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.
Heh. Given that MY classic D&D included things like robots that shot lasers and missiles and changed into cars (I was a big Transformers fan), knights that could change into animal forms at will and used staffs to cast spells (I was also a big Visionaries fan) and "wizards" with magic staffs that had access to both druid and magic-user spells (inspired by the wizards of Earthsea which - you guessed it - I was also a big fan of), any version of D&D that defines itself by what it excludes isn't MY classic D&D.
QFT
D&D has ALWAYS been the kitchen sink game for me. Take whatever the heck you want, put it in. A game where you have chinese toys eating your plate mail and giant jello cubes melting your skin, deserves to have dragonborn and tieflings.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Considering the vast amount of work to allow ideas from other settings into 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed, it amazes me that one would suggest that "4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone." Where is the 4e Charlemagne's Paladins sourcebook? The 4e Celts? 4e Testament?
Oh, come on. 4e has been out for what, four months now? Less. Less than four months and you want a book like the Charlemagne's Paladin's which didn't come out until several YEARS after the release?
That's a bit unfair don't you think?
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Not what I was saying at all. Might wanna re-read my posts cos you are trying to go off in your own direction with my points.
Sorry, but I thought it was you who wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffB
To me, X2 (for example) fits 4E alot better than AD&D or 3E, because AD&D/3E have very narrow definitions of how the world "is" whereas 4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone.
Because someone does a re-write you don't like doesn't mean that the original cannot be fit -- easily -- into the gameworld described. I've used KotB in 3e without any problems whatsoever, using the conversion posted here on EN World.
And changing X2 to make every pocket plane part of the Feywild or Shadowfell isn't any better -- or any less tied into an official world setting -- than what Paizo did.
AD&D 1e, 2e, and 3e make no demands as to what the world looks like. In fact, AD&D 2e is often hailed for its innovative settings -- DarkSun, Planescape, Spelljammer, etc. 1e specifically and overtly allowed for any type of plane the DM desired, including pocket planes, even if you used the Great Wheel cosmology. Have you perhaps played through Queen of the Demonweb Pits? Read the 1e Manual of the Planes? Or the 3e Manual of the Planes, even?
In AD&D 1e, the Great Wheel was a suggested cosmology. Even within that suggested cosmology, it was specified that there were an infinite number of material planes, each with its own characteristics. "1/2/3E where you have set planes that are comprised of X types of planars with Y alignment, etc etc etc." isn't actually what the books say.
I also read the part where you said
Quote:
I know I'm not explaining myself all that well
so re-reading your posts hasn't altered the fact that either (1) your comments about previous editions are not based on the editions themselves, or (2) I am not understanding what you are saying at all. But what you are saying seems to be clear. It just doesn't seem to be accurate, IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Are you focusing on D&D4 "The Game" or D&D4 "The License?" From a mechanical standpoint, you could make exactly those sorts of products that actually captured the feel of those genres with the rules
Sure you can.
But would you actually say that earlier editions are more tied into a specific idea of what the world "is" than 4e? Does it need to be pointed out just how many products TSR produced with 2e specifically designed to help you change the world to whatever you wanted it to be? Could OD&D be any less defined in terms of how the world works?
I could change the rules to make 4e feel as though it had a world like that of 3e, if I wanted. Or 2e. Or vice versa. But I would have to change the rules to do so, and I would probably have to change the definitions of what some things mean. Which limits my ability to produce such a product in 4e at this point -- the GSL is an inherently limiting factor in what avenues 4e will explore, unless one wishes to do all the work oneself. Maybe this will change, but it is an important factor right now.
But, again, even without looking at the GSL, previous editions were every bit able to model differing worlds as 4e is. In most cases moreso, if only because of the way the silly naming conventions interact with 4e. Claiming that they were tied into a single worldview is simply wrong.
Quote:
but just like 2E where most of those appeared, it requires a bit of work from someone to do it - but if done well, would actually fit better than the way they were done in 2E, I think. After all, I can't see Roland or Chalremagne just repeatedly "power attacking" when they were cutting down Saracens, or splitting them collar to crotch (or was that Turpin? Can't remember) But I can't see Turpin using "Healing Word" or "Divine Fire of the Faithful" either. I can see room for special exploits that don't scream "magic."
