Quote from: HaffrungCare to make a rational rebuttal? How are the people complaining about 4E, and who presumably won't play it, any different from the folks who didn't buy into 3E?

Okay, sunshine...since you so sweetly asked, I'll rise to the bait. The people complaining about 4e are different from the folks who didn't buy into 3e because of the issues of meta-setting, planar cosmology, and game mechanics. :pundit:

When they designed 3e, it was in many ways, a different game. The Dragonsfoot grognards have some legitimate complaints about compatibility issues and speed of play. But you can still play the same fantasy game if SOME core rules are still there, and if meta-setting remains mostly intact. 3e changed many rules, but the meta-setting and planar cosmology were largely intact, so we can say that 3e is still D&D.

If 4e drastically changes BOTH the meta-setting AND the game mechanics, it makes it into an entirely different game. You can possibly change one of these things, but if you change both, you've got nothing left.

Now do you see the difference? I could point out every little thing that makes 4e so different from all other versions of D&D, but do you really want me to write five to ten pages of how all the little changes to meta-setting, planar cosmology, and game mechanics make it into something else?

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesHmmm, well maybe the "feel" of 3e will still be possible in 4e? In the modules, at least.

That remains to be seen. But if gameplay becomes as clinical as the designers are making it sound, I have my doubts.

No death effects? Beholders that gradually turn you to stone? That represents a deference to a sort of player entitlement that wasn't there in the sink-or-swim old school days.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf 4e drastically changes BOTH the meta-setting AND the game mechanics, it makes it into an entirely different game. You can possibly change one of these things, but if you change both, you've got nothing left.

So in the late 70s and early 80s, the people who house ruled their AD&D games and ignored what their was of the meta-setting (i.e., Greyhawk), weren't actually playing D&D? Basic D&D isn't D&D?

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiCan you give me some examples?

Seanchai

Everyone has kewl powerz!1!! for one thing.  The descriptions of the monsters I've seen for another.    The WoW-ization of the classes and monsters.  The whole "evil is da cool" thing with Tieflings and Warlocks as core classes.  The whole D&D Insider/subscription aspect.  A constant lack of respect from the PR department for previous versions of the game.  Completely changing how rules / meta-setting work from the previous versions of the game...Need I go on?

I know some of you think some of us are insane for seeing the connections between WoW and what is being presented as 4e, but for some of us, it is blindingly obvious.

Quote from: WarthurHold up, Pundit: you've stated on your blog that your favourite version of D&D is the Rules Cyclopedia, that you played a bit of 3.0 but never made the leap to 3.5, and that a clear majority of your D20 game involved games other than D&D. I'll accept that you bought into D20, but I wouldn't call that buying into 3E - at most, I'd say you bought into it for a bit, decided that you preferred RC D&D, and reverted to that, a bit like one of your hypothetical D&D-playing Swine might try 3.0 for a bit, decide it wasn't for them, and go back to 2E.

I bought into 3e as a good and necessary concept, not necessarily as My Favourite RPG.  I assumed that's what the original poster was talking about when he referred to "buying in" or not, that he was asking what the diff was between the people who are abjectly refusing to support the move to 4e now and those who abjectly refused to move to 3e then.

RPGPundit

I'll say something else:

The whole move to 4e the way its being played out in both the system and the PR is based on two fundamental ideas:

1. Its important and necessary that our new game appeal as much as possible to people (especially younger people) who don't currently play D&D.

2. The existing D&D fans will buy whatever we put out anyways.

I think #1 is indeed a good and essential point, though you can debate about whether the particular things WoTC is doing as far as its system and marketing are what will bring the new young players in or not; but the fundamental idea is sound.
I think that #2 might be a terrible mistake at worst, and even at best its a really stupid attitude to take that will guarantee losing some people just because of that attitude.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SeanchaiSo in the late 70s and early 80s, the people who house ruled their AD&D games and ignored what their was of the meta-setting (i.e., Greyhawk), weren't actually playing D&D? Basic D&D isn't D&D?

Seanchai

In basic D&D, MOST of the game mechanics and MOST of the meta-setting is intact. The meta-setting for both games aren't identical, but they're similar, and the rules are also similar. I can't answer this properly because I'd have to dig out my books, and they're buried under a pile of junk in my room, but the basics are the same. AC is functionally the same (whether it's negative or positive), fighters don't regenerate, Vancian magic is intact, there are nine spell levels, part-demons and part-angels are not core races, clerics don't heal their allies when they strike an opponent, fighters don't inflict damage when they miss with an attack, and there's other stuff as well.

