20 base mechanics, but it plays nothing like 3.x (which has a million modifiers and a dozen attacks each round to keep track of).

Translation from angry-geek to English: Sacrosanct has never played 3E.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll.

Translation from angry-geek to English: Exploderwizard has never played AD&D.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;648182Translation from angry-geek to English: Sacrosanct has never played 3E.

So 3e doesn't have characters that look like this on their sheets re: attacks:


+11/+11/+10/+9/+8


Because I'm pretty sure it does.  I may have used hyperbole, but my point that Next doesn't play just like another d20 clone is accurate because it in fact doesn't have that mess like 3e does.

Quote from: ggroy;648038Such individuals see arguing the other side (or for that matter different sides) as a sign of personal weakness.  In contrast, sticking to one's own guns is seen as a sign of strength.  It is largely an exercise in futility in arguing with many people, especially when they are not swayed at all by anything different than what they believe (or want to believe).

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

But yeah the internet has opened up inspiring new vistas of stupidity for the acute observer. I'm not sure whether I'm getting crankier, more reactionary, smarter, or everyone else really is getting stupider as I grow older, which let's face it is a viable possibility, but one thing is certain: I will figure out how to make money from it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;648069Remember in most cases, a modifier in AD&D does not affect the "to-hit" roll. Instead, it adjust the AC of the target. This is all done by the DM so the player only need roll and call out the die value really. Even if the weapon vs armor type modifiers are in play, the DM incorporates them into the roll.

I get what you're saying. It's essentially GM operations so as to keep AC discreet (as in secret). It's not offered as PC information to bother with calculations (regardless whether they can reverse calculate AC through 'guesstimations').

In that respect, yes, you are correct. Such modifiers can be seen that way. They are often referred as "to-hit" nowadays out of categorizing convenience. To argue between this is merely splitting hairs and an opportunity to insult each other, which I see has already started.

Carry on!

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648184So 3e doesn't have characters that look like this on their sheets re: attacks:


+11/+11/+10/+9/+8


Because I'm pretty sure it does.  I may have used hyperbole, but my point that Next doesn't play just like another d20 clone is accurate because it in fact doesn't have that mess like 3e does.

That's for full attack actions, and only at higher levels (and that specific breakdown would be from a character with two weapon fighting and a strength penalty or something because there is no way that I'm aware of to get 5 attacks single-wielding and especially at such a low bonus).  IIRC you can take 2-3 or 3-4 attacks per round in 2e starting at 7th with weapon specialization (ie every Fighter and at most tables probably every warrior subtype), so this was nothing new.  I was pretty sure the multiple attack break down was the same in 1e though.  A 3.x character won't get 3 attacks single-wielding until level 11 (you level faster in 3e but I still think an AD&D character will reach 7th before a 3e will reach 11th), and he will take them less frequently than his AD&D counterpart.

I personally dislike iterative attacks or the two-weapon fighter that gets alternating 3 or 4 attacks every round in 2e as well, but I'm going to have to wait and see if there is any similar mechanic in Next, because I don't have a full game yet.  

It's been a while since I looked at a Next playtest but I thought that you got more attacks as you leveled, or at least one of the iterations of the playtest had that mechanic built in.  I would be very, very surprised if Next isn't going to feature multiple attacks per round per character.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;647984If Next allows everyone to make characters in 10 minutes and prep or make an adventure in an hour or less, that's a huge improvement over anything else sold in game stores outside of retroclones.

I agree with you, but this is not the 5e I have seen in the playtests.

Is the potential there? Perhaps, but right now I see the 2e+3e design leaning much more to 3e than 2e.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;647984If Next allows everyone to make characters in 10 minutes and prep or make an adventure in an hour or less, that's a huge improvement over anything else sold in game stores outside of retroclones.

