The Ghosts of D&D: Past
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
I wasn't aware of all of the details, but I don't know more than one group that plays 4th ed. Just about any other series is more popular. Pathfinder, Shadowsrun, 3.5, Second ed, Call of Cthulu, both of the World of Darkness settings, 7th Sea, and a couple of homebrew systems are all more popular than 4th ed.Amnestic said:Shouldn't that be 'stop' rather than 'start'?Article said:
Interested to see were this short series goes, since most of this was a history lesson I was already aware of
Without structured critique, we cannot improve. Has the article given you a reason to believe that Mr. Tito will be 'bashing' the system itself or pointing out faults with how WotC handled its release and brand? Considering the attention drawn towards the OGL in this article, it strongly suggests that it will be the latter, not the former, that will be the focus of the next article.happyelf said:
There are faults with 4e (as with every system, mind you), but the attitude and structure of this article didn't lead me to think that this would turn into a 4e bashing essay, like we've all ready so many times before.
4th Edition bashing is all fine and good, but I'd like to see more 3rd Edition bashing as well! I am 2nd Edition AD&D all the way!
I always felt like 3rd Edition was a simplification of the ruleset made with easy integration into video games in mind. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were the future moneymakers of the D&D brand and the rules evolved to work well. But I always felt like the focus of the game shifted to mere dungeon crawling after 2nd Edition.
I always felt like 3rd Edition was a simplification of the ruleset made with easy integration into video games in mind. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights were the future moneymakers of the D&D brand and the rules evolved to work well. But I always felt like the focus of the game shifted to mere dungeon crawling after 2nd Edition.
Huh, this is actually a news to me. In my neck of the wood, 4e is king. Finding games of shadowrun, Cthulu or other non-fantasy rpg is doable, but finding a group of D&D 3.5 or pathfinder is damn near impossible.
I wonder if the next part will actually have data to back it's claim or if it will just be Steve Butt's opnion on the matter.
I wonder if the next part will actually have data to back it's claim or if it will just be Steve Butt's opnion on the matter.
I sincerely hope this doesn't end up being a bashing essay, because no doubt the forums are going to start into a flame war the moment some one starts sticking their nose up in the air towards another edition.
I understand having fears that future editions will follow the path of 4e from those who prefer earlier editions, but in sincere honesty. The flaming between "Camps" is just about as pathetic as console fanboy wars. Perhaps even more, because seriously... Elitism over pen and paper games? Really? In the end, no one really cares what "Camp" you're sitting in, because at the end of the day, what you do with your own free time is up to you and you alone.
Enjoy 3.5 or 3e? Good! I'm glad you do! Enjoy an older version? That's great! As long as you're having fun, that's all that really matters, right? Having fun with 4e? Well keep it up! You're no less of a player for preferring that edition, and anyone who tells you otherwise should be asked to take a break from the group by their DM, or be mutinied by their group if they are the DM, because how immature is that...
The nice thing about all these editions? We now have choices... Each edition provides something different that may or may not appeal to us, and therefore we can pick the one we prefer to play and have fun with it. You're only less of a player when you start thinking of your edition as the only true version of the game, and that you're above everyone else who doesn't play it. Because at the end of the day, we're all playing D&D...
I understand having fears that future editions will follow the path of 4e from those who prefer earlier editions, but in sincere honesty. The flaming between "Camps" is just about as pathetic as console fanboy wars. Perhaps even more, because seriously... Elitism over pen and paper games? Really? In the end, no one really cares what "Camp" you're sitting in, because at the end of the day, what you do with your own free time is up to you and you alone.
Enjoy 3.5 or 3e? Good! I'm glad you do! Enjoy an older version? That's great! As long as you're having fun, that's all that really matters, right? Having fun with 4e? Well keep it up! You're no less of a player for preferring that edition, and anyone who tells you otherwise should be asked to take a break from the group by their DM, or be mutinied by their group if they are the DM, because how immature is that...
The nice thing about all these editions? We now have choices... Each edition provides something different that may or may not appeal to us, and therefore we can pick the one we prefer to play and have fun with it. You're only less of a player when you start thinking of your edition as the only true version of the game, and that you're above everyone else who doesn't play it. Because at the end of the day, we're all playing D&D...
