TheRPGSite

From the Wizards' Community (there (http://community.wizards.com/dnduk/blog/2010/02/18/red_box:_7_september_2010!)):

Quote from: Charles RyanI've just received the WotC solicitation for the Red Box, or more properly, the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game--the new starter version of D&D releasing this Autumn. If you've played D&D for a while, you probably recognize this cover and the "Red Box" moniker: They hearken back to the introductory boxed set in print in the early 80s, which launched many a gamer's game-playing career.

(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/dnduk/079f7b88ed5ec8ad256a7331921aa794.jpg)

Quote from: Charles Ryan(Compare this image to the one in my earlier post, and you might notice it's different. This one is literally the original cover, with only (as far as I can tell) the WotC logo as a change. The other one evoked this version, but had new art and a retro-styled 4E logo. Both came from official WotC sources, but this is what's on the solicitation, so I think it's the most accurate.)

So what do you get for your fifteen quid (the likely--but not yet official--UK price)?

• A 32-page players' book and a 64-page DM's book
• 2 sheets of tokens for PCs and monsters
• Cardstock character sheets and power cards
• A double-sided poster map
• 6 dice

Pretty standard fare for an introductory RPG boxed set, at a reasonable price. The box will get players from 1st to 3rd level (some internet sources are saying it only goes to 2nd, but that's not correct). It also includes solo play rules and a solo adventure, so a beginner can give it a spin without having to round up four friends just to get started.

The retro cover will only grace the first print run of this product; later print runs will have a more modern look that matches the style of the Essentials line products. This foray into the retro should make the Red Box attractive to the many millions of players who have fallen away from D&D over the years, but now have more spare time and money (and maybe game-playing-aged kids) and might like to re-enter the hobby they have such fond memories of. Alternatively, the limited initial run might make this version a sought-after collectors' item among current players. I hope WotC is printing a lot of them in the initial run!

Well, it's working for me (even though I started on the Blue Box predecessor to the original Red Box). I have a daughter who might just about be ready to start playing D&D, so I'm definitely going to give it a spin. What do you think--is the retro presentation a good way to get new and lapsed players into the game?

Comments? Reactions?

Quote from: Benoist;365034Comments? Reactions?

Oy.

It seems a mockery to me. Now maybe I'm wrong and they really are doing something with this that would strip 4e to the bone and make it into a game worthy of that mantle.

But take a look at the original:

(http://home.flash.net/~brenfrow/dd/dd-bbox.jpg)

Read the text there, about not needing no gameboard? Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it.

They removed that text. Also, mockery? Dude, it's a game.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365044They removed that text.

Did you really think that fact eluded me? It was the very first thing I looked for upon seeing the new cover. Hence my prior post.

QuoteAlso, mockery? Dude, it's a game.

And?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365046Did you really think that fact eluded me? It was the very first thing I looked for upon seeing the new cover. Hence my prior post.



And?

"Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it." - I interpreted that to mean you hadn't looked closely enough.

And, calling it a "Mockery" makes it seem like you're ranting.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365047And, calling it a "Mockery" makes it seem like you're ranting.

Really?  One word in a sentence, and you called that 'ranting.'  Perhaps you should look up the definiton of ranting because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Seriously, dude, you're reaching here.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365047"Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it." - I interpreted that to mean you hadn't looked closely enough.

No, hence my point of producing the original and highlighting text ON THE ORIGINAL for contrast.

The point I am alluding to is that while they may dress it up like the classic red boxed set, I doubt the will or ability of WotC to make a game that approximates it in spirit.

But I thought that mockery was a more succinct way to put that.

QuoteAnd, calling it a "Mockery" makes it seem like you're ranting.

Dude, considering your first post in reply to me upon arriving on these boards, I'll not be accepting your judgment about who is the ranter. Or, more accurately, your attempts to label me for reasons which I'm not exactly clear.

Quote from: Benoist;365034Comments? Reactions?

What levels does it cover? First I heard one through five, but now I hear just first and second.

Seanchai

Quote from: Drohem;365049Really?  One word in a sentence, and you called that 'ranting.'  Perhaps you should look up the definiton of ranting because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Seriously, dude, you're reaching here.

WotC releases a product with a retro-look and the first sentence he writes is "It seems a mockery to me." Granted, "Ranting" is not technically correct. Perhaps I should have used "Deriding".

In any case, it resembles an auto-slam.

Let me note, for the record, that it seems like a quick cash-grab by putting on a picture from a game that 4th Edition does not resemble, as far as mechanics go. They are probably counting on that image to bring in gamers who would never try 4th Edition.

But "mocking"? My whole point there is, it's a game, not a religion. Sorry, I just can't take the word "mocking" seriously, in this context.

I hate minis.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365055But "mocking"? My whole point there is, it's a game, not a religion. Sorry, I just can't take the word "mocking" seriously, in this context.

Ah, I get you now. It's not that you are trying to label me. It's that you don't understand that some uses of the word "mockery" don't imply that deliberate attempts to mock are occurring.

For reference, see definition #3 here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mockery

"3 a : a counterfeit appearance : imitation b : an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent imitation "

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365055WotC releases a product with a retro-look and the first sentence he writes is "It seems a mockery to me." Granted, "Ranting" is not technically correct. Perhaps I should have used "Deriding".

In any case, it resembles an auto-slam.

Let me note, for the record, that it seems like a quick cash-grab by putting on a picture from a game that 4th Edition does not resemble, as far as mechanics go. They are probably counting on that image to bring in gamers who would never try 4th Edition.

But "mocking"? My whole point there is, it's a game, not a religion. Sorry, I just can't take the word "mocking" seriously, in this context.

Seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about?  The OP asked for other members' opinions and Caesar Slaad offered his opinion on the subject.  Maybe his opinion is an 'auto-slam.'  So the fuck what?  How in the fuck do you make the connection of the use of the word mockery equating to religion?  What the fuck does that even mean?  Sorry, but I just can't take your stupid tirade about Caesar Slaad's use of the word mockery, and your wacky connection to religion, seriously.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365058Ah, I get you now. It's not that you are trying to label me. It's that you don't understand that some uses of the word "mockery" don't imply that deliberate attempts to mock are occurring.

For reference, see definition #3 here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mockery

"3 a : a counterfeit appearance : imitation b : an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent imitation "

Ah, sorry.

So what you mean, then, is that it counterfeits an AD&D-style product without (Probably) being an AD&D-style product - Certainly not in game mechanics. Granted, the setting may resemble an AD&D product, but I certainly do get your point and there is disconnect there.

...And this is why I don't often participate in "chancy" threads. I'm not good at social stuff.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365062Ah, sorry.

See, right there- I like you Narf. :)  A man who can acknowledge that he was off and apologize sincerely is a man in my book.

Quote from: Drohem;365065See, right there- I like you Narf. :)  A man who can acknowledge that he was off and apologize sincerely is a man in my book.

Thanks.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365043Read the text there, about not needing no gameboard? Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it.

When you look at the description, you see that there are, included in the box: 2 sheets of tokens for PCs and monsters, some cardstock character sheets and power cards, and a double-sided poster map.

That should answer your question right there.

I don't think it's intended as a mockery, but it sure illustrates my earlier point about how the game was earlier marketed as "products of your imagination", with straight reference as to how it is *not* a board game as a selling point, whereas the modern design aims at making the game more like a board game, or a CRPG, or like other media perceived to compete with TRPGs for the gamer's attention.

Which, IMO, again, is a losing strategy.

Quote from: Seanchai;365054What levels does it cover? First I heard one through five, but now I hear just first and second.

Seanchai

It's in the quoted text I posted. Charles Ryan says Level 1-3, debunking specific internet rumors that it only took characters to level two.

It's a mockery.

Quote from: The_Shadow;365120It's a mockery.

Quote from: Benoist;365074It's in the quoted text I posted. Charles Ryan says Level 1-3, debunking specific internet rumors that it only took characters to level two.

Sorry, I missed that. Then I say it's awesome! Hopefully, it's mediocre sales and the underwhelming number of new people it introduces to the hobby will silence some arguments for a while.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;365034(http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/dnduk/079f7b88ed5ec8ad256a7331921aa794.jpg)

Does that new box really say "For 1 or more beginning to intermediate players" where the original said 3?  Is expecting kids to have a real live friend or two too much to ask these days?

Quote from: John Morrow;365175Does that new box really say "For 1 or more beginning to intermediate players" where the original said 3?  Is expecting kids to have a real live friend or two too much to ask these days?

No, the idea is that the game comes with a solo-adventure, so you can start playing it before you gather a group later on. Just like in the original Red Box.

Quote from: John Morrow;365175Is expecting kids to have a real live friend or two too much to ask these days?

Well, if they're aiming it at the WoW crowd...

I feel about this the same way I'd feel about a remake of The Sound of Music in which Nazis brutally rape the Von Trapp children while Maria sings about how relieved she is that music is finally enjoyable, because everyone got it wrong before.

Thing is, I am afraid that at this point of the story anything WotC does will be met with hostility on the part of the people who doesn't like 4e. Which is quite sad, IMO, as I feel that they are comparing an actual product with a recollection of, not only another product (the former Red Box Set) but with the recollection of their youth when they met the game. And of course, memory is not objective so it's going to be the comparison between two products based only on the merits of each one, but a comparison between an actual product and an idealized remembrance.

No product can win against that one. So the question is a bit moot.

Quote from: Imperator;365189Thing is, I am afraid that at this point of the story anything WotC does will be met with hostility on the part of the people who doesn't like 4e. Which is quite sad, IMO, as I feel that they are comparing an actual product with a recollection of, not only another product (the former Red Box Set) but with the recollection of their youth when they met the game.

As they did with 4E from the start (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20071005a).

Quote from: Andy CollinsThe Ties that Bind

By Andy Collins

In August of 1981, my life changed forever because of a birthday present from my Uncle Ralph. I certainly didn't expect it at the time (nor, I'm sure, did Uncle Ralph), but it's safe to say that no single object has ever affected the course of my lifetime as much as that 9"x12" cardboard box with a picture of adventurers busting in on a dragon defending its piles of gold.

Months went by before the first time I actually played the game. Not only was I unaware of anyone else who played, I'd never even heard of it (or of roleplaying games in general) before opening up that box. Frankly, a youth of Monopoly and Risk just doesn't prepare you for Dungeons & Dragons. But I was already a diehard fantasy fan, having devoured The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings while classmates were still struggling on spelling tests. So I kept coming back to that little blue rulebook, trying to figure out how you could have a game without a board or playing pieces.

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/dnd_drfe_20071005a_keep.jpg)

Finally, I just decided that we'd stumble through and figure it out as we went along. So one Saturday I sat down to roll up characters with my brother Greg and our friend Kurt, and I led them through the Keep on the Borderlands. Those old character sheets have long-since crumbled to dust, but many of the names still linger in my memory -- Bard (the character's name, not his class...we didn't have the Player's Handbook yet), Garn, Pentegarn, Lester, Krylla ... these heroes and many more braved tunnels full of orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, skeletons, and -- of course -- a maze with a minotaur.

I remember that the adventure's rumor chart provided a (false) clue to the characters indicating that the goblins' shout of "bree-yark" meant "Hey, Rube!" which, to a 10-year-old in Olympia, Washington, was just as alien a phrase as it had been in the original Goblin language.

I remember the characters running into a (way out of their league) black dragon somewhere in the wilderness, which they managed to kill by strangling it with to a rope wrapped around its neck by the two talking ravens they'd encountered earlier ... well, it all made sense to us at the time.

Most of all, I remember nine hours of the day disappearing without any of us becoming bored, or getting hungry, or maybe even leaving the room at all. Whatever we'd stumbled through was enough to hook me (and my brother) for good.

Kurt played a few more times with us, but ultimately the game didn't stick to him the way it did to us. We don't hold it against him. But then, we also don't see him on a monthly basis like we do many of our other childhood friends who still play D&D with us.

Yeah, that's right -- I still game with folks who started playing with me 20 years ago (or more). That's one of the benefits of folks staying relatively close to home (and, I'd like to believe, of me running a kick-ass game). Greg, obviously, has been in my game since the beginning -- that's more than 26 years now. Brent joined us when we were in 5th grade together (late 1982). Greg recruited Viet and Marc in '83 or '84. I met Dennis in German class in 1987, and Kevin and Scott in '88 or so. (Until I joined WotC eight years later, they were "the new guys.")

While in college I had to make do with an entirely new group of gamers, but one of them followed me back home. Now I run a game for Neil, his childhood buddy Brian, his sister Lindsay, and her husband Mike. (That's right -- in this game, the woman brings her SO along, rather than the other way round. That's progress!)

Over the past eleven years, I've been fortunate enough to work around a whole pile of gamers, so the group's continued to grow steadily. Joe joined us shortly after I started at Wizards in 1996, and Chris not long after that. Jesse was bold enough to join us in '98 or so; at the time, he was a lowly editorial assistant with Dragon Magazine, but I like to think that our little group gave him the confidence to later become my boss. James Wyatt is the latest co-worker to join my now super-sized group (currently spanning three separate monthly games).

I met Gwendolyn through another D&D game. Of course, now she plays in my group as well. She's not the only significant other who games regularly with us these days -- we've come a long way since grade school -- so we also welcome Adrienne and Amber to our sessions.

Obviously, not every player from the old days is still around. Along the way we also had the pleasure of gaming with Charlie, Garon, Kyle, Michael (whose grandfather vouched for us when the Motel 6 in Spokane wouldn't rent to high-schoolers in town for our very first game convention), Dan (who crumpled up his character sheet and threw it across the room when the medusa petrified him -- but keep in mind he was only 10 or 11 at the time), Ken (the undisputed master of the deck of many things), and Robert ("Uh-oh, purple worm!"). Over the years, they drifted away socially, psychologically, or just geographically from the core group, but the group itself survived.

We've played Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun and Dragonlance, Planescape and Ravenloft. They've delved into just about every dark hole in the ground from the Tomb of Horrors to the Slave Pits of the Undercity. They've battled barbarians and beholders, destroyed demons by the dozen to steal the Wand of Orcus, eviscerated evil elves in Erelhei-Cinlu, and ganked giants of every flavor.

It didn't matter what the game was called -- Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Advanced, 2nd Edition, 2nd-with-Player's-Option-books, 3rd Edition, 3.5, "Andy's D&D/Alternity hybrid that nobody quite understands but let's keep playing anyway" -- it was always D&D, and it was always good.

(OK, except for that D&D Immortals boxed set. I think it was kind of metallic gold, but I've suppressed most of my memories of it. What was up with that thing, anyway?)

And now, we're playing 4th Edition. It's still D&D, and it's definitely good.

Twenty-six years ago, a simple cardboard box held my future inside. I'd like to think that next year a copy of the Player's Handbook will hold a similar secret for some lucky 10- or 12-year-old and that a quarter-century later, he or she might pen an essay just like this one.

I look forward to reading those words (or perhaps having them beamed directly into my cerebral cortex -- who knows?). I'll be 62 by then -- but of course, I'll still be running D&D games for all my friends!

Quote from: Windjammer;365192As they did with 4E from the start (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/drfe/20071005a).

Yep. And it saddens me.

Quote from: Windjammer;365176Just like in the original Red Box.

The second original red box.

Seanchai

Quote from: Imperator;365189Thing is, I am afraid that at this point of the story anything WotC does will be met with hostility on the part of the people who doesn't like 4e. Which is quite sad, IMO, as I feel that they are comparing an actual product with a recollection of, not only another product (the former Red Box Set) but with the recollection of their youth when they met the game. And of course, memory is not objective so it's going to be the comparison between two products based only on the merits of each one, but a comparison between an actual product and an idealized remembrance.

No product can win against that one. So the question is a bit moot.

While I do agree with the sentiment in general, I wouldn't say the question is moot.  Certainly, there is a large excluded middle who can, and will, suppress their nostalgia enough to critically compare both products, once it's released.  Yes, at this point in time, it's all speculation since most people don't actually have both products side-by-side to compare them.

Also, I think that WotC is sending mixed messages with this product.  They have gone to great lengths to tell the public that 4e D&D is not their fathers' or grandfathers' D&D anymore, yet they market a product that uses the exact same cover as the original game.  I would have much preferred that they market this red box concept for 4e D&D completely using the 4e D&D brand art, packaging, and format.

I don't need some old game or nostalgia to think 4e sucks.

I don't compare 4e to games I don't play.

I compare it to the one I do, 3e, and on that measure it's bollocks.

Quote from: Imperator;365189Thing is, I am afraid that at this point of the story anything WotC does will be met with hostility on the part of the people who doesn't like 4e. Which is quite sad, IMO, as I feel that they are comparing an actual product with a recollection of, not only another product (the former Red Box Set) but with the recollection of their youth when they met the game. And of course, memory is not objective so it's going to be the comparison between two products based only on the merits of each one, but a comparison between an actual product and an idealized remembrance.

You do have a point to some extent. I'm sure it's true of some people.

I'm saying to "some extent", because I think it's also a bit easy to put everyone who dislikes 4e for reason X or Y in the same basket and then claim "hey, that's just nostalgia, and you can't win against nostalgia".

You're forgetting that some of us here are still playing the games we're supposed to be nostalgic about. Point is, it's not nostalgia, it's not "idealized memory" or "rememberance", since we're playing these games right now. Jrients, Kellri, T Foster, Me, Stormbringer, Randall, dungeondelver, Akrasia, and the list goes on and on. We're all still using these games.

Quote from: Drohem;365234While I do agree with the sentiment in general, I wouldn't say the question is moot.  Certainly, there is a large excluded middle who can, and will, suppress their nostalgia enough to critically compare both products, once it's released.  Yes, at this point in time, it's all speculation since most people don't actually have both products side-by-side to compare them.

Also, I think that WotC is sending mixed messages with this product.  They have gone to great lengths to tell the public that 4e D&D is not their fathers' or grandfathers' D&D anymore, yet they market a product that uses the exact same cover as the original game.  I would have much preferred that they market this red box concept for 4e D&D completely using the 4e D&D brand art, packaging, and format.

Well, you may be right on this. Definitely is not a clear message.

But I also think that they got the wrong marketing strategy right from the start, as I can see how the more grognardy D&D gamers can feel alienated by 4e. I think that they should have focused their marketing strategy in a back to the roots move, where the main and most important aspects of D&D could be celebrated. A shame.

Quote from: Benoist;365248I'm saying to "some extent", because I think it's also a bit easy to put everyone who dislikes 4e for reason X or Y in the same basket and then claim "hey, that's just nostalgia, and you can't win against nostalgia".

You're forgetting that some of us here are still playing the games we're supposed to be nostalgic about. Point is, it's not nostalgia, it's not "idealized memory" or "rememberance", since we're playing these games right now. Jrients, Kellri, T Foster, Me, Stormbringer, Randall, dungeondelver, Akrasia, and the list goes on and on. We're all still using these games.

I was not talking about nostalgia, but about the natural and human resistance to change. Also, we simply cannot avoid look at our experiences at a younger age through a misty glas. That's how memory works, simply put. Attributing your disliking of D&D 4e to nostalgia is stupid, but thing is, resistence to change happens everywhere. It happens with music bands, film directors, writers, whoever you may think of. People tend to prefer the earlier products, as they carry the impact of the firts experience. And that's something very hard to recreate or to get better.

4e has not destroyed this hobby. This hobby is thriving like never before. We live a true Golden Age. The hobby we knew 20 years ago is dead, but 4e didn't kill it. It was time :) Simply time.

Quote from: Imperator;365273I think that they should have focused their marketing strategy in a back to the roots move, where the main and most important aspects of D&D could be celebrated. A shame.

Quote from: Imperator;365273The hobby we knew 20 years ago is dead, but 4e didn't kill it. It was time :) Simply time.

I agree, on both accounts.

Quote from: Imperator;365273I was not talking about nostalgia, but about the natural and human resistance to change. Also, we simply cannot avoid look at our experiences at a younger age through a misty glas. That's how memory works, simply put. Attributing your disliking of D&D 4e to nostalgia is stupid, but thing is, resistence to change happens everywhere. It happens with music bands, film directors, writers, whoever you may think of. People tend to prefer the earlier products, as they carry the impact of the firts experience. And that's something very hard to recreate or to get better.

I like Geist: The Sin Eaters and Wraith: The Oblivion.
I like The Masquerade and The Requiem.
Promethean: The Created is the most original of the new WoD games, and in part for this reason, I think it's the best of the series.

And that's not like I didn't have a good time with the Old World of Darkness games or couldn't anymore. I could and would.

I like OD&D
I like AD&D
I dislike 2nd ed AD&D
I like 3rd ed D&D
I dislike 4e D&D

I like Warhammer FRP
I like Warhammer FRP 2

I prefer the second edition of the Hawkmoon RPG to the first Edition.
My favorite edition of In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas is the 3rd.

I like Mongoose RuneQuest, but prefer RuneQuest III.
HeroWars and HeroQuest are an interesting, new, different spin on Glorantha, too.

So really, I don't think I suffer from "resistance to change".

I don't have anything against "change". I have something against "crap".

Quote from: Benoist;365248I'm saying to "some extent", because I think it's also a bit easy to put everyone who dislikes 4e for reason X or Y in the same basket and then claim "hey, that's just nostalgia, and you can't win against nostalgia".

Quite true. And of course, the opposite holds true -- some people find it way too easy to put everyone who likes 4e in a similar bucket. The shill bucket comes to mind, but there are others.

Quote from: Thanlis;365297Quite true. And of course, the opposite holds true -- some people find it way too easy to put everyone who likes 4e in a similar bucket. The shill bucket comes to mind, but there are others.

Only when that bucket applies.  When every mention of 4e brings out the uncritical hoard to sing the unrelenting praises, the label starts to make sense.

Quote from: StormBringer;365300Only when that bucket applies.  When every mention of 4e brings out the uncritical hoard to sing the unrelenting praises, the label starts to make sense.

Couldn't be because they enjoy it. No, not possible. It's solely to vex you.

Quote from: Thanlis;365297Quite true. And of course, the opposite holds true -- some people find it way too easy to put everyone who likes 4e in a similar bucket. The shill bucket comes to mind, but there are others.

Correct. I agree.

Quote from: StormBringer;365300Only when that bucket applies.  When every mention of OD&D brings out the uncritical hoard to sing the unrelenting praises, the label starts to make sense.

There, I fixed it for you. :p :D

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;365305Couldn't be because they enjoy it. No, not possible. It's solely to vex you.

Which is exactly what I posted in my response.  Thankfully, you were able to cut through my cunning encryption that most people would read as saying "When the shoe fits, wear it".

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365315There, I fixed it for you. :p :D

You know that is both incorrect, and unamusing.

Even the merest mention of the inability to comprehend that 4e just might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread brings everyone out of the woodwork to rally 'round the flag in defence.

Quote from: StormBringer;365338You know that is both incorrect, and unamusing.

Even the merest mention of the inability to comprehend that 4e just might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread brings everyone out of the woodwork to rally 'round the flag in defence.

We've had a number of people register on this site for that very purpose.

I think that sort of behavior goes a bit beyond casual enjoyment.

Quote from: StormBringer;365338Even the merest mention of the inability to comprehend that 4e just might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread brings everyone out of the woodwork to rally 'round the flag in defence.

Any problems or dislikes you have with 4e are all you.  You're doing it wrong.  Maybe if you stopped doing it wrong, you'd realize how great it is.  Anything you perceive to be a problem with the system is just you because you were predisposed to hate it.

Quote from: Peregrin;365359Any problems or dislikes you have with 4e are all you.  You're doing it wrong.  Maybe if you stopped doing it wrong, you'd realize how great it is.  Anything you perceive to be a problem with the system is just you because you were predisposed to hate it.

I'm sorry, but that remark doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you saying that 4e is *the* perfect game system?
Are you saying that anyone not liking 4e is playing badwrongfun?
Are you saying that any problem anyone has with any system is because of the person, and never the game system?

... I'm sorry. I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by this.

Quote from: Benoist;365364I'm sorry, but that remark doesn't make any sense to me.
Are you saying that 4e is *the* perfect game system?
Are you saying that anyone not liking 4e is playing badwrongfun?
Are you saying that any problem anyone has with any system is because of the person, and never the game system?

... I'm sorry. I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by this.

Woops.  Forgot my sarcasm tags.  :o

Sorry.

Oh sarcasm! I understand better now! :o
The post seemed so out of character, that's why I wondered, honestly! :)

Quote from: Peregrin;365359Any problems or dislikes you have with 4e are all you.  You're doing it wrong.  Maybe if you stopped doing it wrong, you'd realize how great it is.  Anything you perceive to be a problem with the system is just you because you were predisposed to hate it.

Yes, that is the general explanation I get.  I will strive to play it correctly from now on.

Bloody hell, Stormbringer.  Why do you arrogantly assume you know what you like better than the publisher's marketing team and the game's fans?

Old-schoolers and their unbridled arrogance make me SICK. :D

Quote from: Hairfoot;365371Bloody hell, Stormbringer.  Why do you arrogantly assume you know what you like better than the publisher's marketing team and the game's fans?

