TheRPGSite

FYI: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906391

:cool:

Quote from: WotC_Mearls3e got a lot of things right, but anyone who has played it for a time knows that it gets things wrong. There are also legacy issues with the game that have persisted unquestioned for years. 4e is all about taking the things that work in D&D, keeping them in the game, and fixing everything else.

Looks like Warthur nailed this one right on the head..check out the bolded line.

This says, to me, there's lots of stuff they held on to but are now ready to dump.  The question will be: what goes, what stays...

That ain't a blog, that's a sticky thread. I need feeds and stuff.

Oh, well, I guess I read it anyways.

Last thing, I speculate that saving throws to be up on the block for a serious rebuild or drop.

Quote from: James J SkachThis says, to me, there's lots of stuff they held on to but are now ready to dump.  The question will be: what goes, what stays...

The problem there is that while there are some elements of D&D 3e that are almost universally condemned by everyone, including the fans, there are many other places where one person's "issue" is another person's good time.  They can easily wind up tossing the baby out with the bath water here.

I like the analogy he draws between 4e and the Marvel 'Ultimates' line. It's probably the most concise summation of their overall approach so far.

Quote from: DrewI like the analogy he draws between 4e and the Marvel 'Ultimates' line. It's probably the most concise summation of their overall approach so far.

Yes, but disconcerting to guys like me who collect bronze age back issues rather than buy the sleek new glosses of their favorite superheroes.

Quote from: jrientsYes, but disconcerting to guys like me who collect bronze age back issues rather than buy the sleek new glosses of their favorite superheroes.

Or you are not a comics kind of guy...I have no idea what his comment means. I mean, I can kind of glean it from context, but the reference is lost on me.

Quote from: jrientsYes, but disconcerting to guys like me who collect bronze age back issues rather than buy the sleek new glosses of their favorite superheroes.

I imagine he'll get a huge amount of flack over it at some point, probably by people who confuse content with approach. Comic fans will be ranting about how 4e is doomed to failure because they didn't like the implementation of Ultimate Spider-Man. Ah well.

Quote from: James J SkachOr you are not a comics kind of guy...I have no idea what his comment means. I mean, I can kind of glean it from context, but the reference is lost on me.

The idea is to take the iconic characters and reset the clock to year zero, offering a new take on their origins, powers, relationships etc. The comics remain recognisably the same, just reinterpreted with modern sensibilities. It also has the advantage of jettisoning the decades of accumulated backstory and legacy items that no longer serve any purpose beyond tradition.

"Well it's always been that way" is no longer a good enough reason to keep something in.

Quote from: DrewThe idea is to take the iconic characters and reset the clock to year zero, offering a new take on their origins, powers, relationships etc. The comics remain recognisably the same, just reinterpreted with modern sensibilities. It also has the advantage of jettisoning the decades of accumulated backstory and legacy items that no longer serve any purpose beyond tradition.

"Well it's always been that way" is no longer a good enough reason to keep something in.

Thanks for the translation - now I understand the reference.

Ahh..the wisdom of youth.

Quote from: John Morrowtossing the baby out with the bath water

Those were the first words that ran through my mind when I read Mearls' statement. Invariably, someone will like something that gets tossed. Smelling the whiff off of Bo9S and SWSE (supposed "experiments" for 4e), I can't help but feel I'm gonna be one of those someones.

Quote from: James J SkachAhh..the wisdom of youth.

As I understand it most of the people in 4e design team are in their 30's and 40's, whilst many of the Marvel honchos are older than that.

I don't really think it's an age thing, to be honest.

Quote from: Mike MearlsOne of the things I've emphasized to people is that while we're looking at new mechanics, the core of the game remains the same. You'll have fighters, spells, feats, and skills. A lot of the stuff on a 4e character sheet will look familiar to you. Even the "new" stuff has familiar mechanics and D&Disms within it. In a lot of ways, 4e is like the line of Ultimate Marvel comics. If you went back to the core of what makes D&D interesting, started over in a few areas with new takes on mechanics, where would you end up? We questioned a lot of assumptions about D&D mechanics work, and the results are interesting.

Form the July 2007 Comics Sales Charts & Market Share Report:

#10  AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #542
#16  UNCANNY X-MEN #488
#17  X-MEN #201
#25  ULTIMATE SPIDERMAN #111
#38  ULTIMATE X-MEN #84

Ah, but the "Ultimates" have the handicap that they run in parallel with the original series. There won't be two different games called "Dungeons & Dragons" around at the same time - there'll be "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" and TERRA (Third Edition Rules for Roleplaying Adventure), or whatever the 3.X version of OSRIC/C&C ends up being called.

EDIT TO ADD: Woo!!! 666th post! :emot-rock:

Quote from: WarthurAh, but the "Ultimates" have the handicap that they run in parallel with the original series. There won't be two different games called "Dungeons & Dragons" around at the same time - there'll be "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" and TERRA (Third Edition Rules for Roleplaying Adventure), or whatever the 3.X version of OSRIC/C&C ends up being called.

EDIT TO ADD: Woo!!! 666th post! :emot-rock:

All that tells us is that if there's only 1 edition/series for a product in publication, it will be the top selling edition/series of that product each month from that point on.

Quote from: WarthurAh, but the "Ultimates" have the handicap that they run in parallel with the original series. There won't be two different games called "Dungeons & Dragons" around at the same time - there'll be "Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition" and TERRA (Third Edition Rules for Roleplaying Adventure), or whatever the 3.X version of OSRIC/C&C ends up being called.

EDIT TO ADD: Woo!!! 666th post! :emot-rock:

Wait, it's a handicap?

That makes...no..sense...

If we take this analogy along the road, don't we end up being able to speculate that if they did still print (I assume Marvel is printing both) older edtions that it could be possible earlier editions sell better?

Would it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Just a thought...

Quote from: James J SkachWait, it's a handicap?

That makes...no..sense...

It's a handicap in the sense that not everyone's going to want to buy two titles a month where there was only one.

QuoteWould it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Just a thought...

It probably doesn't make sense for the RPG market. If you have two product lines for different audiences, then you're printing twice as many products but they're only selling half as much - precisely because they're intended for different audiences.

It makes more sense to keep one D&D product line, which will have access to the D&D name and product identity, as well as the successful official campaign settings.

