TheRPGSite

So, what are you thoughts about what we know?

It's too early for me to give you anything substantive. I like that it has generated discussion, that much I can say. But then I like to communicate, and talk, and just shoot the shit. :)

No matter the concerns I have, and have expressed in other threads, I won't make a decision until I have final product in my hand.

I'll buy the PHB and see how it's different and go from there.

To do otherwise would be...let's see...parochial and closeminded. :haw:

I think that by and large what has come out of both Wizards itself, and the rumor mill, is so self-contradictory and vague is to be virtually worthless.

What little I have seen however that actually comes straight from the horse's mouth at Wizards, as opposed to idiots like Brad Walker who like to run about making wild guess and stating them as fact, suggest that they're making a collossal mistake and catering to a niche audience of malcontents instead of playing to the mainstream audience that is their bread and butter.

I am not hopeful, based on what little I've heard, whether it's press releases that read like they're tagging bullet points of 3.x hater posts, anti-Western fantasy snark in TBO9S, all the wrong people praising SWSAGA, or even the choice of Mike Mearls as a lead designer with way too much time invested in following the minority voices on Internet forums.

What I am seeing gives strong indication that they've fallen squarely into the forum trap that afflicts so many vidgames, especially MMOs, catering to the whims of the small group of vocal whiners who populate the Internet forums, while forgetting entirely about the silent and satisfied majority of players.  

And that's just damn sad.  I'd really hate for RPGs to go the way of hex-and-counter wargames, and if D&D of all things has fallen straight for aiming at the Internet hardcore, then that is exactly what will happen.

It's early yet, but I like much of what I've heard. Still some misgivings - such as the roles of monsters, the discussion of which seems to indicate they may not be as customizable as in 3e, but that could be just my (mis)reading of it. But overall, I like the general attitude by the designers. The video of the Mearls interview especially made me feel more confident that I'll like this new edition.

I like most of what I've heard so far, mainly because it's causing J Arcane such intense grief.
:evillaugh:

Seriously, I like what is being said about 'streamlining' the system, making prep work less of a chore, making the game move more quickly (especially combat), weakening the dependency on magic items, and extending the 'sweet spot' by inflating the level range to 1-30.

I dislike the possibility that all classes will have ersatz spells, and the whole 'per encounter' approach to resource management.

On balance, I'm cautiously optimistic.  I'll definitely buy the PHB, even if I end up sticking with the RC, C&C, and RMC.
:cool:

Honestly, I don't like any of it. But then, the only 3.x I liked was pre-2002 corebooks 3.0 sans multi-classing, so I'm hardly stunned by the sudden turn of events or anything.

Quote from: J ArcaneI am not hopeful, based on what little I've heard, whether it's press releases that read like they're tagging bullet points of 3.x hater posts, anti-Western fantasy snark in TBO9S, all the wrong people praising SWSAGA, or even the choice of Mike Mearls as a lead designer with way too much time invested in following the minority voices on Internet forums.

I think it's a bit nuts to equate "I like SW Saga" or "I like Bo9S" with "3.x Hater."  It is possible to like D&D 3.x and still want 4e to be a little different.

KoOS

Far too early to tell yet isn't it? A couple of days since the announcement. I'll wait untill more details are released until i have more to say. I haven't got either Bo9S or the new Star wars saga game, so i remain blissfully ignorant until more is revealed.

Quote from: King of Old SchoolI think it's a bit nuts to equate "I like SW Saga" or "I like Bo9S" with "3.x Hater."  It is possible to like D&D 3.x and still want 4e to be a little different.

KoOS

You've read me all wrong.  Your cause and effect is out of order.

If the same people repeatedly trash a game you enjoy, and go on and on about X game is better, are you really going to consider them a reliable source of opinion regarding a game?  

Time and time again, the same people show up, bagging on 3.x, misrepresenting or just flat out lying about the game, and going on and on about how True20/C&C/RC/Megaultrasuperlitekawaii20/etc, or whatever their favorite set of pet houserules is "better" than 3.x.  So yeah, I'm gonna question their judgement when they go on to make exactly the same statements as if from a script about SAGA.  

Further more, read the goddamn press release they posted on TMP, and then compare it with these people's posts.  Watch that stupid fucking video.  The Tome of Battle comment is based on a quote from the actual goddamn book.  It's like I'm living in bizarro land, where suddenly these idiots have managed to hijack Wizards, so instead of reading this shit on webforums, I'm hearing the very same things from the mouth of the beast itself.  

Now explain to me how in the hell that's not supposed to concern me, who loves D&D just fine, and whose tastes could not possible get more mainstream when it comes to what appeals to me about the game?

I don't have nearly enough to form an opinion.

Things like, "all characters will have abilities they can use a limited number of times per encounter/day" -- I can see that being good, or not being good.  I would have to see the actual implementation to decide one way or the other.

So I probably won't decide until May 2008 when the books come out.

I'm optimistic that it'll be a good game.  Most of the things I've heard so far erode that optimism.

It sounds like it could be a lot different from classic D&D... which makes me think about which is more D&D -- the game with the same name, or a game with a different name but a similar feel + gameplay (eg. C&C).

This week's news did make me want to buy a D&D book though!  I just bought the Moldvay edition Expert Rulebook on Ebay. :D

J Arcane, what did you play before 3e came out? I mean, lots of stuff probably, but what was your go-to game?

I'm quite optimistic.  I like most of what I've heard.

I think people are reading way too much into the stated SWSE/Bo9s/Mearl-Iron-Heroes influences to conclude "D&D is going fucking Exalted/Anime!" or some such.

Personally, as I expressed in the "Everyone a fucking wizard" thread, I think we're mainly going to see a set of fixes to mechanics that were forgotten about in the 3e upgrade.  These mechanical changes will change the flavour of the game, but not to a drastic effect.

I'll even make a bold prediction (just because I can): D&D 4e will feel more like 1e than 3.x ever did.

I think it will run faster than 3e, and will be more like 1e in that sense.

We'll see.

J Arcane?

They have certainly gotten me interested in D&D again.  I like the talk of streamlining the system.  Quicker play is ALWAYS a plus.  About the only thing that gives me pause at the moment is the talk of races and the changes to monsters.  I liked that in 3E I could get the PC stats from the monster block, it sounds like with PC racial abilities spread out through the levels and the changes coming to monsters that that won't be nearly as easy to do in 4E.

Quote from: CalithenaJ Arcane, what did you play before 3e came out? I mean, lots of stuff probably, but what was your go-to game?

oWoD mainly actually, especially the LARP variety.

Cool. That puts you in the alternative-mainstream at least, so you have some right to wear that hat.

I had you pegged for a GURPS man, and I was going to lay down the hammer on you for thinking you were mainstream in that case. Glad to see I was wrong.

You're still being kind of a pain in the ass about all this though. Given that they "have" (for money reasons) to design a new edition that differs in at least a few substantial ways from the old, what would you have preferred them to change instead?

Quote from: CalithenaCool. That puts you in the alternative-mainstream at least, so you have some right to wear that hat.

I had you pegged for a GURPS man, and I was going to lay down the hammer on you for thinking you were mainstream in that case. Glad to see I was wrong.

You're still being kind of a pain in the ass about all this though. Given that they "have" (for money reasons) to design a new edition that differs in at least a few substantial ways from the old, what would you have preferred them to change instead?

I do think GURPS 3e was a nifty system, but I seldom got much actual play experience.

Really, I'm perfectly happy with 3.x.  Hell, I was a bit reluctant to accept 3.5 even, and I still think it was largly unnecessary.

Any changes I made would probably be pretty minor.  Fixing the half-orc maybe, or putting the Warlock in the main book as a core class.  Probably ditch the Paladin and maybe the Ranger because I think they're just badly implemented, and their archetypes are served just fine by existing classes.  

By and large though, I can't think of much, and I'd be perfectly happy playing 3.x for the rest of my gaming life, which may well happen.

I'm cautiously optimistic but there's obviously contradicting information out there, such as regarding multiclassing.

I like the goals they have set for the design but I think the claim this will be a much streamlined D&D are the usual bullshit. They say that about every edition and it always turns out to be the opposite.

4th edition will be the usual clunky, extra-detailed but ultimately endearing mess of a game with piles of rules.

Above all, the reason I really like what I hear so far is that it seems they are continuing to refine the main purpose this game was built for: mindless hack n' slash, dungeoncrawling and the like. One good example is the way they talk about skills. If it's not for encounters, it's ditched or fusioned. And since the game is D20, they'll still get all the numbnuts who desperately want to believe the game can accomodate any style of play, any genre and any setting. So we'll still see plenty of useless 3rd party products such as the craptacular Dynasties and Demagogues to catter to the delusional.

The key here will be whether the execution will match the intent. The goals are fine but I'm not particularly impressed by the names behind this fourth edition. It's a far cry from Jonathan Tweet, to name one. The funny thing is, a hack like Mearls was probably a good choice when looking at the current field. I mean, guys like him, Ron Edwards, Luke Crayne and a few others are considered the cream of the crop (although having different styles) and that speaks volumes about the state of the industry. WotC had a lot more choices when it came to 3rd edition but there really aren't that many great modern designers right now. Most of the cutting edge stuff (such as Forge games) is interesting in intent but ultimately crappy. Out of all the talentless pro writers out there, Mearls wins by default due to his unimpressive but vast experience with D20.

I'm really hoping a new generation of writers and designers emerge between now and 5th edition, so WotC can boldly redesign the game, such as they did between 2nd and 3rd edition. 4th edition looks more like a cleaned up, extensively playtested 3rd edition.

On the electronic portion: I'm glad they are going that direction but man, are they late on this one. It looks like D&D's ultimate edition will be the 5th one, which should probably be out in 2012 or 2013 and really take advantage of computers. What they are presenting here should have been fully functional in 2001.

Pretty much uninterested, and not really very informed yet, but since this is the Internet I get to vote on my gut, and the stuff about superpower moves for fighters (which reminds me of nothing so much as videogame beat-em-up button combos) is a turnoff.

Pretty neutral right now - I don't know enough about it yet to make a decision one way or another.

Besides, even though I've inherited copies of 3.5, I'm still bitter about 3.0 being dumped as quickly as it was.  Well, maybe bitter isn't the right word...perhaps 'gunshy'?  This time I may wait until they come out with 5th Edition so I can just buy the 4th Edition Rules Compendium and see how it all turned out.  :haw:

Quote from: AkrasiaSeriously, I like what is being said about 'streamlining' the system, making prep work less of a chore, making the game move more quickly (especially combat)...

If they can honestly pull this off, I'd be interested.  I'm pretty sick of half-page stat blocks.  Simple NPC/Monster stats and fast-moving combat resolution - those are the two most important things to me in an RPG these days, and have been for the past five years.  But given that fact, I could just stick with my print-out of Core Elements or maybe pick up that Castles & Crusades game all the cool kids are all talking about...

I'm not liking much of what we've heard so far about 4e, but I'll concede that I'm not the target audience.  They lost me with 3.0.

Don't you have to wait until you've read or even played a game before bitching about or praising it? Or at least until it's been published and someone else has read or played it? Or have we turned into rpg.net?