Not fans, zealots.

There are a number of 4E fans who are not 4E Zealots, and they do not take issue with people not liking a game that works well for them.

This is fascinating to watch!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365383This is fascinating to watch!

Speaking of 4E Zealots...
:rolleyes:

Quote from: jeff37923;365385Speaking of 4E Zealots...
:rolleyes:

If loving D&D is a crime, I guess I'm guilty!

Quote from: jeff37923;365385Speaking of 4E Zealots...

In fairness, AM's only here for the quote-mining potential.  Next time an edition war comes up expect him to quote post #37 of this thread, where Stormbringer explicitly says, "only...4E...makes sense".

Quote from: Peregrin;365057I hate minis.

I spoke with minis yesterday, and she says she doesn't even remember you.

Quote from: jeff37923;365380Not fans, zealots.

There are a number of 4E fans who are not 4E Zealots, and they do not take issue with people not liking a game that works well for them.

I find 4e fun.  But it's hardly my favorite RPG.  I've played with several groups over short spans (10-15 sessions) and it works well for that, but I've run into the issue of some people not liking it for long-term play, since it's very focused.  I'm on the fence, since I dislike minis quite a bit, but I find the game extremely easy to run as a GM.  The minis, to me, are a necessary evil in the experience.

I've also run into the issue of long-combats, with several groups, both with me in the GM chair and others, composed of people with differing levels of RPG experience.  The internet tells me I'm just crazy, though.  Or that the people I'm playing with are all retarded.  Depends on who I'm talking with.  

The conclusion I've come to is that there are some encounter builds that are prone to being "problem combats" that drag horribly, and I've seen other posts/accounts to justify this view.  It's not just the solo creatures either.  I'd ignore it, but with combat being such a central focus, it becomes an issue.

I'm sure they'll solve those problems with the next iteration.  And maybe create a few new ones.  I've seen no indication that this edition is any less prone to problems, it's just that the problems are different.  As always.

Quote from: Mistwell;365393I spoke with minis yesterday, and she says she doesn't even remember you.

Good.  She was a whore.

Quote from: Hairfoot;365371Bloody hell, Stormbringer.  Why do you arrogantly assume you know what you like better than the publisher's marketing team and the game's fans?

Quote from: Benoist;365377Old-schoolers and their unbridled arrogance make me SICK. :D

I know, I should just shut up and get with the program.

Quote from: Peregrin;365402The internet tells me I'm just crazy, though.  Or that the people I'm playing with are all retarded.  Depends on who I'm talking with.

Two from column A, one from Column B, and you get egg roll.

Quote from: StormBringer;365405Two from column A, one from Column B, and you get egg roll.

Er...what?

Quote from: Peregrin;365407Er...what?

Sorry, old Chinese Menu joke when presented with multiple non-related choices.  :)

Quote from: Peregrin;365402I've also run into the issue of long-combats, with several groups, both with me in the GM chair and others, composed of people with differing levels of RPG experience.  The internet tells me I'm just crazy, though.  Or that the people I'm playing with are all retarded.  Depends on who I'm talking with.  

The conclusion I've come to is that there are some encounter builds that are prone to being "problem combats" that drag horribly, and I've seen other posts/accounts to justify this view.  It's not just the solo creatures either.  I'd ignore it, but with combat being such a central focus, it becomes an issue

Try dividing all HP by 1.5

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365416Try dividing all HP by 1.5

I'm not talking about solos, most of them were errata'd, anyway.  It's a factor of both AC and HP, as well as the proliferation of temporary disabling status effects across nearly all levels of play.

*edit*

Plus, shouldn't you also bump either damage or the attack bonus to compensate, since creatures would presumably be around for less rounds (thus less damage output overall)?  Wouldn't want to make the fights too easy/predictable.

Quote from: Benoist;365282So really, I don't think I suffer from "resistance to change".

I don't have anything against "change". I have something against "crap".

Then I stand corrected on that. Now, for all that I care is totally OK that you think that 4e is a sack of crap and say it. Heck, as far as I'm concerned you could start all your posts saying "First thing first, I feel that 4e is shit."

Not liking a game, even with a fiery dislike, is OK in my book.

What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

As far as anyone here know with certain, factual data, D&D 4e is doing quite well. We don't know if it's the most successful edition ever, because I don't think that anyone has data from all the editions, adjusted by inflation. AND specially given that buying a game =/= playing the game. But as long as 4e sells, the game is doing well to the publisher.

D&D doing well is good for the hobby. 4e doing well is good for the OSR. Any game doing well is good for the hobby, because as long people play any game, there are increased chances that they will be interested in trying other games. The more options we have, the better, even if we don't like those options.

Thing is, from time to time I get the feeling from some old-schoolers that they would REALLY love for WotC to get back and re-publish some olden version of D&D or AD&D, and then that would be the best thing for the hobby and we would have unicorns and rainbows and shit.

That would be a disaster. You cannot take a bath in the same river twice.

OD&D was a lightning in a bottle, as it was Vampire. The following editions of D&D were a product of the times, and obviously with any edition the disconnect with the 'old fanbase' is going to grow bigger. Of course, you can launch something like the OSR and do well, because there's a lot of people looking back with love that will support you, and you will find some new people that will also dig the old style. But you're not getting back your former success, ever.

That's bad for YOU, but good for the HOBBY. The people who doesn't like the new style will keep playing their old stuff (no one is preventing me and my crew from kicking ass using the 'dead' long ago RQ III), and new people can get games designed according to the times they live in. Overall, the number of gamers increases.

Now, from a corporate POV, I think that probably WotC has made some mistakes. What I would have done: I would have launched 4e and simultaneously launched a Classic D&D ruleset, highly customizable, offerig options to make your game more Red Box, more OD&D or more AD&D, with adventures and settings compatible across the spectrum. And I would have provided plenty of space (via OGL or something) for third party publishers to create shit for the game, because that's marketing and sales for free anyway. Also, every 4e product would publicize the Classic line, and the Classic line would publicize the 4e, to encourage people to jump the fence and play all versions of D&D and celebrat them.

Yeah, I understand that's not how corporate minds work, but there you hve it: you may rally all D&D lovers under your flag, as you provide for everyone. It doesn't matter which version of D&D we're talking about, you cater to it and provide for it. Everyone wins.

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down.

I dunno about these guys, but I wouldn't say that.

Our hobby survived such dreadful games as Cyborg Commando, Rifts and Vampire, it can survive D&D4e.

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

That's a fair call - from a certain point of view.

I would argue that 4E has traduced the concept of RPGs to the point that D&D will be subsumed into the next generation of online games and ever after be dismissed as a redundant relic of a past era.

I also argue that D&D was previously a pastime marketed to and designed for adults, but this is no longer the case.  See my related rant here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=312050&postcount=34).  While a fair swodge of teenagers may get into 4E for a 5-year period,  it has sold its lifetime value down the river.

Those are the reasons I believe it is poisonous to the hobby as a whole.

Quote from: Peregrin;365417I'm not talking about solos, most of them were errata'd, anyway.  It's a factor of both AC and HP, as well as the proliferation of temporary disabling status effects across nearly all levels of play.

*edit*

Plus, shouldn't you also bump either damage or the attack bonus to compensate, since creatures would presumably be around for less rounds (thus less damage output overall)?  Wouldn't want to make the fights too easy/predictable.

I said "all", I meant all...Including the PCs. :D

Drop all Defenses by 2, give a +2 to all Saves...That's the thing about RPGs (Even 4e) - They're "Flavour to taste".

Quote from: Imperator;365420What really strikes me as very odd, to say the least, is the claim that somehow the fact that the latest edition of D&D is not to your liking is related to D&D being the pox that will brign the hobby you loved down. That's the ridiculous claim I don't get, and I frequently see it flung around, even by smart people like you, Stormbringer and others. And I feel that is a phenomenon amplified by the usage of Internet, because Internet makes everything distorted, specially how other persons play.

There is certainly an element of Internet distortion involved, but I would also point to the descent of the majority of furry fandom from mildly annoying to full blown furverts.  I am sure at the time, letting a few 'free spirits' hang out and talk about sex seemed like a good idea, but now furries are almost universally reviled because that small number spread and started drawing giant horse-people masturbating all over a village, and now that is what people think being a furry is all about - nearly to the point that adding anthropomorphic races to a game is almost courting disaster.

Similarly, when you start basing more and more of your rules around how the combat plays out on a battlemat, you are moving closer to D&D branded Heroquest, only somewhat more complicated.   Oh, and the mild suggestion that you pretend your plastic mini is doing things between combat, when you can speak in a funny voice and maybe buy a mule.  As Caesar Slaad mentioned early on: "Read the text there, about not needing no gameboard? Are they really going to so drastically alter the minis-and-grid centric 4e so it can live up to that statement again? I doubt it."

D&D and AD&D had a fair number of drastic differences, but the transition wasn't terribly difficult.  The biggest change, really, was that not all elves were automatically multi-classed.  For the new set, I can't see too many reasonable simplifications before they are too different to make an easy transition.  Drop the grid/battlemat?  All the powers have to be re-written.  Stick with the classic four races/classes?  The  4e balance is so delicate, it would require massive overhaul to re-balance for a simpler game.

I predict that when this new boxed set comes out, it won't be a simpler version of D&D, as it was in days gone by.  I predict it will be a more compressed version of D&D.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;365305Couldn't be because they enjoy it. No, not possible. It's solely to vex you.

Well...to be fair I actually DO play it for the sole purpose of vexing Stormbringer.

I actively recruit new 4E players, simply to vex the rest of you.

Not because I hate you all...mind...but simply because it's lonely all the way up here at the top and I just want you to know that I'm thinking about you!

Enjoy obsolescence! Cheers!

Quote from: StormBringer;365433There is certainly an element of Internet distortion involved, but I would also point to the descent of the majority of furry fandom from mildly annoying to full blown furverts.  I am sure at the time, letting a few 'free spirits' hang out and talk about sex seemed like a good idea, but now furries are almost universally reviled because that small number spread and started drawing giant horse-people masturbating all over a village, and now that is what people think being a furry is all about - nearly to the point that adding anthropomorphic races to a game is almost courting disaster.

Dude, that's not even remotely comparable. I find it quite absurd, truth be told.

We're talking about diferent playing styles, nothing more. I see how many people may not dig that a battlemat becomes mandatory, but comparing it with furry sex perversions is frankly off the mark.

QuoteD&D and AD&D had a fair number of drastic differences, but the transition wasn't terribly difficult.  The biggest change, really, was that not all elves were automatically multi-classed.  For the new set, I can't see too many reasonable simplifications before they are too different to make an easy transition.  Drop the grid/battlemat?  All the powers have to be re-written.  Stick with the classic four races/classes?  The  4e balance is so delicate, it would require massive overhaul to re-balance for a simpler game.

I predict that when this new boxed set comes out, it won't be a simpler version of D&D, as it was in days gone by.  I predict it will be a more compressed version of D&D.

Well, time will tell. I don't see how that should be a bad thing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365423I dunno about these guys, but I wouldn't say that.

Our hobby survived such dreadful games as Cyborg Commando, Rifts and Vampire, it can survive D&D4e.

Heck, it even survived Gurps and Basic Roleplay. Clearly it's resilient.

To hearken back to the OP's questions (and being horribly lazy to read the pages beforehand; sorry, out of town all weekend and all of that):

Eh.  Wizards trying to package their game [again] in a similar (yet even more limited) format smacks of laziness and a dearth of marketing ideas.  One wonders about the line itself due to their seeming attempt to make a grasp at the OSR crowd to sell their materials by relying upon nostalgia and warm fuzzies.

Note, I have zero opinion of 4th, wish them luck, and so on.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365435Well...to be fair I actually DO play it for the sole purpose of vexing Stormbringer.

I actively recruit new 4E players, simply to vex the rest of you.

Not because I hate you all...mind...but simply because it's lonely all the way up here at the top and I just want you to know that I'm thinking about you!

Enjoy obsolescence! Cheers!

Just remember, being "at the top" of a pile of shit just means you're sitting on a big pile of shit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365441Heck, it even survived Gurps and Basic Roleplay. Clearly it's resilient.

The hell is wrong with BRP?  It's the only ruleset I know of that's still relatively "clean" by modern standards.

Oh, and I'd say currently Exalted is one curse that won't go away.  At least on the internet.  I thought we'd be done with metaplot-heavy White-Wolf games by now with people getting all hot and sweaty over signature characters and impossible-to-beat NPCs, but apparently Exalted has to stick to being the last WW game to actively jack off to itself about how awesome it is.  It can be fun if you cherry-pick shit, but the line as a whole is just beyond ludicrous, both in terms of mechanics and fluff.

*edit*

Also, I think this thing goes a bit deeper than drawing on video-game tropes (something I consider to be an overstated complaint) or focus on the grid (3.x explicitly told you you needed a grid.  It's no more or less playable without a grid than 4e is, in terms of balance).  

I think the main problem is they chucked the baby out with the bathwater, even when they said "Yeah mom, I'll be careful!"  Multiple times, they said it, even when I didn't give a shit one way or the other.  It's like someone telling you that the new Battlestar Galactica is just a digitally enhanced version.  It's going to look better, it's going to sound better, but it's still the same show.  But that's most definitely not the case, even if the new show is, to some people, really good, or much better than the original.

Quote from: Imperator;365437Dude, that's not even remotely comparable. I find it quite absurd, truth be told.

Why is it absurd?  A small group with wildly different ideas about the fandom managed to turn the focus in an entirely different direction, and alter the perception as a whole at the same time.

QuoteWe're talking about diferent playing styles, nothing more. I see how many people may not dig that a battlemat becomes mandatory, but comparing it with furry sex perversions is frankly off the mark.

It's not a comparison, it's an analogy, and it isn't just a play style issue.  That would assume a fairly open-ended set of mechanics that promoted different play styles.As the focus becomes enmeshed in finer and finer details of the mechanics, so the overall experience becomes an increasingly complex board game.  No one really talks about the 'play styles' for Monopoly or Risk.  There may be different strategies, perhaps a house rule or two, but there is just the one play style, and that is what is contained in the rules for those games.  The interaction with the rules is strictly in relation to the pieces on the board, which is what happens when you restrict the allowable actions in the game to only that.  Which is what is being pointed out in these kinds of discussions; the more rules you have, the less room for creativity and 'outside the box' thinking.

Another analogy is Legos; as your design skill becomes more dependent on the specific shapes and outcomes that result from using Legos, the less able it becomes to envision smooth surfaces or rounded designs.  Everything is built in terms of 2x6 half blocks, or 2x4 stacks, starting at the bottom and building up.

Which isn't to say people are incapable of breaking out of that.  There are some amazing designs with Legos out there.  For the vast majority, however, it becomes a crutch which allows atrophy, until they are virtually unable to get started without it.  Especially with the proliferation of 'activity' sets, often licensed properties.  Like the comedian said, "I remember when you could build more than one thing with a set of Legos".

QuoteWell, time will tell. I don't see how that should be a bad thing.

Because it won't be an introductory set, like B/X was.  It will just be a more compressed version of 4e, meaning it won't be particularly easier to introduce players, and you will shell out (or more likely won't) $20 or whatever for essentially the same rules you already paid over $100 for.  B/X was a similar game to AD&D, but it was quite distinct nonetheless.  Groups could certainly run their B/X campaign on Saturdays and their AD&D campaign on Sundays, and you would really have two different campaigns going on.  If this new boxed set is just the 4e rules compressed into fewer pages, then you will have the same game going on two days in a row.  Why hand over $20 for a compressed set of rules to do that?

I like the new art and graphic design style exemplified by this new product:p

As Danger alluded to upthread, using the old art smacks of trying to appeal to old school farts who cried themselves to sleep with the original, rather than new blood.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365525As Danger alluded to upthread, using the old art smacks of trying to appeal to old school farts who cried themselves to sleep with the original, rather than new blood.

One thing I think gets forgotten is that most 4E fans are not simply newcomers, and many of us have been playing D&D far longer than the self identified "old schoolers".

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365597One thing I think gets forgotten is that most 4E fans are not simply newcomers,

I think that goes without saying.

Quoteand many of us have been playing D&D far longer than the self identified "old schoolers".

Have no idea about that one. '83 rules me out of this particular love-muscle measurement, i expect.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365598I think that goes without saying.



Have no idea about that one. '83 rules me out of this particular love-muscle measurement, i expect.

I have you by 5 years. Schwonngg!!!!!

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365599I have you by 5 years. Schwonngg!!!!!

Grandad! :D

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365597...and many of us have been playing D&D far longer than the self identified "old schoolers".

Complete self-serving bullshit.

Don't mark me as surprised, though, just pointing it out.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365599I have you by 5 years. Schwonngg!!!!!

Congratulations.  You prove that old people can be just as stupid as the young.

Course your love of 4e and dismissal of Basic Roleplaying are proof positive of that anyhow.

Quote from: Captain Rufus;365611Congratulations.  You prove that old people can be just as stupid as the young.

Course your love of 4e and dismissal of Basic Roleplaying are proof positive of that anyhow.

It all makes so much sense now.

I'd dismissed him as another mindless consumer whore, but that has nothing to do with it at all.  These are the desperate throes of an old man who still wants to be "with it", a sort of pathetic nerd version of the midlife crisis.  

He's Eugene Levy, but with all the humor replaced with Glenn Beck-like "true Scotsman" lunacy.

*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*

Don't mind me, just cutting a big block of irony out of this thread to remember it by.

Quote from: J Arcane;365613It all makes so much sense now.

I'd dismissed him as another mindless consumer whore, but that has nothing to do with it at all.  These are the desperate throes of an old man who still wants to be "with it", a sort of pathetic nerd version of the midlife crisis.  

He's Eugene Levy, but with all the humor replaced with Glenn Beck-like "true Scotsman" lunacy.

You must have had me on ignore.  I have been pointing that out for the last six months or more.  ;)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365614*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*

Don't mind me, just cutting a big block of irony out of this thread to remember it by.

If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy, you best fucking step up with some evidence, or shut the fuck up.

Leave the passive aggressive attacks for RPGnet.

Does it really hurt you guys that much that I like a game? That I love my gaming groups and my friends? I';m hardly the oldest person in the circles that I game in.

That would be this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huLLGTDTUnc

He's in his 70s.

I still say BRP can suck it.

EDIT: Do you guys want me to take more videos? There are now 108 names on the local LFR meetup. I can also do longer interviews on my Droid phone, now.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365618Does it really hurt you guys that much that I like a game? That I love my gaming groups and my friends? I';m hardly the oldest person in the circles that I game in.

That would be this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huLLGTDTUnc

He's in his 70s.

I still say BRP can suck it.

EDIT: Do you guys want me to take more videos? There are now 108 names on the local LFR meetup. I can also do longer interviews on my Droid phone, now.

Not really on topic, but I'm just wondering why you recorded a video of a guy's moobs. Oh, and BRP told me to tell you that you can "suck it" back.

Quote from: Sigmund;365619Not really on topic, but I'm just wondering why you recorded a video of a guy's moobs. Oh, and BRP told me to tell you that you can "suck it" back.

I didn;'t want to put peoples faces on the internet, especially considering I have at least one dedicated stalker and some of you guys are kinda textbook sociopaths.

But these are good people, these are the gamers that just dropped in, and had a good time, and are now part of the hobby.

These are the people you losers are shitting on. And they're better than just about any one of you. Even Mr. Whipple.

Quote from: J Arcane;365616If you're going to accuse me of hypocrisy, you best fucking step up with some evidence, or shut the fuck up.

Leave the passive aggressive attacks for RPGnet.

I wasn't quoting you; I wasn't responding to you.

Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Mostly, I'm just sick of the constant 4e flame-wars and wishing we could have more actual conversation.

So, I'll ditch the passive:

To everyone who's kept these flame-threads going: I don't care about your 4e love or hate. Every time you flame someone, what you say reflects on them not at all - And completely on you.

You realize irony is an actual word, that means a specific thing, and not just some meaningless noun you can throw around to mean "shit I think is amusing, but want to say it in a way that sounds smart", right?

So again, who's the hypocrite here?  Where's the irony you speak of, smartass?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365618I still say BRP can suck it.

Fuck you, man.  What did Chaosium ever do to you?

Quote from: Peregrin;365626Fuck you, man.  What did Chaosium ever do to you?

Elfquest. I've never recovered.

Ok, serious answer, I don't really hate BrP, I've just never been a fan.

EDIT: Only half kidding about Elfquest. I have letters printed on the fan page in a couple of issues and used to be really involved with the fandom pre-internet. I have an autographed picture of Wendy Pini in a chainmail bikini (dressed as Red Sonja at a convention) somewhere too.

Quote from: Peregrin;365626Fuck you, man.  What did Chaosium ever do to you?

Word. BRP isn't good at everything, but damn, it does some things (like gritty human-scaled fantasy -Stormbringer-, or horror -Call of Cthulhu-) really, really well.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365627Ok, serious answer, I don't really hate BrP, I've just never been a fan.

You should have seen that he was trolling when he dissed BRP and GURPS in the same sentence.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365620These are the people you losers are shitting on. And they're better than just about any one of you. Even Mr. Whipple.

No, you are specifically who we are shitting on, because you are a unrelenting and talentless shill with self-esteem issues.

And I would stop pointing out the stupid shit you say if you would stop saying stupid shit.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365614*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*Voopa*

Don't mind me, just cutting a big block of irony out of this thread to remember it by.

OK. This HAS to be one of the funniest posts I've read on theRPGsite in quite some time. It had me laughing my ass off for several minutes. Well done, Sir. Well done. :D

Quote from: jeff37923;365643You should have seen that he was trolling when he dissed BRP and GURPS in the same sentence.

Hey, isn't "BRP and GURPS" one of those gas stations in rural areas where an attached convenience store is still something of a novelty?  :)

Quote from: Sigmund;365458Just remember, being "at the top" of a pile of shit just means you're sitting on a big pile of shit.

And your games are buried under it.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;365621Passive-aggressive? Maybe. Mostly, I'm just sick of the constant 4e flame-wars and wishing we could have more actual conversation.

So, I'll ditch the passive:

To everyone who's kept these flame-threads going: I don't care about your 4e love or hate. Every time you flame someone, what you say reflects on them not at all - And completely on you.

Yup...I'm absolutely an utter cock.

But you want actual conversation here?

RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

I've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

Most threads here will simply devolve into a petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards. At least until Pundit starts posting about the swine bugging his drinking water and Aos derails the whole thing by starting a discussion on favorite "Airwolf" episodes.

Yeah...I'm just as bad as the rest of them...even worse. I hope. But that's because my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

This thoroughly demonstrates that your comments are utterly without merit to any degree.

QuoteI've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

And this follow up shows you don't know the difference between a 'report' and a 'conversation', let alone a 'discussion'.  You are, through and through, only here to troll.

QuoteThis board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

You aren't helping your argument by detailing the evironment at tBP and ENWorld.

QuoteMost threads here will simply devolve into a petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards. At least until Pundit starts posting about the swine bugging his drinking water and Aos derails the whole thing by starting a discussion on favorite "Airwolf" episodes.

Which, oddly, is the only time you seem willing to jump in.

QuoteYeah...I'm just as bad as the rest of them...even worse. I hope. But that's because my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

It's not dickishness.  You aren't that important.  It's whiny daddy issues that bore the shit out of the rest of us.  I do get some amusement with your feeble efforts to puff up and throw what you think are cutting indictments against 'the enemy'.

So, the next time you think you can stir up a cloud:  you don't have that much influence.  No one really cares enough to engage you to any significant degree.  I only respond because it amuses me personally.

Trust me, when you start high school, this will be quite embarrassing for you.

Quote from: StormBringer;365495Why is it absurd?  A small group with wildly different ideas about the fandom managed to turn the focus in an entirely different direction, and alter the perception as a whole at the same time.

But this is not what is happening here. I have run and played 4e. You may like it or not, but it's a regular RPG, it's played like any other and it doesn't turn the focus away from anything, because no game has that power.

When we started playing MERP we playe the introductory adventure. It ha all those cool hexed maps of the ruined castle and the Forest of Trolls. Of course, we used our minins (specially the bazillion we had from the HeroQuest boardgame). As each hex was about 3 m, moving our PCs around was many times a matter of counting hexes. I've used minis and battlemats for years. So what? This is no different.

Also, for many years I've seen people playing D&D or any other game without givin' a shit about roleplaying, inmersion, emulation, story or anything other than moving around kicking ass. And they were not a lonely, isolated bunch. They're a significant part of the hobby, and they've always been. A concrete ruleset is not going to change that.

Seriously, I feel that implying (if I read you correctly) that somehow 4e is going to change how people play roleplaying games seems absurd to me. And is not supported from my actual experience, or the experience of other groups that I know of.

If you want to roleplay, you will do it whatever ruleset you use. If you don't, you won't. OD&D doesn't have any rules 'encouraging' people to roleplay. Neither does RQ, or Traveller. They mostly have rules for chargen, combat, and some things more, with combat being the main part of the rules. 4e is no different.