I think Wizards have noticed that they have lost some oldschoolers to the likes of C&C and OSRIC. I also think they reckon they can afford to: they probably calculate that the people who like the innovations in 3.X, the people who will keep buying products for their favourite Wizards-owned campaign settings even if the system isn't necessarily optimised for their favoured playstyle, and the people who simply can't be bothered with playing a niche system which they struggle to find players for will outweigh the folks who are willing to go and play C&C or stick to their old TSR products. The remaining, loyal audience will be more than big enough to fill Wizards' coffers by buying 4th edition core rulebooks, supplements, campaign settings, DNDInsider subscriptions...

Quote from: StuartForm the July 2007 Comics Sales Charts & Market Share Report:

#10  AMAZING SPIDER-MAN #542
#16  UNCANNY X-MEN #488
#17  X-MEN #201
#25  ULTIMATE SPIDERMAN #111
#38  ULTIMATE X-MEN #84

Could you please explain how comic book sales are relevant to this discussion?

I mean beyond the anlogy Mike Mearls made in his blog.

Quote from: James J SkachWould it make more business sense to split the product line somehow - one for the grognards and people who tend toward the older systems, and one for competing with MMORPG's?

Probably not. It would increase total sales but would increase expenses by have to create two sets of products. A larger market could bear the increased expense and still be profitable. I'm not sure if WOTC is big enough. Guardians of Order definitely wasn't big enough.
 
It partly depends on how much 2 lines gets you compared to 1.  If it gives you 70% more, then it is a good idea, if it gives you 10% more, then not so good.  It's hard to gauge how many people that are buying B would still buy B if A were still available.

Quote from: DrewCould you please explain how comic book sales are relevant to this discussion?

I mean beyond the anlogy Mike Mearls made in his blog.

It's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

Quote from: StuartIt's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

Or he's talking from a design perspective, and therefore not speculating on sales.

Now whether the analogy is good or not (in a qualitative sense) is for the reader to decide. But it being a "questionable strategy (on WotC's) part" can only be considered if you're asserting that Marvel's sales figures have some bearing on WotC's.

Otherwise you might as well say that a reimagining/reboot/rebuilding from fundamentals approach is bad for everything because of the same data. I really don't get it.

My point is, you don't want to say "it's like Marvel's Ultimate line".  Better to say "it's like the new Battlestar Galactica" or something.

You're making more out of this than I am. It was more of an interesting (to me) aside on an off-hand analogy, rather than something worth debating at length. :)

Quote from: StuartIt's about the analogy Mike made on his blog (and why I quoted it).  It's pretty straightforward:

Mike Mearls said D&D 4e will be like the Marvel Ultimate line.

Unfortunately, the Marvel Ultimate line is not at popular as the non-Ultimate line.

This is either a bad analogy (on Mike's part), or a questionable strategy (on WotC's part).

That's it.

I say it's a bad analogy. The Marvel Ultimate line essentially has to compete with the non-Ultimate versions of its titles - it has to convince both current comic book fans and complete neophytes that it is worth reading the Ultimate version of a title as well as - or instead of - the non-Ultimate version.

Conversely, after the transition to 4th edition, the official D&D rulebooks being printed will all be 4th edition, if you want to get new official material for, say, Forgotten Realms or Eberron you'll have to buy supplements with 4th edition rules, and so on.

If anything, the analogy demonstrates why it would be a terrible idea to have two parallel D&D product lines. An extra comic book a month isn't a financial dealbreaker for many people. Two separate RPG product lines are a greater expense.

Actually, Stuart's point actually hints at exactly what I've been saying since the initial press release.

To hear the internet tell it, the Ultimate line is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in reality the sales numbers don't hold up.

It's the forum trap.  And here he is using it as an analogy for 4e's development?  

It's like he's handing me supporting statements on a silver platter.

Quote from: StuartMy point is, you don't want to say "it's like Marvel's Ultimate line".  Better to say "it's like the new Battlestar Galactica" or something.

Why? Marvel's Ultimate line isn't renowned for being a spectacular flop - it's in the charts, after all - and I'd argue that a geek audience is just as likely to understand a comparison with the Ultimate line as they would a comparison with Battlestar Galactica

Quote from: J ArcaneActually, Stuart's point actually hints at exactly what I've been saying since the initial press release.

To hear the internet tell it, the Ultimate line is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in reality the sales numbers don't hold up.

It's the forum trap.  And here he is using it as an analogy for 4e's development?  

It's like he's handing me supporting statements on a silver platter.

You know, I remember when 3.0 came out and people were saying it would spell curtains for Wizards' sales - and let's face it, 3E was such a different beast from 2E it trod on a hell of a lot of toes.

And yet, the mass exodus to other games simply hasn't happened. Even when there's alternatives available, D&D on a good month sells twenty to thirty times as many books as, say, the Castles and Crusades product line (see the charts in the stickied Comics and Games Retailer thread at the top of this here forum if you don't believe me).

Given that it's been made very clear that the transition from 3E to 4E is not going to be as revolutionary as that from 2E to 3E, I see no reason to expect a mass exodus from D&D.

Except that in my experience, there actually were people genuinely dissatisfied with 2e, especially after crap like Skills and Powers.  Most of the gamers I knew abandoned the system around that time.  

Whereas, with the exception of a minority voice in Internet forum whiners, I don't see that with 3e.  I see a lot of satisfied gamers who're being ignored, while the dev team simply takes it as some sort of fact that the game is broken.

Which is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

It's about the same feeling I get when I go back and read RPGnet threads and see Forge terminology just dropped into the conversation like it's nothing.

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept that in my experience, there actually were people genuinely dissatisfied with 2e, especially after crap like Skills and Powers.  Most of the gamers I knew abandoned the system around that time.  

Whereas, with the exception of a minority voice in Internet forum whiners, I don't see that with 3e.  I see a lot of satisfied gamers who're being ignored, while the dev team simply takes it as some sort of fact that the game is broken.

Except the dev team seem to be promising that the new features people love in 3E will still be there, by and large.

I have my own anecdotal evidence: in my area, people were broadly satisfied with 2e (although they pretty much ignored Skills and Powers). Then they were broadly satisfied with switching to 3e.

Can you really say, with a straight face, that your own personal subjective experience of your local roleplaying scene is any more legitimate than a minority faction of forum whiners?

And do you seriously believe that 4E is coming out to appease the whiners? If it is, why now, since they've been whining since 4E came out?

QuoteWhich is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

Point me to where Mearls is saying it's broken. He's saying some things can be improved, but that's not a controversial opinion.