I'm optimistic, but only because I've liked Mearls' stuff in the past, and because I'm hoping they'll fix some of the problems of 3.x D&D. I'm reserving judgment until it actually comes out though.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't you have to wait until you've read or even played a game before bitching about or praising it? Or at least until it's been published and someone else has read or played it? Or have we turned into rpg.net?

Look at the title of the thread. It's asking what peoples opinions are so far, based on the nuggets of information Wizards have deemed fit to be revealed.

Right now I'm pretty excited. The potential applications of the cited source material could be interesting and fun. The streamlining and intent to reduce prep time is music to my ears. Of course there's no way that I'll know anything for sure until I own the books, but I'm enjoying the speculation based on what's been offered up.

Pfft. There is no "so far." It's ridiculous. But don't worry, when blokes are young, lots of them have trouble with premature speculation. Less of a problem when you've matured a bit.

Quote from: Kyle AaronDon't you have to wait until you've read or even played a game before bitching about or praising it? Or at least until it's been published and someone else has read or played it? Or have we turned into rpg.net?

Fuck me!
 
This is the internet.  Since when has the truth ever got in the way of speculation and bitching?

Quote from: Kyle AaronPfft. There is no "so far." It's ridiculous. But don't worry, when blokes are young, lots of them have trouble with premature speculation. Less of a problem when you've matured a bit.

You were so close to making sense, but then you tried negate the entire concept of speculation in an attempt to place yourself in a more mature bracket than the people posting to this thread.

That's highschool stuff, mate. Get off your high horse and try indulging other peoples fun. I know you don't have much to say about D&D, but trying to drum up yet another defintional debate based on exclusory tactics only reflects badly on you.

They say that thinking of baseball stats helps stop you shooting off too soon.

...and that threadcrapping is a sign of a healthy libido?

Christ on a bike. Slow day, is it?

Quote from: Drew...and that threadcrapping is a sign of a healthy libido?

Christ on a bike. Slow day, is it?

What else would JimBob do but run about telling everyone how they're allowed to post?

I'm excited to have a new set of rules. I always enjoy having a new system to play with, especialy a vast game with a wide audience.

But... I am aprehensive about the specifics I've heard so far. I'm not looking forward to seeing the fight / rest cycle smoothed out, un-exhaustable wizards or backstab-able constructs. Those things are "fun" but it's low-grade-always-on-fun instead of the hours of boredom punctuated by moments of excitement that I love from older games, older movies etc....

Also I don't like 25th level spells. Nine levels & Neo-platonism 4evar!

I plead to God and all things holy that i never ever see any kind of healing as an 'At Will' power. If that day comes, i'm out. I can see a Cleric having something along the lines of CLW x3 an encounter, but any more than that and you might as well asume everyone is fully healed between each encounter and that would suck mightily.

I voted for undecided. I can't make up my mind, from the limited info at hand, whether or not I'll like this game. Part of me hopes it rocks whereas another part hopes it bombs. Nonetheless I'm quite happy with the games I currently GM.

TOO LATE! Everyone is already healed at the end of every encounter. Wand of lesser vigor: 550hp for 750 gp. It's a level 1 spell so it's easy for divine casters or anyone with use magic device.

Also the Dragon Shaman and Clerics from Complete Champion can gradualy heal 50% hp at will.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumTOO LATE! Everyone is already healed at the end of every encounter. Wand of lesser vigor: 550hp for 750 gp. It's a level 1 spell so it's easy for divine casters or anyone with use magic device.

Also the Dragon Shaman and Clerics from Complete Champion can gradualy heal 50% hp at will.

Yeah, i ignore the Dragon Shaman. I understand the thought behind making things more immediate with at will, per encounter stuff, so that you don't get a couple of fully-tooled up fights followed by rest or being scared of the next encounter, but i'd rather it was tackled by making actual death a tad harder to achieve than with constant 're-boots'. That way, you can heroically press on when you are out of resources and put your faith in the Gods rather than have an endless supply of powers and spells that re-invigorate you. Make death harder to achieve, lower healing and resurrection magic and up heroic 'in the face of the odds' kind of stuff. How to do that mechanically, i'm not sure, but i guess it could be done, just not with this edition by the sounds of it.

Hmm,

Although I like the sound of some of the ideas released so far, it's too early for any kind of decision, really. While faster play and lower prep time sound great, they could just be marketing spiel, and "faster play" is extremely relative anyway; one man's "fast" is another's "glacially slow".

Oh, "Hi!", by the way, first post here.

cheers!
Colin

Quote from: Colin ChapmanHmm,

Although I like the sound of some of the ideas released so far, it's too early for any kind of decision, really. While faster play and lower prep time sound great, they could just be marketing spiel, and "faster play" is extremely relative anyway; one man's "fast" is another's "glacially slow".

Oh, "Hi!", by the way, first post here.

cheers!
Colin

Hi Colin, you magnificent bastard! :D  How're things?

Of course, I'm still undecided.  As a personal mark of what I want, I'd love it if that lower prep time and fast play bits were a reality that still left enough crunch to make it all non-handwavey.  Really, for me, the more it feels like a MMORPG (too-easy healing, ridiculous, meaningless death) or a wargame (too many modifiers, special rules, conditionals), that'd be the wrong direction for me, most like.  Make no mistake, I'm sure Wizards will put out the best product they can.  But I don't know yet if that'll be the best product for me.

OK, from my point of view: I'm an RC D&D/1st ed AD&D man, and 3.X isn't my thing. I think 3.X was hamstrung by two mutually exclusive needs:

- The need to be recognisably D&D to the old guard.
- The need to genuinely update the system to attract gamers who've drifted away to more modern systems, and to avoid accusations of simply putting out a new edition just to bilk the fans out of money (let's face it: AD&D2 was a rewrite of AD&D1 with a tiny number of tweaks, and that's incredibly lame).

For me, 3.X is a game trying to appeal to two different audiences and ending up leaving neither satisfied. There's no reason for characteristic scores to be written down in the 3-18 range since you only ever use the bonuses anyway, except in a very few cases - they've just retained that because having stats from 3 to 18 is the Old School way. Similarly with Vancian magic - 1st level wizards have always been totally useless, and that really should have been fixed with 3.0 - but wasn't. (See my "burned on the outside, raw in the middle" thread for more of my thoughts on that.)

Now, however, it looks like they've conceded that they've lost the hardcore old schoolers - C&C and OSRIC cater to them perfectly happily - and are tackling sacred cows like Vancian magic and whatnot in order to appeal to the new audience. As such, I'm optimistic about 4th edition - even though the game that currently calls itself "D&D" probably won't resemble older editions anymore, a) there's C&C out there to cater to the old guard, and b) I still have my 1st edition books too, so that's fine.

Quote from: J ArcaneI am not hopeful, based on what little I've heard, whether it's press releases that read like they're tagging bullet points of 3.x hater posts, anti-Western fantasy snark in TBO9S, all the wrong people praising SWSAGA, or even the choice of Mike Mearls as a lead designer with way too much time invested in following the minority voices on Internet forums.

What I am seeing gives strong indication that they've fallen squarely into the forum trap that afflicts so many vidgames, especially MMOs, catering to the whims of the small group of vocal whiners who populate the Internet forums, while forgetting entirely about the silent and satisfied majority of players.  

And that's just damn sad.  I'd really hate for RPGs to go the way of hex-and-counter wargames, and if D&D of all things has fallen straight for aiming at the Internet hardcore, then that is exactly what will happen.

I voted 'undecided' but I share a lot of J's concerns here, even though I am a Mearls fanboy and even though I like both 9 Swords and Star Wars Saga.  Everything I hear indicates that Wizard's may be shutting the door on the casual Bob the Fighter player and also on strategic level thinking.  I want regular guys who don't eat this shit up 24/7 like I do at my game table.  And I want party's to cheese it because they're out of spells, to return to the dungeon another day.  And I wonder if the 20 level megadungeon makes no sense, mechanically, in a game where resources are allocated per encounter.

Quote from: One Horse TownHi Colin, you magnificent bastard! :D  How're things?

Hey mate!

Not too bad, cheers, though Rosie is keeping me busy; the joys of a hyperactive goblin-like baby. Happy to see Secrets of the Surface World out for HEX, and Faery's Tale Deluxe getting out there. Busy chipping away at a section of Mysteries of the Hollow Earth and another project.

Hearty congrats on the ENnie, by the way! That makes both of us now; maybe we should start a club or something? ;)

cheers!
Colin

I have a feeling that those that liked Star War Saga Edition are going to like 4ed. From the way it sounds, 4E is going to be a fantasy version of Saga edition but a more robust and full featured version.

I say two thumbs up. :win: :win:

Quote from: Colin ChapmanHey mate!

Not too bad, cheers, though Rosie is keeping me busy; the joys of a hyperactive goblin-like baby. Happy to see Secrets of the Surface World out for HEX, and Faery's Tale Deluxe getting out there. Busy chipping away at a section of Mysteries of the Hollow Earth and another project.

Hearty congrats on the ENnie, by the way! That makes both of us now; maybe we should start a club or something? ;)

cheers!
Colin

Groovy! Yeah, there's suddenly a lot of writers involved in projects winning ENnies this year! There should be a tie pin or something.

HEX is still on my list of stuff to get when i can afford it. Sad thing is, the list is getting bigger the whole time! :D

Quote from: jrientsI voted 'undecided' but I share a lot of J's concerns here, even though I am a Mearls fanboy and even though I like both 9 Swords and Star Wars Saga.  Everything I hear indicates that Wizard's may be shutting the door on the casual Bob the Fighter player and also on strategic level thinking.  I want regular guys who don't eat this shit up 24/7 like I do at my game table.  And I want party's to cheese it because they're out of spells, to return to the dungeon another day.  And I wonder if the 20 level megadungeon makes no sense, mechanically, in a game where resources are allocated per encounter.

I want parties to cheese it too.  I just wonder if the fact that I know what cheese it means is just another indication of how old I am.  Is that still an understood term?

Otherwise, I agree.  That's one of my concerns about the per-encounter stuff. There are probably plenty of people, possibly a great majority given Wizards direction, who enjoy that. It's another possible break point for me.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's another possible break point for me.

Yeah, that's my real concern.  Everything I hear sounds like a good approach to building the D&D that WotC wants.  I just wonder whether it will also be the D&D that I want.  I already lean pretty heavily towards older editions and retro stuff like C&C.  This may be the edition where I make the leap to no longer following the latest version of D&D.

Quote from: WarthurNow, however, it looks like they've conceded that they've lost the hardcore old schoolers - C&C and OSRIC cater to them perfectly happily - and are tackling sacred cows like Vancian magic and whatnot in order to appeal to the new audience. As such, I'm optimistic about 4th edition - even though the game that currently calls itself "D&D" probably won't resemble older editions anymore, a) there's C&C out there to cater to the old guard, and b) I still have my 1st edition books too, so that's fine.

Astute analysis. I don't play 3E either, but I'm curious about 4E. Like you said, it seems that by abandoning the old ways it may end up a more attractive option for those who are still comfortable with playing earlier editions, C&C, etc. It certainly won't be my familiar D&D, but it may be a different enough game that it has its own appeal.