I am hoping this all moves towards a call for more development of games (both P&P and electronic) in the spirit of the OGL. Any game that allows users to create their own content gets giant thumbs up. Allowing them to make money off the work they put into creating content for the game would be excellent and could give developers a potentially easy pool of cheap contractors to bring in on crunch time for the next AAA title.
Also, in regards to 4th Edition, I am not a fan. I grew up with 2nd, but, honestly, I see 3rd as the closest to "getting it right" for whatever that is worth.
Also, in regards to 4th Edition, I am not a fan. I grew up with 2nd, but, honestly, I see 3rd as the closest to "getting it right" for whatever that is worth.
How can a game where someone you know controls the game move to dungeon crawling surely its up to the players, also as i havent played any P&P games how can the get more dumbed down surely most of the abilitys just give +/- numbers to different abilitys, maybe the number of dice changes?grenideer said:
I can kind of see where this is going. When I was younger, everyone I knew and met played 2nd edition. When 3rd edition came out, we all switched. But 4th edition? WotC changed too much(both in crunch and fluff), and it was inevitable that not everyone would dig the changes. And after all, how could things have been otherwise? The big slogan of 4th edition's development was "slay the sacred cows." And it was something different for each person. One person might have disliked the new multiclassing rules, while another might hate the magic system. For me, it was the gutting of the Forgotten Realms setting that turned me off.
This doesn't mean that 4th edition is bad, but it does mean that it is going to be liked by less fans of older editions specifically because so many of the base assumptions of the system have been altered. Personally, I've been looking into other systems, mostly Castles & Crusades and FATE.
This doesn't mean that 4th edition is bad, but it does mean that it is going to be liked by less fans of older editions specifically because so many of the base assumptions of the system have been altered. Personally, I've been looking into other systems, mostly Castles & Crusades and FATE.
I'm one of those guys that looks at everything and tries my darnedest to see the good side of it. I like 4th edition; it brought balance. Wizards can no longer replicate epic-level investment into a skill with a cantrip and Paladins are actually decent class (Not to mention their entire face lift from "Stick-Up-Ass Lawful Good Holy Warrior that will fall 80% of the time in a campaign" to just "Holy Warrior").
3rd Edition brought flexibility but with flexibility came abuse of the system.
3rd Edition brought flexibility but with flexibility came abuse of the system.
The series is not going to turn to bashing 4th edition, but it doesn't ignore the fact that the audience is split into more heavily defended camps than ever before. As this thread is already an indication.
Hopefully, once you finish reading the D&D Present and Future articles (on Wed. and Fri. this week) you'll have a better sense of where the hobby is going.
Greg
Hopefully, once you finish reading the D&D Present and Future articles (on Wed. and Fri. this week) you'll have a better sense of where the hobby is going.
Greg
They can tailor the rules/item/spell selection towards a specific area (combat/dungeon crawling, as an example). I've not got enough experience with 2e to make a judgement one way or the other. What I will say is that I've seen more than one 3.5 game which was almost entirely city-based and spent a lot of time focused on "conversation battles" and politics, where Fireball is not nearly as useful as Glibness and choosing the Spymaster Prestige class could be considered 'optimal'. Indeed, it had no dungeon crawling whatsoever. I think Eberron (which was introduced in 3.x) tends to create a golden opportunity for such games, though obviously it also has plenty of opportunity for dungeon crawls.Spacewolf said:
2e might allow for such games as I've described more, and the rules of 3.x may indeed by tailored more towards dungeon crawling, but I would certainly not count out urban adventures. Hell, they had a whole book (Cityscape) based around it.
Sadly, 2e was mostly before my time. I matured to the age where D&D was possible just when 3.5 was getting into full swing and my only real experience with 2e has been a few peeks at the rulebooks when I was too young to comprehend them and some (extensive) Baldur's Gate (2) play.
I would argue (and some may disagree) that if a Paladin is consistently falling then there is a likely fundamental disconnect between the player and the DM. I find that setting out the rules for what's part of a Paladin's code (and having a Phylactery of DM Intervention) tends to cut down the rate of falling Paladins to near nil. At that point it only occurs because either the DM is out to get the Paladin player or because the player wishes to fall - which sometimes happens, and can sometimes by the most memorable part of a campaign if done right.Gather said:
Personally I liked that Paladin was restricted to only Lawful Good. You had Clerics for every other alignment you wanted to crusade for. Obviously you disagree, but that's just me thoughts on the matter.