I've always thought WotC has done a top-notch job with their marketing and business strategy -- it's only recently that I've been a bit puzzled by what they've been announcing.

WotC has done an excellent job building up their customer loyalty over the years.  They probably figure that even though some people wouldn't like the timing of the 4e announcement, the direction they're going with the Digital Initiative, or even the (suggested) changes in direction for the new edition -- they have enough customer good will to make this work.

Not only that, their customers are so loyal they become evangelists, and become part of the marketing effort.  That's awesome, and something any business aspires to.

Let me put it another way:

If the Forge or Ron Edwards makes a public statement saying that the way mainstream gamers play is broken and wrong, we rightly get up and arms and attack them.

However, when it's Wizards and Mike Mearls essentially saying that the most popular game in the world is broken, we just accept it as fact?

Why?  Is it just 'cause it's D&D?  Is it just 'cause "Mike Mearls and Wizards say so"?  I'd like to think the community here has more critical thinking skills than that, but apparently it's just a matter of the groupthink being on the "right" side this time.

Quote from: StuartMy point is, you don't want to say "it's like Marvel's Ultimate line".  Better to say "it's like the new Battlestar Galactica" or something.

You're making more out of this than I am. It was more of an interesting (to me) aside on an off-hand analogy, rather than something worth debating at length. :)

Fair enough. It's too small a thing to get all het up about. :)

Quote from: J ArcaneWhich is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

From what I see, Mearls is not trying to win back C&C players at all. Quite the contrary; the break off of C&C and other retro-D&D games means WotC doesn't have to worry about keeping a small but vocal group of grognards happy anymore. They can move ahead with the sensible business strategy of attracting new customers.

Because let's face it, there are compelling business reasons to put out a new edition of a game like D&D every few years or so. That isn't a sinister corporate scam - it's just good business. And if your business model calls for a new edition, you may as well listen to your customers and marketing mavens and revamp the product to keep it fresh and address user wants.

Regular revision is standard practice with software. The same principles apply to RPGs. Sure, it's shitty to be a customer who was happy with the old product. But a business that caters only to its existing, satisfied customers, without tacking to meet the needs of new customers, is going to flounder.

Quote from: J ArcaneHowever, when it's Wizards and Mike Mearls essentially saying that the most popular game in the world is broken, we just accept it as fact?

Who says D&D is broken? I just see a company revising and revamping an existing product. Doesn't mean it's broken.

And lots of people were happy to play 2E. I played it just fine. The release of 3E didn't mean 2E was broken. It just meant the publishers wanted to both a) make money from new books, and b) use the opportunity of a new revision to revamp the system and make it more appealing to most gamers - in particular the new gamers they need to survive.

Frankly, I think it's funny to see 3E fanboys indulge in the same embittered snivelling as the folks on Dragonsfoot who can't bring themselves to speak the name of '3rd edition'. The symmetry is wonderful.

Quote from: J ArcaneHowever, when it's Wizards and Mike Mearls essentially saying that the most popular game in the world is broken, we just accept it as fact?

What planet do you live on where issuing a new edition of a game is tantamount to declaring the previous edition "broken"?

Is OD&D broken because TSR put out Basic D&D and Advanced D&D? No, the latter two editions were simply attempts to improve on the first. 4th edition Ars Magica is a decent, not-broken game, but I'd prioritise 5th edition way above it because it's such a great improvement.

QuoteWhat planet do you live on where issuing a new edition of a game is tantamount to declaring the previous edition "broken"?

Dude, have you even read the shit they've been spouting?  It's like Mearls has Akrasia's posts all bookmarked and uses them as reference works.
 
The same disengenous and innaccurate attacks on the game, all reading like they're ticking off the popular bulletpoints of the 3.x hater crowd.  

You can't be that fucking blind.

I'm not jsut alking about the announcement of 4e, I'm talking about the actual language being used to describe 4e, and the language used to describe the previous editions.  Shit like the initial press release on TMP, that stupid damn video, Mearls ranting about Western fantasy in the intro to ToB.  

It's all there, you just dont' want to see it.

Quote from: J ArcaneMearls ranting about Western fantasy in the intro to ToB.

I've just pulled it off the shelf and read the relevant section. Where's the rant?

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, have you even read the shit they've been spouting?  It's like Mearls has Akrasia's posts all bookmarked and uses them as reference works.
 
The same disengenous and innaccurate attacks on the game, all reading like they're ticking off the popular bulletpoints of the 3.x hater crowd.  

You can't be that fucking blind.

Let's play a game, J, and pretend that I am. Go grab some of those official announcements and show me the inaccuracies and the attacks on 3.X. Quote me a few things. Please.

Quote from: J ArcaneExcept that in my experience, there actually were people genuinely dissatisfied with 2e, especially after crap like Skills and Powers.  Most of the gamers I knew abandoned the system around that time.  

Whereas, with the exception of a minority voice in Internet forum whiners, I don't see that with 3e.  I see a lot of satisfied gamers who're being ignored, while the dev team simply takes it as some sort of fact that the game is broken.

I think this'll be a lot more like the shift from 3.0 to 3.5.

What happened when WotC announced 3.5?

* Lots of anger from folks who'd bought 3.0 books
* Lots of complaints that this new edition was "too soon"
* Lots of people swearing off WotC

What really happened?  Well, sales stayed good, the fanbase stayed similar or started growing, and pretty much everyone playing 3.0 and still purchasing books ended up migrating over to 3.5 because they saw the improvements and wanted to give it a shot or because there was no alternate system available.

Sure, people are satisfied with 3.x.  That's not the issue at all.  There are, though, some things that 3.x could do differently, in a way that's designed to attract new players and satisfy most of the old ones.

QuoteWhich is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but.

It's about the same feeling I get when I go back and read RPGnet threads and see Forge terminology just dropped into the conversation like it's nothing.

I don't see that at all.  Mearls hasn't said the game is "broken."  He's said that there are ways to improve it.  RPGs need to evolve in order to gain popularity - and the digital initiative is honestly one of the only ideas I've seen that may actually work.  It's not my cup of tea, but I definitely see the attraction.

They're not aiming to keep 100% of the old crowd.  I don't think they're that foolish.  I think they're hoping for a smaller adoption rate - maybe 40%-60% of active buyers - at first, followed by more as the new game gains popularity and the old guard can hopefully see improvements.  Two years down the road, I don't think a 75% migration rate for people who actively buy D&D 3.5 books is unrealistic.