Meh. More meh. Good for them if they have fun, I guess. :what:

On the other hand, I wrote my first megadungeon last week, and I am proud as heck. 87 pages of city adventuring and dungeon crawling goodness! Ha ha ha ha! :D

Sounds awesome, Melan.  Congrats!  Good megadungeon design, I'm starting to find, is quite the challenge.

You wounldn't consider publishing this, would you? I have quite the Melan collection.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityYou wounldn't consider publishing this, would you? I have quite the Melan collection.

:ditto:

Me three. If Melan was writing his stuff back in the glory days of Judges Guild, he's be right up there with Paul Jaquays as the top author in the fold.

Me four, duh.

Melan, I think you're at the point where you could start picking up some coin selling print on demand or pdf products, if you were so inclined.

I'll happily keep taking them free in exchange for my sterling advice though.

Undecided.

So far, what's in the books seems to be okay but the entire online component is way too much of a sign that this is all about fighting with WOW over hegemony.

Melan, seriously.  Find a pdf or print publisher or something, and get busy.  We need to see this stuff.  Goodman Games, Flying Mice, I don't care, just get it done. :)

Well, I think I just usurped the attention from 4e, eh? :v:

Playtest comes first, and I'll see afterwards how to proceed. Until then, take a look here (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710&start=225). I am ambivalent about for sale publication, as
1) it could actually limit the audience,
2) may be more trouble than it's worth,
3) there is no way in hell I am parting with my IP, no matter what the industry standards are today. Real authors don't do it, and if I'm not paid very generously, why should I?
Still, I can't say it isn't a tempting thought. :raise:

That looks exceptionally cool, Melan.

I really like the name Khosura, btw. Mind if I steal it for a forthcoming Exalted (True20) session? I ask out of politeness and the possible AP thread that will follow.

That's a mighty impressive bit of work, Melan.

I'm taking next week off work to de-compress (on the job and at home stress are robbing me of sleep) and hope to get a chunk of work on my own dungeon campaign done.  I can only hope that my work is half as cool as what you've done in five days.

Bravo, sir!

Quote from: DrewThat looks exceptionally cool, Melan.

I really like the name Khosura, btw. Mind if I steal it for a forthcoming Exalted (True20) session? I ask out of politeness and the possible AP thread that will follow.

Feel free to, it's not like I don't steal shamelessly.

Quote from: MelanFeel free to, it's not like I don't steal shamelessly.

Then consider it nicked. ;)

@Melan: nifty and inspiring.

Quote from: WarthurOK, from my point of view: I'm an RC D&D/1st ed AD&D man, and 3.X isn't my thing. I think 3.X was hamstrung by two mutually exclusive needs:

- The need to be recognisably D&D to the old guard.
- The need to genuinely update the system to attract gamers who've drifted away to more modern systems, and to avoid accusations of simply putting out a new edition just to bilk the fans out of money (let's face it: AD&D2 was a rewrite of AD&D1 with a tiny number of tweaks, and that's incredibly lame).

For me, 3.X is a game trying to appeal to two different audiences and ending up leaving neither satisfied. There's no reason for characteristic scores to be written down in the 3-18 range since you only ever use the bonuses anyway, except in a very few cases - they've just retained that because having stats from 3 to 18 is the Old School way. Similarly with Vancian magic - 1st level wizards have always been totally useless, and that really should have been fixed with 3.0 - but wasn't. (See my "burned on the outside, raw in the middle" thread for more of my thoughts on that.)

Now, however, it looks like they've conceded that they've lost the hardcore old schoolers - C&C and OSRIC cater to them perfectly happily - and are tackling sacred cows like Vancian magic and whatnot in order to appeal to the new audience. As such, I'm optimistic about 4th edition - even though the game that currently calls itself "D&D" probably won't resemble older editions anymore, a) there's C&C out there to cater to the old guard, and b) I still have my 1st edition books too, so that's fine.

Bingo - cross posted elswhere...

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

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

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

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

From quotes on RPGnet it appears spells are now be directly linked to character level. Thus a 20th level wizard can cast 20th level spells.

Also Fireball no longer does 1d6 damage per level.


Yup. It's off to the abbatoir with those sacred cows...

Quote from: DrewFrom quotes on RPGnet it appears spells are now be directly linked to character level. Thus a 20th level wizard can cast 20th level spells.

Also Fireball no longer does 1d6 damage per level.


Yup. It's off to the abbatoir with those sacred cows...

Well, for example, the Mearls sticky thread, he describes the cheers he got when he announced Vancian magic would be "(mostly) gone."

Now, it might be that a lot of people don't like Vancian magic.  That's fine.  But it's been in the game in every edition of D&D to one extent or another, correct? So now it sounds like it's going to be "(mostly) gone"

I don't know if the things they are going to leave behind are sacred cows or not - I didn't refer to them that way, nor did Mearls.  But his comments makes it clear that they are not unwilling to let go of things that have been a part of the game for a long time.  The question will be, as I said, what goes and what stays.  I'm certainly not making a judgement on whether the decisions they make in that regard are good or bad - that will have to wait until the rules show up in May.

Quote from: James J SkachI don't know if the things they are going to leave behind are sacred cows or not - I didn't refer to them that way, nor did Mearls.  But his comments makes it clear that they are not unwilling to let go of things that have been a part of the game for a long time.  The question will be, as I said, what goes and what stays.  I'm certainly not making a judgement on whether the decisions they make in that regard are good or bad - that will have to wait until the rules show up in May.

My response wasn't intended as snark. I think the "sacred cows" are largely a product of a small but vocal subsection of fandom. I also think many of them are ripe for excising. Mearls seemed pleasantly surprised by the reaction to the whole Vancian magic thing, which indicates certain concepts have nowhere near the importance some would claim.

Like you I'm reserving judgement until publication. But so far I'm still liking what I hear.

Quote from: AkrasiaSeriously, I like what is being said about 'streamlining' the system, making prep work less of a chore, making the game move more quickly (especially combat), weakening the dependency on magic items, and extending the 'sweet spot' by inflating the level range to 1-30.

I dislike the possibility that all classes will have ersatz spells, and the whole 'per encounter' approach to resource management.

Consider this a rare CS/Akrasia attitude conjunction.

Quote from: DrewAlso Fireball no longer does 1d6 damage per level.

Ugh.  That hit me like a stake through the heart.  "Magic-users of level 5+ can throw a fireball that does d6 damage per level" isn't quite as sacred as the concepts of levels and classes, but it hurts more than losing the half-orc.

I'll take a wild guess that most damage dealing spells will now do less, and a fixed amount, of damage. If you have the chance of throwing spells per encounter, then it follows that the ones that deal large amounts of damage will have it reduced. So, maybe Fireball will now do 5d6 damage full stop, but with the correct feats and having it as a per encounter spell, you'll have greater access to it.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, for example, the Mearls sticky thread, he describes the cheers he got when he announced Vancian magic would be "(mostly) gone."

Now, it might be that a lot of people don't like Vancian magic.  That's fine.  But it's been in the game in every edition of D&D to one extent or another, correct? So now it sounds like it's going to be "(mostly) gone".

Here's something I originally posted on ENWorld way back on 26. 07. 2006 in response to the thread about the Rust Monster’s destruction at the hands of Mike Mearls. It is inflammatory, and insulting to Wizards of the Coast designers. I am reposting it since this particular type of feedback loop in the design process leads me to believe I was right, and like Pundit, I like to dredge up age-old shit. You have been warned.

QuoteInteresting. This has been on my mind for a long time - that for the sake of balance, the game designers at Wizards are sacrificing imagination and the whimsical attitude that once permeated the game.



It is ironic that the same thing Gary Gygax was demonised for in the early 1980s is today held up by message board participants as the epitome of good design; even as infallible dogma. Gary could never have dreamed of succeeding in his attempt to make AD&D campaigns conform to a strict standard - and definitely not succeeding to this extent.

This begs the question: why does the Wizards of the Coast R&D team strive for so strict a balance and why does it intend to strip away out-of-box options from you? I call this phenomenon the tyranny of fun. A ludicrous name for a ludicrous concept, but there you have it. The WotC designers are not bad people. I am sure, for example, that the folks working there don’t hate the game or anything, maybe they don’t even kick puppies on their way home. Maybe they help old ladies across the street. They want you to have fun. Good, yes? Yes? No. The idea went wrong long ago and it shows no signs of getting better. When dealing with game philosophy, Wizards R&D doesn’t concentrate on thinking up stuff that makes playing fun anymore. That’s 1970s TSR thinking. Moreover, fun is inherently subjective and hard to quantify - all we can have is meaningless truisms like „the game is about killing critters and taking their stuff”, „getting loot and powering up”, „playing my character” or „sitting around and eating chips”. That’s not very helpful - it is all true, of course, but it doesn’t really tell you what to do to emphasise this in the game. So instead, they try to remove things from the game which are not fun. What isn’t fun? The things the fans complain about. But who complains? In short, the kind of people older rulebooks (and pardon my edition snobbery, but that’s just how I see it) warned us about. People whose characters got their swords destroyed by a rust monster and who threw a hissy fit over it. People whose characters died to a hold person spell and who wrote angry letters to Dragon magazine. People who didn’t have fun, whose entertainment was destroyed by this monster or that spell. Meet WotC’s focus groups, meet the people who are the target audience for future releases. The people 4e will be designed to accommodate.

Oh, I don’t have high hopes that these changes can be or will ever be „stopped”. ENWorld is ample proof of that. There comes a change like destroying the creative concept behind the rust monster, and there is a chorus of approving posts praising this decision as if it was the second coming of Our Lord Sliced Bread. Because, after all, D&D before „it was evolved” was a horribly designed, bad, bad game people didn’t have fun with and which didn’t sell, right? Right? According to WotC R&D (heh, R&D... I wonder if EGG ever had an „R&D” department), people who didn’t like D&D before are the people D&D should be designed for in the future, because that’s smart business. I am not making this up either.

There is, of course, the inevitable counter-reaction from reactionaries who don’t appreciate the changes and dare to suggest that hey, it was good the way it used to be, and there is no overwhelming need to „re-design it to be proper at last”. These rose-coloured glass-wearing fools even suggest that the design shouldn’t be used. Naive thinking. In fact, they will accomplish very little. The debate will flow back and forth for a while, and in the end, the sides will agree to meet halfway. And gee, you just conceded your position, dice-boy. You were suckered into accepting that maybe they are right. Maybe it really was bad design all along and it were your pleasant experiences that were false.

The final response is always going to be to remove any edge, any colour, to remove randomness and introduce standardised fair play into the game which started out as highly arbitrary and whimsical - in short, fantastic and open to creative interpretation.

This response is the symptom of a design culture which would never be capable of designing a game like Dungeons &Dragons.

And that is a pity.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/Melan/vb.jpg)

Totally agree with your rant there Melan. It seems like WOTC and the Forgeites are starting from the same proposition: games must be saved from their worst players, who admittedly fuck things up for a lot of people. Therefore, the freedom for a group to work out its own playstyle is taken away by hardwiring in a very specific style of play.

It's the lowest common denominator effect: it gives Billy the 15-year old fanboy the ability to switch between groups and still get the same kind of game which hits his rOxXor buttons. Which isn't a bad thing, and it sells games. But not only does it not suit those with different tastes, increasingly it doesn't even allow for different tastes without considerable drift/homebrewing.