Or Dr. Who.
Or Savage Worlds.
Or Dragon Warriors.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;648267That's for full attack actions, and only at higher levels (and that specific breakdown would be from a character with two weapon fighting and a strength penalty or something because there is no way that I'm aware of to get 5 attacks single-wielding and especially at such a low bonus).  IIRC you can take 2-3 or 3-4 attacks per round in 2e starting at 7th with weapon specialization (ie every Fighter and at most tables probably every warrior subtype), so this was nothing new.

Incorrect.  At 7th level, including specialization, you get 2 attacks per round.  At 13+ level, it's 5 every 2 rounds.  A 20th level fighter who isn't specialized in 3e still has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5.

A 20th level fighter in Next?  +5.  That's it.  Yes, they do get multiple attacks against targets as long as they are all in front of the fighter, unless you chose volley instead of whirlwind.  You cannot have both, and you cannot use Deadly Strike expertise while doing so.  But most importantly, you only get those extra attacks if there are extra opponents.  No multiple attacks against the same target.

QuoteI was pretty sure the multiple attack break down was the same in 1e though.  A 3.x character won't get 3 attacks single-wielding until level 11 (you level faster in 3e but I still think an AD&D character will reach 7th before a 3e will reach 11th), and he will take them less frequently than his AD&D counterpart.

Again, an AD&D character will never gain 3 attacks every round unless they are specialized in the dart or something.

So let's recap.  In 3e, you had BAB of up to +20, and had several attacks each round.  In Next, the same class has a BAB maxing out at +5 and does not get extra attacks unless you choose either volley or whirlwind, and then there are limits as to what you can attack.  For example, you don't get 5 attacks per round unless there are 5 opponents, and even then you can only attack each target once.  In 3e you can attack the same target over and over.

In 3e, it is not uncommon to have a 20th level "build" that has ability ratings into the 30s and even 40s, translating into HUGE ability bonuses.  Just look the D&D wiki for 3e builds.  Next caps out at 20 IIRC for any ability.

So, to get back to my response of Benoit's, NEXT is most assuredly NOT another d20 clone.  Using a d20 and having a progressive to hit system does not mean it's just like the D20 OGL system.

Quote from: Spinachcat;648272I agree with you, but this is not the 5e I have seen in the playtests.

.

Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

Again, just because it has what it calls FEATS does not mean it's a 3e clone.  The feats are in packages.  You don't scour the book looking for the best feat combination.  You choose the package that fits your archetype you want.

I imagine there would be a whole lot less vitriol from all sides if people would actually see how the game plays rather than make assumptions because it shares a keyword with a previous edition.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648281Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

Again, just because it has what it calls FEATS does not mean it's a 3e clone.  The feats are in packages.  You don't scour the book looking for the best feat combination.  You choose the package that fits your archetype you want.

I imagine there would be a whole lot less vitriol from all sides if people would actually see how the game plays rather than make assumptions because it shares a keyword with a previous edition.

I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;648314I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'.

RPGPundit

I don't disagree.  I don't see why they don't call them custom class abilities, theme skills, or something.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648279Incorrect.  At 7th level, including specialization, you get 2 attacks per round.  At 13+ level, it's 5 every 2 rounds.  A 20th level fighter who isn't specialized in 3e still has a BAB of +20/+15/+10/+5.

I was apparently mis-remembering the 2e weapon specialization breakdown athinking you got the 5/2 at 7th, but either way it's reliably 2 attacks every round with a single weapon.

IIRC it's capped at 7 attacks every 2 rounds with two-weapon fighting though.  Either way you are taking either 2 or 3 attacks every round without two-weapon fighting at high level pretty much no matter what.  He only loses his extra attack(s) when he drops an opponent and has attacks left over afterward (which is pretty much the same in 3e anyway).  

More to the point you don't get your extra iterative attacks in 3e if you've moved more than a 5ft "step" without a 'buff', only available from a non-core spell.  In 3e you don't even get an extra attack from two-weapon fighting if you've moved.  