Yeah, personal opinion. I always viewed the Cleric as the Spellcaster arm of the deity. Sure they can smash stuff if needed (And they were decent at it when imbued with their gods powers) but Paladins were the "Warrior" branch of that particular god (At least in 4th edition).Amnestic said:
Wanted to heal your friend? See a Cleric
Wanted to boost your armies potential with the power of your god? See a Cleric
Wanted someone to lead your army in the name of a god? See a Paladin
Wanted a guy who could kill stuff with a sword and shout prayers to a deity? See a paladin
Edit: For the falling stuff. Yeah; I mostly take into account the "Jerk-ass DM"
Ah, this argument. I know it well, and dislike the course it usually takes. I've greatly enjoyed 4e, both playing and DMing, but there are times I miss the somewhat convoluted and arcane nature of 3.5. I was not impressed with 4e when it first came out, but I have to say it has steadily improved as they have added to it, and it's my preferred system at the moment. That said, I am tempted to look into Pathfinder for variety. Screw system loyalty, I like diversity in my fun!
Was 3.5 fun? hell, yes. Was it perfect? Not even close.
But IMO closer than 4e. And in some respects closer than pathfinder (which has fixed some problems but introduced others).
3.# is, certainly, a dramatic improvement on 2e. Characters are more different from each other; feats are a fantastic inclusion in the game - whenever I play another system now I think to myself 'now...how would I implement feats in this?' (and obviously some of them more-or-less do implement feats or some equivalent, and 3rd ed was miles from the first game to have them - first I am aware of is GURPS - which was a fantastically interesting character-creation simulator stapled to the slowest combat system I've ever seen.
Gurps, of which I own some ten or fifteen books, tends to fail the main credo of game design: Is my game fun and intuitive* to play? You could obviously play a very fun game with a system a lot like the GURPS one (I believe it is called 'fallout') but GURPS is not that system unless you ditch half the rules and come up with a more fun combat system (a system in which the first round of combat involves half the party being dead or bleeding to death has issues IMO. Realism be damned).
wow, that was a long aside about GURPS. Getting back to 3.#; the skill system is, whilst not perfect, a dramatic improvement over both its predecessor and successor.
Oh, and: Not using the OGL was a boneheaded movie by WOTC. The OGL sells you more Players handbooks and DMGs than any other possible thing; you're making all your competitors advertise for you!
*'intuitive' not the same as 'easy'. And maybe the wrong word here, as I intend the inclusion of 'learnable' which intuitive intuitively excludes. A game can be damn complex and still have this property; the whole 'simple to learn, hard to master' paradigm.
But IMO closer than 4e. And in some respects closer than pathfinder (which has fixed some problems but introduced others).
3.# is, certainly, a dramatic improvement on 2e. Characters are more different from each other; feats are a fantastic inclusion in the game - whenever I play another system now I think to myself 'now...how would I implement feats in this?' (and obviously some of them more-or-less do implement feats or some equivalent, and 3rd ed was miles from the first game to have them - first I am aware of is GURPS - which was a fantastically interesting character-creation simulator stapled to the slowest combat system I've ever seen.
Gurps, of which I own some ten or fifteen books, tends to fail the main credo of game design: Is my game fun and intuitive* to play? You could obviously play a very fun game with a system a lot like the GURPS one (I believe it is called 'fallout') but GURPS is not that system unless you ditch half the rules and come up with a more fun combat system (a system in which the first round of combat involves half the party being dead or bleeding to death has issues IMO. Realism be damned).
wow, that was a long aside about GURPS. Getting back to 3.#; the skill system is, whilst not perfect, a dramatic improvement over both its predecessor and successor.
Oh, and: Not using the OGL was a boneheaded movie by WOTC. The OGL sells you more Players handbooks and DMGs than any other possible thing; you're making all your competitors advertise for you!
*'intuitive' not the same as 'easy'. And maybe the wrong word here, as I intend the inclusion of 'learnable' which intuitive intuitively excludes. A game can be damn complex and still have this property; the whole 'simple to learn, hard to master' paradigm.