Problems of being market leader I guess. If you want to make big bucks selling drinks, you make Pepsi not single-malt. Guess I'll stick to my minority taste games as well.

The more people that get hooked on D&D in any form, the more people will developed refined tastes.
Either for their D&D gaming or even for different games.

Mass exposure to the method of Roleplaying is a GOOD thing.

Absolutely classic, Melan:

QuoteThis response is the symptom of a design culture which would never be capable of designing a game like Dungeons &Dragons.

While the folks who are designing 4E are undoubtedly sharp guys who understand how to put together an efficient system, I doubt they have a fraction of the creativity of the 1E crew. They're the euro-game designers of the RPG industry - it's all ultimately about numbers to them. Elegant, functional, efficient numbers.

However, I'm in the camp that feels 4E may be different enough from previous iterations of D&D that it will be a good game in its own right, instead of a form of D&D that I dislike. If the system is released alongside at least one solid adventure that isn't too insipid in its sensibilities, I'll be giving it a whirl.

Quote from: Haffrung...While the folks who are designing 4E are undoubtedly sharp guys who understand how to put together an efficient system, I doubt they have a fraction of the creativity of the 1E crew. They're the euro-game designers of the RPG industry - it's all ultimately about numbers to them. Elegant, functional, efficient numbers....

Can't dispute that, but you also can't dispute that the most popular boardgames that are actually being played, over and over and over again, are Euro games.  Why?  Because they're not just about the numbers, as you seem to think, but about the systems - the web of interactions between all of the factors in the game.

A game like Puerto Rico is fun, not because it accurately simulates managing the growth of a town and a plantation, but because the system is chock full of options and restraints that force you to think, and most of all, keep you thinking about the game long after the game is done.  "What if I did/do...?"

If the WoTC guys can nail that concept, they're going to have a massive success on their hands.

Quote from: HaffrungWhile the folks who are designing 4E are undoubtedly sharp guys who understand how to put together an efficient system, I doubt they have a fraction of the creativity of the 1E crew. They're the euro-game designers of the RPG industry - it's all ultimately about numbers to them. Elegant, functional, efficient numbers.

I don't know much about the rest of them, but Mike Mearls is a designer who's work I've respected and admired for quite a while now. Iron Heroes  was the game that drew me back to the d20 fold after an extended absence, and was (I felt) one of the strongest and most imaginative takes on what the game could potentially be. If I were forced to name a team who I'd trust to carry 4e off then he'd be one of them (the other being Steve Kenson, but you can't have it all).

QuoteHowever, I'm in the camp that feels 4E may be different enough from previous iterations of D&D that it will be a good game in its own right, instead of a form of D&D that I dislike.

That's is the impression I'm getting at the moment. Of course none of us will know until we see the finished product, but the 'first principles' approach strikes me as exactly the right way of going about it.

I think you're talking about two different kinds of restrictions. Restrictions on character activity and restrictions on environemtnal activity. One is opening up "I can attack 16 times a round and jump like a flea!" the other is closing down "the rust monster shall hence forth be known as the tarnish monster, and if you fail you save, 1d4 rnds of polishing will be required before your sword regains its Herioc Shine."

I think moving these things is fine, moving them in opposite directions is perhaps a bad idea.

I absolutely trust Mike Mearls to produce an excellent game.  To me the only question is whether or not he produces an excellent game that I want to play.  Clearly, I'm not the target audience for 4e.  The best I can hope for is to be caught in the blast radius, so to speak.

Quote from: jrientsI absolutely trust Mike Mearls to produce an excellent game.  To me the only question is whether or not he produces an excellent game that I want to play.  Clearly, I'm not the target audience for 4e.  The best I can hope for is to be caught in the blast radius, so to speak.

So you're hoping for 'collateral enjoyment?'

How novel. :D

Quote from: architect.zeroCan't dispute that, but you also can't dispute that the most popular boardgames that are actually being played, over and over and over again, are Euro games.  Why?  Because they're not just about the numbers, as you seem to think, but about the systems - the web of interactions between all of the factors in the game.

A game like Puerto Rico is fun, not because it accurately simulates managing the growth of a town and a plantation, but because the system is chock full of options and restraints that force you to think, and most of all, keep you thinking about the game long after the game is done.  "What if I did/do...?"

If the WoTC guys can nail that concept, they're going to have a massive success on their hands.

Totally agree. I have about 70 eurogames on my shelves - I actually play boardgames more than I play RPGs. But I go to them for an entirely different game experience from RPGs. That's why I'm actually quite interested in 4E - it looks like it will be unabashedly a gamers game. And if it is easier to run than 3E, and isn't full of cheesy hybrids, then it may fit a different niche in my gaming hobby then either RPGs or euros.

Puerto Rico is broken.
I´ve never lost since I started to calculate and keep track of the victory points of other players.

And the others won´t keep track themselves. Winning because I care more is hollow, losing because I didn´t care sucks.

At least for our group, we´ve had it with Puerto Rico.

If Wizards can deliver on some of their oft-stated design goals: extending the level 4-14 sweet spot, making the game run faster, especially at high levels and others, this will be a great game.

Color me excited.

Melan's rant, while a bit couched in the old-school attitude, by and large explains exactly what the hell I've been trying to get across to you people for the past week, but better.

Perhaps from now on I should jsut let him talk for me instead of trying to argue with idiots who demand cites from things they've already read.

Quote from: MelanThis response is the symptom of a design culture which would never be capable of designing a game like Dungeons &Dragons.

I'm not sure that it's so much a "design culture" issue as it is (A) the second-system effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect) and (B) the fact that the first designers weren't building on D&D but making it up as they went.  The original authors aren't fans.  They are originators.  When fans of something take over, they bring a very different perspective to the table.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm not sure that it's so much a "design culture" issue as it is (A) the second-system effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect) and (B) the fact that the first designers weren't building on D&D but making it up as they went.  The original authors aren't fans.  They are originators.  When fans of something take over, they bring a very different perspective to the table.

That's a good point, and something that has simultaneously excites and makes me bothered about the current interest in and revival of "old school" games and adventures. The process and results are entirely different when something is done subconsciously, based on your influences, and when it is a conscious reconstruction.

I haven't thought about 4e from the same perspective, but I probably should.

Quote from: One Horse TownI'll take a wild guess that most damage dealing spells will now do less, and a fixed amount, of damage. If you have the chance of throwing spells per encounter, then it follows that the ones that deal large amounts of damage will have it reduced. So, maybe Fireball will now do 5d6 damage full stop, but with the correct feats and having it as a per encounter spell, you'll have greater access to it.

This is almost a given. I think D&D minis 1 already shows the way here. Spells in general do similar or less damage than melee attacks; spells are like fancy ranged weapons in that game, with saving throws.

And this is as it should be on a balanced per-encounter model of what's going on in the game. Spells can't be a lot better than weapons if fighters and MUs are going to be coming to every fight with about equal resources.

The new game will be a good game. (Remember though my thread from a while back about how thinking of RPGs as games is the fundamental mistake of modern RPG design theory. Calling it a mistake is perhaps conflating my preferences with the truth, but on the other hand I do think there was something special and fun about the games I played.) It will however break with the past even more than 3e did.

It won't be what I want out of an RPG. I like Haffrung's attitude that it might be a new thing and fun in its own right, but I'd rather stay with the old things, so I'm out.

Quote from: MelanHere's something I originally posted on ENWorld way back on 26. 07. 2006 in response to the thread about the Rust Monster's destruction at the hands of Mike Mearls. It is inflammatory, and insulting to Wizards of the Coast designers.

I liked your rant and I too am not big on uber-vanilla-balance. However, I'm not too worried for two reasons:

1-Except for this one, I like many of the other goals of 4e

2-If you begin to modify D&D, you're going to have an easier time "unbalancing" it than balancing the thing. Thus, I come up a winner in my book. I can go right ahead and augment spell damage, change the way armor works, number of melee attacks or anything and it's a good bet that I am messing with balance but improving color for my personal tastes.

Those people obsessed with "fairness", however misguided, are probably a significant customer base enough that they should be cattered to. And for them to "balance" and "sanitize" D&D would take a lot more hard work than what I'll have to do.

As I was saying on another forum, the biggest and most important thing that I LOVE about 4e is the marketing.

The release cycle for a new core book set presents tremendous marketing leverage that can be used to really promote the game in a way that supplemental material just can't pull off.

This is a major opportunity for the largest company in the market to leverage a new product and increase interest in the world's most popular RPG.

This is a vital opportunity for gaming as a whole.

Quote from: HaffrungWhile the folks who are designing 4E are undoubtedly sharp guys who understand how to put together an efficient system, I doubt they have a fraction of the creativity of the 1E crew.

You know, I agree with this wholeheartedly.  Luckily for us, they don't have to design a whole new game whole-cloth -- they just have to mechanically tweak the D&D that already exists, something they're actually suited to do.

KoOS

I'm coming down more and more against what I've heard about in 4e.

Dropping Vancian magic is a mistake. It entirely changes what it is to be a mage character, or for that matter a cleric. Its no longer the same business of planning, anticipating, choosing your spells with care, and then finding as many alternative uses for spells as you can when the unexpected happens. If thats how 4th ed pans out then I won't just favour earlier editions for the games I run, I'll flat refuse to play 4th ed.

The idea of having a 'reset' button at the end of each encounter changes adventures into 'encounter, encounter, encounter..' without the PCs having to reahh shepherd their resources carefully. D&D was never about being a computer game simulation where you have set powers that you can use, and use, and use... Its about fallible characters making the most of the finite abilities they have. I'm very skeptical about that change.

Virtual game table... I dunno, I think D&D has come full circle there, its gone way back towards tabletop miniatures gaming in 3rd ed, looks like 4th ed goes further. I don't enjoy that style of play, the great thing about D&D is that it goes on in your head rather than on a board, and I don't think that returning to more boardgaming elements is going to see the game survive well into the future. Computers do that better.

Some of the ideas that make character class more important again (removing the careful selection of feats at low level to get the character you plan at level 10!) is well overdue, and it addresses what I always saw as one of the major faults in 3rd ed. I'd go further and simply remove feats and have them as class options, but we'll have to see if they do that.

The system for balancing encounters, from what I've seen so far, sucks.

On the whole, I'm not liking what I'm hearing.

Quote from: CabDropping Vancian magic is a mistake. It entirely changes what it is to be a mage character, or for that matter a cleric. Its no longer the same business of planning, anticipating, choosing your spells with care, and then finding as many alternative uses for spells as you can when the unexpected happens. If thats how 4th ed pans out then I won't just favour earlier editions for the games I run, I'll flat refuse to play 4th ed.

The idea of having a 'reset' button at the end of each encounter changes adventures into 'encounter, encounter, encounter..' without the PCs having to reahh shepherd their resources carefully. D&D was never about being a computer game simulation where you have set powers that you can use, and use, and use... Its about fallible characters making the most of the finite abilities they have. I'm very skeptical about that change.

According to this ENWorld post (which seems to be being regularly updated with edits) (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119) it's not all per-encounter stuff in the new edition: people's powers and spells and whatnot will be divided into three categories of increasing power - "at will", "per encounter" and "per day", with "per day" things being the most powerful. So careful resource handling should (hopefully) still be a factor.