QuoteA 20th level fighter in Next?  +5.  That's it.  Yes, they do get multiple attacks against targets as long as they are all in front of the fighter, unless you chose volley instead of whirlwind.  You cannot have both, and you cannot use Deadly Strike expertise while doing so.  But most importantly, you only get those extra attacks if there are extra opponents.  No multiple attacks against the same target.

The overall attack bonus is irrelevant in 3e because of Thac0 in AD&D and "bounded accuracy" in Next.  

An increasing to-hit bonus versus an ascending AC is literally no different mathematically to AD&D's descending Thac0, so I don't really see what the point is.  I don't think anyone (that is worth listening to on the subject) has an issue rolling a d20 and adding a 2 digit number to it in less.  You could even make a chart more or less identical to an AD&D Thac0 chart if it was actually an issue.

The purpose of "bounded accuracy" isn't to cater to OSR aesthetic senses on what the size of numbers should be and keep the highest bonuses available smaller.  It's to keep the gap between the highest bonus and the lowest bonus smaller and prevent the scaling issues 3e has (where 75% of a full BAB and 50% of a good save aren't enough to hit or pass anything reliably.)

QuoteAgain, an AD&D character will never gain 3 attacks every round unless they are specialized in the dart or something.

Or fighting with two weapons in 2e at least, and they still get at least 2 every round starting at 7th and an additional attack every other round.

QuoteSo let's recap.  In 3e, you had BAB of up to +20, and had several attacks each round.  

No, you won't have several attack each round.  Archers will get them often, if there is someone to interpose themselves between archer and target.  If this is how you played 3e (or if you played 3e) you were doing it wrong.  If you have to move, you can make a single attack on your turn.

QuoteIn Next, the same class has a BAB maxing out at +5 and does not get extra attacks unless you choose either volley or whirlwind, and then there are limits as to what you can attack.  For example, you don't get 5 attacks per round unless there are 5 opponents, and even then you can only attack each target once.  In 3e you can attack the same target over and over.

Again, we'll see.  I fully expect that you'll be able to make multiple attacks against a single opponent in Next at higher levels, and you'll be able to do it every single round.

QuoteIn 3e, it is not uncommon to have a 20th level "build" that has ability ratings into the 30s and even 40s, translating into HUGE ability bonuses.  Just look the D&D wiki for 3e builds.  Next caps out at 20 IIRC for any ability.

HUGE ability bonuses aren't a problem in and of themselves, since we are only talking about 2 digit numbers (and I disagree that they are actually common in play rather than some theorycrafted character that would be disallowed at any real table because it's using some monster race/template, permanent spell effects, that give +12 to a stat before other adjustments, and other shit that never actually happens in play;  the only 'standard' character that can get close to a 40 in a stat is a raging barbarian that has temporary spell buffs like Enlarge Person; real characters that people actually played don't wind up with stats that have been +5 Wished up and a +6 Belt of Giant Strength as standard adventuring gear unless they've been playing their demi-demigod for a decade).  It's the gap between best and worst that is the issue that gets discussed with 3e, because the monsters are balanced in such a way that after a certain point if you are not "the best" at something you'll get progressively worse versus threats that are allegedly on par with the character.

Any bonus that doesn't result in 3 digit math are basically the same thing.  The problem is when you've got +20 being the baseline to roll against a ~30 DC and another character can only reliably pull off a +11 or something.  +11 Reflex Save guy was better at dodging magical explosions at level 10 than he is at level 20 just because that is the way the numbers scale.  

3e hits a mathematical sweet spot in terms of success versus DC and then the scaling breaks down and you either reliably have more bonus than you could ever need or not enough.  In the Pathfinder CRB there is a sidebar about advancement past level 20 and it acknowledges that characters at this level will not really be able to make saving throws with their bad saves because the math doesn't scale for it.  That is the game's math was built so that both a Rogue (before ability modifiers) is about 10% better at Reflex saves than a Fighter at 1st level and 50% better at 20th.  After synergystic ability modifiers and players playing to their character's strengths that gap is even worse.  No reason for an armored Fighter to have a ton of Dex, and chances are all of the Dex/dodge/reflex stuff didn't go to Clanky McKlutz when loot was divied out, so the guys that are good at dodging almost always save, and the Fighter very rarely does.

