Quote from: StuartHow do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

How does nature know that a mutation is going to be adaptive or maladaptive?  It doesn't until it's tested against its environment.  The difference, if you want to nit-pick the analogy, is that the designer is trying to anticipate what might succeed while random mutations don't.  There is no guarantee that their predictions will be right, though.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerIt's not merely a suggestion.  Several WOTC employees playing the new edition in-house flat-out said that this is required.

But the actual thrust of the adventure/campaign? Basically drop in new stat blocks seemed to work well with 1e/2e to 3e.  Whether such a thing constitutes a mule or not is left as a futile exersize to self-loathing readers.

Quote from: blakkieBut the actual thrust of the adventure/campaign? Basically drop in new stat blocks seemed to work well with 1e/2e to 3e.  Whether such a thing constitutes a mule or not is left as a futile exersize to self-loathing readers.

Correct.  But there are hints that it will be even more difficult with 4e because the entire way encounters are structured, the roles of the characters in the party, and the balance between characters and encounters at various power levels will all change substantially in 4e.  

Yes, 3e required some new stat blocks and maybe some rebalancing of encounters to convert a module.  How much will a person have to change to run it in 4E and at what point does it stop being D&D?  One can convert a D&D module GURPS but the effort requires simply emphasizes the fact that GURPS isn't D&D.  Clearly, D&D 3e was more different from earlier editions than they were from each other but is 4e going to be about as different from 3e as 3e was to earlier editions or is it going to be a lot more different like GURPS is.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But there are hints that it will be even more difficult with 4e because the entire way encounters are structured, the roles of the characters in the party, and the balance between characters and encounters at various power levels will all change substantially in 4e.  

Yes, 3e required some new stat blocks and maybe some rebalancing of encounters to convert a module.  How much will a person have to change to run it in 4E and at what point does it stop being D&D?  One can convert a D&D module GURPS but the effort requires simply emphasizes the fact that GURPS isn't D&D.  Clearly, D&D 3e was more different from earlier editions than they were from each other but is 4e going to be about as different from 3e as 3e was to earlier editions or is it going to be a lot more different like GURPS is.

So far it looks to me like a smaller step than 2e->3e (you don't get total rethinking of AC numbers, attacks, saving throws like there was with that step) but a bit bigger step than 1e->2e.  Not much bigger though, mostly re-orging stuff within the classes that means you rebuild the character sheet in the spirit of the old (so sorry if you've got a Gnome, you'll have to home-roll until someone bring out the Gnome later in the year). Yeah there is this new type of trap but that's an optional addition to the dungeon toolkit, not a substitution/replacement.

You'll have a bit of power shuffle with the levels. But 2e to 3e was a pretty big change there, I don't think you'll see quite as much here.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

I thought of that when I wrote my post, but...eh. Whether he's #2 or #32, commenting on a public forum about what a competitor is doing wrong with his product generally tends to make the publisher doing the commenting look...well, like it's sour grapes, that he's arrogant, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: blakkieSo far it looks to me like a smaller step than 2e->3e (you don't get total rethinking of AC numbers, attacks, saving throws like there was with that step) but a bit bigger step than 1e->2e.  Not much bigger though, mostly re-orging stuff within the classes that means you rebuild the character sheet in the spirit of the old (so sorry if you've got a Gnome, you'll have to home-roll until someone bring out the Gnome later in the year). Yeah there is this new type of trap but that's an optional addition to the dungeon toolkit, not a substitution/replacement.

Yeah, you'll have a bit of power shuffle with the levels. But 2e to 3e was a pretty big change there, I don't think you'll see quite as much here.

Perhaps this is where the disagreement arises (and why seeing James M's viewpoint would have been interesting to me, anyway) - a difference of opinion as to how much it differs.

I look at something like Living Greyhawk - and they decided it was way too much to convert.  Now they had the experience of going, IIRC, from 2e to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 and the sense was this was at least as major an undertaking. That seems to me to be a pretty significant indicator of how much of a change is coming. There are a cumulative set of little things that, taken together, seem to be pretty large to me, but may seem meaningless to someone else. And then you take into account J Arcane's entry point issue, and you're all over the board on how much it seems a change to each person.

To John's point, there's no question the game is changing - identifying in exactly what ways could help determine, for different people, how much 4e is still D&D. Towards that end, I propose two Kingdom's of change - Setting and Rule, and within each a Phylum of Conceptual and Mechanical. For example, going from THAC0 to the current system (10 + Armor versus Roll + BAB + modifiers) was a Rule change that was a significant [/I]conceptual[/I] change, but not a significant mechanical change.

