Quote from: soviet;630342It seems to me that with Next they're essentially trying to remake 3e but with a few more of the trappings of the TSR editions.

Uh, no.  Sounds like you're wearing 3e colored glasses and seeing it where it's not.  5e most closely resembles OD&D and AD&D.  I don't think there is much argument with that.  It's definitely not 3e-lite.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630362I'm struck by how many of the posters in the thread didn't like D&D before 4e.

I too find this odd. When my group switched to 3.0 when it launched, we had been playing GURPS exclusively for nearly 10 years. Until 3.x, my only real experience with D&D was a brief few months in 1985 when I joined an AD&D1e game at my local library.

I really disliked 3.x and was upset we werent playing GURPS anymore. Through the entire time up to 4e launch, all we played was 3.x. 4e was the final straw and drove me away from current D&D and from there started looking at older editions of the game. Thats when my friend introduced me to B/X era D&D. Now, B/X is my favorite version, and I really enjoy it and especially the retro clones derived from it.

Quote from: Mistwell;630369Uh, no.  Sounds like you're wearing 3e colored glasses and seeing it where it's not.  5e most closely resembles OD&D and AD&D.  I don't think there is much argument with that.  It's definitely not 3e-lite.

What with all the advantage/disadvantage, backgrounds, specialties, skills, feats, martial dice, skill dice, "hit dice", etc...

Yup, just like AD&D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630362I'm struck by how many of the posters in the thread didn't like D&D before 4e.

There are a lot of striking things about the commentary in that thread. It's been somewhat illuminating.

I just don't see how a recognizable iteration of D&D can serve as a generic fantasy media emulator, for instance, but that seems to be important to a lot of folks in that thread.

Quote from: soviet;630342What I don't get is why fans of any edition are happy with Next. Compromise is bullshit if it means you get a crappier version of the game you already play. Fans of the TSR editions still have their old books, or a decent retroclone. Fans of 3e have Pathfinder and all their old books. Fans of 4e have their old books and (for the moment) DDI. Is it really that important to always have new books in the pipeline? Important enough to settle for a lukewarm imitation of the game you really want to play?

I for one actually have the vain hope of a compromise between AD&D and 3e! That's kinda what I want to see! You're assuming everybody who might be interested already has their platonic ideal of D&D out there. Presumably because that's how prolific forum posters usually work?

I don't know; you're always going to have die-hard fans of a particular edition of the game. You have to generate interest among new players, and old players who might be kinda bored of the same old thing (crazy, but it happens).

A couple of really good points in this thread got me thinking. I started with D&D in the mid 80's and as I grew more experienced with AD&D and 2e I started adding things to my games that made them not BECM nor 2e.

I eventually moved to 2e when all of my house rules made the game just a bit too bloated. And I played 2e and as the years went by, I added all sorts of house rules and kits and races and classes until it became a big bloated mess again.

Then 3e came along. Same thing.

And I was ready to go to 4e just like the two times before. But it just didn't do it for me. It was not an update for me like moving 2e and 3e were before. That is not necessarily my point though.

My first point is that my games seem to follow a similar life cycle to most of the previous editions. And I think for exactly the same reasons. I wanted to keep adding to what I already had, and each of the new editions did that for me, but they also cleaned them up. In a sense it gave me a chance to start over.

Now I am back to B/X with my books and PDFs. I am already adding things back in to it. such that I am now coming full circle. But this time much wiser.

Years ago I remember thinking, man isn't this race as class stuff BROKEN. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had a class and a RACE. Kits are the greatest thing EVAR! Feats, Fuck YEAH. Three saves that make SENSE. (I still dislike skills). Constantly innovating.

My second point is that none of the three primary games I had played in the past were BROKEN, but eventually they needed updating, cleaning up if you will. Innovation to keep them from getting stale.

That is really all I could hope for with 5e. Until then, I will happily replay Basic D&D. Now that I understand what you get with race as class and group initiative, I can appreciate the simplicity built into the game. I can spend more time playing than gaming.

Quote from: Piestrio;630380What with all the advantage/disadvantage, backgrounds, specialties, skills, feats, martial dice, skill dice, "hit dice", etc...

Yup, just like AD&D.

Nice strawman.  I didn't say "It's just like AD&D!". Because if it were "Just like AD&D!" it would be AD&D.  But there is no doubt that the prior game it's most similar to is the era of OD&D and AD&D.  That's the sources of inspiration and feel they are going for, not 3e.  

And what's funny is you think those things you listed are what makes 3e distinct.  Which shows you don't even understand the difference between the game you like (3e) and what came before it.  It's the change in perspective from DM-centric to player-centric that was the biggest shift between Oe/1E/2e and 3e ("Options not rules!").  And it's obvious, to anyone who has paid attention to the 5e articles, that 5e is returning to that DM-centric focus.