QuoteWhich is what is being pointed out in these kinds of discussions; the more rules you have, the less room for creativity and 'outside the box' thinking.

Well, I'm not sure of that. Having rules for something may help you to think about it.

For example, as RQ has rules for breaking your enemy's weapon, entering in very close melee so he can't use his longish weapon and so and so, people try those maneuvers. They don't do it in D&D because... well, they don't know they can.

So I don't think there's any conclussive evidence either way.

QuoteBecause it won't be an introductory set, like B/X was.  It will just be a more compressed version of 4e, meaning it won't be particularly easier to introduce players, and you will shell out (or more likely won't) $20 or whatever for essentially the same rules you already paid over $100 for.

Lowering the entry price is already an advantage, IMO. Of course, if you already have the 3 basic books you won't buy the box, but I don't think that WotC is aiming to the peole already owning the books.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664Yup...I'm absolutely an utter cock.

But you want actual conversation here?

RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

I've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

Most threads here will simply devolve into a petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards. At least until Pundit starts posting about the swine bugging his drinking water and Aos derails the whole thing by starting a discussion on favorite "Airwolf" episodes.

Yeah...I'm just as bad as the rest of them...even worse. I hope. But that's because my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

174 posts is a lot of posts to effort to expend on such an awful place.

Feel free to revise your priorities any time.

Quote from: Imperator;365667But this is not what is happening here. I have run and played 4e. You may like it or not, but it's a regular RPG, it's played like any other and it doesn't turn the focus away from anything, because no game has that power.

My first reply got blowed up.

I will cite White Wolf in the 90s as a refutation of your point.  I would assume most people take it as indisputable that Vampire: the Masquerade and subsequent games altered the gaming landscape on a number of fronts.

QuoteWell, I'm not sure of that. Having rules for something may help you to think about it.

Sure, not everything has to be utterly free-form.  I'm not talking about the choice between having some rules or having no rules.  What I am referring to is having too many rules, or having a moderate number of rules that interact in a way that the emergent complexity becomes unmanageable.  

QuoteFor example, as RQ has rules for breaking your enemy's weapon, entering in very close melee so he can't use his longish weapon and so and so, people try those maneuvers. They don't do it in D&D because... well, they don't know they can.

More accurately, D&D (especially older versions) has no interest in modeling combat so precisely.  The benefit of a highly abstract combat system is that you can carve out your own preferences relatively easily.  The barest of frameworks is there to hang upon whatever complexities you wish.  I daresay it can't be made much simpler, really, unless you roll a single die to determine the combat outcome for an entire side - almost exactly mimicking a wargame.

QuoteLowering the entry price is already an advantage, IMO. Of course, if you already have the 3 basic books you won't buy the box, but I don't think that WotC is aiming to the peole already owning the books.

But again, you could buy B/X and have a full game up to 14th level (and with a bit of tweaking and logical thinking, as high as you wanted), or get BECMI (and later, RC) and have supported rules up to 36th level.  These games were very similar in feel and mechanics to AD&D, but they were still separate and distinct games.  I am betting the set they have planned will not be a separate game at all, just a compressed ruleset of the 4e books, with a level cap at third.  Likely, players won't even really need to convert anything; I am predicting it will be a nearly identical ruleset.

Hence, if you want a starter set, looking at a Reader's Digest version for $20, then realizing you will still have to spend upwards of $120 to play the 'actual game' is likely to turn off a good number of customers.  In a similar vein, having already purchased the core books for $120+, getting a stripped down version of those rules for an additional $20 seems pointless, when you can just limit some options in 4e and get the same results for free.

Honestly, I have no idea at whom this product is targeted.

Quote from: StormBringer;365669Honestly, I have no idea at whom this product is targeted.

A last ditch attempt to revive the 4E product line, before they all get fired?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664But you want actual conversation here?

RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

I've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

I've posted about my campaigns, not much response.

In the past week, I've posted about the Geektogethers, not much response. I also posted about the fantasy version of CT I've been working on, not much response.

And no response from Shazbot79, either.

So if there's no enthusiastic game conversation happening here, it's not because I haven't been trying. Maybe some other people haven't been trying? Maybe they have an attitude problem, thinking something like...

Quote from: Shazbot79my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

"This board" is nothing more than the people in it. So you're saying that the people here deserve nothing more than your being a dick. I realise that so many screen nicks and cartoon avatars make us forget there are real people talking here, but that's how it is. Behind every screen nick is an ordinary geek who likes dice and cheetos like anyone else. So you're saying that every single person here deserves nothing more than your being a dick.

I only deserve your being a dick. Balbinus, Clash, John Morrow, Benoist, OneHorseTown, Brett Bernstein, Jeff Rients, Zachary the First, jibbajabber, the absent but probably lurking Doc Rotwang, all of us, every last one, deserve nothing more than your dickishness. One or two of us, I can believe it. But all of us?

I was just talking today to a guy who reckoned he'd be leaving this forum because, he said, Pundit was a weasel. I asked if I and the rest were weasels, too. He replied that I was okay, but everyone else was just an "enabler of Pundit's weaselness."

Thanks a lot for your contribution. Don't let the door hit you on your flabby arse on the way out.

I am a Pundit enabler?  I'm nearly as critical of him as I am the OSR and the Abyssal Maw RPGnet styled consumer whores!

(And that's why he doesn't like BRP.  Chaosium isn't redoing their system every 4-5 years as to make people rebuy all their shit!  OMG CHAOSIUM IS KILLING THE HOBBY.... by... having a solid fucking game system and not redoing it just to resell the same crap.  Which.. is why I keep buying CoC products even though I don't get to play it but maybe once every 5-10 years or so.  Because I know I can make use of it eventually.  And its so damned good it is easily portable to other systems if I lower myself enough to play with edition whores who play BOTH games.  Dungeons AND Dragons.)

I'm not even an enabler of myself fer fuck's sake!

But Shaz?  You don't like it?  Either be a force for positive change, troll for shits n giggles because you don't give enough of a fuck to try, or..

GET THE FUCK OUT.

Crying like a little bitch yet doing nothing to improve things makes you a tremendous cunt.

And I try to game as much as I fucking can, but its hard when the game group you helped found is playing 4e (and only half of them actually ENJOY it.), and the region in general utterly ignores the Internet or player's wanted posters that aren't about in print D&D.

Because I guess the 30 or more games I have listed as our group either played, or interested in doesn't matter.

Which is why 4e and IN PRINT ONLY D&D players can choke on a donkey dick.  Cuz they won't play anything else.

I'm going to stick up for Shazbot in this instance.

For one, I've clashed with him over 4E the same way I have with other 4E players here, but he's good at actually engaging legitimate criticism and making good counterpoints than pursuing the easy Seanchai/Abyssal Maw routine of pretending to not to understand a criticism because it's easier than admitting its validity, or pathetically screaming, "my game's popular!  Objectivity doesn't count!".

For another, I genuinely think he's misunderstood the purpose and culture of this site.

We all know about TBP, ENworld and the others, and if we want play reports or discussions of a certain nature or focus, we'll go to those sites.

TRPGS fills a different niche, is valuable for that, and would be redundant if it simply aped those other sites.

However...

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.
...
This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but...

Well, most of us actually post on other forums, too.  We come here for something different.  And, as mentioned above, TBP isn't the best example of a free-ranging and inclusive site.  I stopped at 3 posts because I offered a mildly critical observation of 4E and was dogpiled by angry teenagers.

It's not a paragon of measured RPG debate.

I'm going to stick up for Shazbot in this instance.

For one, I've clashed with him over 4E the same way I have with other 4E players here, but he's good at actually engaging legitimate criticism and making good counterpoints rather than pursuing the easy Seanchai/Abyssal Maw routine of pretending to not understand a criticism because that's easier than admitting its validity, or pathetically screaming, "my game's popular!  Objectivity doesn't count!".

For another, I genuinely think he's misunderstood the purpose and culture of this site.

We all know about TBP, ENworld and the others, and if we want play reports or discussions of a certain nature or focus, we'll go to those sites.  TRPGS fills a different niche, is valuable for that, and would be redundant if it simply aped those other sites.

However...

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.
...
This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but...

Well, most of us actually post on other forums, too.  We come here for something different.  And, as mentioned above, TBP isn't the best example of a free-ranging and inclusive site.  I stopped at 3 posts because I offered a mildly critical observation of 4E and was dogpiled by angry teenagers.

It's not a paragon of measured RPG debate.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

Shazbot,
I call that whole paragraph of your's bullshit. ....especially the bolded part.

EDIT: Then I notice 2 or 3 others zap you for that post as well. Good for them.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365672In the past week, I've posted about the Geektogethers, not much response. I also posted about the fantasy version of CT I've been working on, not much response.

I read the Geektogether report, but frankly, I don't know what to reply. My questions about it were answered.

And believe me, I am very interested (and flattered) to see other people's visions of what may be under the lid of my Wanderer mock-up.
But I know that once I start to enter discussions about it I'll feel the urge to write that thing myself and I just don't have time for another project. (Maybe when my Swords & Wizardry thingie is done...?)

That's the value of the "attaboy!" comments, Dirk. Then the writer at least knows someone was actually interested.

When people write and get no response, they tend to give up writing. Which is why cocksmocks like Shazbot piss me off so much, they don't want to contribute, but still want to complain about the contributions others have made.

Put up or shut up.

The only thing I can see is that a lot of the really dedicated 4E haters here don't see the game for what it is... just a game.  So they've got this whole angry desperation/bitter spectator thing going on. It's become "the game that must be stopped!" or sometimes "the game that can't be allowed here". But always "here's the latest news about.. that game! How can we spin this or use it against.. the ENEMY??"

Which is funny, but really screwed up. It's just a game, and the only people you really end up attacking are the regular people who are enjoying it, who are real people. In most cases, really nice people. And yes, they make up the bulk of what this hobby actually is. This is regardless of anything you do ro say. And by the time you get to "well I don't consider THEM part of MY hobby.." you are just making yourself an outsider, a spectator.

So anyhow, here's the deal with the red box which I think has been missed in almost every one of these conversations. It's a game, and it ends up on the game shelf wherever you can buy or sell games. Something like this can actually end up on the shelf at Target. This has also been described as an "always in stock" type of thing.

This also isn't the only box set. This is just the red one. There's also going to be a box set of just dungeon tiles, a box set for DMs, and a monster box (which includes monster tokens or miniatures, I can't remember which..)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365689The only thing I can see is that a lot of the really dedicated 4E haters here don't see the game for what it is... just a game.  So they've got this whole angry desperation/bitter spectator thing going on. It's become "the game that must be stopped!" or sometimes "the game that can't be allowed here". But always "here's the latest news about.. that game! How can we spin this or use it against.. the ENEMY??"

Which is funny, but really screwed up. It's just a game, and the only people you really end up attacking are the regular people who are enjoying it, who are real people. In most cases, really nice people. And yes, they make up the bulk of what this hobby actually is. This is regardless of anything you do ro say. And by the time you get to "well I don't consider THEM part of MY hobby.." you are just making yourself an outsider, a spectator.

So anyhow, here's the deal with the red box which I think has been missed in almost every one of these conversations. It's a game, and it ends up on the game shelf wherever you can buy or sell games. Something like this can actually end up on the shelf at Target. This has also been described as an "always in stock" type of thing.

This also isn't the only box set. This is just the red one. There's also going to be a box set of just dungeon tiles, a box set for DMs, and a monster box (which includes monster tokens or miniatures, I can't remember which..)

Good post AM.

Wow. The last post i saw here last night was my joke and then everyone gets all butthurt.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365689So anyhow, here's the deal with the red box which I think has been missed in almost every one of these conversations. It's a game, and it ends up on the game shelf wherever you can buy or sell games. Something like this can actually end up on the shelf at Target. This has also been described as an "always in stock" type of thing.

This also isn't the only box set. This is just the red one. There's also going to be a box set of just dungeon tiles, a box set for DMs, and a monster box (which includes monster tokens or miniatures, I can't remember which..)

Good point(s) and an okay way to get people on the "gaming hook," in my opinion.  Didn't know they were going that route.

The only problem i can see for my group is the fact the boxset only covers the first 3 levels so by the time i get around to picking up the basic 3 rulebooks they'll have lost interest like every other time ive baught these beginner boxsets, they should give you the first 5 levels that way i'd have time to get the proper books and prep for lvl 6+

Quote from: Broken-Serenity;365716The only problem i can see for my group is the fact the boxset only covers the first 3 levels so by the time i get around to picking up the basic 3 rulebooks they'll have lost interest like every other time ive baught these beginner boxsets, they should give you the first 5 levels that way i'd have time to get the proper books and prep for lvl 6+

Heh. We had this argument about ten threads ago, but:

3 levels is about 30-35 encounters (fights plus roleplay). If you're doing six hour sessions, and you're a new player, you're going to get around four encounters done in each session. So that's 7 to 9 sessions before you run out of red box, give or take. If you play weekly: 2 months.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365620I didn;'t want to put peoples faces on the internet, especially considering I have at least one dedicated stalker and some of you guys are kinda textbook sociopaths.

But these are good people, these are the gamers that just dropped in, and had a good time, and are now part of the hobby.

These are the people you losers are shitting on. And they're better than just about any one of you. Even Mr. Whipple.

I'm hurt. You don't even know me and yet you insult me.

Naw, not really. Go ahead and think I'm a loser, I don't care really. Was just curious is all.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365663And your games are buried under it.

How the fuck would you know? You're the king of shit. Not my first go-to for opinions on anything really.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664Yup...I'm absolutely an utter cock.

But you want actual conversation here?

RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

I've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

Most threads here will simply devolve into a petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards. At least until Pundit starts posting about the swine bugging his drinking water and Aos derails the whole thing by starting a discussion on favorite "Airwolf" episodes.

Yeah...I'm just as bad as the rest of them...even worse. I hope. But that's because my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

You really are an idiot. It would be ok if your cock-waving were even remotely witty or entertaining, but it's not. You're a joke. The rest of us just sit here and shake our heads at your pathetic and uninformed trolling. The only thing you do here is show what kind of a person the rest of us don't want to be. While any of us can occasionally be trolls or assholes, you're making it a full time job. You are so drippingly soaked in hypocrisy that you can actually write about what you perceive to be our "petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards", actually take that to an extreme in your own posting, and then have the absolutely appallingly stupid attitude that you're all the while better than the rest of us. That's not even a pot calling the kettles black because that would assume an even remotely similar attitude. You're a cartoon version of what you think is the worst about this site. The irony is that it's only because of the open and tolerant nature of this site you seem to hate that you are even allowed to post what you do. Nobody is forcing you to click on the link directing you here. Nobody is forcing you to read the thread. Don't like it, don't read it. However, if you think any of us really give a fuck what some clueless hypocrite troll is thinking about us or our site then you're appallingly delusional.

Quote from: Sigmund;365719I'm hurt. You don't even know me and yet you insult me.

Naw, not really. Go ahead and think I'm a loser, I don't care really. Was just curious is all.

Well, I apologize. It really does annoy me because we are talking about real people, and all of them are my friends. So, it was misplaced on my part to say that, at least to you.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664Yup...I'm absolutely an utter cock.

Never would have guessed that....

:rolleyes:

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664But you want actual conversation here?

RPGNET has actual conversation. Giant in the Playground has actual conversation. EN World has actual conversation.

I've seen it with my own eyes...people actually post about campaigns they are playing in, character concepts, favorite artists, etc.

You're new to this whole internet thing, aren't you?

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664This board is dedicated to a small clique of embittered old men who got chased off of other, more constructive forums and do nothing but lament the state of the gaming community because now we're letting girls and anime fans in or whatever because they fancy themselves "industry experts," apparently. And woe be to those who don't want to join their self-important circle jerk.

Most threads here will simply devolve into a petty dick-waving contest between hyperbolic, filibustering blowhards. At least until Pundit starts posting about the swine bugging his drinking water and Aos derails the whole thing by starting a discussion on favorite "Airwolf" episodes.

Your jealousy is incredibly obvious.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365664Yeah...I'm just as bad as the rest of them...even worse. I hope. But that's because my dickishness is the only thing this board deserves.

So, instead of trying to better the conversation around here, you just shit all over everything and are proud of your shitting?

You are a classic troll. Infantile in outlook, clueless about subject matter being discussed, and easily forgotten.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365723Well, I apologize. It really does annoy me because we are talking about real people, and all of them are my friends. So, it was misplaced on my part to say that, at least to you.

K. I guess I'm asking why, if you didn't want to show a dude's face, you were recording a video at all, but then, what the hell difference does it make really? Rock on brother. I'll try to stop asking stupid questions.

Quote from: Sigmund;365739K. I guess I'm asking why, if you didn't want to show a dude's face, you were recording a video at all, but then, what the hell difference does it make really? Rock on brother. I'll try to stop asking stupid questions.

Well, ok, there's a motive. I wanted to show that these are indeed real human people, but I didn't want to embarrass anyone. I think that a lot of the viciousness of these battles would change if people realized that actual people were involved.

Tom is a fun player- his main character is a dwarf who "likes to drink" (he mentions this in the video). Usually when I start off an adventurer I go around the table and either have players introduce their characters or say what their character is doing or both and Tom always says something like  "What town is this? Waterdeep? Arr, I'm looking for some ale.."

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365742Well, ok, there's a motive. I wanted to show that these are indeed real human people, but I didn't want to embarrass anyone. I think that a lot of the viciousness of these battles would change if people realized that actual people were involved.

Tom is a fun player- his main character is a dwarf who "likes to drink" (he mentions this in the video). Usually when I start off an adventurer I go around the table and either have players introduce their characters or say what their character is doing or both and Tom always says something like  "What town is this? Waterdeep? Arr, I'm looking for some ale.."

Naw, you're looking at it wrong. We don't have these vicious battles because we forget that there's other people involved.We have these vicious battles because we like having vicious battles. Don't take it personally brother, we're just blowing off steam and giving our passions an outlet, there shouldn't be anything personal involved in it, and I'd wager for most of us there is no intent to engage in personal attacks... hell, we don't even really know each other in most of the cases.

I've played many a cliched dwarven drunk myself, always great fun. In fact, it's pretty much my favorite DnD cliche. The stupid half-orc is a close second.

Quote from: Drohem;365061Seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about?  The OP asked for other members' opinions and Caesar Slaad offered his opinion on the subject.  Maybe his opinion is an 'auto-slam.'  So the fuck what?  How in the fuck do you make the connection of the use of the word mockery equating to religion?  What the fuck does that even mean?  Sorry, but I just can't take your stupid tirade about Caesar Slaad's use of the word mockery, and your wacky connection to religion, seriously.

Ahhh just basking in the glory of language unedited. Having just been banned over at rpgnow for dropping the f-bomb I wanted to let everyone know how much I appreciate therpgsite. So fuck you all! You all rock, especially you Drohem! You rock hard, in a fuckin' awesome way.

Ahhhhhhh: fuuuuuuucccckkkkk :cool:

Quote from: camazotz;365748Ahhh just basking in the glory of language unedited. Having just been banned over at rpgnow for dropping the f-bomb I wanted to let everyone know how much I appreciate therpgsite. So fuck you all! You all rock, especially you Drohem! You rock hard, in a fuckin' awesome way.

Ahhhhhhh: fuuuuuuucccckkkkk :cool:

No doubt! :D

 This ties in with Hairfoot's response to Shazbot up thread.  It feels good to be able to talk how I would normally talk with my close circle of friends without having to be so PC, and carefully crafting my responses in a passive-aggressive veneer of civility.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365742Well, ok, there's a motive. I wanted to show that these are indeed real human people, but I didn't want to embarrass anyone. I think that a lot of the viciousness of these battles would change if people realized that actual people were involved.

You didn't give two shits about 'other people' until Kyle brought it up.

Anyone knwo why they limited it to 1-3rd level? I know there is a nostalgia thing (my blue book rules were 1-3rd level too). I was just thinking they could have taken it up to 10th (or even given toolkit instruictions for future levels) with very little extra pages and it would still have been introductory because they would have had less powers, races, classes etc.
It only annoys me because I think its a bit of a con. For want of another 10 pages in the rule book they pretty much screw over any longevity and make you by the next boxed set and the next. I hated when TSR did that as well which i why I went Blue book and straight to AD&D and never looked at the red box and all the other bloody boxes. It stuck me too much like I will take a product and package it for what looks like a lower price but in fact its the same or higher. I mean with AD&D I spent £30 and got the DMG the PHB and the MM and that was it. With Basic D&D it was 5 or 6 box sets at £12 a pop .

I regret it becuase I suspect Basic was a better game than AD&D and the gazetteers when they came out looked great.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365672I've posted about my campaigns, not much response.

In the past week, I've posted about the Geektogethers, not much response. I also posted about the fantasy version of CT I've been working on, not much response.

And no response from Shazbot79, either.

Well good on ya, Kangaroo Jack.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365672So if there's no enthusiastic game conversation happening here, it's not because I haven't been trying. Maybe some other people haven't been trying? Maybe they have an attitude problem, thinking something like...

"This board" is nothing more than the people in it. So you're saying that the people here deserve nothing more than your being a dick. I realise that so many screen nicks and cartoon avatars make us forget there are real people talking here, but that's how it is. Behind every screen nick is an ordinary geek who likes dice and cheetos like anyone else. So you're saying that every single person here deserves nothing more than your being a dick.

I only deserve your being a dick. Balbinus, Clash, John Morrow, Benoist, OneHorseTown, Brett Bernstein, Jeff Rients, Zachary the First, jibbajabber, the absent but probably lurking Doc Rotwang, all of us, every last one, deserve nothing more than your dickishness. One or two of us, I can believe it. But all of us?

This is where you're wrong.

There aren't any actual people online...only personalities.

Sometimes those personalities mirror those of the humans doing all the typing, and sometimes they are opposites. But every nickname here is just a personality...I just happen to think that most of them are odious.

Which leads me to taking cheap jabs at them online, because well...Fuck 'em. That's why.

Doesn't mean I'm going to punch any of them in the throat if I see them in real life...the place where actual people exist.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365672Thanks a lot for your contribution. Don't let the door hit you on your flabby arse on the way out.

Oh...I never said I was leaving. If and when I do leave, it will be a quiet exit with no fanfare.

Quote from: J Arcane;365668174 posts is a lot of posts to effort to expend on such an awful place.

Feel free to revise your priorities any time.

174? Well I'll be damned.

The place is awful...but then again throwing down with folks here is much more entertaining than what the actually pay me for at work.

Quote from: StormBringer;365669I will cite White Wolf in the 90s as a refutation of your point.  I would assume most people take it as indisputable that Vampire: the Masquerade and subsequent games altered the gaming landscape on a number of fronts.

Good point. I accept that argument, but I think that we can also agree on Vampire not changing the face of gaming so much that RPGs stopped being RPGs. I mean, you still had a GM, players, character sheets and the structure of play was the same. Yes, the text put a strong focus on different things, and the GM could try to do things in a different way (focusing on a plot instead of exploration, introducing themes and whatnot), but at the end of the day, a veteran OD&D player could see a game of Vampire and he would have no doubt that they were playin' an RPG. So, a claim that Vampire was turning RPGs into another thing would be false.

I feel that the same thing happens here with 4e. Yes, the rules put the onus in a different target than classic D&D, but the basic structure of the game remains unchanged. You have a GM creating and adventure, describing the PCs environment, and acting as a referee (maybe he has to make less judgements than in OD&D, but that role still stands). You have players, with some PC sheets full of numbers and rolling dice. I bet that if we could timetravel and get here a gamer from the 70s and we sat him looking at on of AM's games, he would recognize the situation as a roleplayng game. Maybe he hated it, maybe he would love it, but the RPGness of the situation is, I believe, out of the question.

QuoteHence, if you want a starter set, looking at a Reader's Digest version for $20, then realizing you will still have to spend upwards of $120 to play the 'actual game' is likely to turn off a good number of customers.  In a similar vein, having already purchased the core books for $120+, getting a stripped down version of those rules for an additional $20 seems pointless, when you can just limit some options in 4e and get the same results for free.

Honestly, I have no idea at whom this product is targeted.

You have a good solid point here. The logic option would be to think that this new box will be aimed at new players who don't own the books, but I don't know.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365689It's just a game, and the only people you really end up attacking are the regular people who are enjoying it, who are real people. In most cases, really nice people. And yes, they make up the bulk of what this hobby actually is. This is regardless of anything you do ro say. And by the time you get to "well I don't consider THEM part of MY hobby.." you are just making yourself an outsider, a spectator.

I have to agree on this. Talking about 4etards is just what you describe. And it's sad.

Also, I remain unconvinced that 4e is been stealing, so to speak, players from other D&D versions or other games.

Quote from: Imperator;365765I feel that the same thing happens here with 4e. Yes, the rules put the onus in a different target than classic D&D, but the basic structure of the game remains unchanged. You have a GM creating and adventure, describing the PCs environment, and acting as a referee (maybe he has to make less judgements than in OD&D, but that role still stands). You have players, with some PC sheets full of numbers and rolling dice. I bet that if we could timetravel and get here a gamer from the 70s and we sat him looking at on of AM's games, he would recognize the situation as a roleplayng game. Maybe he hated it, maybe he would love it, but the RPGness of the situation is, I believe, out of the question.