That's the entire point of bounded accuracy.  You could have bounded accuracy with large numbers, so that everyone gets super high bonuses, but of course there would be no point (if the difference between good and bad is +20 and +17 it might as well be +10 and +7).  The only point in large numbers would be to facilitate a large gap between the weak and powerful (which is what 3e winds up doing), and apparently Next is doing this with HP instead of AC and DCs?  I guess we'll see how that plays out, although 3e also showed a large increase in monster HP over 2e.

I agree that so far it's not just another d20 D&D clone; I just don't agree that for one core 3e played all that differently than late 2e (especially assuming you are playing the majority of your games at low to mid level than high level which is true at most tables), or that it plays the way you are representing it.  There is a reason that combat (maybe) takes longer than it did in 2e, but that has almost nothing to do with number of attacks and how long it takes to resolve a single attack roll.

3e monsters have more HP, exponentially more at higher levels.  Characters potentially (probably) have control of minions at higher levels, meaning that running a party of 5 players probably takes about as long as running a party of 15 players.  Even without these 'menagerie' characters that are sometimes banned, there is way more rolling to save in 3e, spellcasters have more spells that they can reliably get off.  Everything inflicts some kind of status effect or disease, or grab that needs to be rolled against starting at mid level; often semi-unique effects which need to be read off or explained to the player.

Number of attacks, and the amount of time it takes to resolve swinging a sword is not a problem that 3e has.

My guess is that there will be more appeal to people who have some acquaintance with 3E and think it's okay, than to people who have been passing up the Wizards of the Coast releases since day one (such as most of my current game group).

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding that 4E simply didn't even sound like D&D. Whether overhearing actual play, or reading discussion online, I would not have thought that D&D was the subject if I had not been so informed. It was a foreign language, mostly gibberish to me despite having been a D&Der since the time of the "little brown books."

I may be a bit unusual in the extent to which I actually gave it a try despite the initial off-putting impression, but the experience only confirmed that it was not at all what D&D meant to me.

The hat trick is more likely to be hanging on to disgruntled 4E partisans while the rest of us get re-gruntled!

Quote from: RPGPundit;648314I completely agree. However, I do think that this is the reason it was unwise of them to call these things 'feats'

I never liked that usage anyhow, because to my mind a 'feat' is a remarkable accomplishment, not a mechanical stat.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;648281Which 5e playtest are you using?  I gotta ask, because it's very easy to create a character in Next in 10 minutes.

We used the March 20, 2013 playtest. Only 2 of our original group of 10 GMs are still reporting back any feedback and I wanted to make sure my comments to WotC were accurate to the most current material.

Maybe chargen would be 15 minutes if we played enough to know all the ins and outs of how each race / class / background / specialty combo plays out, but right now that's a lots of choices that have to be balanced against your stats and your other abilities.

Can I just randomly say Dwarf Cleric Artisan Ambusher? Yeah, and maybe 5e should have a random chart where I can just roll up a character. That would definitely be 10 minutes.

And maybe the Dwarf Cleric Artisan Ambusher would be a great character.

I agree that 5e feats are somewhat differentish because they are prepackaged in the specialty.

I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

Quote from: RPGPundit;650926I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

Good - cherrypicking is always an option. While the table'd later require wooooork :p. Admittedly about 5 minutes of it, but still.

