271: Red Box Renaissance

[Alex_P]

SunHymn,

I'm totally with you on, well, practically everything. However...

And yeah, I know that there are hundreds of thousands who just love their old DnD editions to pieces. And with Essentials, you've managed through b*tching and whining to get your way. It is being returned to stupid hack and slash with a bare modicum of "Choose Your Own Adventure" storytelling (as if Lone Wolf is crap to strive for!), no doubt soon with insta-death and broken rules, fifty multi-class options and more kensai/monk/mage combos that obliterate the universe. So I'm opting out.

I don't think replacing at-will attacks for fighters with stances (which seem rather lamer to me, too, but the big secret is they're basically the same thing) and digging up a Larry Elmore picture to put on the cover is really a sea change for 4th Edition. You're certainly not going to see a rapid relapse back to the days of save-or-die or ridiculous multiclassing.

And a DM Guide that actually said "If your character wants to be good at sailing/blacksmithing/whatever in his backstory, go for it. No extra skill needed." It took DnD 40 years to get that?!

To answer the rhetorical question: no, it didn't. D&D didn't start out with rules for skills. "Non-weapon proficiencies" (marvel at the Gygaxian logorrhea!) didn't enter the picture until, like, the late 80s. Before that, it was just taken for granted that the game mechanics on your character sheet didn't represent any of the non-adventuring talents of your character.

Also, really, I can't say that's good practice for every game. It makes sense for D&D's structure, with the classes and the (modern-day) focus on tactical combat; I'm happy that D&D4 went with this approach. But, for example, it would suck in Burning Wheel, where the character sheet *is* your backstory, skills aren't supposed to be equal, and even the least "adventure-y" skills can see some use in helping you achieve campaign and character goals.

-- Alex

 

[HentMas]

Wow. Is it even possible to miss the point by a bigger margin?

Look. I'm old school. I was playing the original edition back when you needed a copy of "chainmail" to tie the game together. The transitions from original, to basic, to advanced, to second edition were all easy. The transition to 3rd was rocky, but third edition made it a point to include conversion guidelines. The transition from 3 to 3.5 was smooth as a babies butt.

These changes have a common thread. They respect my campaign. They respect that my players and I have a long standing history with D&D. There are active campaigns that have been running for thirty years. These games represent generations of milieu history, and hundreds, even thousands of hours of real life invested.

Then fourth edition comes along, and they expect people to wad all that work up and throw it all away? They really expect us to give up our long standing and beloved characters and campaigns and drop hundreds of dollars buying a bunch of books for the privilege of starting over again from scratch.

What is a dedicated player supposed to say to that?

Screw you. I'm switching back to OSRIC.

That doesn't make me a fanboy. It just means I don't want to throw away my entire campaign so Hasbro can make a few more bucks off me.

D&D is dead. Long live OSRIC [http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/] (Advanced D&D clone) and Pathfinder [http://paizo.com/pathfinder] (3.5 Edition Clone).

woah, i missed the point?? what did i said!?

anyway, yes i get where you are comming from, but in the end, you can keep playing 3rd edition, they havent "wadded" or "thrown" anything, perhaps i´m thinking more "virtual" games than pen and paper, but what would you call 2 different systems, with each its own good points and bad points, that also do the same thing, but are incompatible in between???

i would call that a platform... a console if you wish

you dont want 4rth edition?? FINE!! dont buy it!, there is plenty of third eddition material out there

get my point???

 

[HentMas]

woah, i missed the point?? what did i said!?