Erol Otus, Steve Winter, and Paul Reiche still play D&D.

Ask me what edition. :) I bet you can guess.

Quote from: Hairfoot;365683For another, I genuinely think he's misunderstood the purpose and culture of this site.

We all know about TBP, ENworld and the others, and if we want play reports or discussions of a certain nature or focus, we'll go to those sites.  TRPGS fills a different niche, is valuable for that, and would be redundant if it simply aped those other sites.

The culture here is the same as the culture on any other messageboard, and really only varies in the level of moderation.

Internet forums are online social circles in which personalities interact and engage in conversation.

It just so happens that on other boards I've seen, people go for advice or to share ideas and they get positive feedback.

Seems to me that most on this site are too busy drawing lines in the sand and raising battlements to actually post anything of value other than a few witty memes punctuating a lot of useless vitriol.

So what then, is the actual purpose of the RPG Site? Is it intended for no other purpose than furthering Pundit's whole ridiculous "US vs. THEM" crusade? A support group for gamer's who have been left behind by D&D in favor of a younger, hipper crowd? An internet time capsule for old school gaming ideals?

Seriously, why do I never see threads dedicated to homebrew AD&D classes, or detailing these 10 years strong BECMI, or Traveller campaigns?

Quote from: Hairfoot;365683However...

Well, most of us actually post on other forums, too.  We come here for something different.  And, as mentioned above, TBP isn't the best example of a free-ranging and inclusive site.  I stopped at 3 posts because I offered a mildly critical observation of 4E and was dogpiled by angry teenagers.

It's not a paragon of measured RPG debate.

Criticism, of the constructive variety, can be a force for positive change. I doubt 5E will make much of an improvement if the forums, which game designers often frequent, are just echo chambers of sycophantic praise.

Then again, I recall earlier on this thread that your "criticism" of the new D&D boiled down to comparing it to a virulent infection...which has no more merit or productivity than if I claimed that White Wolf games turn people gay.

An example of constructive criticism can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=502610).

Quote from: Sigmund;365744Naw, you're looking at it wrong. We don't have these vicious battles because we forget that there's other people involved.We have these vicious battles because we like having vicious battles. Don't take it personally brother, we're just blowing off steam and giving our passions an outlet, there shouldn't be anything personal involved in it, and I'd wager for most of us there is no intent to engage in personal attacks... hell, we don't even really know each other in most of the cases.

A lot of times the viciousness at this site reminds me of that famous quote about academics--that academic politics are so vicious precisely because they're so insignificant. Or, as a friend of mine once stated it, two bums in a gutter will fight more viciously over a cigarette butt than two CEOs over millions of dollars--the CEOs can afford to be magnamonious.

As for the rest of you...though your hate-spew is entertaining and deft in it's execution, your arguments really just boil down to:

"Uh uh! YOU are!"

Quote from: jibbajibba;365760Anyone knwo why they limited it to 1-3rd level? I know there is a nostalgia thing (my blue book rules were 1-3rd level too). I was just thinking they could have taken it up to 10th (or even given toolkit instruictions for future levels) with very little extra pages and it would still have been introductory because they would have had less powers, races, classes etc.
It only annoys me because I think its a bit of a con. For want of another 10 pages in the rule book they pretty much screw over any longevity and make you by the next boxed set and the next. I hated when TSR did that as well which i why I went Blue book and straight to AD&D and never looked at the red box and all the other bloody boxes. It stuck me too much like I will take a product and package it for what looks like a lower price but in fact its the same or higher. I mean with AD&D I spent £30 and got the DMG the PHB and the MM and that was it. With Basic D&D it was 5 or 6 box sets at £12 a pop .

I regret it becuase I suspect Basic was a better game than AD&D and the gazetteers when they came out looked great.

Probably because of some arcane printing cost vs. content per page nonsense.

I'm agree that releasing box sets in increments of 10 with just the classic races/classes would have been the way to go.

And I found Basic to be much more fun than AD&D. In fact the Rules Cyclopedia is my second favorite D&D incarnation.

Well, there are a FEW folks who, although they post less frequently, are not as prone to slinging poop and do try to contribute something of substance from time to time.

You know who you are.

Yeah, we're all regular little Byrons.

Quote from: Imperator;365765You have a good solid point here. The logic option would be to think that this new box will be aimed at new players who don't own the books, but I don't know.

It seems fairly obvious to me that this set is aimed at people who owned this set 25 years ago but weren't into it enough to have stuck with it (i.e. the other 90% of people who played D&D in the 80s) to buy as gifts for their 10-12 year old children/nieces & nephews -- "oh, I remember playing that game as a kid, I didn't know it was still around; hmm, little Timmy's 11th birthday is coming up and $20 is a good price for a present..."

Quote from: T. Foster;365782It seems fairly obvious to me that this set is aimed at people who owned this set 25 years ago but weren't into it enough to have stuck with it (i.e. the other 90% of people who played D&D in the 80s) to buy as gifts for their 10-12 year old children/nieces & nephews -- "oh, I remember playing that game as a kid, I didn't know it was still around; hmm, little Timmy's 11th birthday is coming up and $20 is a good price for a present..."

That's certainly one aspect of it. But there's nothing about the nostalgia cover that's going to prevent it from being appealing as an intro set in the big box bookstores, even if you weren't around in the 80s.

Quote from: Thanlis;365783That's certainly one aspect of it. But there's nothing about the nostalgia cover that's going to prevent it from being appealing as an intro set in the big box bookstores, even if you weren't around in the 80s.

Well sure. WotC gets the best of both worlds -- a nostalgia appeal to those who do recognize the old art/logo, and a professional, classy-looking cover even for those that don't (a lot of old TSR art would look very dated on a contemporary product, but this particular piece seems fairly timeless -- it's not like they're using Jeff Dee's feathered hair & bell-bottoms (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/modscans/t1.html) or Keith Parkinson's Tina Turner the drow (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/modscans/gdq1-7.html)).

I suppose there's a little room for confusion with having a different D&D logo from the main product-line, but if the Essentials line is really intended as being parallel to the hardbacks, i.e. that you buy Essentials boxes instead of, rather than in addition to, the hardback books, visually differentiating the sets is probably a good idea -- less returns from parents who bought the "wrong" book for little Timmy.

Quote from: T. Foster;365789Well sure. WotC gets the best of both worlds -- a nostalgia appeal to those who do recognize the old art/logo, and a professional, classy-looking cover even for those that don't (a lot of old TSR art would look very dated on a contemporary product, but this particular piece seems fairly timeless -- it's not like they're using Jeff Dee's feathered hair & bell-bottoms (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/modscans/t1.html) or Keith Parkinson's Tina Turner the drow (http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/modscans/gdq1-7.html)).

I suppose there's a little room for confusion with having a different D&D logo from the main product-line, but if the Essentials line is really intended as being parallel to the hardbacks, i.e. that you buy Essentials boxes instead of, rather than in addition to, the hardback books, visually differentiating the sets is probably a good idea -- less returns from parents who bought the "wrong" book for little Timmy.

Ayup!

I'm not sure if the different logo is a good idea or not. I think it'll make the transition to the hardbacks a little more difficult, and I am a huge fan of keeping your branding really, really simple. But I guess we'll see.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365772The culture here is the same as the culture on any other messageboard, and really only varies in the level of moderation.

Internet forums are online social circles in which personalities interact and engage in conversation.

It just so happens that on other boards I've seen, people go for advice or to share ideas and they get positive feedback.

Seems to me that most on this site are too busy drawing lines in the sand and raising battlements to actually post anything of value other than a few witty memes punctuating a lot of useless vitriol.

So what then, is the actual purpose of the RPG Site? Is it intended for no other purpose than furthering Pundit's whole ridiculous "US vs. THEM" crusade? A support group for gamer's who have been left behind by D&D in favor of a younger, hipper crowd? An internet time capsule for old school gaming ideals?

Seriously, why do I never see threads dedicated to homebrew AD&D classes, or detailing these 10 years strong BECMI, or Traveller campaigns?

What difference does it make? We talk about what we want to talk about. If you want to talk about the things you've mentioned, and you don't see any threads like that, then make one. If nobody engages with it, go check out rpg.net or enworld. Just coming and whining about the shit is stupid. Do you think this site is just here to cater to your desires?

QuoteCriticism, of the constructive variety, can be a force for positive change. I doubt 5E will make much of an improvement if the forums, which game designers often frequent, are just echo chambers of sycophantic praise.

Then again, I recall earlier on this thread that your "criticism" of the new D&D boiled down to comparing it to a virulent infection...which has no more merit or productivity than if I claimed that White Wolf games turn people gay.

An example of constructive criticism can be found here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=502610).

Nobody here needs you to point out anything. Once again, don't like the shit, get the fuck out.

Quote from: two_fishes;365774A lot of times the viciousness at this site reminds me of that famous quote about academics--that academic politics are so vicious precisely because they're so insignificant. Or, as a friend of mine once stated it, two bums in a gutter will fight more viciously over a cigarette butt than two CEOs over millions of dollars--the CEOs can afford to be magnamonious.

Heh, could be that's it right there. What the hell... it's all in fun, or at least should be. There is nothing about RPGs for any of us that don't make our entire living off them, that should be in any way serious in the big scheme of things. This is all little shit.

Quote from: Shazbot79;365775As for the rest of you...though your hate-spew is entertaining and deft in it's execution, your arguments really just boil down to:

"Uh uh! YOU are!"

Well, you are. Just even more so than the rest of us. And then somehow self-righteous about it, which is even more stupid.

Quote from: Sigmund;365796Do you think this site is just here to cater to your desires?

Pretty much.

Now dance, monkey! And put on the funny hat!

Quote from: Sigmund;365799Well, you are. Just even more so than the rest of us. And then somehow self-righteous about it, which is even more stupid.

Just the latest in a long line who like to say they are, "slumming it." Somehow every single one of the twenty before shazbot thought they were being clever too. The twenty after will be the same.

Quote from: T. Foster;365789I suppose there's a little room for confusion with having a different D&D logo from the main product-line, but if the Essentials line is really intended as being parallel to the hardbacks, i.e. that you buy Essentials boxes instead of, rather than in addition to, the hardback books, visually differentiating the sets is probably a good idea -- less returns from parents who bought the "wrong" book for little Timmy.

I really hope the line is intended to be an alternative to the hardbacks. I would appreciate and support that direction. I am skeptical, however, and I won't support a crippled intro version dressed up pretty to look all "old school". I have other games lines that I can get my son interested in if that ends up being the case.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365689The only thing I can see is that a lot of the really dedicated 4E haters here don't see the game for what it is...

"If you don't like it, you don't understand it."

That one's getting a bit tired.

Quotejust a game.  So they've got this whole angry desperation/bitter spectator thing going on. It's become "the game that must be stopped!"

Whatever, dude. My opinion was asked and tendered. If I really though my opinion being offered on this board could "stop" 4e... well, I might spend more time here.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365805Just the latest in a long line who like to say they are, "slumming it." Somehow every single one of the twenty before shazbot thought they were being clever too. The twenty after will be the same.

You're absolutely right, and I probably shouldn't let them goad me into responding. I'll work on that.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365808"If you don't like it, you don't understand it."

That one's getting a bit tired.



Whatever, dude. My opinion was asked and tendered. If I really though my opinion being offered on this board could "stop" 4e... well, I might spend more time here.

I'm absolutely with ya on these.

Quote from: Sigmund;365809You're absolutely right, and I probably shouldn't let them goad me into responding. I'll work on that.

Yeah...that does denote a serious weakness of character.

Quote from: Sigmund;365807I really hope the line is intended to be an alternative to the hardbacks. I would appreciate and support that direction. I am skeptical, however, and I won't support a crippled intro version dressed up pretty to look all "old school". I have other games lines that I can get my son interested in if that ends up being the case.

Ok, so the Essentials Red box covers 1-3 as an "intro" game. It's a self-contained standalone box and it covers levels 1-3.

After that there's this: The rules compendium. It's all of the rules for rules-y things. Movement, combat, etc. I'm really not sure whats in it, but what isn't in it is the content for players. i.e. races and classes.

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216/ref=pd_sim_b_4

The first Essentials book after that (all the way to 30th if I recall correctly) is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Essential-Dungeons-Supplement/dp/0786956208

"Heroes of the Fallen Lands"- covers the cleric, the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the wizard. Includes rules for dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans.

Price: $13.46 on Amazon.

The NEXT book after that one is Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms:

http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Forgotten-Kingdoms-Supplement/dp/0786956194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268162096&sr=1-1

This covers cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock classes. And for races.. dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings.

Price: $13.57 on Amazon

Quote from: Shazbot79;365811Yeah...that does denote a serious weakness of character.

And the King of Shit feels qualified to weigh in again. I'll take it under advisement.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365808"If you don't like it, you don't understand it."

That one's getting a bit tired.

You are completely misreading me. I am not saying you don't understand it. I'm saying you need to get some perspective. It's just a game.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365808Whatever, dude. My opinion was asked and tendered. If I really though my opinion being offered on this board could "stop" 4e... well, I might spend more time here.

Are you really that petty? I know the general area where you live and I know that that area has a ton of 4E fans. The guys at the Game Parlor are super-nice, and very enthusiastic. Some of my favorite DMs practically live in your neighborhood.

Why would you want to "shut down" a game that people enjoy?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365815Ok, so the Essentials Red box covers 1-3 as an "intro" game. It's a self-contained standalone box and it covers levels 1-3.

After that there's this: The rules compendium. It's all of the rules for rules-y things. Movement, combat, etc. I'm really not sure whats in it, but what isn't in it is the content for players. i.e. races and classes.

http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Compendium-Essential-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786956216/ref=pd_sim_b_4

The first Essentials book after that (all the way to 30th if I recall correctly) is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Essential-Dungeons-Supplement/dp/0786956208

"Heroes of the Fallen Lands"- covers the cleric, the fighter, the ranger, the rogue, and the wizard. Includes rules for dwarves, eladrin, elves, halflings, and humans.

Price: $13.46 on Amazon.

The NEXT book after that one is Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms:

http://www.amazon.com/Players-Essentials-Forgotten-Kingdoms-Supplement/dp/0786956194/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268162096&sr=1-1

This covers cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock classes. And for races.. dragonborn, drow, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings.

Price: $13.57 on Amazon

What I'm interested in knowing is, does the Essentials line end up including info for leveling beyond third where the initial box stops? The Rules Compendium says "complete rules", so does that mean chargen beyond 3rd or just all the other rules? If so I might consider them, but if not, then PIG's Ancient Odysseys (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=101&) is going to be the direction I go in. I picked up AO for myself anyway, and I'd gladly spring for a second box set for my son in the next year or so.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365819Why would you want to "shut down" a game that people enjoy?

Well, in defence of Caesar, i've done my best with Baker's pirate rape game.

Quote from: Sigmund;365821What I'm interested in knowing is, does the Essentials line end up including info for leveling beyond third where the initial box stops? The Rules Compendium says "complete rules", so does that mean chargen beyond 3rd or just all the other rules? If so I might consider them, but if not, then PIG's Ancient Odysseys (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=101&) is going to be the direction I go in. I picked up AO for myself anyway, and I'd gladly spring for a second box set for my son in the next year or so.

Yes, it does. I think the Rules Compendium is going to be the rules, and the Heroes books are going to be the books with all the powers in 'em. So the Rules Compendium won't allow you to play to 30 by itself, but along with either of the Heroes books, it will.

Quote from: Sigmund;365821What I'm interested in knowing is, does the Essentials line end up including info for leveling beyond third where the initial box stops? The Rules Compendium says "complete rules", so does that mean chargen beyond 3rd or just all the other rules? If so I might consider them, but if not, then PIG's Ancient Odysseys (http://www.pigames.net/store/default.php?cPath=101&) is going to be the direction I go in. I picked up AO for myself anyway, and I'd gladly spring for a second box set for my son in the next year or so.

The books aren't out yet, and all I've seen is a slide show. BUT here is my impression:

The Rules Compendium is like the Roberts Rules of Order kinda book. It has the "rules of the game" but it's like a handbook. PLayers and DMs generally use the same set of rules in general in 4E.  So I doubt there will be anything about making characters in this book at all.

Heroes of the Fallen Lands (and the other one with the tieflings and such) is basicaly the equivalent of the PHB. It has races and classes.

I wouldn't sweat buying anything until you try it out.. usually you can do that for free.

I will keep an eye on it.

Quote from: Imperator;365765The logic option would be to think that this new box will be aimed at new players who don't own the books, but I don't know.

It's aimed at current players who haven't switched yet.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;365837It's aimed at current players who haven't switched yet.

It's not. It's aimed at people who aren't playing RPGs right now -- WotC keeps talking about how they need a good entry point for people who want to buy the game at Barnes and Noble.

Quote from: Thanlis;365841It's not. It's aimed at people who aren't playing RPGs right now -- WotC keeps talking about how they need a good entry point for people who want to buy the game at Barnes and Noble.

Yet the artwork is designed to appeal to old-schoolers. I can't see how that can reasonably be denied.

Quote from: Seanchai;365837It's aimed at current players who haven't switched yet.

Seanchai

Agreed. And for them to buy the box and give it to their little nephews.

I don't see that those goals are mutually exclusive. It can be aimed at newcomers and old-schoolers both simultaneously.

Quote from: Sigmund;365848I don't see that those goals are mutually exclusive. It can be aimed at newcomers and old-schoolers both simultaneously.

Absolutely. Would be the sensible business plan, depending on numbers.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365843Yet the artwork is designed to appeal to old-schoolers. I can't see how that can reasonably be denied.

Yeah. I think a secondary target would be new players, but you don't put images and trade dress from 27 years ago on a product to appeal to 14 year olds.

As I understand it, they're going to change the box after the limited nostalgia run. That'll be aimed at new players.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;365851Yeah. I think a secondary target would be new players, but you don't put images and trade dress from 27 years ago on a product to appeal to 14 year olds.

As I understand it, they're going to change the box after the limited nostalgia run. That'll be aimed at new players.

Ahh, yeah. That may be so. I'm not convinced about anything till I see an actual box at this point -- even Charles Ryan said he's seen two different cover treatments.

Quote from: T. Foster;365782It seems fairly obvious to me that this set is aimed at people who owned this set 25 years ago but weren't into it enough to have stuck with it (i.e. the other 90% of people who played D&D in the 80s) to buy as gifts for their 10-12 year old children/nieces & nephews -- "oh, I remember playing that game as a kid, I didn't know it was still around; hmm, little Timmy's 11th birthday is coming up and $20 is a good price for a present..."

I can totally get this. I noted in another post that Monopoly wasn't actually a game you were supposed to play it was supposed to fill a niche as a $20 gift.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365819Why would you want to "shut down" a game that people enjoy?

Beats me. On my Geektogether mailing list, I just had to sort out a situation where one guy was getting his D&D4e group together to play on Friday night, and another guy didn't want to hear about it - not that game in particular, it was just, "once you've more or less got your group organised, take it off-list."

I explained that the purpose of the Geektogether mailing list was to be a Geektogether when we're not at the pub. So if a conversation doesn't interest you, you don't tell them to shut up, you just take your beer, walk away and join another conversation instead.

I mean, D&D4e I think is stupid and boring, and gaming on Friday night is basically just giving up on your lovelife forever, ridiculous. But nobody's holding a gun to my head and making me join, why should I discourage or stop them?

Now, I might say, "hey, here is my game, which is better and more fun..." I believe in a gamer free market. But I'm not going to shut down someone else's fun out of sheer malice.

Quote from: One Horse Townthe artwork is designed to appeal to old-schoolers. I can't see how that can reasonably be denied.

Is it? Perhaps the thought is simply, "hey, this is the sort of artwork we had Back In The Day, and D&D was really really popular then, let's try that again."

You know, using the old Red Box artwork for the new version could just be an advertising mock-up and not the real end product artwork.

Quote from: jeff37923;365879You know, using the old Red Box artwork for the new version could just be an advertising mock-up and not the real end product artwork.

Personally, I hope that this is the case.  As I said earlier in the thread, I would prefer that this product line stay in tune with the rest of the 4e D&D brand art, logos, layout, and style.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365819You are completely misreading me. I am not saying you don't understand it. I'm saying you need to get some perspective. It's just a game.

And? This is just a message boards. These are just forum posts.

Of us, I don't think I'm the one lacking perspective.

QuoteAre you really that petty? I know the general area where you live and I know that that area has a ton of 4E fans. The guys at the Game Parlor are super-nice, and very enthusiastic. Some of my favorite DMs practically live in your neighborhood.

Why would you want to "shut down" a game that people enjoy?

It was you wording. I just took the chance for a cheap shot. ;)

What I would want is the biggest game on the market to be a game that me and mine could enjoy. Is it petty that I feel left out by WotC's turn of philosophy?

But, once again, this being "if wishes were horses" material, getting bent out of shape because someone would like something different from you is again arguably bereft of perspective.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365781Yeah, we're all regular little Byrons.

True story: I did a reading of Lachin Y Garr for the theatre class today.  The Corries' version, mind, but still Byron.  Wonderful piece that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;365822Well, in defence of Caesar, i've done my best with Baker's pirate rape game.

And your efforts have not gone unnoticed.

Quote from: Thanlis;365841It's not. It's aimed at people who aren't playing RPGs right now -- WotC keeps talking about how they need a good entry point for people who want to buy the game at Barnes and Noble.

I would probably agree with this, although I am still weighing the execution.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;365872and gaming on Friday night is basically just giving up on your lovelife forever, ridiculous.

/aside/

God-forbid people go out on a Saturday night.  :p

Then again, I haven't had a Friday night off in...uh...Christ, I don't even remember.  Doesn't help that I also work Saturday morning.  :(

Protip: Don't go to school and work at the same time.  The only reason I even have time to game is because we have the campaign on Sundays during the day...and because it's only twice a month.

/aside/

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;365885What I would want is the biggest game on the market to be a game that me and mine could enjoy. Is it petty that I feel left out by WotC's turn of philosophy?

But, once again, this being "if wishes were horses" material, getting bent out of shape because someone would like something different from you is again arguably bereft of perspective.

Two things. Yes. Yes it is petty. It's also a bit narcissistic and lame. So you are upset because you don't play the "biggest" game? How the heck does that work? My favorite game used to be Torg.

And secondly: I honestly, swear-to-gosh don't give a fuck what you like or don't like. (And I don't care if you like what I like or hate it).  I'm cool either way.  This isn't to be mean or anything, but that's not my issue. My issue is you stepped into this thread to communicate and instead of anything meaningful all I got was a big sopping ball of your hurt feelings that "you no longer play the biggest game" or something. Well, that's not exactly what this conversation is about, is it?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365923I honestly, swear-to-gosh don't give a fuck what you like or don't like. (And I don't care if you like what I like or hate it).  I'm cool either way.  This isn't to be mean or anything, but that's not my issue. My issue is you stepped into this thread to communicate and instead of anything meaningful all I got was a big sopping ball of your hurt feelings that "you no longer play the biggest game" or something. Well, that's not exactly what this conversation is about, is it?

The problem is, the way you bark right back at his face clearly gives the impression that you actually do care a LOT about someone, anyone disliking the game you like publicly. Why does it matter so much to you that some guy is ranting against 4e on the board, honestly? That's where folks may look at your post and think "yeah, I can see how the guy lacks perspective himself". Can't you see it?

Quote from: Benoist;365930Why does it matter so much to you that some guy is ranting against 4e on the board, honestly?

Probably for the same reason they feel the need to rant about a game they're not playing to a bunch of strangers on a message board.

Seanchai

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365923Two things. Yes. Yes it is petty.

Oh, no. Maw thinks I'm petty.

Well that's one more thing I'll have to live with.

QuoteIt's also a bit narcissistic and lame. So you are upset because you don't play the "biggest" game? How the heck does that work? My favorite game used to be Torg.

Do you play Torg much? Why not?

See where I'm going here?

QuoteAnd secondly: I honestly, swear-to-gosh don't give a fuck what you like or don't like.

Coulda fooled me.

QuoteMy issue is you stepped into this thread to communicate and instead of anything meaningful all I got was a big sopping ball of your hurt feelings that "you no longer play the biggest game" or something. Well, that's not exactly what this conversation is about, is it?

If you don't care to discuss it, show me how much you don't care by not discussing it.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365923I honestly, swear-to-gosh don't give a fuck what you like or don't like.

So why do you keep acting all butthurt whenever people say that they do not like Your Favorite Game?

Quote from: Benoist;365930The problem is, the way you bark right back at his face clearly gives the impression that you actually do care a LOT about someone, anyone disliking the game you like publicly. Why does it matter so much to you that some guy is ranting against 4e on the board, honestly? That's where folks may look at your post and think "yeah, I can see how the guy lacks perspective himself". Can't you see it?

 I think if you've run out of gaming then you need to be honest with yourself. If your'e done, your'e done. Staying around to bitch about how you aren't gaming is pointless.