Quote from: RPGPundit;650926I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

It's an area that I think ACKS has a great solution for: the 3D6 roll for starting gold can be replaced with a 3D6 roll for a "Template" that includes starting gold, equipment, and proficiencies. There are 8 Templates for every class, and they thematically follow the amount of gold that would correspond to the 3D6 result (e.g. 3-4 on Fighter Templates yields a Thug with cheap gear, 17-18 yields a Lancer with a horse, barding, lance, etc.).

The ACKS Templates are also a great Judge tool for a quick Henchmen or NPC. WotC could do far worse than adopting a similar system.

You know, there's been all this handwringing over the numbers, the rules - will it balance?  Is it balanced?  Does this provide enough bonuses?  Is it fair for everyone all the time?  Is every snowflake both unique and in lockstep with the other so nobody is better than anyone else at any given moment.  And all of that is bullshit.  

Show me the writing in the rulebooks.  Show me the authorial tone of the new rulebooks.  How do they speak to the gamer?  Are they bland stereo instructions, like 3.5, 4e and the RC?  Or are they actually trying to breath a little life into the books again?  Jokey in places, nod-and-a-wink "don't let the players/DM get one over on you!" mildly adversarial in others?  That's what I'd like to know.  I wanna see a return of those kinds of things.  The rules will work themselves out.  Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.  Use the AD&D DMG, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 1e, Dragon Age and other rules as a basis.  But however they do it for god's sake I hope it's interesting.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;650999Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.

Yeah you see a lot of this on wikipedia, makes the site difficult to use. There's a reason good writers get paid!

Quote from: The Traveller;651005Yeah you see a lot of this on wikipedia, makes the site difficult to use. There's a reason good writers get paid!

But do good writers make good games, necessary? Seems like different skillsets. I would prefer decent writing with great game design, personally. I couldn't get out of the first chapter of Septimus, so poor writing is definitely an issue.

I just think back to the time when the market was small and you didn't typically expect as much from RPG books.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;650999You know, there's been all this handwringing over the numbers, the rules - will it balance?  Is it balanced?  Does this provide enough bonuses?  Is it fair for everyone all the time?  Is every snowflake both unique and in lockstep with the other so nobody is better than anyone else at any given moment.  And all of that is bullshit.  

Show me the writing in the rulebooks.  Show me the authorial tone of the new rulebooks.  How do they speak to the gamer?  Are they bland stereo instructions, like 3.5, 4e and the RC?  Or are they actually trying to breath a little life into the books again?  Jokey in places, nod-and-a-wink "don't let the players/DM get one over on you!" mildly adversarial in others?  That's what I'd like to know.  I wanna see a return of those kinds of things.  The rules will work themselves out.  Create good, fun-to-read rulebooks again WotC.  Take that back to your bosses, Pundit.  No more of this BEEP BOOP WHAT-IS-WRITING-STYLE-DOES-NOT-COMPUTE bland-assed stereo instruction rulebooks anymore.  Please.  Use the AD&D DMG, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play 1e, Dragon Age and other rules as a basis.  But however they do it for god's sake I hope it's interesting.

Just last night, as a matter of fact, I was looking at my Moldvay's basic book, and towards the back there are a whopping two pages (sarcasm) that do an excellent job advising the DM and players how to handle all of this.  All they have to do is literally cut and paste those two pages, and all would be well.

Quote from: mcbobbo;651007But do good writers make good games, necessary?

Nope. But people have been used to reasonably good rulesets out of TSR and WotC for so long (even if you didn't like what a particular ruleset did) that they think it just happens.

I'm all for enjoyable writing in my RPG books, but that word means very different things to different people. I've never liked "High Gygaxian," for example. Hitting a tone with a broad appeal will doubtless mean noone is going to think it's perfect.

Quote from: Bobloblah;651012Nope. But people have been used to reasonably good rulesets out of TSR and WotC for so long (even if you didn't like what a particular ruleset did) that they think it just happens.

I'm all for enjoyable writing in my RPG books, but that word means very different things to different people. I've never liked "High Gygaxian," for example. Hitting a tone with a broad appeal will doubtless mean noone is going to think it's perfect.