The exact thing that irked me was...
"people complaining i feel are more like "fanboys" that confronted with a new system just have to keep putting it down because "their" system is better"

Nothing could be further from the truth. But I wasn't just talking about you. I should have made that clearer. It's Mike Mearls who is really missing the point. Of course the man's not an idiot. I'm sure he's thought of all this before. I don't think he's missing it so much as ignoring it. I think he was instructed to make a non-compatible game system by the Lord High Mucky Mucks because they think we are a bunch of idiot fanboys who will eagerly throw down a hundred bucks for a new game system just because it has the name "Dungeons & Dragons" on it. Mearls is just towing the party line. I doubt he believes a word he said.

oh ok!, now i get what you mean, hehe, yes, i can see that he could have made the game and call it "my magic throusers" for all the good it made, but well, people often seem to latch on famous names to win... money!

like "Smalville" they could have called it "little town" or wathever for all the good it made to the "franchize"

but well, i have bought the box, and i liked it, but i have no comparision, never had a box like the one of D&D, and it feels really easy to play, it makes its purpose of getting new players in the "KA-ching" machine... but i dread the end of my "campaign", the guys are getting restless and want more monsters and such, so i know i´m gonna have to buy about 3 more books... ugh...

 

[Alex_P]

These changes have a common thread. They respect my campaign. They respect that my players and I have a long standing history with D&D. There are active campaigns that have been running for thirty years. These games represent generations of milieu history, and hundreds, even thousands of hours of real life invested.

Then fourth edition comes along, and they expect people to wad all that work up and throw it all away? They really expect us to give up our long standing and beloved characters and campaigns and drop hundreds of dollars buying a bunch of books for the privilege of starting over again from scratch.

Such super-long-running campaigns are a rarity, though, even in the "old-school" community. More typically, campaigns seldom last longer than a year and groups change settings from time to time. I don't consider it at all unreasonable to assume that most players with campaigns that entrenched will get on just fine without changing game systems every time a new edition comes out. For everyone else, the most natural time to switch to a different game (if you want to) is when you start up a new campaign, anyway.

As for the thing about buying new books -- how many 3rd Edition books are rehashes of 2nd Edition? (And, moreover, how much stuff in 3.5 books is just a small update to 3.0 stuff?) The supplement treadmill sucks, but it predates 4th Edition by decades.

-- Alex

 

[Tipsy Giant]

The key to an enjoyable game of D&D is in picking which rules you and all the players are willing to agree to abide by for the duration of the story (whether these are found in one certain edition or are a set of house rules that are made up and then written down) and then allowing the players to bend and flex (but not totally break) the rules to allow their imaginations room to romp and play. It's about everybody at the table having a good time and getting along with each other. It's not about who's rules are "best" or who's opinion is "right".

I'm afraid that too many people have forgotten what the D&D RPG is. It's a shared storytelling experience, not a competitive game. It's okay to role play a "weak" character who can't slay every monster on the map by himself. That's why the game is usually played by a co-operative group of five or so players. The teamwork comes out the most when each player has his or her specialty that the other players need him or her for. You need the Barbarian or Fighter to deal crushing blows and to protect the other heroes (if the other heroes are almost as buff as he is, what good is he?) You need the Rogue to pick the locks and play tricks on the NPCs (if other heroes are just as tricky, they don't need a rogue). You need a Mage or Wizard to casts spells that help the party survive against otherwise overwhelmingly powerful foes who aren't hurt by blades and arrows much (if every hero can cast magic spells, who needs a wizard?). You need a Cleric to heal wounds, commune with the spirits or with nature, soothe savage beasts or use his knowledge of lore to decipher some puzzle (if everyone is some kind of insert class here/cleric, then you don't need a cleric). If every player character in the adventuring party is a jack-of-all-trades and is self sufficient, why would they bother to travel together? Like in football, there is no one player who can play all positions equally well. Can you imagine a guy who is big enough to hold the defensive tackles away from the quarterback but who can also run 90 yards for a touchdown? Or subbing in the designated kicker to replace an injured nose tackle? Of course not. Each hero in a D&D story (whether it's in a novel, comic book, video game or tabletop RPG) needs to be unique and have his or her niche to fill. Otherwise, you don't have D&D. You have some other kind of game.

Couldn't agree more, when me and my friends played D&D together, we decided our rules, wrote them down and off we went adventuring.
It was about having the players live through your story and allowing them to dictate some of it for themselves, helping to flesh out the world in their mind. "I want to go check out the last city the blacksmith worked in" Changed my plans so much but made the game better, I think if a game is all about imagination, let it run free within as few rules as possible