Quote from: Mistwell;630399Nice strawman.  I didn't say "It's just like AD&D!". Because if it were "Just like AD&D!" it would be AD&D.  But there is no doubt that the prior game it's most similar to is the era of OD&D and AD&D.  That's the sources of inspiration and feel they are going for, not 3e.  

And what's funny is you think those things you listed are what makes 3e distinct. Which shows you don't even understand the difference between the game you like (3e) and what came before it.  It's the change in perspective from DM-centric to player-centric that was the biggest shift between Oe/1E/2e and 3e ("Options not rules!").  And it's obvious, to anyone who has paid attention to the 5e articles, that 5e is returning to that DM-centric focus.

I didn't say that.

And I certainly don't like 3e.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;629687From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

Pistols at dawn, then?

Quote from: jibbajibba;629889To get my head round HP I have to think of them as % so a fighter with 50 hP isn't made of wood or the size of a horse. A wound that does 20% of a 50 HPs guy's hits is the same as a wound that does 1hp to a 5 HP guy.
So healing should work roughly like that.
I don't like a guy shouting to give you extra HP but I think a break especially one with a meal or a real rest shoudl restore something

My games go astep further based on HP being your skill energy etc and an underlying wound mechanic. HPs cure quick after all they aren't real injuries wounds are real injuries. They heal 1 per week. you generally have 4 or 6

A separate track for fatigue and health has been done before, and quite successfully as I understand it, in d20 Star Wars.  I think we have discussed your implementation previously, and it seemed like the numbers worked out pretty well with the rest of the mechanics, if I recall correctly.  As difficult as it isn't, this should be a standard option in the core rules.

Quote from: StormBringer;630417A separate track for fatigue and health has been done before, and quite successfully as I understand it, in d20 Star Wars.  I think we have discussed your implementation previously, and it seemed like the numbers worked out pretty well with the rest of the mechanics, if I recall correctly.  As difficult as it isn't, this should be a standard option in the core rules.

No I agree it shouldn't be a standard.

I think overnight heal of Level HP and Cure spells with HD should be standard as they also point to wounds as % of total hits.

They can add a wound system as an option in Advanced.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630418No I agree it shouldn't be a standard.

I think overnight heal of Level HP and Cure spells with HD should be standard as they also point to wounds as % of total hits.

They can add a wound system as an option in Advanced.

I wrote all that before getting to the rest of the thread.  

If there is to be a 'basic' version, it should be pretty streamlined.  Alternate hit points or fatigue levels should be 'standard' in the advanced core rules, and not introduced a year later in some splat or throwaway Dragon article.

Quote from: StormBringer;630421I wrote all that before getting to the rest of the thread.  

If there is to be a 'basic' version, it should be pretty streamlined.  Alternate hit points or fatigue levels should be 'standard' in the advanced core rules, and not introduced a year later in some splat or throwaway Dragon article.

I still reckon there is space in the basic rules for some optional mundane healing and I don't think Basic needs to be option free but I shan't belabour the point

Quote from: jibbajibba;630436I still reckon there is space in the basic rules for some optional mundane healing and I don't think Basic needs to be option free but I shan't belabour the point

Sure, it doesn't need to be a trifold pamphlet, but options should be fairly minimal.  Perhaps even just suggestions to acclimate new players to the advanced game, such as "If that rate of healing is too slow, adding the Constitution bonus for hit points after a full day of complete rest in a non-hostile environment can help get the characters back on their feet more quickly."  And some advice about making sure the complete rest part is enforced so players don't take advantage of it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630302Oh Joy.  You're here now with your stellar contribution as normal.

I know you would rather have your group masturbatory love fest.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630302And it's not you.  I'm not sure how many more times people need to explain this very important difference to you, but I'll give it a go one more time.

Proponents of a basic version of Next (such as myself) are NOT saying that the game must not have all these bells and whistles. In fact, we've pointed out several times that those bells and whistles should be available to those who want it.  The difference, and pay close attention here, is that the butthurt folks over at TPB want the core game to include all the bells and whistles from the get go.

Can you see the difference there?  We are not saying anyone else shouldn't get what they want.  Give them what they want.  But don't make it mandatory for everyone else.

It seems that there is a number of opinions over there that want different things.
Oh, sorry you must be selectively targeting certain posters with your righteous indignation.

Of course this has nothing to do with the concept of keeping the core book pure of all that power gaming munchkinism.  If those dumb bastards want that bullshit put it into some other book.  Who the fuck do these munchkins think they are?   Do they not realize what D&D is?  Fucking twats.