Yeah. I'm a technical writer, and you're playing with fire if you try to write instructions or rules in a bantering tone. For everyone who enjoys that particular tone, another person will dislike it. D&D now has an audience ranging from 14 to 60, so it's hard to imagine a distinctive tone that would work for every, or even most, readers.

And while that style may be amusing to read the first time around, RPG books are also reference books. A highly stylistic explanation of how to attempt Detect Traps would likely grow tiresome the third and fourth time around.

The quality of writing in WotC books is actually quite high. Certainly better than the hot mess that is the Holmes basic book.

Quote from: mcbobbo;651007But do good writers make good games, necessary? Seems like different skillsets. I would prefer decent writing with great game design, personally. I couldn't get out of the first chapter of Septimus, so poor writing is definitely an issue.

Good writing makes even bad games more enjoyable! I had the perfect comparison example, a blog post from "Cog and Galley" describing how the canny old Doge of Venice tricked an army of bumpkin crusaders into taking Constantinople for him, compared with the almost unreadable wikipedia entry, but of course the blog has more or less vanished from the internet (http://web.archive.org/web/20120310072230/http://nestmitchtri.blogspot.com/). Damn shame too, it was a fantastic resource.

I'd say quality writing is as important as quality art, if not more so.

Quote from: HaffrungYeah. I'm a technical writer, and you're playing with fire if you try to write instructions or rules in a bantering tone. For everyone who enjoys that particular tone, another person will dislike it. D&D now has an audience ranging from 14 to 60, so it's hard to imagine a distinctive tone that would work for every, or even most, readers.

No. Your experience is very valuable for a whole lot of jobs, but writing RPGs ain't among them. Technical style writing is what makes wikipedia hard to absorb, you need a more engaging and gonzo (in the Hunter S Thompson sense) style to produce a fun and entertaining game.

The 1E books are the last D&D books I ever read.  Everything since, I simply browse through, digest the information I need to make a character, maybe glance at the spell section and close the book(s), only to open them when I need a rule clarification.  Hell, even when I'm not playing, I reread the 1E DMG every once in a while.  Not to simply refresh myself on the rules, but for entertainment.  The same way I'd park myself in a recliner with a good novel.  Try that with today's rpgs and I'd either shoot myself or fall asleep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;650926I have strongly supported the idea of there being a "random table" option for backgrounds.

I just steal and re-use the Lifepath section from Mekton. Works like a charm.

Quote from: The Traveller;651045Good writing makes even bad games more enjoyable! I had the perfect comparison example, a blog post from "Cog and Galley" describing how the canny old Doge of Venice tricked an army of bumpkin crusaders into taking Constantinople for him, compared with the almost unreadable wikipedia entry, but of course the blog has more or less vanished from the internet (http://web.archive.org/web/20120310072230/http://nestmitchtri.blogspot.com/). Damn shame too, it was a fantastic resource.

I'd say quality writing is as important as quality art, if not more so.

No. Your experience is very valuable for a whole lot of jobs, but writing RPGs ain't among them. Technical style writing is what makes wikipedia hard to absorb, you need a more engaging and gonzo (in the Hunter S Thompson sense) style to produce a fun and entertaining game.

For setting material and background information, I'd agree. But not for the instructional content itself (except for examples).

Quote from: Haffrung;651056For setting material and background information, I'd agree. But not for the instructional content itself (except for examples).

I'd more or less agree with this. And this discussion illustrates the problem (or one of many): D&D can't be all things to all people.

Quote from: Haffrung;651056For setting material and background information, I'd agree. But not for the instructional content itself (except for examples).

Well it's not an either-or prospect, there are shades of grey. Rules should be delivered clearly and concisely but you can put a personal spin on the delivery without compromising the delivery. These are entertainment products at the end of the day after all.

My theory on writing RPG rules. The following are the important considerations, in (rough) descending order of importance.