What's more, in theory they will gain new players.  If their marketing improves and the game is fun, this is completely realistic.  They'll keep doing what they do pretty well - sell books to players and not just DMs, and keep the game fresh & fun.  If the digital initiative works, they'll even be able to start pulling in customers who otherwise might not be able to find a group, or who might have lapsed in gaming because they're far away from their group.

I really don't think something needs to be broken in order for it to be improved.

-O

Quote from: WarthurLet's play a game, J, and pretend that I am. Go grab some of those official announcements and show me the inaccuracies and the attacks on 3.X. Quote me a few things. Please.

Do your own work.  I've played that game before, and I ain't wasting my time again.  

And Drew, I'll take that as proof you weren't actually reading any of James' or my posts in the "fighters are wizards" thread.

Quote from: J ArcaneDo your own work.  I've played that game before, and I ain't wasting my time again.

J, when we're trying to make arguments we're required to back up our assertions. It's not my job to find support for your arguments. You should do your own damn work and actually provide me with something to suggest that your babbling isn't just hot air and bong vapours.

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd Drew, I'll take that as proof you weren't actually reading any of James' or my posts in the "fighters are wizards" thread.

I did read your posts, although I can't recall them with eidetic clarity.

And I've just read the section in ToB again. I really can't see any ranting in there. If anything it's more of a celebration of recent trends towards cultural fusion in entertainment.

Quote from: J ArcaneShit like the initial press release on TMP, that stupid damn video, Mearls ranting about Western fantasy in the intro to ToB.  

So D&D changes its tone and feel. Won't be the first time. Tastes change, and WotC would be foolish not to change with them and make the game look and feel appealing to the 16-24 crowd.

I'm assuming you're fairly young. Because once you've experienced several cycles of popular tastes leaving your personal preferences in the dust, you'll grow more sanguine about it.

Anime/eastern tropes aren't my thing. But then neither was the dungeon-punk of 3E. Or the soft-lens vanilla fantasy of 2E, for that matter. But I have stopped expecting gamer culture to reflect my tastes. Eventually, you will too.

J Arcane, you live in the bizarroworld.

The emphasis on rules simplification as 4E design goal is not due to an effort at making it palatable, of all people, to a handful of aging grognards.

It is due to a) the realization that some stuff in there is objectively clunky; b) the wacko-bizarro idea, alas widely shared in below thread, that learning-by-doing is a hallmark of WoW's success and that it can and should be imported into a tabletop RPG, replacing there the "ivory tower model" (Monte Cook)--thus leading to a bizarre turn of events in which last week's greatest 3.5 build fetishists are now clamoring for the New Simplicity.

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=350298

All of which, however, has fuck all to do with what fans of C&C do or do not think, young man.

Quote from: HaffrungSo D&D changes its tone and feel. Won't be the first time. Tastes change, and WotC would be foolish not to change with them and make the game look and feel appealing to the 16-24 crowd.

I'm assuming you're fairly young. Because once you've experienced several cycles of popular tastes leaving your personal preferences in the dust, you'll grow more sanguine about it.

Anime/eastern tropes aren't my thing. But then neither was the dungeon-punk of 3E. Or the soft-lens vanilla fantasy of 2E, for that matter. But I have stopped expecting gamer culture to reflect my tastes. Eventually, you will too.

This is pretty much my perpsective that I tried to get across in that everyone's-a-wizard thread.

I don't think it's bad or evil or whatever that WotC wants to - how did someone put it - reinterpret with modern sensibilities - the rules.  Makes perfect sense from a business sense.

Though for the most part I've made the move as the editions updated (coming back to it during 3.5 after years away), I just think I might finally be too old to continue. this might be enough of a change to not feel like D&D has always felt to me.

That's never been meant as a knock against the "new" rules (which, quite frankly, we haven't even seen yet so it's all just speculation) or the people that like them.

Sucks getting old...

Quote from: WarthurJ, when we're trying to make arguments we're required to back up our assertions. It's not my job to find support for your arguments. You should do your own damn work and actually provide me with something to suggest that your babbling isn't just hot air and bong vapours.

You've already read this shit, ou've already seen this shit, why the fuck should I have to give you a lesson in reading comprehension just because you refused to see what was there plain as day from the first announcement?

The fact remains that there's a clear approach of "the game is broken, how do we fix it", instead of "the game is good, how do we make it better", and the rhetoric that's been used to describe it and it's antecedent SAGA remind me more of reading shit like Pundit and Akrasia's love-ins for True20 than anything I've read by actual 3.x fans and players.  

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised though that it's gotten such a glowing reception from the userbase here, given how many 3.x haters exist on this site despite it's claims at being "mainstream".

:haw:  what am I, chopped liver?

Quote from: J ArcaneThe fact remains that there's a clear approach of "the game is broken, how do we fix it", instead of "the game is good, how do we make it better",

OK, here's a solid claim.

I challenge you to find one single quote from the various 4E announcements and notices that have been put out recently which unequivocally suggests the former, and cannot be interpreted as meaning the latter.

Quote from: WarthurOK, here's a solid claim.

I challenge you to find one single quote from the various 4E announcements and notices that have been put out recently which unequivocally suggests the former, and cannot be interpreted as meaning the latter.

Not specific, but...

Quote from: Mearls3e got a lot of things right, but anyone who has played it for a time knows that it gets things wrong. There are also legacy issues with the game that have persisted unquestioned for years. 4e is all about taking the things that work in D&D, keeping them in the game, and fixing everything else.

In my vernacular, "things that don't work" == "broken".

Now we get to splitting hairs. A few wonky rules don't make a game "broken" - heck, by those standards AD&D 1E is definitely broken if you remember the psionics and weapon speed rules. It should also be noted that Mearls started off by saying that 3E got a lot of things right, which taken with the remarks towards the end suggests that a hefty portion of the innovations which came with 3E will be retained in 4E.

Mearls isn't saying "3E is broken and needs to be replaced, stat," he's saying "3E is a good game, but there's areas which could do with improvement - hence the new edition".

Quote from: J Arcane...
Which is my whole point.  Mearls has spent too much time online, and let the True20 and C&C fans get to him, and started confusing their minority voice for the reality of the mainstream audience, and simply taking as read that the game in it's current form is "broken", when in fact it's anything but...

This is idle speculation on your part.  You have no grounds for making these ad hominem attacks on Mearls.