Quote from: SeanchaiI thought of that when I wrote my post, but...eh. Whether he's #2 or #32, commenting on a public forum about what a competitor is doing wrong with his product generally tends to make the publisher doing the commenting look...well, like it's sour grapes, that he's arrogant, etc..

Are you OK? Have you fallen, bumped your head, and forgotten where you are? :haw:  This place is wall to wall with that. With comments on competitors that are a lot closer in scale.

Although maybe I haven't been taking enough notice of that. *shrug*

Quote from: Consonant DudeI think Seanchai's point has merit. James might be seen by some as an author badmouthing a rival. But I find James interesting and nothing says the impact of him sharing his opinion might not have the opposite effect and create a positive vibe for some potential consumers.

Yeah. Some folks won't care. For example, I, personally, will buy GMS' products if I think they're interesting despite thinking he's an arrogant, clueless blowhard. What the company and its representatives say matters more to others, to the point where they say they'll boycott the company or raise a stink.

And since the Internet is forever...

Seanchai

Quote from: John MorrowThe difference, if you want to nit-pick the analogy, is that the designer is trying to anticipate what might succeed while random mutations don't.  There is no guarantee that their predictions will be right, though.

Using the above quote as a jumping off point, another element of our sense of "evolution" is continuity. Perhaps one thing that rankles about 3e and now even more 4e is that the process is seemingly top-down and anti-democratic, "creationist" if you will, compared to the development of earlier editions and even other games. In those, you had incremental rules changes introduced both by publisher & fans, then tested by the widespread community, incorporated in the culture, and then eventually rolled up into a new benchmark edition.

Quote from: James J SkachI look at something like Living Greyhawk - and they decided it was way too much to convert.  Now they had the experience of going, IIRC, from 2e to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.5 and the sense was this was at least as major an undertaking.

You do not remember correctly. Living Greyhaw started with 3e. And trying to steer that ship through anything other than minor bits would be madness. I remember it took them months to sift through and OK which Sword & Fist feats to allow, and that's just adding them. Trying to 'reimagine' characters, even when the classes do basically the same task? With all those certs? On a system that people haven't played with yet so don't understand? Aieeeeeeee.

I remember that at the start of Living Greyhawk when the regions were being set up there were people that didn't understand how the rules would function. One region started out with a slough of undead based adventures because they had this fear of the Rogue's SA, they thought it was going to be all unbalanced (or didn't like that it wasn't the PITA to use/adjudicate Backstab) so they basically tried to backdoor changing the rules.

In my region the S&M pricks running the show (several hundred miles away incidentally) decided they wanted death to be permanent. So they contrived this "nobody in our region believes Divine magic comes from gods, so there are no clerics high enough to cast Raise Dead". Now imagine such irrational and/or unfounded fears unleashed, or players that don't yet understand the system being told their new character is 'X'.

You don't need much change to turn a Living campaign into a vast clusterbang of hate email.

QuoteFor example, going from THAC0 to the current system (10 + Armor versus Roll + BAB + modifiers) was a Rule change that was a significant [/I]conceptual[/I] change, but not a significant mechanical change.

So far I'm actually seeing not so much conceptual change outside this 'dangerous environment in combat'. And perhaps more fluid Skill use (but that's only hinted at so far, outside of seeing a reduced Skill list and less granularity in the level of individual Skills).

Quote from: blakkieYou do not remember correctly. Living Greyhaw started with 3e. And trying to steer that ship through anything other than minor bits would be madness. I remember it took them months to sift through and OK which Sword & Fist feats to allow, and that's just adding them. Trying to 'reimagine' characters, even when the classes do basically the same task? With all those certs? On a system that people haven't played with yet so don't understand? Aieeeeeeee.

My apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

I was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

From my limited exposure to Living Greyhawk, I think they did a pretty damn good job of running a campaign. But that's the RPGA - directly answerable to Wizards - and as I said, even they decided it would be too difficult, for both rules and non-rules reasons, to do a conversion from 3.5 to 4e.

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

I was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

From my limited exposure to Living Greyhawk, I think they did a pretty damn good job of running a campaign. But that's the RPGA - directly answerable to Wizards - and as I said, even they decided it would be too difficult, for both rules and non-rules reasons, to do a conversion from 3.5 to 4e.

LG Eventually got (most of) it right, but there were pockets of people who really saw it as their private gaming club and treated their regions like personal fiefdoms. That attitude has now been noted and identified as a bad thing.

For me the tipping point was the Kobold controversy. That was what got me to apply. And I bet the kobold controversy has a lot to do with why LG was dropped in favor LFR.