Quote from: WarthurAccording to this ENWorld post (which seems to be being regularly updated with edits) (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119) it's not all per-encounter stuff in the new edition: people's powers and spells and whatnot will be divided into three categories of increasing power - "at will", "per encounter" and "per day", with "per day" things being the most powerful. So careful resource handling should (hopefully) still be a factor.

Well, we'll see. I'm not convinced that changing Vancian magic was needed.

You can do a lot to D&D and its still D&D. Things like ascending armour class (didn't THAT upset some people!), Sorcerors, prestige classes, all of those things that got many old-schoolers up in arms but which had actually appeared in other versions of D&D before 3rd ed, in truth they're all trivialities. They're not big changes to how you play the game, they're window dressing. But dropping Vancian magic (saw one statement on the Wizards site saying that a mage who has cast his once per day spells might still be 80% effective, which would substantially mean that Vancian casting is gone)... Well, that really would be a big, big change to D&D, bigger than any of the changes brought in with 3rd ed (more so even than the 'unified' skill system). Its barely the same engine of the game (the same basic engine that goes right back to Men and Magic) any more if you do that. Yeah, I know, we've had optional spell point systems (noteably 2nd ed skills and powers) before, but that was never 'the' way to do it.

There's still a glimmer of hope.

Assume that:
1) 20% of character power is per-day and 80% is at will and per encounter (As promised by the developers)

2) Magic items have a very few uses per day. (Described as 'ideal game-design' in the Magic Item Compendium behind the curtains section)

3) Fewer magic items per character (Elimiating the so-called "Christmas tree effect")

One possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted. The strategic management shifts from preparing spells to managing per-day and one-use items wisely.

If items make up say... half of a character's power, then running out of resources leaves a character at 40%.

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumOne possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted.

Whether its items or spells, this is a fundamental flaw in the argument for changing away from Vancian magic. Characters can't just rest wherever they choose; in a well run adventure the characters can only really rest in a defensible location, where it is safe to do so, where they can realistically 'rest', and at best a night spent in a wet cave or cold, dark woodland is going to be poor 'rest'!

The problem here is that some DMs seem to allow the PCs to dictate the pace of a story, and that reduces challenge for all involved. Fight, rest, fight, rest... How about fight, discover something, have to guard while you're working something out, have to fight again when something comes to see what the noise was, creep along to find somewhere secluded, THEN rest? You can't just drop camp anywhere you like in a dungeon, it makes no sense.

I've seen the argument that the game becomes too much about resource management and all about the mage casting his spells then resting over on the Wizards site, usually coupled with the claim that at high level mages are too powerful. Frankly thats really shoddy dungeon mastering, and it could best be changed by ripping most of the fluff out of the DMG and having a better section on practical DM'ing.

Don't worry Cab.  I'm sure that practical advice will be in the DMG II, or III, or maybe IV...

I'm going to wait for 4e to come out and generate my opinions based on what gets printed. Like Riki-Tiki-Traveller when it comes out - if I think that the game is crap, then by the Redeeming Power of the OGL, I shall rewrite what I think is fucked up and possibly sell that as a new system or supplement or adventure. Just like what has happened with 3.x disappointment being the driving force which gave us C&C, True20, Basic Fantasy RPG, and on and on and on...

jeff37923, not rushing to judgement and waiting for actual info is completely contrary to the spirit of internet debate!

Quote from: jeff37923I'm going to wait for 4e to come out and generate my opinions based on what gets printed. Like Riki-Tiki-Traveller when it comes out - if I think that the game is crap, then by the Redeeming Power of the OGL, I shall rewrite what I think is fucked up and possibly sell that as a new system or supplement or adventure. Just like what has happened with 3.x disappointment being the driving force which gave us C&C, True20, Basic Fantasy RPG, and on and on and on...

ah, the OGL.  our silver lining!  so i doubt the third of the incoming-new-edition-triumvirate (for me), BRP, will have its own OGL. . . .

Quote from: beeberah, the OGL.  our silver lining!  so i doubt the third of the incoming-new-edition-triumvirate (for me), BRP, will have its own OGL. . . .

It already does, in the form of the RQ OGL. As the GORE guys have shown, it's nigh-trivial to back-engineer the RQ OGL to get BRP.

Quote from: WarthurIt already does, in the form of the RQ OGL. As the GORE guys have shown, it's nigh-trivial to back-engineer the RQ OGL to get BRP.

ah, that's right. i'd forgotten about the MRQ OGL.

i think the freebie of GORE is a bit closer to BRP, but i get what you're saying.  they're close enough, for all intents and purposes.  

anyone remember how soon after 3.0 came out that the SRD became available?

Quote from: jrientsjeff37923, not rushing to judgement and waiting for actual info is completely contrary to the spirit of internet debate!

I know, I'm like those cavemen in the Geico commercials. :D

Quote from: Malleus ArianorumThere's still a glimmer of hope.

Assume that:
1) 20% of character power is per-day and 80% is at will and per encounter (As promised by the developers)

2) Magic items have a very few uses per day. (Described as 'ideal game-design' in the Magic Item Compendium behind the curtains section)

3) Fewer magic items per character (Elimiating the so-called "Christmas tree effect")

One possible outcome is that characters rest when their items get exhausted. The strategic management shifts from preparing spells to managing per-day and one-use items wisely.

If items make up say... half of a character's power, then running out of resources leaves a character at 40%.

This is an excellent point! But don't forget the basic D&D currency: HPs.

If 4th edition brings us action points on top of that, like I've heard, you also get another ressource to manage as well.

Frankly, the Vancian magic system is one of the two features of D&D I really dislike. I think it sucks, just like armor. That 20% of spells per day will probably be made up of key effects, assuming balanced encounters/challenges.

But counting the number of times per day you can light your pipe with your finger as an archmage? That was just poor design. I'm speaking figuratively of course, but it might be great for a mage to pull off some minor magic (minor being relative to his level) pretty much at will. That sits well with me and my players.

This new system should not affect ressource management in tight situation. It should just give more roleplaying opportunities if done well. Now, I don't know yet if it will be done well but based on the information so far, nothing in there leads me to believe it's a mistake.

Quote from: Consonant DudeFrankly, the Vancian magic system is one of the two features of D&D I really dislike. I think it sucks, just like armor. That 20% of spells per day will probably be made up of key effects, assuming balanced encounters/challenges.

Yet it is something that has been present in every version of D&D. Barring none. Its definitive of the game. Its one of those aspects of the game that if you don't like, you probably don't really enjoy D&D, and if you change it you're fundamentally changing D&D in a way that no one ever has done. There comes a point where you have to ask whether or not you really should still call it D&D.

QuoteBut counting the number of times per day you can light your pipe with your finger as an archmage? That was just poor design. I'm speaking figuratively of course, but it might be great for a mage to pull off some minor magic (minor being relative to his level) pretty much at will. That sits well with me and my players.

And it sits with me and mine. I don't know where the idea first came from, but I've long since allowed 'cantrip' as a general skill in RC D&D. Skill check allows you to let off a tiny amount of energy from a memorised spell; cantrip death spell might kill a mosquito that lands on you. Cantrip fireball might light a pipe. Cantrip wizard lock might close a door thats ajar and rattling in the wind. That kind of thing. You can get over that 'flavour' aspect of the game without ditching something that has always defined what it is to play a spellcaster in D&D.

QuoteThis new system should not affect ressource management in tight situation. It should just give more roleplaying opportunities if done well. Now, I don't know yet if it will be done well but based on the information so far, nothing in there leads me to believe it's a mistake.

I'm very skeptical. I think that coupled with further emphasis on board gaming aspects, specificall computer generated board gaming, adding 'abilities at will' and all the time rings real alarm bells for me. I'm more and more reminded of the old computer game 'Gauntlet'.

Quote from: CabYet it is something that has been present in every version of D&D. Barring none. Its definitive of the game. Its one of those aspects of the game that if you don't like, you probably don't really enjoy D&D,

Dude. I've been playing D&D for 27 years. I'm also a big proponent of picking the right game for your taste and situation. Believe me when I say that if I didn't like D&D, I wouldn't play it, period.

Yet I'm coming off a 1e campaign and currently in two short 3e adventures.

I respect that you find Vancian casting definitive of the game. But that's a universal claim that simply doesn't apply to me and to many people.

Quote from: Caband if you change it you're fundamentally changing D&D in a way that no one ever has done.

Why would I buy into a new edition of D&D if they don't make significant changes? The books are built to last and I'm perfectly happy with most of the content. If WotC intend to draw me, they need to catch my attention with some significant changes that (hopefully) improve my experience. That's the small 10% of the experience that annoys me.  

That is the reason I didn't make the jump from 1e to 2e. There simply weren't enough significant changes to warrant the upgrade for my tastes, nor did I like what they changed.

Quote from: CabThere comes a point where you have to ask whether or not you really should still call it D&D.

Again, I can respect that if you're talking about yourself. I personally have sacred cows I would downright refuse to see go away. But every edition does bring new stuff and does away with other stuff. That's why I (and others) still play 1e campaigns: Because they offer a different experience from 3e.

Simply put, pick the edition that matches your tastes and run/play it.

Quote from: CabI'm very skeptical. I think that coupled with further emphasis on board gaming aspects, specificall computer generated board gaming, adding 'abilities at will' and all the time rings real alarm bells for me.

I respect your opinion. There is a very real possibility it won't work out well. In that case, it simply will disappear (or be refined) in the next revision or edition. Features disappear and reappear all the time in D&D editions.

As for the boardgaming aspects... well, it's D&D. That's part of the experience. There are other games who do other stuff better.

Quote from: Consonant DudeDude. I've been playing D&D for 27 years. I'm also a big proponent of picking the right game for your taste and situation. Believe me when I say that if I didn't like D&D, I wouldn't play it, period.

Yet I'm coming off a 1e campaign and currently in two short 3e adventures.

I respect that you find Vancian casting definitive of the game. But that's a universal claim that simply doesn't apply to me and to many people.

I've come across several people, online, since the announcement of 4e who have said that. Haven't come across anyone previously who house ruled away from it (I know one bloke who used 2nd ed with the points system from skills and powers but thats it).

So I'll remain skeptical; if something in a game system is dodgy then usually I'll encounter people house ruling away from it. Hasn't happened with Vancian magic.

QuoteWhy would I buy into a new edition of D&D if they don't make significant changes? The books are built to last and I'm perfectly happy with most of the content. If WotC intend to draw me, they need to catch my attention with some significant changes that (hopefully) improve my experience. That's the small 10% of the experience that annoys me.  

That is the reason I didn't make the jump from 1e to 2e. There simply weren't enough significant changes to warrant the upgrade for my tastes, nor did I like what they changed.

I can see that point, and I'd hold back from saying that there is any one thing you can't change or its not D&D... But Vancian magic has been in the game longer than some of the polyhedral dice, its more fundamental to playing some of the character classes than anything else I can think of. To call it an enormous change is an understatement.

QuoteAgain, I can respect that if you're talking about yourself. I personally have sacred cows I would downright refuse to see go away. But every edition does bring new stuff and does away with other stuff. That's why I (and others) still play 1e campaigns: Because they offer a different experience from 3e.