Even if we suppose our behaviors are somehow equal.. it doesn't turn the clock backwards.

Quote from: jeff37923;365941So why do you keep acting all butthurt whenever people say that they do not like Your Favorite Game?

Well, opinions are completely subjective. Heck, I assume you don't like it.. but I also assume you don't know anything about it anyhow. But there's a difference between hearing some former gamer's worthless opinion and being insulted for a preference. Do people suppose they are immune from response?

And other than that, I've mainly just been clarifying.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365944I also assume you don't know anything about it anyhow.

You'd be wrong there, but you being wrong isn't anything new.

(I bought 4E when it came out, tried it, decided it didn't do what I wanted an RPG to do. But don't let that stop your Holy Crusade.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365944And other than that, I've mainly just been clarifying.

And trolling, and whining, and shilling....

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365944I also assume you don't know anything about it anyhow.

You'd be wrong there, but you being wrong isn't anything new.

(I bought 4E when it came out, tried it, decided it didn't do what I wanted an RPG to do, and sold it. But don't let that stop your defense of 4E, since anyone who doesn't like Your Favorite Game is an enemy to you.)

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365944Do people suppose they are immune from response?

Except when it comes to 4E, it is impossible for you not to respond. You jump to the defense of Your Favorite Game at even the slightest of provocations.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365944And other than that, I've mainly just been clarifying.

And trolling, and whining, and shilling....

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365770Erol Otus, Steve Winter, and Paul Reiche still play D&D.

Ask me what edition. :) I bet you can guess.

Can't say I'm surprised.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365943I think if you've run out of gaming then you need to be honest with yourself. If your'e done, your'e done. Staying around to bitch about how you aren't gaming is pointless.

Even if we suppose our behaviors are somehow equal.. it doesn't turn the clock backwards.

Who are you to say this? I understand CS and am right there with him. Given that, I'm perfectly capable of deciding when I'm done, and if I want to log onto this forum and bitch about how much of a piece of utter shit I think the current DnD is I will. This bullshit you're spewing about "be honest with yourself" and "If you're done, you're done" is arrogant and pathetic. You do know there are plenty other games, and I mean loads, besides the current DnD don't ya? There's just a sizable group of folks who wish that WotC hadn't fucked up DnD so much because we actually like the previous versions and would be happier if more folks didn't feel the need to be playing whatever version is "current" despite what a poor experience it provides in comparison to other games and older editions. You seem to take every opportunity to fling this shit about how wonderful the current DnD is, and how it's so much better and how it's so popular, and how so many people are playing it. On top of that you condescend to everyone who doesn't share you're worship. If it's ok for you to do this shit, then how can you say it's not ok for someone to express an opposing opinion? Do you honestly think that you're viewpoint and experience with the "Living" bullshit is the sum total of what is relevant and meaningful in the RPGing hobby? Are you really that arrogant?

Quote from: Sigmund;365983bullshit you're spewing about "be honest with yourself" and "If you're done, you're done" is arrogant and pathetic. You do know there are plenty other games, and I mean loads, besides the current DnD don't ya?

I do know this. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if that is what they were talking about instead of endless whining about games they don't play?

Quote from: Imperator;365967Can't say I'm surprised.

What I wonder is why anyone gives a fuck. Unlike most people, I never much liked Erol Otus' art, but even if I did I wouldn't give any more of a fuck what he is playing than he would about what I'm playing. Same goes for those other yahoos. Vin Diesel apparently plays older versions of DnD. Since he's more "popular", better known, and by extension more "important" does that mean that now older DnD is objectively better than 4e? I didn't think so.

Quote from: Sigmund;365986What I wonder is why anyone gives a fuck. Unlike most people, I never much liked Erol Otus' art, but even if I did I wouldn't give any more of a fuck what he is playing than he would about what I'm playing. Same goes for those other yahoos. Vin Diesel apparently plays older versions of DnD. Since he's more "popular", better known, and by extension more "important" does that mean that now older DnD is objectively better than 4e? I didn't think so.

The question was "what do the real old schoolers play?" I mean, of the ones that play at all. I was just thinking people might be surprised that those guys are 4E fans.

PS. Erol Otus is the DM.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365984I do know this. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if that is what they were talking about instead of endless whining about games they don't play?

To who? You do know you're not the only one here right? Hell, in this respect I might even agree with ya, but I'm not the only one here either. Just because some of us no longer play the current edition of DnD doesn't mean we need to "be honest" with ourselves, or that we're "done". It's not your objection to CS's sentiment brother, it's how you respond to it, for me anyway.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;365988The question was "what do the real old schoolers play?" I mean, of the ones that play at all. I was just thinking people might be surprised that those guys are 4E fans.

PS. Erol Otus is the DM.

Nothing they do would surprise me, because I don't know them. They could be gay furry-lovers who believe Elvis lives next door to them and that wouldn't surprise me either.

I think Steve Winter is on record for saying that he likes 4E of all the follow ups to Basic D&D most - because it's the one that gets closest to Basic, which is his favourite edition.

I wouldn't be surprised if Otus thought likewise. I also wouldn't be surprised if they had occasional games of Hackmaster Basic. In short, if they can't spend the night on BECMI it better be a game that comes damn near to that thing.

Quote from: Sigmund;365986What I wonder is why anyone gives a fuck. Unlike most people, I never much liked Erol Otus' art, but even if I did I wouldn't give any more of a fuck what he is playing than he would about what I'm playing.

I also do think that his art is dreadful.

Quote from: Sigmund;365991Nothing they do would surprise me, because I don't know them. They could be gay furry-lovers who believe Elvis lives next door to them and that wouldn't surprise me either.

:D

Quote from: Windjammer;365992I think Steve Winter is on record for saying that he likes 4E of all the follow ups to Basic D&D most - because it's the one that gets closest to Basic, which is his favourite edition.

I have a very similar opinion. I think that D&D 4e is more D&D than ever since BECMI D&D.

Quote from: Imperator;366002I have a very similar opinion. I think that D&D 4e is more D&D than ever since BECMI D&D.

I just don't get this at all. I do see how they might have wanted to make it this way, and how they were aiming in that direction, but all I see is utter failure in that regard. The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

Well- having thought a good boxed set would help expand the hobby- I gotta say this hits all the bullet points such a product needs:

1. Complete, with multiple levels of advancement
2. Cheap, at less than 20 bucks
3. Boxed set, so it can go in with board games or books
4. Clear upgrade path

So Wizards has done everything they need to do to get the game out to the masses again.

Here's hoping it succeeds.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck;366026Well- having thought a good boxed set would help expand the hobby- I gotta say this hits all the bullet points such a product needs:

1. Complete, with multiple levels of advancement
2. Cheap, at less than 20 bucks
3. Boxed set, so it can go in with board games or books
4. Clear upgrade path

So Wizards has done everything they need to do to get the game out to the masses again.

Here's hoping it succeeds.

I agree, and hope that the subsequent box sets expand on what the initial release presents so I don't have to then also buy the hard covers to progress beyond the basic start provided initially, in which case I think it can very much be a winner for DnD.

Quote from: Sigmund;366018The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

But for me it does. After all, the tactical complexity of 3e is orders of magnitude different than OD&D's. And I didn't see people throwing themselves out of windows, shouting that 3e was the end of the hobby. Maybe around Spain we're less prone to that.

D&D never had a skill system. In 3e you have Feats and skills. You can build your PC all the wayfrom 1st level to the 20th knowing which build you will use.  You have AoO and many things that use a battlemat. That's radically different from OD&D or BECMI or even AD&D. But no one disputes that 3e is D&D.

Maybe I'm wrong. Probably we had the same outrage in 2000 when D&3e was published and all the grognards went ballistic. Heck, probably there was a similar outrage when AD&D 2e came out.

D&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

Quote from: Sigmund;366018I just don't get this at all. I do see how they might have wanted to make it this way, and how they were aiming in that direction, but all I see is utter failure in that regard. The games play so differently, IME, that I have a hard time even reconciling that they're called the same thing. The tactical complexity of 4e is orders of magnitude different than the fast and abstract combats of early editions. All I see in 4e is an extreme version of 3e, dumbed down in places and ramped up in others. I'm honestly curious, where do you guys get this idea about 4e being so similar to od&d or BECMI? Is it just the whole dungeon crawl focus thing? That alone hardly qualifies as making the games similar in any way.

Ditto. Could make a new thread?
Though it is directly related to a new Red Box and thus whether Mentzer and 4e can even compare.

Quote from: Imperator;366061D&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

True, but 4e abandons the traditional focus on some of the minor sim bits to focus almost solely on gameplay.  It is unashamedly a game through-and-through, and it lets you know it.  You end up with something leaner and meaner, and perhaps overall a better design, but that's not what everyone wants, and it's a far cry from the old-school games (as I see them, as a younger gamer).

So it's really no surprise that a lot of people don't like it.  It's inherently less tweakable than older editions because they had to make it sturdy, and it's really hard to do anything but adventure-path D&D with it.  4e knows what it is, what it wants to do, and is better at doing the things it was designed to, but not so good as a toolbox.

I personally don't like it for long-term play.  Not enough focus on either world-sim, or on story (two of my favorite focuses).  I find it extremely fun for mini-series type deals and skirmishes, though.

Quote from: Imperator;366061But for me it does. After all, the tactical complexity of 3e is orders of magnitude different than OD&D's. And I didn't see people throwing themselves out of windows, shouting that 3e was the end of the hobby. Maybe around Spain we're less prone to that.

No, I agree. The tactical complexity is the least of my complaints about 4e, most times I don't mind it at all. The only reason I bring it up is because it is the main reason 4e plays absolutely nothing like OD&D or BECMI or Holmes or even AD&D for me.

QuoteD&D never had a skill system. In 3e you have Feats and skills. You can build your PC all the wayfrom 1st level to the 20th knowing which build you will use.  You have AoO and many things that use a battlemat. That's radically different from OD&D or BECMI or even AD&D. But no one disputes that 3e is D&D.

Nor am I. Nor am I saying 4e is not DnD. I am saying it is not only not the same DnD as OD&D or BECMI, it's not even remotely similar in how it plays.

QuoteMaybe I'm wrong. Probably we had the same outrage in 2000 when D&3e was published and all the grognards went ballistic. Heck, probably there was a similar outrage when AD&D 2e came out.

Probably, you'd have to ask the outraged folks about that.

QuoteD&D is a game about people going into an insanely dangerous place, often abandoned, fighting monsters and looking for treasure. That hasn't changed. It's right there, streamlined and adapted to this age sensibility's and zeitgeist, but it's the same. Cave. Dragon. Treasure. You know the drill.

Yes, the basic premise is the same, but then so is the basic premise of Dragonquest, Iron Gauntlets, and Earthdawn. I wouldn't call them "just like OD&D either. It's not about the basic premise, it's about how you go about doing things in the game. It's how it plays at the table. I've played all these games and more and I stand by my opinion that 4e played nothing like pre-3e DnD, and is actually much more like a tweaked and simplified 3e than any other edition. Now I have not DMed 4e, so from that side of the screen things might be a little different. Just in my experience as a player though I can provide an example. When I gamed at the Boy's Club in Norfolk Va in the early '80s, I remember playing through the entire module Hidden Shrine of the Tamoachan in one night. However, playing 4e, we would be lucky to get more than 2 fights and the attendant aftermath and maneuvering in during a 4-6 hour session. Even streamlining and advance preparation are not enough to use 4e to repeat the experience of finishing an entire dungeon module in one 4-6 hour session, at least not the way we played it. Notice, I'm not attaching any value judgments on this at all, just saying that 4e's increased tactical options cause the fights to take longer, thereby providing a very different experience to pre-3e editions of DnD, especially the basic editions.

Quote from: Benoist;366062Ditto. Could make a new thread?
Though it is directly related to a new Red Box and thus whether Mentzer and 4e can even compare.

I see it as on-topic, but if anyone in the thread thinks it really isn't we can absolutely discuss it elsewhere.

I've compared 4E to BECMI simply because it's faster to run at the table than 3.x, with less frequent reference to the books.  The similarities end there, though.

Quote from: Peregrin;366066True, but 4e abandons the traditional focus on some of the minor sim bits to focus almost solely on gameplay.  It is unashamedly a game through-and-through, and it lets you know it.  You end up with something leaner and meaner, and perhaps overall a better design, but that's not what everyone wants, and it's a far cry from the old-school games (as I see them, as a younger gamer).

So it's really no surprise that a lot of people don't like it.  It's inherently less tweakable than older editions because they had to make it sturdy, and it's really hard to do anything but adventure-path D&D with it.  4e knows what it is, what it wants to do, and is better at doing the things it was designed to, but not so good as a toolbox.

I personally don't like it for long-term play.  Not enough focus on either world-sim, or on story (two of my favorite focuses).  I find it extremely fun for mini-series type deals and skirmishes, though.

Also, I'd still say that "better design" is very subjective. I don't find it better at all. The disassociated nature of the power mechanics are very jarring for me in actual play and I have been left extremely disappointed by the experience. I truly struggle to view my character as a person in an imaginary world rather than stats on a piece of paper.

I haven't followed this thread for long. Two things I take away from this.

1. Pseudoephedrine getting on Benoists ignore list for a good reason. Hadn't foreseen this. Quite sad. Even before Melan showed up, which made it only more solid.

2. AM shatters the hilarity meter. So anyone posting a critique of 4E's design tenets is ipso facto assaulting an old guy somewhere in the Northeastern US, who's only shown w.r.t waist area to protect the innocent. His innocence, actually.

I'm impressed. Lemme try to spin this my own way. Please stop saying that 3E's Dungeonpunk aesthetics are just indiluted poor taste - by extenuation, stop saying that the first D&D movie sucked balls - and that its rules are a clunky paradise for optimizers. Otherwise I feel ashamed for playing 3E and you're actively shitting on My Hobby.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y4wE1e9WkKs/Sbhg_J7NweI/AAAAAAAAABY/3xDX0n7cNu8/s320/740.jpg)

Quote from: Windjammer;3661352. AM shatters the hilarity meter. So anyone posting a critique of 4E's design tenets is ipso facto assaulting an old guy somewhere in the Northeastern US, who's only shown w.r.t waist area to protect the innocent. His innocence, actually.

I'm impressed. Lemme try to spin this my own way. Please stop saying that 3E's Dungeonpunk aesthetics are just indiluted poor taste - by extenuation, stop saying that the first D&D movie sucked balls - and that its rules are a clunky paradise for optimizers. Otherwise I feel ashamed for playing 3E and you're actively shitting on My Hobby.

I think you misunderstand me (and I kinda like the Dungeonpunk aesthetics). I think that people who hate *me* enough to stalk me from forum to forum are going to take it out on my innocent friend Tom, and I was trying to avoid that situation, but at the same time, I wanted to show that real people of all ages play D&D4e.  


I have a funny story (well I think it was funny) about the D&D movie too. If you are interested.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366137I think that people who hate *me* enough to stalk me from forum to forum are going to take it out on my innocent friend Tom...

Your paranoia and over weening self importance are flaring up again.  You simply aren't that important.  As I said before, when you stop saying stupid shit, I will stop pointing out that you are saying stupid shit.

And don't try to pretend you were talking about someone else and I am being oversensitive or something.  This is your biggest complaint, yet you spend restless hours quote mining forums from a decade back to go after someone, so your complaint here is disingenuous, were I to be in a generous mood.  I'm not, so I will simply point out the rank hypocrisy you display.

And I don't give a shit about your friend Tom, and again, neither did you until Kyle gave you another facet of your paranoid delusion to exploit.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366137I have a funny story (well I think it was funny) about the D&D movie too. If you are interested.

I AM!!! But I'd prefer to work into a series of Yes/No questions if the result turns out to be you making a guest appearance of sorts in the movie, and me trying to figure out where it is. Short of that, I suggest you simply telling me your story.

Btw, I like both D&D movies (the first one only 20 minutes in, but hey, I still like some of it), own the second one on DVD, so I guess I've got little to lose by hearing another earth shattering behind-the-scene secret about them. ;)

Quote from: StormBringer;366152And I don't give a shit about your friend Tom, and again, neither did you until Kyle gave you another facet of your paranoid delusion to exploit.

Who, me? I don't know who the fuck Tom is, either!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366175Who, me? I don't know who the fuck Tom is, either!

Pics or it didn't happen.  :)

Until you brought up the idea of 'real people behind the internet nicks', AM did not give a flying fuck about Tom or anyone else he spent no small amount of time attempting to belittle.

That dude is obsessed with me for some reason.

OK, well anyhow, I was working at this overnight job for a while and it had become a habit for people to bring in movies. One day someone brings in the D&D movie so I am sort of making fun of it, like "Nooo Snails!" that sort of thing.

None of the people in the room are D&D players (or gamers at all) including the guy that brought the movie.

Stone silence. So I go "what, this movie is hilariously bad.." and they were all like "we love this movie. This is a great movie".

So there ya go. 6 people in the room, and it turns out they all agree that the D&D movie is awesome. Maybe it's generational.

I did eventually invite one of those guys to play D&D. He still plays!

Quote from: Windjammer;366135I haven't followed this thread for long. Two things I take away from this.

1. Pseudoephedrine getting on Benoists ignore list for a good reason. Hadn't foreseen this. Quite sad. Even before Melan showed up, which made it only more solid.

Wow. Feels like we're back on the "ideological battle over gaming v2" thread! :D

By the way: who the fuck is Tom, and when was he talked about?

Oh, someone tried to derail the conversation by talking about how old I was because I was kinda joking around with OneHorseTown, and so I linked a youtube video of my friend Tom, who is an LFR player in his 70s.

Apparently links of this nature make people furious.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366192Apparently links of this nature make people furious.

No, your continued utter bad faith use of it to bolster an idea you never promoted or embraced until two days ago is the point.  But, I shouldn't be surprised that you twist any and all responses around to fit your paranoia.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366192 furious.

My power comes from my boundless anger.

"What's your name?"

"Roy."

"People who eat with their mouth open make me furious!"

There's loads more Mr. Furious quotes where that came from. Just sayin'

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366192Oh, someone tried to derail the conversation by talking about how old I was because I was kinda joking around with OneHorseTown, and so I linked a youtube video of my friend Tom, who is an LFR player in his 70s.

Apparently links of this nature make people furious.

Oh that guy! Found the post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=365618&postcount=88). Alright.

*Sigh*

OK, here's some official stuff for you retards.

I'm a cunt. Yeah, that's right, i'm a cunt. A big fat smelly one. AM's a cunt. Stormbringer's a cunt. Pundit is King cunt. Shit, we're all cunts. Many of us wouldn't be here otherwise.

We all taste a little bit different, that's all.

(NB: I feel a bit awkward now after all that nasty talk. Sorry to all the ladies of the female persuasion reading this. But then again, if you're reading this, this ain't news to you).

Quote from: One Horse Town;366201*Sigh*

OK, here's some official stuff for you retards.
(...)

Sorry, I'm probably one of the retards here, but what's your point?
That we're all lesbians in the end or something? :D

Are you trying to "officially" moderate, here?

Quote from: One Horse Town;366201*Sigh*

OK, here's some official stuff for you retards.

I'm a cunt. Yeah, that's right, i'm a cunt. A big fat smelly one. AM's a cunt. Stormbringer's a cunt. Pundit is King cunt. Shit, we're all cunts. Many of us wouldn't be here otherwise.

We all taste a little bit different, that's all.

(NB: I feel a bit awkward now after all that nasty talk. Sorry to all the ladies of the female persuasion reading this. But then again, if you're reading this, this ain't news to you).

Oh so now you're dissing the ladies of the male persuasion huh? No respect, I tell ya. Yes, I'm a cunt too.

Quote from: One Horse Town;366201Stormbringer's a cunt.

I'll own this.  I will add, however, that I only respond to other people's cuntishness this way.  ;)

Quote from: Benoist;366203Sorry, I'm probably one of the retards here, but what's your point?
That we're all lesbians in the end or something? :D

I have been a lesbian all my life.  I am totally into women.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;366207I have been a lesbian all my life. I am totally into women. :)

OMG OMG OMG. That makes SO much sense now! :)

Quote from: StormBringer;366182Until you brought up the idea of 'real people behind the internet nicks', AM did not give a flying fuck about Tom or anyone else he spent no small amount of time attempting to belittle.

Oh that.

I dunno, surely AM is smart enough to figure out for himself there are real people behind the screen nicks. I mean, his avatar picture is of his own face, you know.

Just for kicks, you guys should know that this kind of personal nerdfury is not confined to nerds, jock-types have it, too. There are two guys you pencil-necked geeks probably never heard of: Lyle McDonald and Mark Rippetoe. Lyle is all about making people lean and sexy, Rip's all about making them big and strong, so what if they get a fat gut along the way. Both are fairly well-known in the fitness industry and have written books on their topics of interest.

Rip made some silly claims about one of his clients getting big and strong, Lyle doubted it. Major flamewar ensued, with all sorts of premature speculation (they still need a pill for that) about obscure points of bodyfat measurement, how people squat with 345lbs on their back, that sort of thing. And it's ended with Lyle saying, fuck you, Mark (http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=15550).

So you don't have to be a geek to have nerdfury and flamewars about obscure bullshit. Even those big guys who put you upside-down in your locker when you were at school do it, too.

I hope that comforts you.

Quote from: Benoist;366203Are you trying to "officially" moderate, here?

That's the problem with French cunts - the smell of garlic gets in the way of their thinking faculties.

There is no "official" here unless Pundit says so. Read "official" in this case as me "officially" - that's for the record, if you want to dredge it up - getting tired of nearly every thread here getting derailed by personal bunfights or threadcrapped within half a dozen posts.

Freedom of speech is great, little moderation is great - but unless the participants are willing to use that sensibly, we end up with contentless pap.

Haven't you seen Spiderman?

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366209Rip made some silly claims about one of his clients getting big and strong, Lyle doubted it. Major flamewar ensued, with all sorts of premature speculation (they still need a pill for that) about obscure points of bodyfat measurement, how people squat with 345lbs on their back, that sort of thing. And it's ended with Lyle saying, fuck you, Mark (http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=15550).

Flamewarriorz gold.

Quote from: One Horse Town;366210That's the problem with French cunts - the smell of garlic gets in the way of their thinking faculties.

Hey, it's not my fault if you can't speak plain English to save your sorry ass from a ridiculous back-and-forth, cupcake! :D

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366209Just for kicks, you guys should know that this kind of personal nerdfury is not confined to nerds, jock-types have it, too. There are two guys you pencil-necked geeks probably never heard of: Lyle McDonald and Mark Rippetoe. Lyle is all about making people lean and sexy, Rip's all about making them big and strong, so what if they get a fat gut along the way. Both are fairly well-known in the fitness industry and have written books on their topics of interest.

Rip made some silly claims about one of his clients getting big and strong, Lyle doubted it. Major flamewar ensued, with all sorts of premature speculation (they still need a pill for that) about obscure points of bodyfat measurement, how people squat with 345lbs on their back, that sort of thing. And it's ended with Lyle saying, fuck you, Mark (http://www.startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showthread.php?t=15550).

So you don't have to be a geek to have nerdfury and flamewars about obscure bullshit. Even those big guys who put you upside-down in your locker when you were at school do it, too.

I hope that comforts you.

Just for the record, my better half used to participate in a knitting forum which had flamewars of equal nerdfury. Over knitting!

:D :D

Quote from: jeff37923;366213Just for the record, my better half used to participate in a knitting forum which had flamewars of equal nerdfury. Over knitting!

:D :D

Heck, just a cursory look at comments on any YouTube vid is enough to convince me that anybody can flame anyone for anything over the intratubes!

Quote from: Benoist;366211Hey, it's not my fault if you can't speak plain English to save your sorry ass from a ridiculous back-and-forth, cupcake! :D

I can't be arsed with this shit anymore.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366209Rip made some silly claims about one of his clients getting big and strong, Lyle doubted it. Major flamewar ensued

That was fucking awesome.  Not McUzi grade, but lulzy as hell.

I've seen flamewars on car forums, shoe forums and skin cancer forums.  Wherever people have strong opinions, there'll be flame.

That was one of about 5 or 6 threads about in publicly-viewable areas, by the way. The thread on Lyle's own forum he locked, and said that if anyone brought up the topic again, supporting or attacking him either, he'd delete the post and banzorz them.

The true Monster Thread spawns babies, all as ugly as their parents.

Well, I for one think this is a fantastic development.
I'm certainly not going to shit all over it just because its 4e. Would I be happier if it was a brand new version of D&D that was closer to the original D&D mechanical concepts? Sure. But ANY time WoTC makes any kind of move that I feel is a step in the right direction, I'm going to fucking praise them for it.

And this, to all external appearances, is WoTC doing what I've been saying they should do for years now.

So good for them.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366209I hope that comforts you.

It neither comforts nor surprises me.  I just find it ridiculous when someone adds a perfectly valid point to their list of bullshit and pretends it was important all along.