I think Basic D&D has elementals, undead, and the like, though I don't know if it goes into detail on where they're from. Also, I think the books acknowledge that you can have a pantheon of gods that can have an effect on the world. But you know what? The important thing is this:

You can easily convert Basic D&D and AD&D back and forth with little trouble. That's what matters most.

I'd also like to mention that this conversation is not about house-ruled campaigns. Any game system can be house-ruled. If you wanna house-rule your game, and call it D&D, who am I to stop you? :confused:

The various editions shared a certain reality, and a common language between gamers. I think that's about to change. 4e is not going to have the commonalities that Basic D&D and the other editions shared. If that's true, then that makes me sad.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIn basic D&D, MOST of the game mechanics and MOST of the meta-setting is intact. The meta-setting for both games aren't identical, but they're similar, and the rules are also similar.

Really? Where is Karameikos in Greyhawk? Where's it mentioned in AD&D?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAC is functionally the same (whether it's negative or positive), fighters don't regenerate, Vancian magic is intact, there are nine spell levels, part-demons and part-angels are not core races, clerics don't heal their allies when they strike an opponent, fighters don't inflict damage when they miss with an attack, and there's other stuff as well.

Dwarves, Elves and Halflings work differently. Weapons work differently. There are new combat considerations. New rules. And so on.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambYou can easily convert Basic D&D and AD&D back and forth with little trouble. That's what matters most.

What does my 3rd level Elf from D&D become in AD&D? And how about my 5th level Gnome Illusionist from AD&D?

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI'd also like to mention that this conversation is not about house-ruled campaigns. Any game system can be house-ruled. If you wanna house-rule your game, and call it D&D, who am I to stop you?

Your argument is that by changing the rules, it's not D&D anymore. House ruling is, as you know, changing the rules.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgantsEveryone has kewl powerz!1!! for one thing.  The descriptions of the monsters I've seen for another.    The WoW-ization of the classes and monsters.  The whole "evil is da cool" thing with Tieflings and Warlocks as core classes.  The whole D&D Insider/subscription aspect. A constant lack of respect from the PR department for previous versions of the game.  Completely changing how rules / meta-setting work from the previous versions of the game...Need I go on?

Yes.

You said, "What Grubman is saying, and I agree with, is that 4e is being designed mostly to appeal to new players - at the expense of alienating current ones." What I'm looking for is not a list of changings that are being made, but evidence of a design - conscious intent - to alienate old players. What you've done is given me a list of things that may appear in 4e that you don't like.

Quote from: jgantsI know some of you think some of us are insane for seeing the connections between WoW and what is being presented as 4e, but for some of us, it is blindingly obvious.

Personally, I don't care about WoW. I don't give a flying fuck in what ways 4e and WoW are alike or different. I don't play WoW. I don't care if 4e plays like WoW. I have no idea why I or anyone else would care.

So, no, I don't think you're insane for seeing connections between the two.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiReally? Where is Karameikos in Greyhawk? Where's it mentioned in AD&D?

I don't remember Karameikos very well. But you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

Quote from: SeanchiDwarves, Elves and Halflings work differently. Weapons work differently. There are new combat considerations. New rules. And so on.

The game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy. :cool:

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat does my 3rd level Elf from D&D become in AD&D? And how about my 5th level Gnome Illusionist from AD&D?

Translate them as is. If you use a Basic D&D Elf in AD&D, just say it's a variant elven race. If you use the Gnome Illusionist in Basic D&D, just say he's an anomaly. Translating them is child's play.

Quote from: SeanchaiYour argument is that by changing the rules, it's not D&D anymore. House ruling is, as you know, changing the rules.

Seanchai

No. My argument is that if you DRASTICALLY change both the META-SETTING and the GAME MECHANICS, then it isn't D&D any more. MAYBE you can drastically change one of these things, but not both, or else the game becomes something else. D&D has always had the following as core rules:

1.) Fighters have no supernatural powers.

2.) D&D uses a Vancian magic system.

3.) There are nine spell levels.

4.) D&D is saturated with magic (though 1e grognards might not want to acknowledge this). :haw:

5.) It also, of course has things like elves, dwarves, and halflings as races, and classes , and levels. There's a hit point and armor class system to deal with combat.

To be honest, I don't remember how the planar cosmology for Basic D&D works. But otherwise, the game mechanics and meta-setting assumptions for Basic D&D are very similar to AD&D.

AC, hit points, weapon damage, Vancian spell system, monsters, and more are mostly interchangeable between the two games, so the game mechanics are different, but close enough.