Simply put, pick the edition that matches your tastes and run/play it.

QuoteI respect your opinion. There is a very real possibility it won't work out well. In that case, it simply will disappear (or be refined) in the next revision or edition. Features disappear and reappear all the time in D&D editions.

As for the boardgaming aspects... well, it's D&D. That's part of the experience. There are other games who do other stuff better.

I don't think I am just talking about myself here.

D&D game from wargaming, which spat out Chainmail, which then had fantasy elements sucked into it, and then it became something other than a combat simulation, something other than creature versus creature fighting. The rules systems developed moved further and further away from minis, then came 3rd ed. and the new rise of the miniature. Its hard to deny that marketing and integration of minis in 3rd ed. is more defined and built in to the game system than in any game of the D&D lineage since Chainmail; in placing characters in square spaces and putting that right in to the core of the game it has almost gone further than that. 4th ed, with its virtual game board, with its virtual miniatures building on top of what 3rd ed has done, looks set to go further in that direction again. So you've got computerised maps with characters moving around on, most of the abilities being at will rather than carefully chosen and applied creatively because you have to make the most of what you have... For me it really smacks of a computer game. I'm willing to be convinced that it isn't going in that direction, but I can't form an argument against that myself.

Quote from: CabSo I'll remain skeptical; if something in a game system is dodgy then usually I'll encounter people house ruling away from it. Hasn't happened with Vancian magic.

The last two campaigns I've played in we used a spellpoint system. That is a departure from straight Vancian, so now you have heard of someone departing from Vancian in a DnD campaign. We also used Grim 'n Gritty for our combat rules. Those two variants changed our DnD experience big-time, yet it was still recognizable as DnD. At least it was for our group of 25 year+ DnD vets.

Action points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

Quote from: CalithenaAction points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

I get that too. I wouldn't call it a "flag" on my part, because I didn't mind them in the one campaign we played (Stargate) where we used them, but I do agree that it's a bigger change to how DnD works than changing the system for spell use/refreshment.

I have ran campaigns where spell memorization was discarded, but in retrospect I'm not sure the game was improved thereby.

Quote from: CalithenaAction points are a bigger flag for me than non-Vancian magic.

Ditto. Action points, etc., are just a bit over the meta-game line for me.  I know other folks like them and have fun with them and nothing should be taken as an intended insult in their direction.

Vancian magic, specifically, isn't really the issue - except for how they control the uber-power that is spells.  "Spell points" could be interesting.  So if you use them on high level spells you could only do a few a day, but if you magic missle with them, you could go off like a roman candle. And a real spell failure consequence would be cool - make magic not some plaything, but a real force to be repsected by both wielder and target.

Here's how I put it to the guys I played D&D with on Saturday - it's like somene looked around and said, "Look at how unbalanced this all is. Look how powerful [insert powerful class/combination] are now compared to [insert not-so-powerful class/combination]."

But instead of taking the former down to the level of the latter to fix this, they raised up that latter to match the former. This, of course, will have unforseen consequences which will render the latter more powerful compared to the former, and it will happen again.  It's a spiraling arms race now. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.  I'd like nothing more than to have yet another edition of D&D that I can play.

Quote from: CabI've come across several people, online, since the announcement of 4e who have said that. Haven't come across anyone previously who house ruled away from it (I know one bloke who used 2nd ed with the points system from skills and powers but thats it).

I've heard several people as well (way before the announcement and after)and my experience was similar to yours: most did not houserule it. There could be several reasons for that:

1-The system is perfectly fine as is, which is what I think you are alluding to. And of course, you are right. The system works.

2-They like the fact it is a common language. Being immediately able to play with strangers with little houseruling is a perk I still continue to experience to this day. I just hooked up with a totally new group of 5 I had never played with, was able to make my 8th level Bard from the comfort of my home with no help and get in the adventure quickly. And it's not just creating my character. Choosing my class was done by asking what everybody else was playing and knowing the dynamic of this particular group, based on my knowledge of 3e. With too many significant houserules, I might not understand how to best help this party and how to fit.

3-They suck at houseruling. Gamers are just like everybody else. Just because they enjoy an activity does not mean they know how it works internally. I might be able to go to a restaurant and tell you there's something missing in my fancy meal, but the fuck if I'm going to go to the kitchen and fix it. I'm just not a good cook. I've seen enough houserules and homebrews to realise most gamers suck at design.

4-D&D has evolved into an intricate beast. Some changes have repercussions pretty much everywhere. Even a fine houseruler will have to put in tons of work to fix this. You'd have to re-do the books and that's just a fucking pain in the arse. You're talking about core classes and then repercussions on feats and certain spells, as well as monsters and the way attributes work. I did try to houserule armor and gave up because it was too much work. Even if you do all that work, every time a new interesting supplement is released, you have to houserule those as well.

Anyway, I'm going to reserve further judgment but really hope the new spellcasting rules will be to my liking. So far, I kinda like what I hear about them. My two other concerns are armor and the time it takes to run a combat. I don't think those two will items will be addressed to my liking.

On the subject of boardgaming: Back in 3e, key people such as Dancey, Adkison, Cook and Tweet made it abundantly clear that this is what the game is about and what it does best (and they are right, IMO). Other games address other things very well and D&D should not try to be everything for everyone. You basically move around with cardboard personas, use tactics/strategies to kill things and take their stuff. Everything else is an afterthought. That's why they're going to refine things further toward combat and minis in this next edition. People who want something more abstract can play other games expressly designed for that.

Changing Vancian magic into something else, would make 4th edition the most thoroughly designed fantasy heartbreaker ever.

You naughty man.

Many great games starting re-doing fantasy rpging by changing what was "broken" in D&D.

Maybe 4th edition will just be such a game.

A new Runequest, or more fitting, a new Palladium Fantasy.

Oh, I see what you mean... well... I could get behind that. IF we're talking about a truly new game here, or one with its own distinct identity. Like the shift from 2E to 3.0. But is that what's happening?

We´ll see.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, I see what you mean... well... I could get behind that. IF we're talking about a truly new game here, or one with its own distinct identity. Like the shift from 2E to 3.0. But is that what's happening?

Doubtful. They've said as much in various interviews.

It will be much less drastic than 2e--->3e. They're keeping all the refinements that Jonathan Tweet and co. brought to the able and building on that.

Mike Mearls simply has never demonstrated he has what it takes to design a solid game from scratch and I just don't see him being too adventurous.

In most ways, this will just be a new D20 game. Hopefully a great one.

Quote from: Consonant Dude4-D&D has evolved into an intricate beast. Some changes have repercussions pretty much everywhere. Even a fine houseruler will have to put in tons of work to fix this. You'd have to re-do the books and that's just a fucking pain in the arse. You're talking about core classes and then repercussions on feats and certain spells, as well as monsters and the way attributes work. I did try to houserule armor and gave up because it was too much work. Even if you do all that work, every time a new interesting supplement is released, you have to houserule those as well.

You don't have to houserule each supplement, you just don't use them.

I dunno, I just don't see house ruling an alternative magic system as particularly difficult. Spell points, mana, spell level difficulty, none of that is complicated. And yet, I never encountered it.

QuoteOn the subject of boardgaming: Back in 3e, key people such as Dancey, Adkison, Cook and Tweet made it abundantly clear that this is what the game is about and what it does best (and they are right, IMO). Other games address other things very well and D&D should not try to be everything for everyone. You basically move around with cardboard personas, use tactics/strategies to kill things and take their stuff. Everything else is an afterthought. That's why they're going to refine things further toward combat and minis in this next edition. People who want something more abstract can play other games expressly designed for that.

I see that as a move away from role playing for D&D. And I hate it. Its the most negative feature of 3rd ed for me, the bit that basically took the progress D&D had made since Chainmail and went right back on it. And its a shame, because the basic engine of the 3rd ed system is sound (some tinkering to balance it is needed, but that isn't such a big deal).

D&D was designed to be more abstract than other games. I'm unconvinced that it gained anythign by forgetting that.

Quote from: CabYou don't have to houserule each supplement, you just don't use them.

I dunno, I just don't see house ruling an alternative magic system as particularly difficult. Spell points, mana, spell level difficulty, none of that is complicated.

It's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

You'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

Most gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

It would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

You'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

Most gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

It would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

This certainly has not been my experience at all. We have played using variant spell and combat systems, and even a houserule where we all got a feat every level (on "off" levels the feats had to be chosen from a specific list). Every one of these campaigns went smoothly and were very entertaining. We have played a campaign that included core books only, one with WotC books only, and several with any book anywhere. We've played where we used 3.5 rules, but with some spells reverted back to 3.0 (namely the stat-boosters and summoning spells). We tinker with DnD all the time and it pretty much always turns out fine.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

Some examples are...

• Quicken Metamagic with true strike (+20 to hit) which is so good, everyone does it. The game suffers because the same action is repeated over and over again with negligible cost and risk. (Designer's original intent: "1st level spells aren't that good.")


• Druid shape shift into an "animal." (Designer's original intent: "Cat, dog, mouse, crow, goldfish etc....")


• Ladders that increase in value when you chop them in half. (Designer's original intent: Ladders are dumb and cheap. Poles are useful and expensive. They're entirely different things.)

But in my experience, whenever I run a new magic system (or any system) the players figure out what's hot and what's not and things balance out. If invisibility is too cheap (Essentially a 'cantrip' in Ars Magica 4th edition) then everyone expects invisible foes and thus everyone in the world min/maxes against invisible attackers and therefore being invisible isn't so hot.

On the other hand, if invisibility is prohibitively expensive (Essentially a 9th level spell in Ars Magica 3rd edition) it's something that no one expects NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Even in D&D, when your party is missing a caster, you just work around it. No cleric? Use Device and wand of cure light wounds. Too many wizards? Obliterate everything before it gets too close. Too many goblins and no fireball? Everyone get great cleave. Everyone is psychic? etc... In all those cases, it's the players adjusting their style to achieve a new balance.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIt's extremely complicated. You see, one of the real charms of magic in D&D is the extensive list of very flavorful spells. Those spells are balanced by "levels" according to (roughly) how powerful they are, but this is only relative to the Vancian spellcasting system.

For instance, they've determined that Arcane Sight and Fireball have roughly the same utility (3rd level wizard spells) but if you devise a system allowing a very powerful wizard to cast an unlimited, or quasi-unlimited number of 3rd level spells, you're fucking up balance big time.

Why is that complex? Give each level of spell a component cost, a spell point cost, a hit point cost... Its been done dozens of times in dosens of systems, and it needn't be in any way complex. Yet it doesn't regularly get houseruled that way, there haven't been loads of suggestions for alternate systems in Dragon (nearly everything else has been reassessed in Dragon, at least in older editions, over the years).

QuoteYou'd have to review carefully each single spell in the PHB (and any subsequent supplement), their duration, effect, etc... because now you can have multiple targets (several magic missiles for instance) or extended durations on other spells (protection VS evil/chaos/whatever).

You're going looking for complexity where there isn't any. Spells are allready ranked by power level, so you need to come up with a crude nine sets of 'costs' or restrictions (or in older editions 9 for mages, 7 for priests). Not hard at all. Not desireable or flavoursome, but not in any way difficult.