What's really driving the move to 4e is the need to increase sales.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with widespread dissatisfaction with 3e or Mearls listening too much to posters on fora.  Zip.

Based on what we know about 4e so far, it is clear that Mearls and the other people working on 4e want to keep most of the things about 3e that appeal to people, while attracting new players by making it more WoW-like.  And, despite your personal dislike for SWSE (although you don't seem to have ever actually read it, based on your posts), the fact is that lots of 3e fans really like SWSE.  Sales for SWSE have obviously been good enough to convince WotC that this is a good approach to revising D&D.

None of this really appeals to me personally.  I'm an old school kind of guy.  But unlike you, I'm not about to confuse my personal preferences with what makes sense for WotC/Hasbro.

Quote from: J Arcane... It's like Mearls has Akrasia's posts all bookmarked and uses them as reference works...

:haw:
Man, that would totally rock.

Unfortunately, though, like most things you post, it bears absolutely no relation to the real world.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityJ Arcane, you live in the bizarroworld...

Spot on.

(Although I do find it wildly amusing that J Arcane thinks that 4e is aimed at pleasing me and people who have similar tastes.  If only!)

Quote from: J ArcaneThe fact remains that there's a clear approach of "the game is broken, how do we fix it", instead of "the game is good, how do we make it better"

This is loopy horseshit that bears no relation to reality.

KoOS

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIn my vernacular, "things that don't work" == "broken".

Saying that there are specific elements of the game that don't work isn't even close to saying that D&D as a game is broken.  C'mon, don't tell me that you buy into this lunacy too...

KoOS

Quote from: WarthurNow we get to splitting hairs. A few wonky rules don't make a game "broken" - heck, by those standards AD&D 1E is definitely broken if you remember the psionics and weapon speed rules.

Well, if the shoe fits... :haw:

Seriously though, there's a difference between what I'm saying and what I perceive Mearls & his wrecking crew are saying. And does that statement come across that way to me? Yeah, really, sort of.

QuoteMearls isn't saying "3E is broken and needs to be replaced, stat," he's saying "3E is a good game, but there's areas which could do with improvement - hence the new edition".

I dunno. A lot of things they are booting out blatantly do not seem broken, or wonky to me.

It does seem as if their choices thus far are conceived for:
1) maximum churn
2) appeal to a slightly different audience than the bog standard 3e fan (i.e., more basic combat, WoW-like play)

These things are perfectly understandable for the purposes of making a product designed to sell, but whether the represent a bona fide improvement to the game... that, I am dubious about. I'm sure the designers have "making the game better" as a goal, but it seems a secondary one.

Of course I could be jumping to conclusions, but from the revelations seen thus far, that's how the landscape looks to me.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolSaying that there are specific elements of the game that don't work isn't even close to saying that D&D as a game is broken.  C'mon, don't tell me that you buy into this lunacy too...

It would help if you started by not putting words in my mouth. I was suggesting that what he is saying by "things that don't work" is "things that are broken". Not the game as a whole is broken.

Eh, I believe J Arcane is simply nostalgic. The game had to evolve, and we can't placate all people who are still wearing rose-coloured glasses about "prestige classes" and "cross-class skills" or whatever. What next, memorisation and wizards in pointy hats? :rolleyes:  Embrace the paradigm and ride the waves of progress, that's what I say.

(Dungeons&Dragons®, Ye Olde Double-Topper®, Wyrm Tail With Cheese and Bologna® and Engineered to be FUN® are registered trademarks of Tryannical Scum Regime Games®, Inc.)

They are definitely changing things I had no problems with, and reinforcing things I´m suspicious of.
But we´ll see, we´ll see.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt would help if you started by not putting words in my mouth. I was suggesting that what he is saying by "things that don't work" is "things that are broken". Not the game as a whole is broken.

But on Planet J Arcane, saying that the game could be improved is exactly the same as saying that the game as a whole is broken, right?

Don´t forget:

Mearls & Co have a hammer called: "streamlining and rigourous mechanical design". And they have great proficiency in applying them to someone elses building blocks.
They have to make a new edition. So they have this hammer and see a lot of nails.

The most recent D&D Podcast with Mike Mearls and Dave Noonan is definitely worth listening to.  I think the communications around the 4e announcement could have been improved, but I think the product they're working on will likely be a big success.

One, I agree with Stuart, the podcast helped put some of this hoopla into a little perspective, and while I know these guys are responsible for making the game so I should take their enthusiasm with a grain of salt, these guys know their stuff, so I can doubt a little less than if it was from Homebrew Game Designer X #1296.

And check Mearls' most recent post:

Quote... I just had one come across my desk. Here I am, sitting at my desk after lunch, thinking about which of my shiny new comics I'm going to read first, when Matt Sernett comes over to my desk. Matt drops an awesome idea on my head involving skills. This is a cool idea, something that in nine months will be loved by everyone who feels that the skill system in 3e didn't do enough.
 
 I open the relevent files that touch on Matt's idea, type in his idea in 22 point font so I don't miss it when I go back to work on that bit, and then carry on.
 
 Now, I have to be coy about the exact nature of the concept. It isn't the kind of thing that will revolutionize D&D, but it's a good, cool, solid idea that makes skills more interesting, more important in combat encounters, and more fun. I can't wait to use it in playtest.

The wild speculator in me says that FtA!'s stunt system may have been found out and adapted by the big boys. ;)

Quote from: JamesVThe wild speculator in me says that FtA!'s stunt system may have been found out and adapted by the big boys. ;)

They could do far worse!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstThey could do far worse!

And that's why I thought of it, I mean right now they have it where some skill may have a specific combat application or you can use aid another, why not canonically consolidate and streamline that up?

Is this where I point out Mearls' own Book of Iron Might let you use skills in combat applications? (Course, that book had its own problems, BID...)

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIs this where I point out Mearls' own Book of Iron Might let you use skills in combat applications? (Course, that book had its own problems, BID...)

Facts? BAH! If I dont' know about it, it don't exist.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt would help if you started by not putting words in my mouth. I was suggesting that what he is saying by "things that don't work" is "things that are broken". Not the game as a whole is broken.

The only one putting words in your mouth is you.  This is the exact text to which Warthur referred in the post you quoted:

Quote from: J ArcaneThe fact remains that there's a clear approach of "the game is broken, how do we fix it", instead of "the game is good, how do we make it better",

Now of course, Mearls means "things that are broken" when he says "things that don't work"; that's basic English and virtually all of us are familiar with it, thank you very much.  Did you really think you were enlightening us by pointing that out?

