General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
But as for ENWorld, I'd like to see the old threads. I'm sure there were several, but I don't remember anything like it is now.
Well, EN World started as a 3e news site, and as such this site was probably more pro-3e than others. I'm basing my conclusion that there was a lot of animosity towards 3e on observations at other sites, such as Dragonsfoot, RPGnet and minor sites I frequent.
/M
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
That's not exactly true if you didn't see 3E as true D&D. Like I pointed out in another post, 3E may look similar to 1e/2e but the underlying system has such a vast change and is partly why I thought it was broken.
They basically copied everything from 1e/2e to 3e and changed stuff without understanding the ramifications of what they were doing (spellcasting being the big one)
What about all the other D&D players who do not fit into your categories? Say, someone who likes 2E and 3E but no other edition? Or someone who only likes OD&D?
Missing the point.
The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".
Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".
That's a silly conjecture. People who made statements like "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005" wouldn't be creating the next iteration of the brand.
That's like believing in the Manchurian Designer, who was brainwashed by Angela Landsbury and surreptitiously inserted into a position of power at WotC so they could assassinate D&D.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".
Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.
So, solely because what has been done displeases you means you get to make stuff up?
In 3.x, if you play a 10th-level wizard who takes a level of fighter (and assuming you have the same STR score as an optimized fighter), you have the attack bonus of a 6th-level fighter.
In 4E, if you play a 10th level wizard who takes the fighter multiclass feat, you not only get the fighter (rather potent) marking ability, you get the same attack bonus as a fighter of your level.
Doesn't quite compare. You'd have the exact same attack bonus as a fighter of your level even without picking up the fighter multiclass. The 3e wizard, in part, picks up some fighter levels to improve his attack bonus. Certainly a valid reason for doing so made moot by the changes in attack bonus for 4e.
Of course, there are other things he gets too like the fighter bonus feat, access to martial weapons, armor proficiencies...
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
Andy Collins: Here’s the question I’m going to answer.
I despise people that twist words. This is where the lack of any real information or answers come from when people ask about these things. Anything somebody says after they twist a question around just makes me ignore them as there "answer" more than likely has no validity, and really doesn't answer the question asked.
What if all people went to some interview and just asked and answered their own questions?
It just seems like their is attitude in there that shouldn't exist when people answer a question in that manner.
What little I did read of his "answer" seems to point that 4th edition was designed for convention use, not home use.
The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".
Andy Collins - Worked at TSR since 1998. Credited with additional design and contribution on the 3e core books. Tons of 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.
Rob Heinsoo - Worked with WotC since 2000. Credited with design contribution and editorial assistance on the 3e core books. A few 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.
James Wyatt - Worked with WotC since 2000. Credited with design contribution on the 3e core books. Tons of 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.
Mike Mearls - Worked with WotC since 2005. Before that, he has credits on a vast amount of d20 products, many of which received much acclaim from the d20 community.
Rich Baker - Worked with TSR since 1992. Credited with more contributions to D&D than you can shake a +1 stick at.
Bill Slavicsek - Worked with TSR since 1988. Tons of credits in D&D products, including being Director of RPG R&D during the development of 3e.
So yeah, this whole "2005 takeover" nonsense has what... one guy that was hired around that time, with all the rest having been a part of D&D development since the inception of 3rd Edition (or earlier). This conjecture is certainly not based on the history of these people's careers in the industry, and especially not their actual time developing D&D. I'm sorry, but this claim that they all spent years (decades in some cases) developing games they don't like is really silly, since you're essentially saying that they hate their own work.
__________________ If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him... and take his stuff.
We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are.
This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.
Wow! And here I thought I was the only one of a kind
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
That's like believing in the Manchurian Designer, who was brainwashed by Angela Landsbury and surreptitiously inserted into a position of power at WotC so they could assassinate D&D.
Just you wait, just you wait.
Now Kill D&D
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I don't like D&D, any of it, from 1975-2005".
Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.
I pretty much categorically disagree with that conjecture. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't have been playing it day in and day out, at conventions, at their homes, in the office, etc. Mike Mearls wouldn't have started up an OD&D game just for the fun of it, among some of the office staff. Whatever direction they took the game in for the 4th edition, I cannot say that they don't like D&D, because there's no evidence for it, other than the game not being to your personal liking, or my personal liking.
Heck, find out how many people over at Dragonsfoot would say, "I like ALL D&D from 1974 to 2005." Doubt you'll find very many, though some might. (Catch me over there on the right day and you'll have at least one.)