QuoteMost gamers wouldn't even have the wits to design a basic, decent system using mana or something else (in the process having to re-balance all the classes), and very few would be able to pass the existing spelllist through a fine comb and see all the rammifications.

Believe me, I've seen that sort of projects for armor, HPs, spellcasting and they fail because of D&D's main strength: a vast, (for the most part) internally consistent ruleset. You change some little thing here and it creeps up over there.

An interesting couple of statements, every part of which I disagree with :)

If its a few points here and there that need tweaking, and thats all it is, then most experienced gamers could handle that very easily. While houseruling seems to have become less common in 3rd ed, it isn't any more difficult.

Such projects that I have seen for armour (mostly involving damage reduction to make the combat less simulationist and more abstract)  and hit points (usually involving hit location) have worked just fine; it isn't desperately difficult to fit that in.

As for the mostly internally consistent ruleset... No. D&D didn't just get invented all of a sudden; its made up of many different contributions that have been re-engineered over and over until there is a facade of unity. On the one occasion someone tried to come up with a single unified mechanic, if you look at the rules changes requested for 4th ed over at the Wizards site, it didn't really work as a unified mechanic. D&D never has been that kind of game, I doubt whether it ever will or should be.

QuoteIt would take months and months for a single, talented individual to accomplish what you are suggesting and he is likely to get a cold reception from many conservative players anyway because "it's not haw it's wrutten in da bookz".

Thinking about it in the cold light of morning, I think it would take about an hour. Any attempt to over-complicated it would make you gibber, but why over complicate it?

Quote from: CabThinking about it in the cold light of morning, I think it would take about an hour. Any attempt to over-complicated it would make you gibber, but why over complicate it?

We obviously disagree on the complexity. If it's so easy to do it right, why haven't you done it already?

An alternative spellcasting system that doesn't require users copious amount of notes in their books, that works well with the rest of the system would sell like hotcake as a .pdf.

I've heard lots of people say it's trivial to change features such as the way damage works, spellcasting or armor/hitting but where are those alternative systems?

Quote from: Consonant DudeWe obviously disagree on the complexity. If it's so easy to do it right, why haven't you done it already?

Because I absolutely don't want to use such a system, I think that Vancian magic is the way forward.

QuoteAn alternative spellcasting system that doesn't require users copious amount of notes in their books, that works well with the rest of the system would sell like hotcake as a .pdf.

I've heard lots of people say it's trivial to change features such as the way damage works, spellcasting or armor/hitting but where are those alternative systems?

Very few such .pdf products make much money, and for the most part groups play using Vancian magic and really rather enjoy it. I think that the lack of fan-contributed free or for sale alternatives speaks volumes for the fact that few creative gamers find Vancian magic problematic.

Quote from: CabBecause I absolutely don't want to use such a system, I think that Vancian magic is the way forward.



Very few such .pdf products make much money, and for the most part groups play using Vancian magic and really rather enjoy it. I think that the lack of fan-contributed free or for sale alternatives speaks volumes for the fact that few creative gamers find Vancian magic problematic.

Interestingly: When D&D is translated for wider audiences (read:Gaming platforms) often the strict vancian magic that you are certain everyone just adores as the 'way forward'... you do realize Jack Vance's heyday was thirty or fourty years ago don't you?... is the first thing to go.

Vancian magic is no better, or worse than any other. Its a lot less instinctive, as is this supposed new system where abilities/spells are 'per encounter'... than other types.  Its the oddity of going 'well, this is a real pickle... If only I knew the Knock spell I would be out of this jam in a piffle. Wait, I do know the knock spell! Alas, I still can't cast it, though I have power to spare...'

People like to think of things that are known being... well, you know... known.  Vancian magic is somewhat 'counterintuitive' from that perspective, and from the aspect of 'fantasy literature' roots, Vance's style of magic don't read much like other, more widely read authors do.  If you parse my odd sentance structure there, I promise it makes sense.

THe reason spell memorization isn't a big deal, is because there's already alternatives written into the game, in the form of alternative classes and rules that can be used in place of it.  

You've got the Sorceror, which can spontaneous cast any spell he knows, the Cleric, who still has memorization but can still always cast his healing spells at the expense of a mem'd spell, and you've even got the Warlock, which has a pretty limited set of cool tricks, but can do them all day long if he feels like it.

Unearthed Arcana also already has spell point rules, and they're even OGL'd, so they can be had for free on the web.  

You don't see waves of people posting house rules not just because they're happy with the rules as is, but also because those who aren't have plenty of alternative avenues within the rules already available.

I'm not a big fan of Vancian Magic, but a huge fan of Zelazney's magic. Functionally the two are incredibly similar, but the difference between hanging a spell and memorizing a spell make the flavor of Zelazny's setup vastly superior IMO.

Quote from: SpikeInterestingly: When D&D is translated for wider audiences (read:Gaming platforms) often the strict vancian magic that you are certain everyone just adores as the 'way forward'... you do realize Jack Vance's heyday was thirty or fourty years ago don't you?... is the first thing to go.

The age of something in a game system is neither here nor there; 'fighting man', or 'figher' has been in systems that became D&D for longer than Vancian magic, doesn't make it outdated. As for D&D being translated for 'wider audiences' being associated with dropping Vancian magic... No, don't recall encountering that happening in D&D. I've seen different interpretations in novels linked to the game, and the magic in that dreadful Dungeons and Dragons film was different of course... Maybe you're right, but I've never seen the link. I've never seen the D&D game successfully translated for a wider audience, though.

QuoteVancian magic is no better, or worse than any other. Its a lot less instinctive, as is this supposed new system where abilities/spells are 'per encounter'... than other types.  Its the oddity of going 'well, this is a real pickle... If only I knew the Knock spell I would be out of this jam in a piffle. Wait, I do know the knock spell! Alas, I still can't cast it, though I have power to spare...'

Thats part of the knack of playing a mage, anticipating the spells you're most likely to need. You'll get it wrong sometimes of course, but thats part of the game. Not sure why theres any real need to change it; if there was, I'm once again drawn back to the question of why people haven't been house-ruling away from it in their droves since, well, the late heyday of Vance.

QuotePeople like to think of things that are known being... well, you know... known.  Vancian magic is somewhat 'counterintuitive' from that perspective, and from the aspect of 'fantasy literature' roots, Vance's style of magic don't read much like other, more widely read authors do.  If you parse my odd sentance structure there, I promise it makes sense.

Hmmm... Vancian magic isn't the most common in literature, but there are parallels. The way Merlin 'hangs' spells in the Amber chronicles is a good example; its just like memorisation, you do the hard work of putting the energy in place early on, then you release that energy with the spell casting later. Thing is, though, I can't think of a single 'unifying' method by which magic in fantasy literature works, at least not one that immediately translates as something handy for gaming.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'm not a big fan of Vancian Magic, but a huge fan of Zelazney's magic. Functionally the two are incredibly similar, but the difference between hanging a spell and memorizing a spell make the flavor of Zelazny's setup vastly superior IMO.

I always visualised the whole spell memorisation thing to be rather akin to hanging the spell. Just makes a kind of sense.

Quote from: CabI always visualised the whole spell memorisation thing to be rather akin to hanging the spell. Just makes a kind of sense.

Yeah, me too. But that doesn't stop the descriptive underlinings of the rule from bringing the suckage.

Quote from: CabThe age of something in a game system is neither here nor there; 'fighting man', or 'figher' has been in systems that became D&D for longer than Vancian magic, doesn't make it outdated. As for D&D being translated for 'wider audiences' being associated with dropping Vancian magic... No, don't recall encountering that happening in D&D. I've seen different interpretations in novels linked to the game, and the magic in that dreadful Dungeons and Dragons film was different of course... Maybe you're right, but I've never seen the link. I've never seen the D&D game successfully translated for a wider audience, though.
.

You are mistaken in your reading comprehension there. I am not talking about the age of 'vancian magic' within the game, I am talking about Vancian Magic in the general sense.  The entire concept dates back to a set of fiction books written (as far as I recall) between 1960 and 1970 or so, with a +/- of about 5 years.   This fourty year old concept is 'the way forward'... despite having only one near example you could site, being Amber, which is only slightly newer.  Most depictions of mages seem to have some variation of 'at will' spell casting, in fiction.

The limited nature of your arguement is pathetically apparent when you bring in the 'fighter' or 'fighting man' statements. Unlike Mages, 'Fighters' have had real world counterparts for the entire lenght of human history, and despite some osterich behavior from overly civilized decadent western nations, will continue to be a part of the history of humanity for the forseeable future and beyond.  Thus they have absolutely nothing to do at all with the viability of vancian magic as a game design, the topic at hand.

The thing you missed most was the thrust of my statement. I'll lay it out for you so you can't miss it... though I suspect you will given the general style of your posting.

'Something that dates back to the origins of our hobby is not properly called 'the way forward'. That phrase implies a change from 'how things are done'.  The proper method of labeling your Vancian Magic then relies on terms involving 'solid foundations' or 'proven systems' or even 'tradition'.  All those terms imply that something that has persisted for thirty odd years is worth keeping around.'

In short I was poking fun at your use of the exact opposite choice of phrases to defend your obviously favorite magic system.   As I play 'fighting guy' in almost every character, I have no particular bias, other than yes, it is fucking annoying to have to stop after every encounter, no matter how silly, so the Mage can rest for eight hours. I've had games I've played in slow to a crawl, where exploring a simple dungeon took months of character time because of this phenomenon.  As a GM it doesn't happen so much, as I am perfectly willing to punish this sort of turtle play as brutally as logic demands.

I don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I want D&D to feel like D&D, not Exalted or WoW.

Quote from: jgantsI don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I'm concerned about this as well. This was one of the rare bits of bad design in 3rd edition and there are indications it will get worse.

Green Ronin gets d20 right in that respect: if survivability/character importance is an issue, just start your campaign at a higher level. This allows you to scale things nicely if you want to run an adventure with very young/novice heroes.

Quote from: SpikeYou are mistaken in your reading comprehension there. I am not talking about the age of 'vancian magic' within the game, I am talking about Vancian Magic in the general sense.  The entire concept dates back to a set of fiction books written (as far as I recall) between 1960 and 1970 or so, with a +/- of about 5 years.

Try nearly 60 years ago. The first Dying Earth book came out in 1950, before Lord of the Rings was even published.

To be fair, the presentation of "Vancian" magic in D&D lacks a lot of the distinctive flavour of Dying Earth magic - probably sensibly, since Gygax and Arneson were going for a fairly generic fantasy game, but I still have a soft spot for the whimisical nature of the books

I don't want to argue semantics...oh who am I kidding..

Quote from: Spike'Something that dates back to the origins of our hobby is not properly called 'the way forward'. That phrase implies a change from 'how things are done'.

In this we must disagree. I've never seen 'the way forward' as having an explicit or implicit requirement that it include a break from the past.

Quote from: SpikeThe proper method of labeling your Vancian Magic then relies on terms involving 'solid foundations' or 'proven systems' or even 'tradition'. All those terms imply that something that has persisted for thirty odd years is worth keeping around.'

This is true. These are very accurate terms for Vancian Magic in the D&D system. However, I disagree that all of them imply something is worth keeping around; particularly these days terms like 'tradition' are often disparaged.
 