• The rule itself should be written clearly, in plain English, to minimize confusion.


• Rules which need examples, should have them.


• A rulebook should be structured so as to teach the game: clearly labeled sections, in a coherent order, more important rules first. Within a section, simpler concepts first, more advanced second.


• The rulebook should be structured in such a way it can easily be used as a reference work. (A great index is a plus.)


• RPG's not only have to instruct people how to play, they have to convey the feel of the game. It's important to clearly communicate, but also communicate with style.


• Tone and style is not your enemy. But neither is taste and restraint. If the game is about cowboys, writing every sentence in a stylized 1880's accent — "Howdy, pardner. Welcome to the Cattle and Killin' RPG! Yeehaw!" — is obnoxious. A little color goes a long way. (Graphic design can help here, as well.)
  

That's off the top of my head.

Quote from: The Traveller;651045Good writing makes even bad games more enjoyable! I had the perfect comparison example, a blog post from "Cog and Galley" describing how the canny old Doge of Venice tricked an army of bumpkin crusaders into taking Constantinople for him, compared with the almost unreadable wikipedia entry, but of course the blog has more or less vanished from the internet (http://web.archive.org/web/20120310072230/http://nestmitchtri.blogspot.com/). Damn shame too, it was a fantastic resource.

I'd say quality writing is as important as quality art, if not more so.

I am definitely in this camp. I'm not super demanding about the writing, but what it has to do is convey that the writer thinks it's a fun game to play, and the better it does this the less I care about other factors. I mean, Gygax sure had his flaws as a writer, but he was totally into what he was writing and that more than anything is why people hold him up as a gold standard of RPG writing, lack of organization be damned.

update:

QuoteTone and style is not your enemy. But neither is restraint. If the game is about cowboys, writing every sentence in a stylized 1880's accent — "Howdy, pardner. Welcome to the Cattle and Killin' RPG! Yeehaw!" — is obnoxious. A little color goes a long way. (Graphic design can help here, as well.)

Of course, the RPG writer should not shit himself with how much fun he's having, a certain level of craft is required :D

Quote from: jeff37923;651053I just steal and re-use the Lifepath section from Mekton. Works like a charm.

For randomly generating 5e backgrounds? Because that's what we're talking about here.

Quote from: RPGPundit;653522For randomly generating 5e backgrounds? Because that's what we're talking about here.

I have been using it since it came out and have not found a game system that it does not work in yet after 25 years. It is pretty generic and robust.

I would add an addendum to Daddy Warpig's list:

2. Rules which need examples, should have them.  And the example should be correct!

I have spent many fruitless hours trying to fit examples, that turn out subsequently to be wrong, to the rules.

Quote from: Arry;653545I would add an addendum to Daddy Warpig's list:

2. Rules which need examples, should have them.  And the example should be correct!

I have spent many fruitless hours trying to fit examples, that turn out subsequently to be wrong, to the rules.

The older an RPG is the worse this gets.

There's things in the Mekton: MTS that drove me friggin' nuts back in the day - all because their math was wrong based on what they said it should have been.

Also: sample characters in Mechwarrior 2 (the pnp RPG) that made no sense in terms of characteristics cost.

I think, and this is just me, that AD&D, re-seen, could have an impact on a new audience even if the audience were old school. And I hope I am wrong. The commercialism of everything, the "canned" adventures, the lack of imagination on play.....WotC is not going to answer it. It is a cultural development. People have changed. OSR is wonderful. I have answered other posts like that with good reasons, yet how, can WotC, expect to affect the OSR when they themselves have not "lost" imagination? It was in moving away that WotC made the mistake. I will look at Next, but not buy.

I don't think the present cultural trends will go on forever. Or if you prefer, that the opposition to the current cultural trends will rather go on as well, as a cultural trend of its own, and gain momentum with time. Of course, we've already seen it in a number of instances, gaining momentum will mean that the entities attempting to control these trends and suck them dry of all the cash they can get will attempt to recuperate these trends going against them. The business of organic foods comes to mind, for example.