On the other hand, what's so different between someone who doesn't like it after 2005, and someone who doesn't like it after 1999? or 1988? Game philosophy changed pretty radically between 1997 and 2000, too. The 2E change is one thing, it wasn't as drastic in terms of mechanics as the change from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 4. However someone who liked it up until 4 has a lot in common with someone who liked it up until 3 -- pretty vast change in systems and design. The only difference now is the OGL impetus to keep going with what we already have, which is a great thing. It was a great thing for not just 3E, but for the versions which came before, too, as the so-called "retro clones" have discovered new life among people playing them, too.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
This conjecture is certainly not based on the history of these people's careers in the industry, and especially not their actual time developing D&D. I'm sorry, but this claim that they all spent years (decades in some cases) developing games they don't like is really silly, since you're essentially saying that they hate their own work.
Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.
But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?
After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?
Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.
Do anything of them work for an industry that barely registers on economic radars, where a lack of enjoyment of the actual product you produce will not allow you to be successful? The RPG industry isn't like other industries in that regard.
Quote:
But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?
The fact that people and their tastes change over time. I loved 3e when it came out, but that love faded over time because of issues that cropped up during my time playing it. It's a good game, but it's not a game I want to play any longer.
People are not unchanging monoliths.
Quote:
After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?
Uhhh, because not everyone agrees, and different people have different opinions? As evidenced by things like Pathfinder, and Monte Cook's BOXM, a lot more people than you suggest did feel the need to change... it's just a matter of what direction the changes will take the game that differs.
__________________ If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him... and take his stuff.
We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are.
What's your criticism of 3e here in regards to incorporating all facets of RPGdom? This seems to be an inclusive policy so I'm not exactly getting where you're coming from. Is there something wrong with this?
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
I was waiting until I got to the end of this topic to post, but this one jumped out at me.
The problem is that, while you'd think trying to incorporate all facets of RPGdom is a positive thing, the fact is that it doesn't work. For example, as it stood, I found levels ~5-~15 to be the only playable ones, and that was with extensive house ruling. So... I got to use about half the game, and even less when you consider that I had to overhaul magic and make extensive custom material to cover things I wanted to work.
So, essentially, by trying to include everything and the kitchen sink... 3.X made it incredibly difficult to play anything in particular. Sure, the potential was there, but it was more a shiny core that you had to build around and excise other things from. In other words, it was the danger of generalization. Sure, it could do a lot, but it didn't do anything GREAT, which leaves players who want a specific game type kinda hanging.
But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it? 4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books. Right? Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.
I feel for you, Jeff. I began my gaming career with 1e AD&D (I'm 44) and I hated the way 2e developed. I felt very much abandoned by TSR and gave them none of my cash. I was temporarily reenergized by 3.x but, dang, the weight of prep work and the creep of expansions began to rip at my sanity. I stopped buying years ago. And frankly, if the new edition had simply been an evolution of 3.x, I'd be sitting this round out as well. As much as it appealed to me initially, now with a wife, kids, work and precious little free time, I have no interest in following down that road (be it with WotC, Pathfinder, Necro or whoever).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Wilder
I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.
And that's absolutely true, as Ben Kenobi would say, from a certain point of view. Conversely, they decided to *start* making products that I'm extremely excited about buying. I have multiple copies of the core books (for myself, my son, my group), a gajillion plastic minis bought off ebay (and I'm aquiver with delight over the new direction the minis are going -- WotC is actually going to see some of my cash, rather than the ebayers), magnetic status markers from Alea Tools, a brand new magnet-friendly battlemat from Dark Platypus, two notebooks full of stuff I've printed out of the Dragon, and I've got cash set aside for two hardcover books coming out next month that can't get here soon enough!
This is all to say, life is cyclical. Gaming is too. WotC's choices have sent you packing for a while... I've been there and it sucks. But it ain't so for everybody. I haven't been this excited about D&D since 3.0 was a baby, and maybe not since AD&D was. I feel like a teenager again, stealing time to flip through my Monster Manual or devouring the latest Dragon. And that means, from my point of view, WotC did the right thing.
__________________ It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.
The RPG business is not the kind of business you want to go into if you don't like your work. Because it is hard to earn a lot of money. And then you need also talent to even get to the places where you can earn money full-time.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
I remember when 3x came out the people playing before (long time veterans) felt they were ignored as a "new" audience was targeted. They went on about....(fill in complaint here).
I remember that vividly. I also remember the exact same thing happening when 2nd Edition came out. And you know what, we'll see it again in around eight years when 5th Edition makes its appearance.
This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99
Wow! And here I thought I was the only one of a kind
Nope, you guys aren't the only ones- that's my opinion as well.
__________________ Gothmog
________________________________________________
"I feel like I've been mauled by Jesus." -Frye, Futurama.
Which is quite funny as 1st-2nd edition was not D&D, but a whole new game as noted by the name change to Advanced D&D, while the actual game D&D was still being released at the same time initially.
So 2nd edition AD&D being more like D&D than Basic seems a bit absurd to me to say the least.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