In other words, the terms 'tradition' (or 'solid foundation') and 'the way forward' are not mutually exclusive; in fact are often used in conjunction. "Building on this solid foundation is the way forward."

Quote from: SpikeAs I play 'fighting guy' in almost every character, I have no particular bias, other than yes, it is fucking annoying to have to stop after every encounter, no matter how silly, so the Mage can rest for eight hours. I've had games I've played in slow to a crawl, where exploring a simple dungeon took months of character time because of this phenomenon.  As a GM it doesn't happen so much, as I am perfectly willing to punish this sort of turtle play as brutally as logic demands.

I think Cab's point is this is not the Vancian Magic system at fault.  For example, once the Cleric has cast his allottment of CLW, if the party is still, or suddenly becomes, weak, the party will stop. If there is a trap that the rogue cannot disarm, the party will stop.  If the fighter is down to extremely low HP (like, say 2), the party will stop.

Whereas I would counter by saying it's not just Vancian Magic - a lot of other influences (players too afraid to lose a treasured character, not thinking creatively, unwillingness to run the fuck away, etc) lead to this effect. Vancian Magic and it's priestly counterpart are a big chunk, but not insurmountable nor the only influence.

Quote from: jgantsI don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I want D&D to feel like D&D, not Exalted or WoW.

It's not my cuppa either.  I've referred to it as the arms race. I'm sure there are tons of folks who like it (hell, D&D wouldn't be heading in that direction if they didn't think there was a market). But this was my thought after reading Bo9S and hearing the reasoning run in the lines of "well, fighters were underpowered, so this is a good thing."

Now we hear that magic users are underpowered and per-encounter casting is a good thing. As you say, it seems everything keeps getting ramped up - and that might be a good thing for a lot, if not most, folks - just not my thing.

As always, much of this depends on the implementation as I could see some ways to do this that don't introduce the arms race without supplements - the core remains fairly low power but sets the mechanic up for later levels/expansions.  If done right, it could end up serving all different kinds of tastes along the spectrum....

Quote from: SpikeMost depictions of mages seem to have some variation of 'at will' spell casting, in fiction, including D&D Fiction.

Just wanted to add a little to your point.

Quote from: SpikeYou are mistaken in your reading comprehension there. I am not talking about the age of 'vancian magic' within the game, I am talking about Vancian Magic in the general sense.  The entire concept dates back to a set of fiction books written (as far as I recall) between 1960 and 1970 or so, with a +/- of about 5 years.   This fourty year old concept is 'the way forward'... despite having only one near example you could site, being Amber, which is only slightly newer.  Most depictions of mages seem to have some variation of 'at will' spell casting, in fiction.

Its been in the game since the start. Fighters have been in the game since the start. You argue that one is outdated largely due to its age, but not the other, based on this...

QuoteThe limited nature of your arguement is pathetically apparent when you bring in the 'fighter' or 'fighting man' statements. Unlike Mages, 'Fighters' have had real world counterparts for the entire lenght of human history, and despite some osterich behavior from overly civilized decadent western nations, will continue to be a part of the history of humanity for the forseeable future and beyond.

...and that beggars belief. That people do actually fight doesn't make the 'fighter' of D&D a realistic class any more than that people have religion makes the cleric a realistic one. Come on, the fighter class allows progression to super-human levels of toughness and combat ability, you're clutching at straws by claiming that it somehow has credibility because people fight.

QuoteThus they have absolutely nothing to do at all with the viability of vancian magic as a game design, the topic at hand.

But it has everything to do with refuting your odd assertion that vancian magic is somehow not relevant now.

QuoteThe thing you missed most was the thrust of my statement. I'll lay it out for you so you can't miss it... though I suspect you will given the general style of your posting.

'Something that dates back to the origins of our hobby is not properly called 'the way forward'. That phrase implies a change from 'how things are done'.  

I understand your point perfectly well, and disagree with it. You seem to believe that the way forward must imply change; it doesnt'. When it ain't broke, don't fix it. Continuing with something that works can be the way forward too.

QuoteThe proper method of labeling your Vancian Magic then relies on terms involving 'solid foundations' or 'proven systems' or even 'tradition'.  All those terms imply that something that has persisted for thirty odd years is worth keeping around.'

You'll note that I haven't said that its best to keep it just 'cos its old. Ever. Not here, not anywhere. So that rather makes your assertion there rather odd; I mean, if you want to think thats why I want to keep vancian magic then go right ahead. You're wrong about that, but there you go.

QuoteIn short I was poking fun at your use of the exact opposite choice of phrases to defend your obviously favorite magic system.   As I play 'fighting guy' in almost every character, I have no particular bias, other than yes, it is fucking annoying to have to stop after every encounter, no matter how silly, so the Mage can rest for eight hours. I've had games I've played in slow to a crawl, where exploring a simple dungeon took months of character time because of this phenomenon.  As a GM it doesn't happen so much, as I am perfectly willing to punish this sort of turtle play as brutally as logic demands.

I see, so your problem is that you've got a bee in your bonent 'cos you had some crap DMs. Fair enough. Blame the DMs.

Alas, James, my old ally has turned on me! :p

While I can certainly admit that 'The way forward' has weaker connotations of change than other phrases, it still does possess that sense of doing something new.

the negative aspects of 'Tradition' et al are debatable.  For every person that uses 'tradional' as invective, another finds it admirable. The word itself is neutral.  Still, due to its ability to cut both ways I put it last on my list.  I've yet to see a serious arguement that 'Strong Foundation' could be used as a perjorative.

Its not even out yet.


 Zheesh!!

 I'd rather answer the question the closer we are to an actual release date - say March or April of 2008.  

 Supposedly they are releasing this in may or June of 2008.


- Ed C.

I haven't read about a single change that I think is an improvement on the original thus far. If they get rid of vancian spell casting and make the game more feat-centric and cinematic, I don't even know how they can call it Dungeons and Dragons with a straight face.

They may come up with a great tabletop Anime MMORPG, but I can't say as I am all that interested.

Quote from: jgantsI don't mind getting rid of Vancian magic per se, but I don't like how everyone's abilities appear to be continually getting ramped up.

I want D&D to feel like D&D, not Exalted or WoW.

QFT again. Power creep has been a problem ever since Unearthed Arcana, and it seems to be getting worse.

Oh well, I didn't buy 3E either. YMMV.

When I first heard about D&D4, I said I was happy to hear that they would make it easier to DM this game but that I hadn't seen info that led me to believe this would be the case.

After reading blogs and stuff, I'm still not seeing much concrete evidence that they are streamlining the game. In fact, it seems they are adding quite a few bells and whistles.

What do you guys think? Are they simplifying this game based on what we know so far? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case from my perspective and I ain't going to buy if it necessitates the same work for prep and play.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhat do you guys think? Are they simplifying this game based on what we know so far? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case from my perspective and I ain't going to buy if it necessitates the same work for prep and play.

That's the kicker for me; will they be able to substantially streamline the game. If they can, then I'll give 4E a whirl as a hopefully well-calibrated tactical fantasy game. If they can't, then I'll stick with my pre-3.x systems for D&D.

So I'm also curious to hear of areas of the rules where WotC are substantially simplifying the system and making it easier to run.

Quote from: HaffrungSo I'm also curious to hear of areas of the rules where WotC are substantially simplifying the system and making it easier to run.

Me too. As I've said for a long time, the basic engine behind 3rd ed is good, it just needs to be a much quicker game to run.

Quote from: CabIts been in the game since the start. Fighters have been in the game since the start. You argue that one is outdated largely due to its age, but not the other, based on this...



...and that beggars belief. That people do actually fight doesn't make the 'fighter' of D&D a realistic class any more than that people have religion makes the cleric a realistic one. Come on, the fighter class allows progression to super-human levels of toughness and combat ability, you're clutching at straws by claiming that it somehow has credibility because people fight.

This seems to fall under deliberate obtuseness. That or general stupidity. You brought in fighters, so why are you now arguing that my stance on fighters is irrelvant? I know, you didn't say 'that', whatever.

Quote from: CabBut it has everything to do with refuting your odd assertion that vancian magic is somehow not relevant now.



I understand your point perfectly well, and disagree with it. You seem to believe that the way forward must imply change; it doesnt'. When it ain't broke, don't fix it. Continuing with something that works can be the way forward too.

Again with the reading comprehension.  I never argued for or against it with my initial arguement, merely with your choice of language.  If you disagree, well, that's your business.  Its not like we are the French Ministry of Language setting the tone for all future conversations by all French speakers everywhere or anything.

Quote from: CabYou'll note that I haven't said that its best to keep it just 'cos its old. Ever. Not here, not anywhere. So that rather makes your assertion there rather odd; I mean, if you want to think thats why I want to keep vancian magic then go right ahead. You're wrong about that, but there you go.

Quote from: CabI can see that point, and I'd hold back from saying that there is any one thing you can't change or its not D&D... But Vancian magic has been in the game longer than some of the polyhedral dice, its more fundamental to playing some of the character classes than anything else I can think of. To call it an enormous change is an understatement.

Don't be a hypocrite.  

For irony, I note that in this case you DID use 'Fundamenta'... which makes me wonder why you feel the need to disagree so vehemently with my assertion that 'Way Forward' was an odd choice of words.

Quote from: CabI see, so your problem is that you've got a bee in your bonent 'cos you had some crap DMs. Fair enough. Blame the DMs.

Judgemental much?   If players insist on resting... even leaving dungeons for safer locations until they've rested what is the GM to do? Force them to stay? that's railroading.  I've seen fellow players, and I've seen my own players do some pretty extreme stuff to force a peaceful 'rest break' between encounters, even a midlevels of games.  At that point the role of the non-spell casters is to deal with any 'wandering encounters' that can't be absolutely avoided by themselves while the wizards and/or clerics stay 'resting'.   Recently I've had party member wizards who kept group teleport spells in reserve in case they just couldn't find any peace and quiet so they could leave the area if the GM got to vicious with the wandering monsters and the like.

Things like nation wide 'anti teleport' fields only work once before the game turns into a farce about 'how can I negate the rules this week'.




*NB: I have no desire to look up proper spell names and rules to explain how stuff actually goes down, as that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Attacking my arguements based on reading the rule book is a straw man. Just letting you know in advance that I will laugh at you.

Quote from: WarthurTry nearly 60 years ago. The first Dying Earth book came out in 1950, before Lord of the Rings was even published.



To be fair, the presentation of "Vancian" magic in D&D lacks a lot of the distinctive flavour of Dying Earth magic - probably sensibly, since Gygax and Arneson were going for a fairly generic fantasy game, but I still have a soft spot for the whimisical nature of the books

Me too. I have a signed first edition- I found it at Powell's in the early nineties and bought it for $15.00. i met Mr. Vance about a couple of years later when Nightlamp came out- and got it signed. He was a lot of fun to talk to.
My preferred reading edition, however, is the Lancer.

Quote from: SpikeThis seems to fall under deliberate obtuseness. That or general stupidity. You brought in fighters, so why are you now arguing that my stance on fighters is irrelvant? I know, you didn't say 'that', whatever.

I see, you're now taking two points that used some of the same words and linking them together because you can't respond to either as they were actually written... Ten out of ten for effort there.

(further parts of post cut unread, on the assumption that they're no better).