It's like what we're seeing with the OSR really: some people who have fuck all to do with vintage gaming and have been screaming about how the old games were badwrongfun and causing brain damage and all that are now trying to recuperate the phenomenon saying that "hey, the OSR was our brainchild all along!", then they write "love letters to D&D" and all that bullshit. To some extent, these people will be successful, in that they'll most likely reach their short term leeching goals, but there will always be a guy or gal out there who just loves the actual original game and will put his or her module online under the OGL down the years. Let the profiteers have their 15 minutes of fame. When the dust settles, they'll move on to greener pastures, and the people who actually love the games will still be there.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;653555The older an RPG is the worse this gets.

There's things in the Mekton: MTS that drove me friggin' nuts back in the day - all because their math was wrong based on what they said it should have been.

Also: sample characters in Mechwarrior 2 (the pnp RPG) that made no sense in terms of characteristics cost.

Pregen characters are often like that. It says a bit about the game if people who made it make characters that are often nigh completely mechanically inept.

Both in OD&D and in AD&D, Gary Gygax produced some top-grade obfuscation in examples. Of course, that's partly from making the examples themselves the closest thing to rules.

Quote from: Rincewind1;653598Pregen characters are often like that. It says a bit about the game if people who made it make characters that are often nigh completely mechanically inept.

Like Warhammer? :D

Quote from: The Traveller;653647Like Warhammer? :D

Touche :P. Were the EW and Lichemaster premades that bad? I can't remember. Though truth be told, given how Warhammer's chargen was random, at least when played by the book...heh. Kinda like it's hard to discuss AD&D pregens, because there ain't much to really make a decision there, except equipment.

Quote from: Arry;653545I would add an addendum to Daddy Warpig's list:

2. Rules which need examples, should have them.  And the example should be correct!

I admit, I just kind of assumed that should be the case. :) But I do agree.

Quote from: Rincewind1;653598Pregen characters are often like that. It says a bit about the game if people who made it make characters that are often nigh completely mechanically inept.

1e Shadowrun. I sat down and figured it out once, and every single one of the templates that shipped with the game were wrong, by the char create rules. Some benefited, some got shafted, but none were done correctly.

Kind of irritated me, back then.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;6536561e Shadowrun. I sat down and figured it out once, and every single one of the templates that shipped with the game were wrong, by the char create rules. Some benefited, some got shafted, but none were done correctly.

Kind of irritated me, back then.

The true atrocity were the graphics in Archetypes chapter in 2e. Especially Hammerpants wearing corporate agent.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;653656I admit, I just kind of assumed that should be the case. :) But I do agree.


1e Shadowrun. I sat down and figured it out once, and every single one of the templates that shipped with the game were wrong, by the char create rules. Some benefited, some got shafted, but none were done correctly.

Kind of irritated me, back then.

We always assumed that they were trying to convince people to play (and slightly customize) the archetypes instead of create their own.  The Rigger with two 'B' categories always amused me.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;653656I admit, I just kind of assumed that should be the case. :) But I do agree.


1e Shadowrun. I sat down and figured it out once, and every single one of the templates that shipped with the game were wrong, by the char create rules. Some benefited, some got shafted, but none were done correctly.

Kind of irritated me, back then.

You should avoid any supplementary material for Hero Games, then. Bestiary, spell books, pretty much all of it.

Quote from: jeff37923;653541I have been using it since it came out and have not found a game system that it does not work in yet after 25 years. It is pretty generic and robust.

Its not tied into the whole "giant robots" thing? I mean, I played this game, like 20 years ago, so I remember the lifepath stuff you're talking about and thought it was very good, but I seem to think of it as having been tied to that genre, or at least modern/sci-fi stuff...

RPGPundit