What J Arcane said was very different -- it was, and I quote, "the game is broken".  Now to suggest that Mearls thinks D&D as a game is broken is just stupid, and I say that not as some Mearls fanboy but someone who actually doesn't like Mearls or his work but still is willing to take him at face value when he says he thinks that 3.x, the game upon which virtually his entire career is built, is a great game.  When Warthur challenged anyone to actually back up J Arcane's kookery with a credible argument, you were the first one to actually stick up your hand.  If you didn't want to agree with J Arcane, then you know what you should have done?

You should have stayed the fuck away from the "quote" button.

KoOS

I think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Exactly.

I think the spoofy video had a good heart, but was executed badly.
Making fun of the grappling rules was OK in my book, but the Problems of earlier editions weren´t adressed in a smart manner.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that one of the things that made me very cautious was watching that stupid 4e "video" they apparently released at Gencon, the one with the pseudo-french narrator, where they went "through the years" with a gaming group that played all three editions, and made a big point of showing how supposedly all the earlier editions of D&D were plagued with problems that 4e is now going to fix.  That's a deeply stupid way of promoting your game, by claiming that every previous edition (including the one your company came out with and that all your current customers play) all sucked somehow.

RPGPundit

Having played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

I actually kinda enjoyed that video, if only because it featured Chris Perkins in an afro wig, and Regdar hugging the troll.

I'm easy to please, though.

Anyhow, I love D&D3.5. I hated AD&D2. When I was listening to that podcast I totally followed what Noonan was saying. But I still think improvements can be made, so I am excited to see them.


I am pretty happy that every one of these guys is as big a D&D fan as I am.

...Except perhaps Slaviscek.. (who I don't know much about).

Slaviscek has been around forever. Check out his credits (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=96).

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHaving played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

Indeed. It's possible to enjoy something and be aware of it's flaws. Also, the primary method of selling a new edition of anything is by showing how it supersedes its antecedents. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they said 3.x was perfect.

The only thing that annoyed me about the video was the implication that it's ridiculous to play without miniatures. I'm really hoping you don't need a battle mat to play 4E.

Based on what we've heard so far I don't think it'll be a requirement, but doubtless the game will be heavily slanted toward their use.

Which is fine with me, as I enjoy using minis. When I don't want the bother it's fairly easy to abstract, anyway.

Quote from: HaffrungThe only thing that annoyed me about the video was the implication that it's ridiculous to play without miniatures. I'm really hoping you don't need a battle mat to play 4E.

I think Mearls stated in one of the interviews that you would have no more need for minis in 4e as in 3e. And, well, y'know, as far back as 1e it felt vaguely ridiculous to play without miniatures. My group also tried to "fake it" like in the video - which is something I chuckled at, due to recognition - but towards the end of that era (right around the time my game group fell apart for a variety of reasons), we used a handful of minis. The reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI think Mearls stated in one of the interviews that you would have no more need for minis in 4e as in 3e. And, well, y'know, as far back as 1e it felt vaguely ridiculous to play without miniatures. My group also tried to "fake it" like in the video - which is something I chuckled at, due to recognition - but towards the end of that era (right around the time my game group fell apart for a variety of reasons), we used a handful of minis. The reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

I know who Slaviscek is, but.. is he a D&D fan? Thats the only thing I'd really like to know, and I don't know enough to guess either way.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHaving played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

Perhaps, but again the implication was that D&D 4 was going to finally "get it right"; meaning all those earlier versions were "wrong", and that no one will ever want to play those crappy flawed versions of older D&D again.  Its a stupid move from the point of view of marketing, and a stupid tactic to win the confidence or heart of your current fan base, who you must assume are actually having fun playing the game right now.

What you're telling those existing fans with this video is: We're going to radically change YOUR GAME because we don't think its very good.  I mean shit, if they wanted to start a general panic of wild paranoia and fear and loathing among their fanbase, this was pretty well the perfect way to do it: its got any real D&D 3.5 fan who saw this video wondering "are they going to think the things I LOVE about this game are part of the "flaws" they have to totally change forever?".

What a video introducing 4e SHOULD have been was a celebration of everything that came before, of everything that was GOOD about the game, and then how they were going to make it BETTER. It should have focused on the positives, not the negatives.  As it stands, it seems like they were making excuses and trying to publically justify themselves for trying to rush out a new edition before anyone expected it, trying desperately to convince the average D&D FAN that he should want such a thing.

RPGPundit

PS: when I saw it, all of the above combined with the bad production values lead me to think that, if I didn't know better, if I'd only seen it on Youtube or something, it was either a parody written by someone who dislikes D&D, or a really badly thought out marketing campaign by the publisher of a Fantasy Heartbreaker, some hapless amateur who had $10K and got some really bad advice (namely, "you HAVE to show them how your game is way BETTER than D&D")

Quote from: ColonelHardissonThe reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

Me too. We used minis for 1E... but no grid. I think this was because ' and " indoors/outdoors confused the hell out of us. Combat was fudge-o-ramatic of course, with all that this entails. But we were a lively bunch, so the constant yelling over who's standing where when and shooting at whom how was somehow part of the conviviality.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonSlaviscek has been around forever. Check out his credits (http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=96).

He did the original design for Paranoia 5th Edition? Damn! That's not a good sign.

Then again, he does seem to have more chops as an editor than as a designer.

Quote from: DrewBased on what we've heard so far I don't think it'll be a requirement, but doubtless the game will be heavily slanted toward their use.

Which is fine with me, as I enjoy using minis. When I don't want the bother it's fairly easy to abstract, anyway.

Rules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

2e had a lot of extra rules that worked better with minis, too.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Thus my preference for Basic/RC D&D.  :wizard:

Which is EXPLICITELY Mini-based. It even has the five foot step.

Yeah, I guess I must've hallucinated all those grid maps and things.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Indeed, although the tactical impact of design decisions made during 3.x strengthened the emphasis. Whether 4E will be the same is sketchy at the moment.

Quote from: ArkasiaThus my preference for Basic/RC D&D.

Oddly enough back when I was playing Moldvay/Mentzer D&D minis were considered essential, even though the rules didn't require them in any way whatsoever. I think gamers just assumed that D&D equated with miniatures at the time, at least 'round my way. Of course being 9-years-old and wanting cool toys to play with had a lot to do with it, too.