The meta-setting of the two games is close enough. Because we have basically the same technology level, similar forms of magic, and many of the same monster types running around, we'll have a similar implied setting. So we're good there too. Basic D&D still passes the sniff test. Will 4e? Time will tell...:raise:

P.S. I'm not saying that a game of Basic D&D is the same experience as AD&D. There are differences. But we can still identify Basic D&D as D&D because of the qualities they share.

-4e is gonna be different. But not as different as everyone thinks or as the developers claim.

-Even then, 4e won't be for everyone, especially people who really liked the previous edition.

-The internet will exist as a conduit or fans of the older stuff to get together and complain about "that thing that killed the real D&D".
They should really find a new hobby.

-Asshole 4e fans will show up to mock them, needlessly, but then again they're assholes.
They should also find a new hobby.

-The internet will also serve as a place to keep their old and new school love alive with fellow fans who have gotten over the whole thing, and got down to making new ideas and spreading the love around.

-Water is wet.

-The sky is blue.

-PCs will continue to kill green meanies and loot their bleeding corpses for glimmering gold and shiny weapons. They will have an awesome time doing it.

Dare I say the last four points matter more to me than the other ones.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

I'm talking about the setting that came bundled in the rulebook.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambTranslate them as is. If you use a Basic D&D Elf in AD&D, just say it's a variant elven race. If you use the Gnome Illusionist in Basic D&D, just say he's an anomaly. Translating them is child's play.

I played 1e extensively and I think you're making a convenient argument.

For example, in Basic D&D, there are no races, only classes. Thus you can't take an Elf from D&D or put a Gnome with a class into D&D without modifying them extensively. Not what I'd call "easy" or "child's play."

Quote from: Sacrificial LambMy argument is that if you DRASTICALLY change both the META-SETTING and the GAME MECHANICS, then it isn't D&D any more.

Okay. What's "drastically"? I haven't seen anything about 4e that makes me think they're making "drastic" changes.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut otherwise, the game mechanics and meta-setting assumptions for Basic D&D are very similar to AD&D.

Except, again, they're not.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBut we can still identify Basic D&D as D&D because of the qualities they share.

When you conveniently get to select said qualities, sure.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI don't remember Karameikos very well. But you're talking about a specific campaign setting. The game is larger than any single campaign setting.

If the game is larger than any single setting, then when do you place so much stock in this "meta setting" argument of yours when that meta setting stems, almost exclusively, from Gygaxianisms and Greyhawk?

The meta setting of BD&D is nothing like that of AD&D.  Read the Immortal set to get a picture of just how different the BD&D cosmology is from AD&D's.  Here's an excerpt from the "Demon" entry on page 30 of the DM's guide to immortals:

" 'Demon' is a common term once applied to nearly all monsters -- including everything from gargoyles to dragons.  In the D&D game, a demon is an immortal who serves the Sphere of Entropy.  It dwells in its own place, one of the Outer Planes of Existence. ..."

That's just the merest tip of the iceberg of cosmological differences between BD&D and AD&D.  And they are both D&D.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe game mechanics are close enough. Ask any old 1e grognard how easy it is to use their old Basic D&D adventure modules for their AD&D campaigns. They'll tell you it's easy.

Yes, it's very easy to hand wave anything.  But though they are largely similar, there are still differences. For example: BD&D's Weapon Mastery system vs. AD&D's weapon proficiencies system.  Sure, a conversion can be made, but there is effort involved as they are not mechanically 1:1 equivalent.


EDIT: on preview, what Seanchai said.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhen you conveniently get to select said qualities, sure.

Although I don't always agree with the way Seachai goes about it, I think that's actually the crucial point right here.

People always have their individual ideas of what qualities make D&D recognizable as D&D and thus, everybody's idea of what's "too drastic" will be different.

For instance, someone mentions spell levels above. I don't personally give a shit if wizards have 9 levels of spells. In fact, a straight relationship between character level and spell level makes much more sense to me and to the newbies I've played with. So not only do I not see this as drastic, it's actually a welcome change *for me*.

And that's why I don't really buy the argument that the dev. team isn't "listening to the player base". I think they are but it's impossible to reconcile so many different viewpoints.

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd that's why I don't really buy the argument that the dev. team isn't "listening to the player base". I think they are but it's impossible to reconcile so many different viewpoints.

It's also important to understand that personal preferences are just that.

For example, one of the complaints made above is that "everyone will have kewl powerz!1!!" A game with kewl powerz!1!! is just what the public wants, however. Sure, a fraction of a fraction - those on message boards such as these - might not, but the majority of folks are just lined up to play the next Drizz't with the serial numbers filed off.

Seanchai