What the kobold controversy was- in short, the last hurrah of the folks who wanted to see the RPGA as a private club, rather than as an inclusive promotional organization.  

By last year, the RPGA had found it's place as an organized fan club for general players of D&D. LG was hands-down the most popular campaign at conventions..ever. And we had an organized way to serve  content up to players, and even allow them to run games at home. In fact, you can even run your general D&D campaign at home, and 'report it' and get RPGA points, (which eventually gets you free stuff).

 That was the real goal... and it more or less got there in certain areas of the country. And WOTC in turn was using the RPGA as a channel for promotion, as they should have been doing all along.

Well, last year, they produced a rewards card that allowed certain people to use the kobold as a playable character race in LG. This card was a promotional item for Races of the Dragon.

In some places, a few local RPGA warlords decided they would not allow it in their region, or they would make it so restrictive that anyone who dared use it would be very very sorry. They were confused, because they actually thought they had the right to do this. This was like a case of federalism vs states rights, but the states in this case were abusing the rights of the citizens.

So the kobold controversy wasn't really about kobolds at all, but about what the RPGA actually stood for and was meant to do.

Anyhow, finally WOTC had to flex its muscle, emails were sent, private conferences held, and a week or two later, the areas that tried to ban the card had reversed their decisions.

Ok, so the end of the story: nobody is confused any more about who is running the RPGA.

Now personally, I'm glad. I loved LG, but I'm ready for the sunset. I think a lot of people who had risen to important positions in their various regions in LG need to be gone. I think a few people were and are confused about who they are working for, and they were confused about their relationship to the players. LFR will not be like that.

The truth is, most people who come to the RPGA are really just looking for a way to play the game they bought (and not the expurgated/filtered/house-ruled version, but the actual game) with a large group of new people.  Thats it, and thats all it is. They don't really care about the RPGA, and that's totally fine. A general guy that wants to play D&D--thats the target audience, as far as I'm concerned. I see the RPGA as possibly holding the key component for a new type of organized fandom and I look forward to taking part in shaping the new era.

Quote from: jrientsSuppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is!  This is the new D&D!"  

That'd work wonders for the gamer funk that cloyingly lingers throughout Origins and Gen Con.

Quote from: StuartIf you weren't looking at the books or character sheets, and instead just watching a group of people playing the game -- would it still be recognizable as D&D?  More than the other fantasy themed games?

I think that's a very valid point. I should ask one of my friends who only played AD&D 1e to sit in on a 4th edition D&D game, but tell him it's the new Palladium or something. It'd require a lot of photocopying so there was no books, but I wonder if he's recognize the game ad D&D. Interesting point you've brought up, Stuart.


I can't believe the OP is still gone. Someone punch him in the stomach to make his balls descend so he can come back and play in the sandbox with the rest of us.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies, I was mixing Living City and Living Greyhawk.  Though this article shows why...Living City players did vote to convert from 2e to 3e and it was no small headache - admittedly not necessarily only for 2e to 3e reasons...

No small headache is quite the understatement. "It would prove to be incredibly daunting and helped to speed the campaign's decline."  "It was a logistical behemoth." In short a VERY bad idea that the RPGA probably learned from.

QuoteI was mixing them up because the topic is being bandied about in various RPGA/LG Yahoo Groups, for obvious reasons. And I recall that people were talking about the huge shift it was just to go from 3.0 to 3.5.

Yeah, a tiny step in the rules (much smaller than 1e->2e) translates a huge shift for a, what, a 2 year-old Living campaign?  Now 7ish years in?

Quote from: blakkieNo small headache is quite the understatement. "It would prove to be incredibly daunting and helped to speed the campaign's decline."  "It was a logistical behemoth." In short a VERY bad idea that the RPGA probably learned from.

So what this suggests to me is that the OD&Ds and AD&Ds were similar and similar to each other because material could often be used with little or no translation between them.  3e was a fairly major divergence from those earlier editions because it changed quite a bit -- the attribute range, feats, class abilities, monsters set to CR levels, etc.  So D&D 3e is already a substantially different game, which explains the early edition fan groups and retro rules.  Yet there are also obvious similarities -- the classes, many monsters, characteristics, many spells, etc.  So I guess the next thing to look at is why the changes in 3e didn't break the feel of D&D for the people who do expect 4E to break that feel.

So far, the areas of complaint seem to be:

• Changes to the lethality (particularly at lower levels).
• The introduction of MMORPG concepts into characters and combat.
• Changes in the role of certain character classes in combat.
• An emphasis on rules to resolve traps
• Inclusion of the Tiefling as a core race.

Anything else?  These things seem to either break an important part of the feel of D&D for people or add something that doesn't feel like D&D to people.