I still miss my old Grenadier, Ral Partha and Citadel collection of the early 80's. There were some superb models being made around that time.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is EXPLICITELY Mini-based. It even has the five foot step.

I was going to say.

Guess what I bought yesterday? My first Chessex battlemat. For our upcoming Basic D&D game. (Woot!)

PS: 5-foot step, though? Is that in the RC? Because it's not in B/X, I don't think.

i remember that little mini with the napoleon hat in the moldvay basic book and thinking, "playing with miniatures would be neat."  but my first group didn't get into them.  then i moved to a different town, and in that new group only one or two guys did the minis thing.  so my groups never bothered, and all combat or other clarifications were just quick sketches on scrap paper, or dice & other objects quickly set out to explain locations.  it wasn't until 3.0 (and yet a different group) that minis came into play.

i don't play with that (3.x) group anymore, so i'm back with the no-minis guys.  but they never switched from 1E ad&d to any later editions, so whatever happens in 4E won't matter to them.

the more i think about it tho, i'll most likely get the PH, no matter how it changes.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

And yet I could ignore the minis/grid elements of the rules and play Basic/1E/2E just fine. With 3E... not so much. When specific abilities of PCs and monsters are tied to a tactical combat grid, it becomes difficult to play an abstract combat style without losing those abilities and the game balance that goes with them.

If 4E has lots of skills/feats/abilities tied to a combat grid, then I'll give it a miss and just use the OMNI (Talislanta) system, which gives me the coherence of d20 at a level of abstraction I prefer.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a video introducing 4e SHOULD have been was a celebration of everything that came before, of everything that was GOOD about the game, and then how they were going to make it BETTER. It should have focused on the positives, not the negatives.

I actually felt the same way after seeing it.  I guess I can see what they were going for--light-hearted humor about previous editions--but it just sort of fell flat for me.  Not a huge deal, but I think I'd have made it a bit more positive.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat you're telling those existing fans with this video is: We're going to radically change YOUR GAME because we don't think its very good.  I mean shit, if they wanted to start a general panic of wild paranoia and fear and loathing among their fanbase, this was pretty well the perfect way to do it: its got any real D&D 3.5 fan who saw this video wondering "are they going to think the things I LOVE about this game are part of the "flaws" they have to totally change forever?".

WotC wasn't especially concerned about pissing off 2E fans with 3E. Why should they be more solicitous of 3E fans when promoting 4E?

Quote from: HaffrungWotC wasn't especially concerned about pissing off 2E fans with 3E. Why should they be more solicitous of 3E fans when promoting 4E?

Exactly- furthermore, I am willing to bet the bulk of players (you know, the ones who don't tool around the forums all the time) don't even know about the change yet. Most of them will find out when they walk into the FLGs looking for minis or dice, and they see the (certain to exist) big ass stand up display with the freekin' NEW D&D on it.

Quote from: HaffrungWotC wasn't especially concerned about pissing off 2E fans with 3E. Why should they be more solicitous of 3E fans when promoting 4E?

Two good reasons: first, 2e was, by the time 3e came out, an all-but-dead system that was associated very negatively with the collapse of TSR, and there was this general feeling that D&D desperately needed a revival.

Second, because 2e wasn't actually designed by their own company.  3e, obviously, WAS. If you acquire an intellectual property, and plan to give it a big makeover, it makes sense to harp on its imperfections and how you're going to fix it, particularly if there's a serious amount of negative press for it and a lot of its prior consumers have already abandoned it in frustration.  On the other hand, if you are trying to make a new version of YOUR OWN intellectual property, you don't particularly want to start from the angle that your own creation was a pile of crap that you now have to reform.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOn the other hand, if you are trying to make a new version of YOUR OWN intellectual property, you don't particularly want to start from the angle that your own creation was a pile of crap that you now have to reform.

I think you'll find this internally in lots of companies -- especially when there is a significant change in staff - but it's something you shouldn't let your customers hear about... unless it's generally acknowledged that the old product was bad.  I didn't get that impression with 3e, despite whatever a small section of forum posters might say.

I still haven't gotten round to watching that video... I probably should.

I'm really hoping WotC will introduce real blogs and stop using threads in a message board and calling them a blog.  A blog usually allows comments.  They almost always have feeds you can subscribe to.  They're similar... but different... from a message board. ;)

Both the RC and Basic/Expert D&D explicitly state that the use of minis is entirely optional and is not presupposed in the rules.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is EXPLICITELY Mini-based. It even has the five foot step.

:raise:

Page references please.

Quote from: J ArcaneYeah, I guess I must've hallucinated all those grid maps and things.  :rolleyes:

Well, the maps in Basic/RC D&D were mapped on graph paper (10-foot squares usually).  I don't know what you mean by 'things', however.  

Nonetheless, the rules explicitly state that use of minis is entirely optional.  And I know from experience that they certainly were not presupposed by the rules.

Quote4 c mbat round is ten seconds of game time.
During a round, chacwers,can do one thing:
move, attack, cast a spell. drink a potion, or any
other single action that a penon can normally do
in ten seconds. A character cannot do two things
in a single round, such as run 20 feet and then
attack. He would have to run 20 feet in one
round, then attack in the next round.
Characters mcly stand solidly in one p!ace
and fight without moving from one position.
When a character attacks. we wumc that he is
maneuvering for pition. To rdlect this limited
vcmcnt, a character CM move up to 5 feet
ile he is fighting. Maneuvering in this way
"4s not count as an action during the round.
Melee refers to hand.to.hand combat only.
Battle implies the use of hand-to.hand combat,
missile combat. and spell combat used in combi.
nation. This chapter deals with all details of individual
and party combat. Mass combat
(between umics) is covered in Chapter 9.

page 101, start of combat chapter

Quote from: Settembrinipage 101, start of combat chapter

Thanks.  Well I'll be ... I never noticed that before!  :cool:

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the use of minis were considered entirely optional in Basic/RC D&D, and combat was easily run without them (unlike many other versions of A/D&D).

I don´t know. i think the maneuvres like fighting withdrawal, charge, set against charge etc. pretty much need a battlemat.
Now AD&D 2ndE, that´s a game needing no minis.
And even there, you could profit from it.

Wait... according to the RC you can either attack or move but not both???

In B/X that's not so clear at all. Unless I'm reading it with my 3.x-tinted glasses.

At least the red box is very clear about that.

Moldvay isn't, and the combat example is unclear IMO.