Quote from: jeff37923;366213Just for the record, my better half used to participate in a knitting forum which had flamewars of equal nerdfury. Over knitting!

nitting is srs bisnss.

I have been around the intertubes a couple of times, I know the scorched earth wars of which you speak.  :)

Quote from: Hairfoot;366121I've compared 4E to BECMI simply because it's faster to run at the table than 3.x, with less frequent reference to the books.  The similarities end there, though.

I don't agree with this 100%. The weapon mastery rules allowed for melee weapon damage that scaled with level and caused status effects on successful attacks, which is something that 4E does, all though in BECMI this was a passive ability as opposed to 4E's power system. THAT, I believe, is where the similarities end.

Other than that, I really don't believe that 4E harkens back to the days of yore like some people say.

Sure, a lot of the sim bits are left up to individual DM interpretation, but on the whole the focus is way different.

OD&D, BECMI and AD&D 1st were more focused on lengthy dungeon crawls full of random encounters which is a playstyle that 4E performs woefully at. I say this because it's far easier to maintain focus on exploration and discovery when battles are quick and dirty, rather than the lengthy tactical focus of 4E battles. However, anyway you slice it, tromping through a dungeon room to room, kicking in doors and slaying hapless, green skinned inhabitants makes for fun games, but not a very compelling spectator experience.


What 4E DOES do well is cinematic big budget action blockbuster fights with lots of whacky over the top shit going on. 4E battles consist of PC's ascending a stone staircase carved into a mountain side in a race to stop a fell ritual from being completed by evil cultists, while dodging boulders being rolled onto their heads from above by the badguys' lackeys and fighting off screaming harpies.

It's just a shame that WotC modules try to shoehorn the system into the dungeon crawl playstyle.

Quote from: Peregrin;366066True, but 4e abandons the traditional focus on some of the minor sim bits to focus almost solely on gameplay.  It is unashamedly a game through-and-through, and it lets you know it.  You end up with something leaner and meaner, and perhaps overall a better design, but that's not what everyone wants, and it's a far cry from the old-school games (as I see them, as a younger gamer).

Maybe I'm misreading you, but I can't see the sim bits in OD&D. OD&D is a lean beast of a game, focused on the gamey parts of it. There's no sim there, there's no world, there's nothing but the dungeon and the rules.

QuoteSo it's really no surprise that a lot of people don't like it.  It's inherently less tweakable than older editions because they had to make it sturdy, and it's really hard to do anything but adventure-path D&D with it.  4e knows what it is, what it wants to do, and is better at doing the things it was designed to, but not so good as a toolbox.

You're 100% right, and that definitely explains why many people may not like it. It fails to explain, though, how that is going to end the hobby as we know it or change it into a thing we no longer recognize as RPGing.

Quote from: Sigmund;366115No, I agree. The tactical complexity is the least of my complaints about 4e, most times I don't mind it at all. The only reason I bring it up is because it is the main reason 4e plays absolutely nothing like OD&D or BECMI or Holmes or even AD&D for me.

On this I agree, but I was not referring directly to you. Of course, the gameplay is very different, but the core idea of the game is the same. That is what I meant.

I'm aware that you don't think that 4e is the end of the world or anything like it :) But I wanted to make clear (using your post as an example) that increased complexity did not make people scream "This is no longer D&D!" with previous editions, and it has no reason to start now.

QuoteYes, the basic premise is the same, but then so is the basic premise of Dragonquest, Iron Gauntlets, and Earthdawn.

I would disagree, at least partially. I'm only really familiar with Earthdawn 1e, and only passingly familiar with IG, but I would say that the setting has a greater preeminence in those games than in OD&D or even in BECMI D&D (at least as presented in the Red Box). From what I've read and played, you can ignore the world around the dungeon. But in Earthdawn, the world is key: is the reason for you to adventure. Your success as player (XP) is not measured by the loot, but other things. And that things change the experience.

QuoteNotice, I'm not attaching any value judgments on this at all, just saying that 4e's increased tactical options cause the fights to take longer, thereby providing a very different experience to pre-3e editions of DnD, especially the basic editions.

Well, this I think goes undisputed. My experience has been the same as yours. But for me, imagining our crew going down into the dungeon as the min goal of the game, exploring, kicking ass and getting phat loot, still feels D&D for me.

Bear also in mind that my favourite version is RC D&D.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366209Just for kicks, you guys should know that this kind of personal nerdfury is not confined to nerds, jock-types have it, too. There are two guys you pencil-necked geeks probably never heard of: Lyle McDonald and Mark Rippetoe. Lyle is all about making people lean and sexy, Rip's all about making them big and strong, so what if they get a fat gut along the way. Both are fairly well-known in the fitness industry and have written books on their topics of interest.

Not surprising. Internet tends to do that. Oh, and I train using a method derived (or at least very influenced) by Rippetoe's ideas, Stronglifts 5x5. :)

Quote from: Imperator;366271Oh, and I train using a method derived (or at least very influenced) by Rippetoe's ideas, Stronglifts 5x5. :)

Hoo boy. We'll have to have a chat about early stalls and poor technique, since that's what people get from Stronglifts. And intermittent fasting, oh dear.

And for the love of God, don't listen to his self-help advice. Oy vey.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;366272Hoo boy. We'll have to have a chat about early stalls and poor technique, since that's what people get from Stronglifts. And intermittent fasting, oh dear.

And for the love of God, don't listen to his self-help advice. Oy vey.

I'm all ears regarding diet and technique :) I don't do anything like fasting, but I have to admit that diet is still my weakest point, as I don't eat as much as I probably should. Re: stalling, I haven't stalled yet, and keep making progress.

I'm a psychologist, so I don't do much self-help :D

Anyway, I wll be delighted to discuss this further, but it will better by PM or email as to not derail the thread.

Actually, Kyle, why don't you start a fitness thread in Other Media? I'd be interested to see what kind of tips you can offer. I certainly could stand to lose a few pounds.

Quote from: Imperator;366271I would disagree, at least partially. I'm only really familiar with Earthdawn 1e, and only passingly familiar with IG, but I would say that the setting has a greater preeminence in those games than in OD&D or even in BECMI D&D (at least as presented in the Red Box). From what I've read and played, you can ignore the world around the dungeon. But in Earthdawn, the world is key: is the reason for you to adventure. Your success as player (XP) is not measured by the loot, but other things. And that things change the experience.

That's not the way we played Earthdawn. Sure, the mechanics were different, but but we still played guys with swords looking for loot.

QuoteWell, this I think goes undisputed. My experience has been the same as yours. But for me, imagining our crew going down into the dungeon as the min goal of the game, exploring, kicking ass and getting phat loot, still feels D&D for me.

Wish it did for me. The extreme focus on mechanics in 4e completely wrecks my ability to suspend disbelief and "get into" my character. I really don't like it.

Quote from: Werekoala;366287Actually, Kyle, why don't you start a fitness thread in Other Media? I'd be interested to see what kind of tips you can offer. I certainly could stand to lose a few pounds.

Actually I'd be interested too. I've lost alot of the weight I gained during my knee surgeries and recovery, but I could really use advice about developing a workout plan that would let me work with my bad knees (arthritis).

Quote from: RPGPundit;366237Well, I for one think this is a fantastic development.
I'm certainly not going to shit all over it just because its 4e. Would I be happier if it was a brand new version of D&D that was closer to the original D&D mechanical concepts? Sure. But ANY time WoTC makes any kind of move that I feel is a step in the right direction, I'm going to fucking praise them for it.

And this, to all external appearances, is WoTC doing what I've been saying they should do for years now.

So good for them.

RPGPundit

Exactly right. This looks like the best introductory set since the original BD&D line was discontinued.

Quote from: Imperator;366271Maybe I'm misreading you, but I can't see the sim bits in OD&D. OD&D is a lean beast of a game, focused on the gamey parts of it. There's no sim there, there's no world, there's nothing but the dungeon and the rules.

From my understanding of sim play, there doesn't necessarily need to be an explicit world, just one implied through the rules.  I'd say things like dungeon movement-rate, encumbrance, marching order (with specific measurements for the space occupied by a single humanoid), vancian casting, morale rules, etc., are all sim bits.  

I could be mistaken, but that's just my view.

Quote from: Werekoala;366287Actually, Kyle, why don't you start a fitness thread in Other Media? I'd be interested to see what kind of tips you can offer. I certainly could stand to lose a few pounds.

I don't think it's appropriate for this forum. I'm certain Pundit would close it ;)

You can email me on aptphysicaltraining@gmail.com

I don't think that a thread encouraging RPG gamers to be more fit would be inappropriate, quite the contrary, it would be something that some people may direly need.
Feel free to open it in the Pundit's forum, in fact.

RPGPundit
(who spent years practicing Qi Gong and has in recent months moved on to more strenuous Tibetan Yoga)

Update

Wizards of the Coast GTS 2010 Seminar | LivingDice.com (http://www.livingdice.com/3690/wizards-of-the-coast-gts-2010-seminar/)

Actual picture of the product:

(http://images.scribblelive.com/2010/3/24/d3596331-6498-4171-9bb3-216cb24a6e82_300.jpg)

I'm planning on picking it up. :)

I actually think I will too. If nothing else, it'll be a realtively cost-effective way to show my regular group what 4e is like, and it might pull on some of the nostalgic heartstrings as well. As I've stated before, I really don't have a problem with 4e, it's just far different than D&D was. And probably more different that it should be. But I'm not being indecisive.

Probably not on my radar, but that's a great-looking boxed set cover!

I appreciate how they're trying to get people into the game.  I really hope the boxed set isn't crippleware, and is a full game as they seem to indicate it is.

Some more info can be found here (http://www.livingdice.com/3690/wizards-of-the-coast-gts-2010-seminar/).

Apparently, the essentials line will consist of all new material, with no reprints.

Perhaps this is a stealth 4.5 afterall.

Quote from: Shazbot79;369796Apparently, the essentials line will consist of all new material, with no reprints.

Weird decision to call it 'essentials' then, isn't it?

Quote from: jrients;369800Weird decision to call it 'essentials' then, isn't it?

From the link by Shazbot (which I linked on Enworld and TheDen recently),

QuoteAll of the new D&D Essentials will have new material. Not a reprint of existing product.

The old hardback books are still supported.

No rules changes. This is still 4.0

Here's my take. They're talking the rules text they have and simplify them. A less kind term would be "dumb them down", but personally I'd rather not put a value judgement on it (besides, I prefer simplified rules text). This is just highly speculative on my part, but I think a real window on what's going on is comparing some of the 4E language in 2010 with that in 2008 (and there's always Wolf Baur's handy review of PHB2 to compare 4E language in 2009 with 2008).

Here's the minotaur's racial feature (if used as a PC race rather than a monster),

2008 version (MM, p.278):
"Ferocity: If you are reduced to 0 hit points, you can make a basic melee attack as a free action before falling unconscious."

2010 version (PHB 3, p.10)
"Ferocity: When you drop to 0 hit points or fewer, you can make a basic melee attack as an immediate interrupt."

Two points stand out:
(1.) Apparently the word "reduce" is to complicated, especially in the passive ("are reduced to").
(2.) On the other hand, a greater degree of precision in the rules bit: "as an immediate interrupt" specifies exactly where what when takes place. Sure, it presupposes that people know how interrupts work, but once they do, there's absolutely no room for interpreting it further.

That's the twin tendencies that I predict Essentials 4E will capitalize on - dumb down the prose, and rigidify the rules terms as much as possible. Not a bad way to go, I think.

The result, then, is a solidification of the 4.0 rules text, very far from a simple (if selective) reprint of the rules text they have in their books currently. Which is what the above quote says. It's 4.0.

Quote from: jrients;369800Weird decision to call it 'essentials' then, isn't it?

Not if you recall the reaction of many fans when 3.5 was announced.

Then again, WotC has also stated that material published as part of the Essentials line would be fully compatible with pre-existing 4th edition products...whereas 3.5 effectively replaced the initial 3rd edition line.

Personally, I'm all for it, if the update signifigantly improves the game. I just wish they had gotten it right the first time around.

The new boxed set seems like they listened to everything people who were unenthused about 4e have been saying they should do since it came out.

* Put it in a boxed set
* Get some dice in there
* Have all the maps and stuff you need to play
* Make the cover art better / more like Elmore
* Have a players book and a GM book
* Cut the page count way down
* Have an intro single-player CYOA style tutorial adventure
* Ditch the new races and classes
* Make it more straight forward
* Make it something you give to kids (Ages 12+) as a gift

I'm honestly impressed with that. Isn't this more or less everything that we were all posting about here and saying they should do?

I never said any of that.  I couldn't care less about the kiddies, for one, I think chasing them is as idiotic and creepy as it is misguided and clueless about the current market for genre material.

It's the system I hate, and that's still in there.  When they rip 4e out of the box and put Basic Fantasy in there I'll consider it.

I said more or less everything we were saying they should do.

If you said "stuff it" or "put another game in the box" then yeah, that's not one of the suggestions they listened to. :)

I'm with Stuart - this appears to be a good direction for making the game accessible to newbies and kids.  Which is a good thing for everyone in the hobby, whether you play this particular game or not (if nothing else, it helps fund the industry that produces other products you might like instead).

As for anyone who was hoping it was a completely new game system - honestly, I'm not sure why anyone thought that would actually happen.  I mean, they only had a few months to get these produced.

Ultimately, what it is, is less important than where it is.

Quote from: J Arcane;369890It's the system I hate, and that's still in there.  When they rip 4e out of the box and put Basic Fantasy in there I'll consider it.

That's basically my attitude as well. I find it interesting -and telling- that WotC chooses to have the basic boxed set use that exact replica-style cover. As for the contents, it's 4e, there are counters and a map and still bullshit like that... I'm not waiting for a miracle. Tell me you're reprinting the ACTUAL Mentzer boxed set or similar product, and there... we can talk.

Benoist et al. are right.

This new red box is nothing like the old red box.

Are you guys just being willfully ignorant?

The old red box:

"THIS GAME REQUIRES NO GAMEBOARD BECAUSE THE ACTION TAKES PLACE IN THE PLAYER'S IMAGINATION . . ."

The new red box:

The game requires a square-grid map, and miniatures/tokens/etc. (all included).

Come on guys; these are two totally different games. One is boardgame; the other is not.

The old D&D was a revolutionary new hobby, unlike any other game (no gameboard! everything in the mind's eye!).

The new D&D, 4e, is just a board game, a tactical miniatures board wargame of fantasy superheroes.

I love the old D&D - in a class of its own. I wouldn't touch this new miniatures boardgame, this so-called D&D.

This new red box will be a failure just like all the other basic sets that Wizards has released.

When Wizards finally realizes what it was that made D&D such a huge success (i.e. a game played totally in the imagination, requiring only the imagination), then they will be able to recapture some of what was lost. It may be too late, though. The last decade of D&D has been all square-grid, and it keeps getting worse.

Wizards releases crap like tiles and miniatures. THAT'S DEFEATING THE WHOLE POINT! We don't want our imaginations to be limited by what others have produced (i.e. tiles that say "this is what the dungeon looks like", or miniatures that say "this is what your guy looks like").

Wizards just doesn't understand what it is that separates the RPG from other games.

Gary gave the "gift of endless imagination". Hard to have endless imagination when you are constrained by limited tiles, miniatures, etc.

Hey, I may not care for the system and for that reason I won't be picking this up, but I'm glad to see they're putting out an introductory product of this type.  I think it's a good move, so long as it is a more complete product than previous WotC efforts along these lines.

Quote from: 1989;369989Gary gave the "gift of endless imagination". Hard to have endless imagination when you are constrained by limited tiles, miniatures, etc.

And if instead of miniatures and tiles, one simply draws out maps and uses chess pieces, coins or dice?

Is the imagination still constrained?

The other thing to point about it being "just 4e" is, well, was B/X "Just AD&D1" with most of the levels stripped out?

Did you need the full AD&D book, really, to get the full experience of the game?  

B/X provided a simple entry point, but it also remained a complete and valid choice for a game.  It meant you had a valid option if you were just fine without the added complexity of the "Advanced" line, and it even got support of it's own to maintain that fact.  

This is just 4e but missing some stuff.  I don't see how it's in any way a comparable product.  You can damn sure bet the last thing they want is for people to stick with this basic set, as opposed to getting bored and frustrated with it's limitations and either quitting or, hopefully, throwing down $90 at the FLGS for a full set of 4e corebooks.

Quote from: Shazbot79;370002And if instead of miniatures and tiles, one simply draws out maps and uses chess pieces, coins or dice?

Is the imagination still constrained?

Requiring and optional are a little different.

That said, yes, 4e has offered new constraints especially in terms of design, due to the nature of gridded combat.  Spells/effects/etc. were cut if they didn't jive well with gridded combat (cones, line attacks, etc.).  It's not limited to 4e, though, as 3e did the same thing in some areas of the rules, but it was less pronounced.

I'd say that's pretty opposite of designing with the notion that a lot of your players might not be using miniatures (Gary certainly didn't game with them all that often, by his own admission).

Quote from: Peregrin;370005Requiring and optional are a little different.

That said, yes, 4e has offered new constraints especially in terms of design, due to the nature of gridded combat.  Spells/effects/etc. were cut if they didn't jive well with gridded combat (cones, line attacks, etc.).  It's not limited to 4e, though, as 3e did the same thing in some areas of the rules, but it was less pronounced.

I'd say that's pretty opposite of designing with the notion that a lot of your players might not be using miniatures (Gary certainly didn't game with them all that often, by his own admission).

I understand the desire for theater of the mind style gaming, but the poster whom I was responding to seemed fixated on the specific visual aids, rather than the mere presence of them.

Quote from: Shazbot79;370002And if instead of miniatures and tiles, one simply draws out maps and uses chess pieces, coins or dice?

Is the imagination still constrained?

Neither. Like the box said -- all in the imagination. Never have I used coins, dice, or anything else. If worse comes to worse, a quick sketch on scrap paper.

Quote from: 1989;370015Neither. Like the box said -- all in the imagination. Never have I used coins, dice, or anything else. If worse comes to worse, a quick sketch on scrap paper.

And the people who played AD&D 1st with minis...were they suffering from a deficit of imagination?

Quote from: Shazbot79;370020And the people who played AD&D 1st with minis...were they suffering from a deficit of imagination?

No, but even the author of said game said that use of miniatures could shift the focus from IC roleplaying to a more tactical affair.  He didn't believe anything was inherently wrong with that if that's what the group in question was after, but the idea of shifting focus (what Forgites would call a shift of stance) was there.

The difference here is that D&D 4e requires miniatures, and this forces a shift of stance that some people don't enjoy.  It's not just a Forgey thing, either.  I think Windjammer, or someone else, linked to some psych articles in another thread about how the way you perceive/interact with a character/game limits certain modes of thinking.  Mearls has even said that his players become more creative and engage more with "what would my character do?" when not using minis compared to when minis are being used.

So it's not so much a matter of badwrongfun, it's a matter of differentfun, based on how the game system influences player behavior.  D&D4e assumes people engage the game differently than people engage with Basic or AD&D.

Quote from: Peregrin;370021No, but even the author of said game said that use of miniatures could shift the focus from IC roleplaying to a more tactical affair.  He didn't believe anything was inherently wrong with that if that's what the group in question was after, but the idea of shifting focus (what Forgites would call a shift of stance) was there.

The difference here is that D&D 4e requires miniatures, and this forces a shift of stance that some people don't enjoy.  It's not just a Forgey thing, either.  I think Windjammer, or someone else, linked to some psych articles in another thread about how the way you perceive/interact with a character/game limits certain modes of thinking.  Mearls has even said that his players become more creative and engage more with "what would my character do?" when not using minis compared to when minis are being used.

So it's not so much a matter of badwrongfun, it's a matter of differentfun, based on how the game system influences player behavior.  D&D4e assumes people engage the game differently than people engage with Basic or AD&D.

Said it better than I could.

Quote from: Peregrin;370021No, but even the author of said game said that use of miniatures could shift the focus from IC roleplaying to a more tactical affair.

And then created the first official line of AD&D minis, said they made running the game easier, and included them in the list of game aids that are "...most helpful in establishing and maintaining an interesting and exciting campaign."

Oh, yeah, the really good bit: "It is suggested that you urge your players to provide painted figures representing their characters, henchmen, and hirelings involved in play. The monsters can be furnished by you..."

Cleary, Gygax advocated that people not use minis. Why this is still even a topic of conversation, given how he spelled out his dislike of the things, I'm not sure...

Yes, 3e and 4e are more tactical than previous editions of the game and positioning information is more important. Doesn't mean you need minis per se, but a sketch on a pad, bottle caps, coins, et al. would be very helpful.

The idea that minis kill imagination or the game is ridiculous as they've been used since the game's inception. Not just something individual groups brought to the table, but as something the game suggests you use. The difference between the days of yore and today is that minis are put to better use...

Seanchai

The thing about 3E and 4E is that you can run them mini-less, but only at the cost of handwaiving a good portion of the rules. I'm doing that regularly and I'm utterly convinced that people who haven't done so are inclined to believe that the rules you got to waive are 90% of the game. Just not true. The only thing that gets waived is the area effect and the range of (e.g.) a power - but not the effect in terms of damage+condition it inflicts on the target. In short, out of a 4E power you waive 1 out of 10 lines of its rules text. That's less than you might believe. Same in 3E. The only things which really start to get blurred are movement measurements - did the rogue move 5 or 6 squares? - and the range of ranged attacks (be these by bows or spells). You'd be surprised how much of the game survives intact. At the same time, it makes for a totally different experience as both DM and players engage with the situation very differently.

E.g., here's a cute mini-dungeon in a WotC module we ran without minis or any other tokens and without grid:

(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/cormyr_maps/103415.jpg)

See, this is what I'd like WotC to do more often in their "Delve Format" - don't write 2 pages for every single area on that map (look for the keyed areas J2C, J2B, J2A) and instead treat them all in one go - in a single 2-page spread as was done here (Tearing of the Weave). Incidentally, that's your shift from encounter to (mini)dungeon right there - the write up includes even info on the surrounding area of the tomb depicted above. The problem with the Delve Format is that 'encounters' of this variety are way too sparse, especially with 4E products.

So I like these abstract combats which focus on a dungeon as a whole. But I also like running 3E and 4E with minis. I (and my players) like the option to play an extremely engaging combat game where 4 rounds takes up 60 minutes (recall the stuff I linked in the "What to do about bad dice rolling?" thread the other day). It's actually really nice when, after a day of heavy work, we can just get out some beer and start to play this combat game which rewards tactical thinking while going easy on having to picture a ton of stuff and drawing maps with the players making assault plans (as was the case with the tomb above).

See, we like the choice. We like a game that gives us both - quick, abstract combat, and heavily engaged slow-moving grid-pushing. I'm totally aware that even at the most abstract a combat in 3E or 4E will be never as fast paced (and short in duration) as a fight under BECMI rules... but here's the catch: 3E and 4E give me a choice that BECMI doesn't. And that's why these are my editions of choice.

Quote from: Peregrin;370021No, but even the author of said game said that use of miniatures could shift the focus from IC roleplaying to a more tactical affair.  He didn't believe anything was inherently wrong with that if that's what the group in question was after, but the idea of shifting focus (what Forgites would call a shift of stance) was there.

It definitely emphasizes the tactical aspect of the game. Whether it affects IC role playing depends on the nature of the rules and the ability of the players to actually role play IC and imagine surroundings in their mind's eye based on the 2D/3D representations on the table. It's not a given, but it's not that hard either.

Quote from: Peregrin;370021So it's not so much a matter of badwrongfun, it's a matter of differentfun, based on how the game system influences player behavior.  D&D4e assumes people engage the game differently than people engage with Basic or AD&D.

But 1984's attitude DOES seem to suggest that playing with minis and a map is indeed badwrongfun...at least with the amount of vitriol he was spewing.

I play 4e with minis. I also played 3rd edition and AD&D before that with minis. It sounds to me like what he's  saying is that my friends and I weren't REALLY roleplaying, even back in the day...we were playing a board game because we were pushing minis around on a map. Apparently, because we use minis, we are suffering from a dearth of imagination. I mean that IS the primary distinction he makes between 4E and older editions.

Quote from: 1989;369989The old D&D was a revolutionary new hobby, unlike any other game (no gameboard! everything in the mind's eye!).

(http://www.iconusa.com/online/Images/D&D/1stdd.jpg)

Quote from: Seanchai;370051Cleary, Gygax advocated that people not use minis. Why this is still even a topic of conversation, given how he spelled out his dislike of the things, I'm not sure...

First off, I never said "dislike".  He said that it affects the way in which people play and engage with the game.  That's not a value judgment, it's a fact.  Have you read Gygax' own posts over on Dragonsfoot?  If not, do so.  Most of that shit in the AD&D guide was a shill for TSR.

QuoteI don't usually employ miniatures in my RPG play. We ceased that when we moved from CHAINMAIL Fantasy to D&D.

I have nothing against the use of miniatures, but they are generally impractical for long and free-wheeling campaign play where the scene and opponents can vary wildly in the course of but an hour.