Shit, I need to clear this up. I would hate if it's only one action/round. You run up to the goblin, whereupon he hits you. Awesome.

No. It´s the other way round.

You fire your bow, they run to your place.
You win Ini and hit them.

It´s pretty tactical, I really dig it.
It also allows fleeing.

Thing thing that bugged me in the video was the way they heaped scorn on the notion of using erasers and bottle-caps to mark PCs and monsters.

WotC Guy: "Look at these dumb fucks - they didn't even use a specific miniature for each monster!"

Newbie: "Yeah, that looks stupid! I'd love to have a painted miniature for each and every monster in the Monster Manual. Do you know where I might get my hands on that sort of thing?"

WotC Guy: "Now that you mention it..."

Quote from: SettembriniNo. It´s the other way round.

You fire your bow, they run to your place.
You win Ini and hit them.

What if they have bows too? The proverbial kobold patrol across the bridge?  First-level PCs are fragile enough as is.

As for fleeing... again, unless the RC/Red Box changed stuff a lot, if the PCs are wearing metal armor virtually 75% of the monsters will be faster than they. At least if you play encumbrance BTB.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMoldvay isn't, and the combat example is unclear IMO.

Shit, I need to clear this up. I would hate if it's only one action/round. You run up to the goblin, whereupon he hits you. Awesome.

that's what charges are for!  :D

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAs for fleeing... again, unless the RC/Red Box changed stuff a lot, if the PCs are wearing metal armor virtually 75% of the monsters will be faster than they. At least if you play encumbrance BTB.

That's one of the consequences of wearing heavy armor.  Also, not every monster desires to pursue.  At least a few will be perfectly happy to simply eject intruders from their home.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityMoldvay isn't, and the combat example is unclear IMO.

Shit, I need to clear this up. I would hate if it's only one action/round. You run up to the goblin, whereupon he hits you. Awesome.

Moldvay is pretty clear in the combat sequence on B24.  The only restriction given on movement is that figures engaged in melee can only move defensively and spell casters can't move and cast spells in the same round.

RC is contradictory wrt movement and combat.  There are two different rules in the combat chapter.

I find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants. :D

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants. :D

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

Cool.

I wonder if some bright spark who doesn't realise whom they're responding to will wade in and flame Mentzer for daring to suggest such a thing. That'd be priceless.

Hilarous!
Still, the five-foot step doesn´t make sense if you can move anyways.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI find that combat example clear as mud, but I'll go read it a third time. Meanwhile, confusion reigns at Dragonsfoot as Frank Mentzer joins the fray and suggests daring rules variants. :D

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=464098#464098

The page I cited was the rule, not the example.  The example seems to gloss over quite a bit of what's going on, and the DM seems to be making some spot rulings, which is cool, but it doesn't explain the rules very well.  The rules themselves are pretty clear and consistent, so I'd use them as a basis for interpretation...and Moldvay doesn't have the 5' step rule, so it sidesteps that question, as well.

I don't have any of the Mentzer stuff anymore, though, and it seems you might be using that version?  I don't remember how combat was presented in those books.  The Cyclopedia's good as a quick reference, but seems to have lots of errata and omissions.  It's funny how every edition of this game has so many little differences that are quite surprising in their implications.

Moldvay doesn't have 5 foot steps.  You can do a fighting withdrawal at 1/2 your movement.  Any more than that and you're retreating and the enemy gets a bonus to hit you -- and you don't get an attack against them!

Quote from: KenHRThe page I cited was the rule, not the example.  

Oh right, the combat sequence. Sorry. I think that can be taken either way, though--one action or two. It's simply mum on the issue. It tells you in which order to do things but not how many of them.

Put differently, I *know* it's move AND act, but if some player/GM disagrees I couldn't point to a passage to prove it.

You´d be amazed at how much more survivable and tactical-movement enhancing move OR attack is in actual play.
EDIT @fleeing: you attack, make a five foot step. Win initiative and run away. Goblins have to take a run action, until you screw up your movement AND initiative. You can keep running till you are out of the dungeon, provided the path is known and clear. Makes for dramatic chases!

Alas, it seems to be a non-canonical exegesis, so I´m a heretic already.

Quote from: SettembriniYou´d be amazed at how much more survivable and tactical-movement enhancing move OR attack is in actual play.
EDIT @fleeing: you attack, make a five foot step. Win initiative and run away. Goblins have to take a run action, until you screw up your movement AND initiative. You can keep running till you are out of the dungeon, provided the path is known and clear. Makes for dramatic chases!

I see pretty much the same effect in the Hero System using half-moves and full moves.  So you can get the same thing with half-move and attack or full move, too, in my experience.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh right, the combat sequence. Sorry. I think that can be taken either way, though--one action or two. It's simply mum on the issue. It tells you in which order to do things but not how many of them.

Put differently, I *know* it's move AND act, but if some player/GM disagrees I couldn't point to a passage to prove it.

I see where you're coming from.  I wargame a lot, and the accepted wisdom in rule interpretation in that branch of the gaming hobby is "if the rules don't explicitly prevent you from doing action X, you can do it."  That's the approach I take when interpreting rules in RPGs, as well.  It reduces headaches (and rules verbiage) dramatically.

So the sequence says players can move their full rate in combat.  It says they can then attack.  The only prohibition mentioned on movement and combat has to do with those already in melee (defensive move or retreat only) and those engaged in spellcasting (no movement).  If there was a similar prohibition on making a full move followed by an attack, it would have been similarly mentioned.  Since it's not prohibited, it is allowed.

From Mike's blog. Hi Mike! :incrediblehulk:

I'm creating the maps for H1, plotting out a couple dungeon levels, encounter maps, and a few other things. It's been fun. While H1 is far from a mega-dungeon, I've tried to incorporate at least some sense that the PCs can wander around the dungeon, exploring different sub-sectors and having a really different experience based on what they do.

The really nice thing is that there isn't much of a sense of an XP grind in 4e. You can pretty much tackle the encounters in almost any order, though if you hit tougher ones first you'd better consider heading back to the surface to rest rather than press on. I intentionally set one really tough fight near the entrance, giving the PCs a chance to find themselves in far more trouble than they wanted.

The question for you now is, if you ever play this adventure, which of the passages from the first room leads to the deadly encounter?

I instantly thought, hmm, should i go to page 156 or 43? Hee, hee! I think i have to get City of Thieves out! :D