The GW folks use them a lot, but they are fighting set-piece battles as is usual with miniatures gaming.

I don't believe that fantasy miniatures are good or bad for FRPGs in general. If the GM sets up gaming sessions based on their use, the resulting play is great from my standpoint. It is mainly a matter of having the painted figures and a big tabletop to play on.

--Gary Gygax, 2003, ENworld Forums

Gary rarely ever made value judgments about the way people wished to play, but he was willing to say "If you do X, it will influence how people play."  This isn't some sort of "this is REAL roleplaying", it's a fundamental aspect of design.  If you design a game with more emphasis on set-piece battles and mini-tactics, people will focus on that part of the game.

And rez, that's lovely, but did you ever actually bother to read the fucking book?  You know, it helps when you do:

QuoteIt is relatively simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures, although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought. (Men & Magic, page 3)

Optional vs required (or assumed, if required is too strong of a word for you).  Two different modes of designing.  It even says on the cover "playable with", not "We assume you will be using a gridded surface and miniatures."

Quote from: Peregrin;370113Most of that shit in the AD&D guide was a shill for TSR.

So when he says something you like in the AD&D manuals, he's the genius patron saint of gaming, but when he says something you don't like, he's just shillin' for the man. I'll have to remember that for when I'm arguing about what AD&D and Gygax advocated.

Quote from: Peregrin;370113Optional vs required.

And minis aren't required for AD&D, 3e, or 4e. For example, the 4e PHB, just like Gygax's AD&D, says that you might find them useful.

Seanchai

Quote from: Peregrin;370113And rez, that's lovely, but did you ever actually bother to read the fucking book?  You know, it helps when you do

I have read the OD&D books, yes.

QuoteOptional vs required (or assumed, if required is too strong of a word for you).  Two different modes of designing.  It even says on the cover "playable with", not "We assume you will be using a gridded surface and miniatures."

Feeling defensive, are we? :)

The very first RPG was designed for use with or without miniatures (hence: "playable with"), if that makes my perspective on the matter any clearer for you. The post I was responding to seemed to be confusing that game with a later "edition", so I thought I would sort than one out, in the most direct way I knew how.

But thank you so much for your adorable, cutesy snideness. There just ain't enough of that on the webs, you know.

Quote from: Seanchai;370116So when he says something you like in the AD&D manuals, he's the genius patron saint of gaming, but when he says something you don't like, he's just shillin' for the man. I'll have to remember that for when I'm arguing about what AD&D and Gygax advocated.

I never said he was a saint, and I don't follow the AD&D as a bible.  I'm not sure if you're aware, but I didn't grow up with AD&D.  I've got no sentimental attachment to it, and I don't take anything Gary says in the AD&D as some absolute truth.  Quite the opposite.  I take his forum posts and personal conversations much more seriously than anything he wrote for TSR, whether it was in Dragon or one of his own books.

It's also pretty easy to tell when he is or isn't using his company voice, given the context of the passage/article.

QuoteAnd minis aren't required for AD&D, 3e, or 4e. For example, the 4e PHB, just like Gygax's AD&D, says that you might find them useful.

Seanchai

Actually, if you read the 4e DMG, it says that it assumes a gridded tabletop play surface and figure/counters to go along with it, just like the 3.5 DMG did after they started emphasizing the grid even further in rules revisions.  The bit in the PHB about "you might find them useful" sounds like a copy-paste from the 3e PHB.

QuoteBut thank you so much for your adorable, cutesy snideness. There just ain't enough of that on the webs, you know.

Sorry, I thought you were making the tired point that a lot of gamers like to make with the whole "it says minis on the front, it has to be a minis game!"  I was wrong.

Quote from: Seanchai;370116So when he says something you like in the AD&D manuals, he's the genius patron saint of gaming, but when he says something you don't like, he's just shillin' for the man. I'll have to remember that for when I'm arguing about what AD&D and Gygax advocated.

Actually, it's more like everything EGG wrote heavily depended on context. That's why it's kind of counter-productive to just throw an EGG quote as some sort of Holy Writ in any kind of debate without first discussing the context in which the quote was uttered or published.

Quote from: Peregrin;370120The bit in the PHB about "you might find them useful" sounds like a copy-paste from the 3e PHB.

No, it's on page 9 of the 4e PHB.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370122No, it's on page 9 of the 4e PHB.

Seanchai

That's why I said it sounds like a copy-paste.

Even though the book may indeed claim that "you might find miniatures useful", it's pretty much a fact that most gamers use miniatures for 4e. The game's very design, in terms of units (squares), effects (push, pull, etc) rests on the assumption the players use miniatures. It's completely hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

I could give two fingleberries and a mcshithole what Gygax ever said, in a book or online.  I actually get really, really tired of the appeal to authority of Gygax that constantly comes up.  The guy fucking died, he didn't rise again to forgive us our gaming sins or whatever.  Stop trying to beatify him already.

Personally, from everything I've seen Gary was kind of a dick and pretty much everyone else associated with D&D in the early years (Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay, Metzner, and Cook just to name a few) had a better handle on it than he did.  They all could certainly write circles around him as he was a terrible writer (though Phil Barker is still the shittiest professional game writer to ever walk the earth) and a mediocre at best game designer (one need only see his legacy of Cyborg Commando, Dangerous Journeys, and Lejendary Adventures to figure that one out).

As for miniatures, they've been there since the dawn of the hobby.  It's just a style difference - not using minis does not make one morally superior.


All that said, I fully agree that 4e has a very strong minis focus that is difficult to avoid.  You can play without them, but it'd be like trying to play D&D diceless - it'd kind of miss the point.  For me, the trade-off of the more tactical minis battles is that combat tends to be a lot more exciting for me now (though it is rather imperfect and could stand to be streamlined a lot).

Quote from: Benoist;370121Actually, it's more like everything EGG wrote heavily depended on context.

Actually, it's more like Gygaxian devotees want context to matter to make their revisionism easier.

But it's pages 10 and 11 of the 1st edition DMG.

From the section USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES WITH THE GAME comes this quote: "The special figures cast for ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS add color to play and make refereeing easier. Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and/or hirelings included in the game session."

From the section entitled AIDS TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS comes the following: "Various products such as modules, playing aids, and miniature figurines will be most helpful in establishing and maintaining an interesting and exciting campaign."

Further down in that section, we find: "Miniature figures used to represent characters and monsters add color and life to the game. They also make the task of refereeing action, particularly combat, easier too! In combination with a gridded surface, such as the DUNGEON FLOORPLANS ( to be published by TSR in the near future), these miniatures will add a whole new dimension to your playing enjoyment. It is suggested that you urge your players to provide painted figures representing their characters, henchmen, and hirelings involved in play. The monsters can be furnished by you - possibly purchased through collection of small fees levied each playing session. The OFFICIAL ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS miniature figures will be released by Grenadier Models [their address is here] about November 1979. These figures are the only ones which comply in all respects to AD&D specifications and the AD&D MONSTER MANUAL."

But you're right, now that we see the context, it's completely clear Gygax wasn't advocating the use of minis. Phrases about urging players to use them and their use making the game easier and more exciting are actually condemnations of minis. I don't know why I couldn't see it earlier. Thank you, context.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;370128Even though the book may indeed claim that "you might find miniatures useful", it's pretty much a fact that most gamers use miniatures for 4e.

Of course they do...just like in the days of AD&D.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370131Of course they do...just like in the days of AD&D.

How do we know that most players used minis in the days of AD&D?

Quote from: Seanchai;370130Actually, it's more like Gygaxian devotees want context to matter to make their revisionism easier.

Right, I forgot that people who actually gamed with Gygax are somehow initiating revisionism on how it was meant to be played.

QuoteFrom the section USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES WITH THE GAME comes this quote: "The special figures cast for ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS add color to play and make refereeing easier. Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and/or hirelings included in the game session."

From the section entitled AIDS TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS comes the following: "Various products such as modules, playing aids, and miniature figurines will be most helpful in establishing and maintaining an interesting and exciting campaign."

That's a far cry from saying "We're assuming you're doing it this way.  Get a grid and/or ruler."  That said, the last quote I had up there, from 2003.  A bit newer than AD&D, and absolutely no reason for Gygax to lie one way or the other.

Unless now you're going to claim Gary was playing the game wrong or something.  Oh!  Or, if you hate Gygax so much, then Monte Cook should've quit bitching when they changed the areas of certain monsters and changed other rules to focus more on gridded miniature combat rather than explicit distances in feet.  Of course, he's just crazy, and everyone always played with minis, and he didn't say anything about trying to design 3e so that you could play without them, and so he has no gripe with them changing things to squares.  Nope.

Quote from: Peregrin;370133Right, I forgot that people who actually gamed with Gygax are somehow initiating revisionism on how it was meant to be played.

That's interesting because when I went to learn how to play AD&D, TSR sold me the PHB, DMG, and MM. They didn't package the people who were playing with Gygax in blister packs and sell them on the shelf alongside some dice. Somehow, I'm betting that how AD&D was meant to be played is contained in the instructions manuals written to teach people how to play...  

Quote from: Peregrin;370133That's a far cry from saying "We're assuming you're doing it this way.  Get a grid and/or ruler."

You're right. Of course, I don't recall statements like those in 3e or 4e. Where are they at?

Quote from: Peregrin;370133That said, the last quote I had up there, from 2003.  A bit newer than AD&D, and absolutely no reason for Gygax to lie one way or the other.

And if AD&D were written in 2003, it might even be relevant. Because no one's arguing 4e's rules versus what Gygax mumbled on some board, they're arguing 4e's rules versus OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D's rules.

Of course, the reality is that Gygax said a lot of things over the years. In fact, he regularly contradicts himself in just the core AD&D books. Using his thoughts to frame or bolster your arguments is doomed to failure because there's just so much out there to cherry pick from which is contradictory.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370130Actually, it's more like Gygaxian devotees want context to matter to make their revisionism easier.

Actually, it's more like you're taking my remarks completely out of context. I didn't say anything about your silly argument of minis vs. non-minis in D&D. Look. D&D comes from Chainmail. AD&D was diversifying by selling official D&D miniatures. Of course EGG would push them through the game itself.

You know, I'm using miniatures in my games. 3rd ed, D&D, AD&D. I don't give a shit about this argument of minis vs. non-minis. I do both.

To me, it isn't about whether miniatures are advised by the game or not. It's about how the gateway to the hobby that this Red Box represents is designed. 4e rules without miniatures don't make any fucking sense, man. That's what I'm saying. You need a battlemat and tokens to make sense of that shit. Whereas with OD&D, AD&D... even 3rd ed, god dammit, you can do with or without miniatures.

You've got to be fucking blind to not see that the use of miniatures is ALL over 4e's rules. Either blind... or a fucking hypocrite.

Quote from: Seanchai;370116So when he says something you like in the AD&D manuals, he's the genius patron saint of gaming, but when he says something you don't like, he's just shillin' for the man. I'll have to remember that for when I'm arguing about what AD&D and Gygax advocated.



And minis aren't required for AD&D, 3e, or 4e. For example, the 4e PHB, just like Gygax's AD&D, says that you might find them useful.

Seanchai

3.5 PHB explicitly stated that miniatures are required. Read the first few pages of the PHB. (Also, compare it to the corresponding sentence in the 3.0 PHB, and notice the difference. Sneaky.)

4e cranked it up to 11.

Quote from: Benoist;3701574e rules without miniatures don't make any fucking sense, man. That's what I'm saying. You need a battlemat and tokens to make sense of that shit.

You've got to be fucking blind to not see that the use of miniatures is ALL over 4e's rules. Either blind... or a fucking hypocrite.

This.

I should clarify for some forumites: I'm not hating on miniatures. I plays me some Warhammer 40K, and I enjoy it.

However, I prefer not to have miniatures in my RPGs. Some people prefer them. That's cool. So, what's the big deal? Why all the hate?

Well, up until 3e, we guys who liked playing without miniatures had our playstyle supported.

So, basically, D&D stopped supporting our playstyle, and we wish it wasn't so.

Take the example of GURPS -- three different combat systems supported in one book. You've got the full-out tactical system for people who like it. You've got the verbal/narrative combat system for people who want that. Then, you have the cinematic combat system, which is even more lite.

Okay, so all we really wanted was for D&D to support a range of styles as it did originally. People who want miniatures can use them; those who don't want to use them don't have to -- their style is still supported. But no, Wizards, wanting to sell accessories, mandated miniatures, and, oh my, how convenient, we now sell collectible miniatures! Coincidence?

Zeb Cook (2e core developer) is on record as saying that the 2e combat was a narrative/verbal system:

Read for yourself:

"2E was a narrative game. The combat sequence was kept vague intentionally so that DMs would have maximum leeway to interpret things for the best dramatic effect. In the example you cited, the key element is that the dwarf’s player just shouted “Charge!” and rushed in. He could just as easily have said, “I pause a moment to give the wizard a chance to hit them with a fireball, then charge!” … but he didn’t. His narration indicated that he wanted to hit the enemy as fast as possible, without waiting for the wizard, so that’s the way the DM ran it. That part of the sequence had nothing to do with the initiative roll itself.”

“The question of when things happen depends on the players’ descriptions and the DM’s interpretation of the situation more than on the initiative rolls. Within the one-minute combat round, a lot of things are happening more-or-less at the same time. The initiative roll doesn’t determine exactly when any particular character does something, especially if you’re using the basic one-roll-per-side rule. Initiative is not synonymous with turn sequence as it is in many other rules. It is simply “which side has the slight upper hand this round?” That side gets to log its damage before the other guys. But they’re all in there swinging, dodging, maneuvering, and casting spells at the same time. It’s significant that in the example, the wizard cancels her fireball before the initiative dice are rolled. The dwarf is charging into melee without hesitation, so he’s bound to be in the target area before she can launch the spell. No particular rule dictates this; it’s part of the scene that the dwarf’s player created when he shouted “charge!”

“It’s meant to be chaotic; it’s intended that everything is happening at the same time. The initiative roll is a tool to help the DM decide whether the dwarf or the troll lands a telling blow* first, but they’re both hacking away and maneuvering the whole time according to the DM’s and players’ descriptions.”

“This topic was hotly contested while we were working on 2E. I played a lot of Melee/Wizard and was a big fan of its rigid definitions for what a character could do and how far he could move under various circumstances. Zeb favored the exact opposite view, that the less these things were defined, the more the DM and players could bring the scene to life and adapt to anything. We debated that more and longer than anything else. The standard rule is Zeb’s; the individual initiative rule is mine. In the end, however, I came over to Zeb’s way of thinking. For a game like AD&D, I now prefer the standard rule with its heavy dependence on narrative and interpretation. Which is not to say that I dislike or disavow the individual initiative approach. It serves very well for one, entirely valid style of play. I’ve simply come to appreciate a different style of play more.”

From: http://feysquare.com/

Quote from: Seanchai;370152You're right. Of course, I don't recall statements like those in 3e or 4e. Where are they at?

It's things like these that even had the likes of Monte Cook saying the game was moving too much towards an abstracted grid/minis playstyle:

3.5 DMG, page 4

QuoteThe D&D game assumes the use of miniature figures, and the
rules are written from that perspective.

4e DMG, page 6

QuoteWhat you need to play:
-A place to play
-Rulebooks
-Dice
-Paper and Pencils
-Battle Grid or D&D Dungeon Tiles

DMG, page 7

QuoteA battle grid is very important for running combat encounters, for reasons outlined in the Players Handbook.

Sounds a teensy, weensy, bit different than "you don't even need miniatures" or "no game board is required."

Naturally, this is what happens when you move from a verbal/abstract combat round (as 1989 points out) to an explicit action-per-roll type combat that makes use of explicit movement mechanics.

(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660498159844805.jpg)

Quote from: J Arcane;370167(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/9/16/128660498159844805.jpg)

Don't worry. It won't be too long before D&D goes belly up. By making itself a miniatures game, it has set itself in competition with Games Workshop. Failure is inevitable, unless it goes back to what made D&D so popular in the 80s.

As it stands, 4e has no strong point; it has nothing unique to offer. It is just a lame miniatures boardgame. It has turned its back on what makes RPGs different from miniatures games, etc.

Quote from: 1989;370174Don't worry. It won't be too long before D&D goes belly up.

I've been hearing this since 1985. 25 years of wrong. I don't expect it to be more true on the following 25.

Quote from: Imperator;370221I've been hearing this since 1985. 25 years of wrong. I don't expect it to be more true on the following 25.

Expect the unexpected. Never before has D&D changed so greatly since it first became popular. D&D will die a slow and painful death, as it wanders further away from the principles of the game that was so popular in the 80s.

Not totally on topic, but just to add some more hate:

Gygax speaking on 3e:

"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good." - EGG

With 4e, this is even more true. All the classes are mechanically identical -- the archetypes are less present than in 3e. Combat and character power are even more at the forefront. More than ever, D&D has become a game of comic-book superheroes, with the increased baseline power level and ridiculous feats that characters can accomplish, totally detached from the world. The Dungeon Master is relegated to the sidelines even more.

Quote from: 1989;370174Don't worry.

JArcane's point wasn't even so much that you bring up stuff he disagrees with (I don't even think he does) as that the posts you write "re:miniless D&D yes or no?" and the responses your posts engender are only variations of exchanges we've had on this board many times over. It's awfully hard for a relative newcomer to any forum to appreciate this (and I've never been exactly sure whether newcomers ought to appreciate it all or just don't mind it and proceed however they like), but of course to anyone who's been in this debate on multiple occasions it's retreading familiar grounds. To me e.g. it's disheartening to see Peregrin's effort in dredging up all these sources with such care, only to see them picked apart by the same old tired farts who picked them apart on previous occasions. To cut a long story short - just don't expect any disagreement on these issues as people are coming from wildly diverging backgrounds and experiences, all of which trump theory and scholarship.

In a much similar vein, you're proclamations of D&D (and, more specifically, 4E) dying a slow painful death aren't exactly novel in these quarters either. I've beaten that drum myself  in 2008, expecting 4E to be stillborn (heck, even the developers voiced that fear, retrospectively!), but right now in March 2010 ... well, I think at this point it's just wishful thinking* on behalf of those who'd like to have product support for a version of D&D they want to play. Like it or not, 4E is here to stay for a while longer, and if that means your appreciation for earlier editions or other RPGs is intensified in that period, I'd consider that a net gain for you.

*Just by way of contrast.. you want to know what a stillborn RPG looks like, look to Warhammer 3rd. It basically jumped off everyone's radar only a couple of weeks after release, and the company's own forum doesn't muster more than 20,000 posts (by comparison, 10,000 posts for Rogue Trader). That's a RPG on its way out.

Quote from: Windjammer;370248JArcane's point wasn't even so much that you bring up stuff he disagrees with (I don't even think he does) as that the posts you write "re:miniless D&D yes or no?" and the responses your posts engender are only variations of exchanges we've had on this board many times over. It's awfully hard for a relative newcomer to any forum to appreciate this (and I've never been exactly sure whether newcomers ought to appreciate it all or just don't mind it and proceed however they like), but of course to anyone who's been in this debate on multiple occasions it's retreading familiar grounds. To me e.g. it's disheartening to see Peregrin's effort in dredging up all these sources with such care, only to see them picked apart by the same old tired farts who picked them apart on previous occasions. To cut a long story short - just don't expect any disagreement on these issues as people are coming from wildly diverging backgrounds and experiences, all of which trump theory and scholarship.

In a much similar vein, you're proclamations of D&D (and, more specifically, 4E) dying a slow painful death aren't exactly novel in these quarters either. I've beaten that drum myself  in 2008, expecting 4E to be stillborn (heck, even the developers voiced that fear, retrospectively!), but right now in March 2010 ... well, I think at this point it's just wishful thinking* on behalf of those who'd like to have product support for a version of D&D they want to play. Like it or not, 4E is here to stay for a while longer, and if that means your appreciation for earlier editions or other RPGs is intensified in that period, I'd consider that a net gain for you.

*Just by way of contrast.. you want to know what a stillborn RPG looks like, look to Warhammer 3rd. It basically jumped off everyone's radar only a couple of weeks after release, and the company's own forum doesn't muster more than 20,000 posts (by comparison, 10,000 posts for Rogue Trader). That's a RPG on its way out.

Actually, when I first came to RPGsite, I went through the entire archive of the forum (can't remember how many pages it was), and read those of interest to me.

I hate post-2e D&D, and enjoy hating on it from time to time. I never seem to tire of it.

So-called D&D dying a slow death ... that's more my wish than anything I really believe. I was just trying to quote Raistlin, and be funny at the same time. Guess that's the hard thing about forums; you don't if the other guy is serious, or just making some oot jokes.

Quote from: 1989;370238Expect the unexpected. Never before has D&D changed so greatly since it first became popular. D&D will die a slow and painful death, as it wanders further away from the principles of the game that was so popular in the 80s.

Really? Cause for the first time in three decades they just changed course and did a 180... Not that I'd join them again... because they might just change course, yet again. Interesting though.

GenCon now supports all flavors of D&D.
http://community.gencon.com/forums/p/22962/257416.aspx#257416   (http://community.gencon.com/forums/p/22962/257416.aspx#257416)

The game is afoot. Also over at Enworld:
The feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast and given them... (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273971-feels-me-like-hasbro-has-lit-fire-under-wizards-coast-given-them.html)

Quote from: GameDaddy;370257GenCon now supports all flavors of D&D.
http://community.gencon.com/forums/p/22962/257416.aspx#257416   (http://community.gencon.com/forums/p/22962/257416.aspx#257416)

The game is afoot. Also over at Enworld:
The feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast and given them... (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/273971-feels-me-like-hasbro-has-lit-fire-under-wizards-coast-given-them.html)

Not sure if your second link is the one you intended. THe Enworld discussion which focuses on the first link is here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274111-gencon-events-all-d-d-games-gen-con-being-placed-rpga.html). I found this comment quite apt:

Quote from: Markwalked through the WotC RPGA D&D hall several times while at Gencon last year and it seemed to me that about on fifth of the space was not being used at any given time. I'd estimate that about 30 to 40 extra tabletop games could be held in the additional space. While I am sure they sponsor that hall and pay an extra fee to have it to themselves and hang banners and set up a tourney judges area, I'm sure Gencon probably asked that they do something with the extra space or leave it to Gencon to decide. This is probably the solution they collectively decided to implement. I wonder if they will nix the DDM one-on-one tourney they had in there last year. It will be interesting to see how much space this year is available for non-RPGA games, how many are non-4E games, how often the full space is utilized, and what sort of reports are given regarding anyone who really would want to not be in the same hall for whatever reasons.

Here are my Gencon 09 photos -(http://lh6.ggpht.com/_MIerKvuPyvk/SolxhEYMWaI/AAAAAAAAA7U/_tw2vuP5oMM/s800/gencon_2009_033.jpg)

Quote from: Peregrin;3701664e DMG, page 6

DMG, page 7

That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370275That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

How can you tell?

Quote from: Seanchai;370275That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

Seanchai

Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  Nowhere in AD&D does it say you need them to play, it's always "If", "If", "If", and Basic clearly says you don't need them.

I mean hell, even WotC hosted an article on their site, published in '09, that says D&D's connection with miniatures throughout its life is tenuous, at best, and concluded that mini use didn't rise to prominence again until 3rd edition.  Yeah, the guys trying to sell you the shit are saying that D&D didn't always stress the use of minis, and that a lot of older editions actually downplayed their use.

Quote from: Article referring to 3rd editionFor the first time in (at that point) the over 25-year history of D&D, people who wanted to use miniatures in their games were provided with movement and combat rules that were written with miniatures in mind.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/2009june

Of course, WotC is just enacting revisionism, too, so you can win this debate if you really want to, if it'll make you feel better.

Quote from: Peregrin;370281Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  

Except that's not what AD&D says, is it? I don't dispute that 4e was designed around minis (although page 9 of the PHB makes it pretty clear they're items you might find useful, rather than requirements), but Gygax wasn't saying, "Oh, if you use minis, here's some information." He out and out urged people to use them, saying they made it easier to run the game and, basically, would take the campaign to the next level.

In other words, both 4e and AD&D want people use minis and mats at the table (don't forget Gygax's plug for official TSR battlemats).

The difference is, 4e is better at incorporating that into the game.

And you know that article doesn't count because it was totally written by someone shilling for WotC. It doesn't reflect the reality of the game or the author's actual intent...

Seanchai

It's a waste of time folks. You'll get nothing out of him.

I think some people here are confused when someone else refers to minis as whatever sort of representation on the grid rather than a plastic figure on a 1-inch base.

Quote from: Seanchai;370289The difference is, 4e is better at incorporating that into the game.

Of course it's better. The system was build around using minis/representation + grid. For AD&D however, minis/representation was just tacked on.

Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

Quote from: jrients;370278How can you tell?

More importantly, how do we know he isn't just shilling?

Quote from: Seanchai;370289(although page 9 of the PHB makes it pretty clear they're items you might find useful, rather than requirements)

Actually, it's not clear at all. In fact, it's fairly unclear. First it says, "You might find some of the following items useful at your game table." Then it goes on to state, "Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters. Official D&D Miniatures are custom-made to be used with the D&D game." and also, "Combat in D&D plays out on a grid of 1-inch squares. You can pick up an erasable battle grid at many hobby game stores, or try D&D Dungeon Tiles - heavy cardstock tiles that can be set up to create a wide variety of locations - or you can create your own grid."

So, the actual book is kinda contradictory about the issue, on page 9 anyway. However, anyone who's played the games knows immediately how emphasized mat and mini use is in the rules for each edition, despite what any of the books may or may not recommend. We all know it, no matter how much we might like to argue the matter anyway. Of course none of that means that any of the editions aren't capable of being house-ruled to work either way, but the degree of alteration varies from one to the other, and we're all aware of that already too. I think I might have to be with J on this one.

Quote from: areola;370293Of course it's better. The system was build around using minis/representation + grid. For AD&D however, minis/representation was just tacked on.

Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

nice point

Quote from: Peregrin;370281Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  Nowhere in AD&D does it say you need them to play, it's always "If", "If", "If", and Basic clearly says you don't need them.

I mean hell, even WotC hosted an article on their site, published in '09, that says D&D's connection with miniatures throughout its life is tenuous, at best, and concluded that mini use didn't rise to prominence again until 3rd edition.  Yeah, the guys trying to sell you the shit are saying that D&D didn't always stress the use of minis, and that a lot of older editions actually downplayed their use.

Ha!  Now I get to be the voice of reason!

Pick a different topic, and take the opposite stance you normally would.  Seanchai will be right in there arguing with you for the position you normally would hold.  That is specifically what he is here for:  simply to be contradictory.

Quote from: JasperAK;370331nice point

Amen. Anyone who cannot see the difference is just in denial.

Quote from: areola;370293Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

Neither. Both tables are populated with folks who are used to using minis. They'll both notice that play is difference.

If you want to demonstrate that 4e works better with minis or tokens or whatnot, there's no need - no one's disagreeing with that assertion.

The disagreement comes over the idea that AD&D and its creator intended it to be some kind of minis-free paradise or harbor for imagination. Clearly, they tried to sell people in the idea of using minis with their D&D games back then and thus in terms of using minis or not, it's not much different now...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370520The disagreement comes over the idea that AD&D and its creator intended it to be some kind of minis-free paradise or harbor for imagination. Clearly, they tried to sell people in the idea of using minis with their D&D games back then and thus in terms of using minis or not, it's not much different now...

Nope. You're the only one who is qualifying the debate in such stark terms. Nobody's saying that "AD&D is intended as a minis-free paradise". You are consciously building a fallacy of the excluded middle to suit your argument that "these games are the same".

What's kind of laughable is that you still think this kind of rhetoric is working.

Quote from: Seanchai;370520Neither. Both tables are populated with folks who are used to using minis. They'll both notice that play is difference.

If you want to demonstrate that 4e works better with minis or tokens or whatnot, there's no need - no one's disagreeing with that assertion.

First statement is false. You can take away the minis from an AD&D game, and the game can accommodate the change. They can keep playing RAW (remember Zeb Cook stating that 2e combat was a narrative game). If you take away the minis from a 4e game, the game does not accommodate. The RAW break down, and it's very noticeable.

What we are saying is that AD&D works well with or without minis while 4e does not. AD&D satisfies a number of playstyles while 4e craps all over anyone who doesn't like minis. Hence, the hate coming from many long-time D&Ders. Hence, the OSR getting underway with the advent of 3e and it's grid-based play (which is the major difference between it and 2e).

None of the RPG companies tried to sell us minis in the early years.

I had of course obtained an impressive collection of 1/72 miniatures before RPG games ever hit the scene, and had started collecting Airfix plastics sometime in 1971. This went hand-in-hand with Airfix and Hasegawa 1/72 models. I had awesome camo painted M5a1 Stuarts, and M3 Shermans, M3a1 halftracks, Willy jeeps galore, some with trailers, some with the 37mm AT gun, Pzkpfw II, Pzkpfw IV, Pk kpfv V (Panthers), Pk kpfv VI (Tigers), Pk kpfv VI-II (King Tigers), Marders, Hetzers, Sturmgeschutz Stgz III, Kettenkraftrad Sd.Kfz.2, Sdkfz 250/2 Halftracks, Schützenpanzerwagen Sd.Kfz.251 Ausf D Halftracks, Opel Trucks, American Deuce and a Half's, and several battalions of troops including an American Paratrooper Company, a Company of US Marines, More than a company of British eight army, amybe two. I also had a few Bren carriers for the brits, and PAK57 and a couple of the dual role 88mm Anti-aircraft batteries., I also had German paratroopers and tons of 1/72 regular Wermacht Infantry. There were had bunkers, and sandbag emplacements and I had a few aircraft as well, P-38 Lightnings, P-47 Thunderbolts, ME-109's and Japanese Zeros.... I think I had a platoon or two of Japanese Infantry as well..

Had started playing board wargames regularly in the summer of 1974, as the neighbor had a subscription to SPI, and was getting a new game every month. Any game he didn't like, he gave to me. Wish I had them all now, They would allow me to put my daughter through college. Anyway, started collecting Milton-Bradley, SPI, and Avalon Hill wargames and had a rather large collection of board wargames by the time I first came across 0D&D early in 1977.

Probably for the first couple years, we just played D&D with paper, and pencils, and dice. Eventually though the local hobbyshop started stocking Dragon magazine, and miniatures in small quantities as well, and we started buying them (Even though they were much more expensive than the 1/72 miniatures and models).

We knew of the release of the D&D Minis sets in 1979, and asked our FLCS (It was a comics store) to order them. The local toy store ordered a large quantity of Ral Partha minis as well. While I liked the official D&D minis, The Ral Partha Knights really sold me! These blisters contained one mounted, and one Knight on foot which was totally awesome! You could do Dungeons, and also Wilderness adventures with your character, since the fighter in the Kinights Pack was the same guy, only one version of the fighter was on foot, and the other was mounted, with lances. It totally rocked.

They had a hard time initially keeping these minis in stock, as we would buy out whatever we liked and the game stores would have to order more.

It was only after 82 when the market was flooded with dozens of new miniatures companies, and TSR really ramped up production of their mini boxed sets that the focus of 1st AD&D shifted towards minis. They made far more off the minis than they ever did selling books. By 1982 I had collected and painted 1200 or so.

Quote from: GameDaddy;370624We knew of the release of the D&D Minis sets in 1979, and asked our FLCS (It was a comics store) to order them. The local toy store ordered a large quantity of Ral Partha minis as well. While I liked the official D&D minis, The Ral Partha Knights really sold me! These blisters contained one mounted, and one Knight on foot which was totally awesome! You could do Dungeons, and also Wilderness adventures with your character, since the fighter in the Kinights Pack was the same guy, only one version of the fighter was on foot, and the other was mounted, with lances. It totally rocked.

Ral Partha was awesome. I found out about them much later, at the end of the 80s, but man... I loved those. Still do.

Ral Partha was the Gold Standard. I had the same knight pack and I spent hours painting them up. I still remember, emerald green and royal blue. I REALLY wish I still had that mounted mini (I bet it is SOMEWHERE in the attic - I never got rid of anything from those days).

Quote from: Benoist;370531Nobody's saying that "AD&D is intended as a minis-free paradise".

"This new red box is nothing like the old red box.

Are you guys just being willfully ignorant?

The old red box:

"THIS GAME REQUIRES NO GAMEBOARD BECAUSE THE ACTION TAKES PLACE IN THE PLAYER'S IMAGINATION . . ."

The new red box:

The game requires a square-grid map, and miniatures/tokens/etc. (all included).

Come on guys; these are two totally different games. One is boardgame; the other is not.

The old D&D was a revolutionary new hobby, unlike any other game (no gameboard! everything in the mind's eye!).

The new D&D, 4e, is just a board game, a tactical miniatures board wargame of fantasy superheroes.

I love the old D&D - in a class of its own. I wouldn't touch this new miniatures boardgame, this so-called D&D.

This new red box will be a failure just like all the other basic sets that Wizards has released.

When Wizards finally realizes what it was that made D&D such a huge success (i.e. a game played totally in the imagination, requiring only the imagination), then they will be able to recapture some of what was lost. It may be too late, though. The last decade of D&D has been all square-grid, and it keeps getting worse.

Wizards releases crap like tiles and miniatures. THAT'S DEFEATING THE WHOLE POINT! We don't want our imaginations to be limited by what others have produced (i.e. tiles that say "this is what the dungeon looks like", or miniatures that say "this is what your guy looks like").

Wizards just doesn't understand what it is that separates the RPG from other games.

Gary gave the "gift of endless imagination". Hard to have endless imagination when you are constrained by limited tiles, miniatures, etc."

Seanchai

Quote from: 1989;370605First statement is false. You can take away the minis from an AD&D game, and the game can accommodate the change.

Given that areola's statement concerns the players, not the system, it's hardly false.

But the idea that 4e can't be played without miniatures, tokens, mats, etc., is horseshit. I've done it. I wouldn't do it frequently and it wasn't as easy as playing with minis and a mat, but we did it without changing anything.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370739Given that areola's statement concerns the players, not the system, it's hardly false.

But the idea that 4e can't be played without miniatures, tokens, mats, etc., is horseshit. I've done it. I wouldn't do it frequently and it wasn't as easy as playing with minis and a mat, but we did it without changing anything.

Seanchai

If it wasn't as easy, you changed something.

Quote from: Seanchai;370734"This new red box is nothing like the old red box.

Are you guys just being willfully ignorant?

The old red box:

"THIS GAME REQUIRES NO GAMEBOARD BECAUSE THE ACTION TAKES PLACE IN THE PLAYER'S IMAGINATION . . ."

The new red box:

The game requires a square-grid map, and miniatures/tokens/etc. (all included).

Come on guys; these are two totally different games. One is boardgame; the other is not.

The old D&D was a revolutionary new hobby, unlike any other game (no gameboard! everything in the mind's eye!).

The new D&D, 4e, is just a board game, a tactical miniatures board wargame of fantasy superheroes.

I love the old D&D - in a class of its own. I wouldn't touch this new miniatures boardgame, this so-called D&D.

This new red box will be a failure just like all the other basic sets that Wizards has released.

When Wizards finally realizes what it was that made D&D such a huge success (i.e. a game played totally in the imagination, requiring only the imagination), then they will be able to recapture some of what was lost. It may be too late, though. The last decade of D&D has been all square-grid, and it keeps getting worse.

Wizards releases crap like tiles and miniatures. THAT'S DEFEATING THE WHOLE POINT! We don't want our imaginations to be limited by what others have produced (i.e. tiles that say "this is what the dungeon looks like", or miniatures that say "this is what your guy looks like").

Wizards just doesn't understand what it is that separates the RPG from other games.

Gary gave the "gift of endless imagination". Hard to have endless imagination when you are constrained by limited tiles, miniatures, etc."

Seanchai

Read carefully. AD&D allows both playstyles -- minis and no minis; 4e does not.

So, you could say that AD&D was a paradise where mini-lovers and mini-haters could all do their own thing.

Quote from: Seanchai;370739Given that areola's statement concerns the players, not the system, it's hardly false.

But the idea that 4e can't be played without miniatures, tokens, mats, etc., is horseshit. I've done it. I wouldn't do it frequently and it wasn't as easy as playing with minis and a mat, but we did it without changing anything.

Seanchai

I call bullshit on this. 4e RAW with no physical representation -- Bullshit.

Unless you were all sitting around in a tavern, or some other such scenario.

But standard 4e adventure combat encounters RAW with no physical representation. Not gonna buy that.

Quote from: 1989;370806I call bullshit on this. 4e RAW with no physical representation -- Bullshit.

Unless you were all sitting around in a tavern, or some other such scenario.

But standard 4e adventure combat encounters RAW with no physical representation. Not gonna buy that.

I call BS on this. I think you are gonna buy it. I have no reason to believe you're lying, but I'm going to assume you're lying anyway.

Quote from: Fifth Element;370816I think you are gonna buy it.

lol!

Quote from: Seanchai;370734Are you guys just being willfully ignorant?

Are you a retard?

Do you understand the difference between:

1/ "AD&D is intended as a minis-free paradise"
and
2/ "AD&D can be played with or without miniatures" (whereas 4e's rules imply the use of miniatures)

Well? Do you? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Seanchai;370734"This new red box is nothing like the old red box.

You are aware that the "old red box" is Mentzer D&D, which is not the same thing as "Advanced D&D", right? Either we compare AD&D and 4e, or Mentzer D&D with 4e, but comparing any and all pre-2000 editions of the game with 4e just leads to a multitude of misunderstandings and silly arguments (like quoting EGG talking about the use of minis in AD&D when in fact comparing the two Red Boxes, aka Mentzer D&D and 4e).

So... which games are we comparing, exactly?

Quote from: Benoist;370832Are you a retard?

Do you understand the difference between:

1/ "AD&D is intended as a minis-free paradise"
and
2/ "AD&D can be played with or without miniatures" (whereas 4e's rules imply the use of miniatures)

Well? Do you? :rolleyes:


You are aware that the "old red box" is Mentzer D&D, which is not the same thing as "Advanced D&D", right? Either we compare AD&D and 4e, or Mentzer D&D with 4e, but comparing any and all pre-2000 editions of the game with 4e just leads to a multitude of misunderstandings and silly arguments (like quoting EGG talking about the use of minis in AD&D when in fact comparing the two Red Boxes, aka Mentzer D&D and 4e).

So... which games are we comparing, exactly?

I didn't say anything you quoted in your post. That was 1989.

Seanchai

Quote from: 1989;370806I call bullshit on this. 4e RAW with no physical representation -- Bullshit.

Unless you were all sitting around in a tavern, or some other such scenario.

But standard 4e adventure combat encounters RAW with no physical representation. Not gonna buy that.

Nope. It was a battle - the group freeing slaves. One group ran off the map (it was being used mostly for the fight which was set up to distract the bad guys).

A player asked, "Shall we set up another mat?"

I said, "Nope."

He said, "How far away from the slavers am I?"

I said, "Narrative distance. How far do you want to be?"

He said, "I need to be within 10 squares of him to use my Power. I don't want him to be able to use a standard move to get to me."

I said,"Okay, so about nine squares away."

And then we proceeded from there.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370956Nope. It was a battle - the group freeing slaves. One group ran off the map (it was being used mostly for the fight which was set up to distract the bad guys).

A player asked, "Shall we set up another mat?"

I thought you said you weren't using any of that.

From MerricB on ENWorld:

I've seen some confusion recently about the role of D&D Essentials. What is it? Who is it for?

Well, here's my take on it, based on the information I've read about it. Thanks go to Dave Chalker (DavetheGame) for writing posts (http://critical-hits.com/2010/01/29/dd-xp-2010-dungeons-dragons-essentials/) that I've drawn some insight from, and Bill Slavicsek for information posted in his Ampersand columns (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/2010February).

What are D&D Essentials?
D&D Essentials is a parallel line of 10 products for D&D 4th Edition. It provides a new way for players to enter the game rather than the traditional Player's Handbook, Monster Manual & Dungeon Master's Guide. The books will be soft-cover, and cheaper than the regular books.

D&D Essentials doesn't change the rules. It's still D&D 4th edition. It just splits them up in a different way - and possibly in a more approachable manner for new players. And, in total, they'll cover levels 1-30.

The products in the D&D Essentials line are intended to always be in print, much like the core three D&D books (PHB, MM, DMG). You should always be able to get them, providing a way into the game. In the case of the tile sets, this is very pleasing indeed.

Who are D&D Essentials for?
Mostly new players. D&D Essentials is primarily a new path for players to enter D&D by. That said, the books have a lot of new feats, powers and options that established players may find useful. You might also find the formatting useful.

The Rules Compendium will also have all the core rules errata so far (Stealth, Aid Another, Flying, Mounts, etc.) incorporated in it, which will make it quite attractive for established DMs and players.

What products should new players get?
Interesting question. The D&D Starter Set will introduce everyone to the game. From there...

Everyone: Dice + D&D Rules Compendium.
Players: One of the two "Heroes" books - or both.
DMs: DM's Kit and Monster Vault - and possibly some of the tile sets.

Do D&D Essentials replace the Core books?
At this time, it's been indicated (several times) that they won't replace the core books, they'll just give a separate pathway into the game. So, you'll still be able to buy the various Monster Manuals, DMGs and Player's Handbook - or the Essentials books.

Are there only ten products in the Essentials line?
Yes. Come 2011, we'll be back to more regular support of D&D. Including, I hope, DMG3 and its Epic level play advice.

What about the Character Builder?
Yes, from what I've read, it'll support all the new material in the Essentials line.

What levels do the D&D Essentials cover?
With the exception of the Starter/Basic set, all of them cover levels 1-30. The Starter/Basic set only covers levels 1-3.

What products are in the D&D Essentials line?
* D&D Fantasy Roleplaying Game - Starter Set (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244660000) - $20. dice, 2 books (32 pages, 64 pages), tokens, map, character sheets. (Sep 7, 2010)

Covering levels 1-3 and for 1-5 players, this is the new introductory product for D&D. "Several different character races (dwarf, elf, halfling, and human) and classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, and wizard) are presented, along with powers for each race and class."

* D&D Rules Compendium (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/247530000) - $20, 320 pages, softcover (Sep 21, 2010)

Contains the full core rules of D&D. "In addition to providing an overview of the game and how it's played, this book presents the core rules in a format that is easily referenced during a game. It includes information on level advancement, combat, experience points, treasure, skills, equipment, and more." So, much of what is in the Player's Handbook in terms of rules, plus material from the DMG, I'd imagine.

* D&D Player Essentials - Heroes of the Fallen Lands (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/247520000) - $20, 352 pages, softcover (Sep 21, 2010)

Covers Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard from levels 1-30. New builds and powers, paragon and epic paths. Also has Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Halfling and Human. This is the basic player book for standard classes. (I expect a player needs the Rules Compendium and one of the Heroes books to play).

* D&D Player Essentials - Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/247520000) - $20, 352 pages, softcover (Nov 16, 2010)

Covers Druid, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock from levels 1-30. Also Dragonborn, Drow, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Tieflings. The second of the player books, this one goes into the more "advanced" classes and races, and comes out two months after the first one.

Both of the Player Essentials books have builds and powers we haven't seen before, and will likely be bought by current players wanting new toys to play with. :)

* Dungeon Master's Kit (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244640000) - $40, 256 page book, two 32-page adventures, 2 sheets of tokens, 2 doublesided maps, DM Screen (Oct 19, 2010)

"This deluxe box contains rules and advice to help Dungeon Masters run games for adventurers of levels 1–30. It also includes useful DM tools such as a Dungeon Master's screen (with tables and rules printed on the inside), die-cut terrain tiles and monster tokens, and fold-out battle maps."

* Monster Vault (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244650000) - $30, 256 page book, 32 page adventure, 10 sheets of tokens. (Nov 16, 2010)

A lot of monsters, along with tokens for them and advice on using them. Effectively the Monster Manual in a deluxe form, but I'd dare say it has a lot of variants in it.

* Dungeon Tiles Master Set: The Dungeon (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/198860000) - $20, 10 sheets of tiles. (Jul 20, 2010)

Ten sheets of "core" dungeon tiles.

* Dungeon Tiles Master Set: The City (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/214430000) - $20, 10 sheets of tiles. (Oct 19, 2010)

The basic "city" tiles from the D&D Tile range.

* Dungeon Tiles Master Set: The Wilderness (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244670000) - $20, 10 sheets of tiles. (Dec 21, 2010)

Guess what?

Oh, and the tenth product?

* D&D Roleplaying Dice Set (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/244690000) - $13, dice bag and one of each main polyhedral die: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20 (August 17, 2010)

I find it interesting that you basically got a starter boxed set with tiles and shit for $20, level 1-3, and after 300+ pages books. That's not exactly what I call a smooth introduction to the game, personally. It's more like hooking on an introductory product and selling the same heavy-loaded crap again with a different packaging. That's supposed to hook more than people who already are gamers, know the Mentzer basic boxed set, and did not buy 4e the first time around?
 
What do you guys think?

If it's just a plain repackaging of older stuff with corrections + nerfs, etc ..., it would seem kinda superfluous at first.

Some comrades' understanding of the tenets of Marxism seems to be, at best, rudimentary. Surely no one can deny that it is a basic principle of...

Oops. For some reason I thought I was on a different forum.

Quote from: Benoist;380262I find it interesting that you basically got a starter boxed set with tiles and shit for $20, level 1-3, and after 300+ pages books. That's not exactly what I call a smooth introduction to the game, personally. It's more like hooking on an introductory product and selling the same heavy-loaded crap again with a different packaging. That's supposed to hook more than people who already are gamers, know the Mentzer basic boxed set, and did not buy 4e the first time around?
 
What do you guys think?

Ask me again when I start seeing previews. The pricing is OK; the transition might well be funky. It would almost seem more natural to break the hero books up into one slim volume per class, but there are economies of scale for bigger books? I dunno.

Quote from: Thanlis;380276Ask me again when I start seeing previews.

I'm of somewhat the same opinion. Mine is: Ask me again when I have it.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;380262What do you guys think?

I have little interest, but I guess I'll put my oar in the water, anyway.

If it were me, I'd release a boxed "essentials" set that functions as a complete game.  Somebody could buy the boxed set and play the game for years without every buying another D&D product.  That's not to say you couldn't buy supplementary products and use them with your Essentials boxed set, it's just that you wouldn't need to in order to have a complete and satisfying game.

That means I'd include more than just a few levels.  I'd probably include ten or twelve levels.  Or doesn't 4e have different level tiers, or something?  I'd probably use that breakdown.

The standard (i.e. non-essentials) line would be the typical hardbacks and attendant products, aimed at the dedicated player who buys a continuous stream of new product for his game.  Of course, my aim would be to entice "essentials" players into this arrangement, but I'd need to do it by offering them something additional and cool, rather than forcing them into it by not offering any other model.  The essentials boxed set would retain its ability to be used (and sold) as a stand-alone game.  I'd try to get it into typical game channels (toy stores, Wal-Mart, et cetera) just like any other boxed game.

Holmes Basic would be considered a rip-off by today's standards. It cost the equivalent of about $45 in today's dollars, supported play only for levels 1-3, and if you wanted to play higher you had to wait a couple years for the AD&D books (each of which cost about $50 in today's dollars) to come out.

And then, only three years after Holmes Basic was released, Moldvay Basic came out and it also only supported levels 1-3 (and cost a lot of money). If you wanted to play above 3rd level you had to buy another expensive boxed set.

So let's not pretend that what WotC is doing with their new boxed set is anything different from what Gygax and TSR did 30 years ago.

Quote from: Haffrung;380373So let's not pretend that what WotC is doing with their new boxed set is anything different from what Gygax and TSR did 30 years ago.

Who's pretending that?

Quote from: Haffrung;380373Holmes Basic would be considered a rip-off by today's standards. It cost the equivalent of about $45 in today's dollars, supported play only for levels 1-3, and if you wanted to play higher you had to wait a couple years for the AD&D books (each of which cost about $50 in today's dollars) to come out.

Expert went to 14th level.

Quote from: Haffrung;380373And then, only three years after Holmes Basic was released, Moldvay Basic came out and it also only supported levels 1-3 (and cost a lot of money). If you wanted to play above 3rd level you had to buy another expensive boxed set.

'A lot of money'?  'Expensive'?  Come on, now.  That is just outright hyperbole.  Two boxed sets (that included dice and a module apiece) for about $90 or three books for $150 (by your unsubstantiated estimates).  Which is comparable to the cost of 4e books, by the way.

You may want to try 'math' before spouting off in the future.  I hear it works pretty well for this kind of thing.

FWIW, I think the basic sets TSR released should have included more levels, too.  A standalone boxed set that went from 1-12 would've been a great thing.  And I bet most of us would've still bought the Advanced hardbacks, anyway.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;380389FWIW, I think the basic sets TSR released should have included more levels, too.  A standalone boxed set that went from 1-12 would've been a great thing.  And I bet most of us would've still bought the Advanced hardbacks, anyway.

I'm not entirely disagreeing that Basic should have been maybe 1-6, or 1-10 and Expert covering the rest up to maybe 12th or 20th level or whatever.  The level breakdowns didn't make a lot of sense.  But saying the boxed sets cost a lot of money, especially in comparison to the hardbacks at the time, or the hardbacks now, is fairly ridiculous.  

How many people around these parts have said they rarely had a campaign go all the way to 20th level?  I have usually heard 12th-14th (at the latest) was about where they fizzled out for a variety of reasons, so in effect, the B/X sets together constituted a full game that could be played for years on their own, without ever needing the AD&D books.  Continue spell progression, and you could easily play to 20th level anyway.  The whole argument about expense is just a non-starter.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;380389FWIW, I think the basic sets TSR released should have included more levels, too.  A standalone boxed set that went from 1-12 would've been a great thing.  And I bet most of us would've still bought the Advanced hardbacks, anyway.

I too think that Holmes could have used a few more levels by design.