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but 3e allowed for literally hundreds more options than just Power Attack. And, in no historical account that I am aware of did Roland or Charlemagne heal people by hitting others, or force them to move around from a distance, or any of the 4e special exploits that scream "magic" merely by their descriptions.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
A while back, I posted a list of things from 4E that have reminded me of 1st edition, and earlier versions, of D&D.
I actually disagree about many of those points.
Quote:
[*]Single-classing is DEFINITELY stressed over multiclassing.
In AD&D multiclass characters have all the powers from their classes. That's very different from 4e system.
Quote:
[*]Monsters' XP rewards are listed on a solid scale (1e) instead of the floating CR scale.
XP from monsters is a small contribution in AD&D. XP from treasure is actually scaled down when the challenge was easy.
Quote:
[*]Truncated Monster stat blocks
Well, they are truncated only when compared to the bloat of 3rd edition. They are still quite big.
Quote:
[*]Most combats will have a 5-minute rest period associated with them, analogous to the 1 turn rest after combat in 1E.
I agree.
Quote:
[*]Saving throw "duration roll" targets are static numbers again, instead of variable DCs.
Saving throws are very different in 4e, however. The chance of success is flat and does not depend on class, level and ability score. They mostly represent durations excepts in few cases.
Quote:
[*]Magic items are more tightly controlled by DMs; players discouraged from selling magic, DMs encouraged to tailor it more to the players.
Magic items are listed in the PHB. Players are encouraged to come up with wish list... quite different with how things work in AD&D.
Quote:
[*]Coup de graces similar to "helpless damage" in 1E
A lot of people don't realize it, but striking helpless opponents in 1E was not an auto-kill, but just did double max damage. One thing I don't agree with in 4E though is the inability to "auto-kill" when not in combat; I wish that had returned to D&D.
I agree on both points.
Quote:
[*]As Mouseferatu noted, measurements are back in inches, pretty much. Characters in 1E moved at a speed of 12 inches in a full round -- sounds familiar to me.
Yes, the scale in an abstract unit is there in both games.
Quote:
And both Monsters and PCs possess enough hit points to have some staying power for the average combat.
Well, combats in my 4e games are exceedingly long... once again very different from my experience with AD&D.
Well, they are truncated only when compared to the bloat of 3rd edition. They are still quite big.
I think that this is exactly what is relevant here.
3e moved very far from the orbit of its predecessors (and argument I made, and was booed down for, in a series of "Sense of Wonder" threads long before 4e was announced and the observation became popular).
4e is a step away from some of the problems 3e caused. However, stepping away from 3e isn't the same thing as stepping toward 1e. There are a lot of roads away from 3e.
While I agree that WotC has stepped away from 3e, I don't agree that the steps taken were in the direction of 1e. They are in a direction all of thier own, IMHO. That some of the results of those steps have consequences that are (very) superficially similiar to the results of the 1e rules isn't enough to make 4e seem like 1e to me.
YMMV, of course.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
I think the situation is reversed. A lot of us old timers are happier with LESS rather than more.
Old timers can sit around with just the basic rules, basic classes (ZOMG every fighter is the same!!!!) roll the dice and play.
New school fans can't accept this. Without kewl powerz and 50 fiddly mechanical adjustments to be made to each character they can't enjoy the adventure.
Who is harder to please?
Who's the one making more complaints?
Are you saying old timers can enjoy all editions with equal ease? There would seem to be plenty of examples to the contrary. Are you saying it is somehow inherently better to enjoy older editions instead of newer ones, rather than do the opposite?
Grimstaff said "I'd think its fairly obvious us old-school fans are notoriously hard to please..."
I think, if that is the case, it isn't a matter of liking one edition over the other - it is a matter of unwillingness to accept the existence of a disliked edition. The 'new school fans' you accuse of being harder to please have found an edition they enjoy and are perfectly happy playing it - and don't have any issues with you instead playing 3rd or 2nd or any earlier edition. The old-school fans being referred to here, on the other hand, seem to take active offense at the presence of the new edition and the changes it has made.
Now, I'm not going to say they can't do so - everyone gets to have their own opinion. I'm also not saying this applies to all old-school gamers, or even a significant portion of them.
But I do think it is clear that they are the ones with an issue - not the new-school gamers who are perfectly happy to play the game they enjoy, and not worry about anything else.
Are you saying old timers can enjoy all editions with equal ease? There would seem to be plenty of examples to the contrary. Are you saying it is somehow inherently better to enjoy older editions instead of newer ones, rather than do the opposite?
Grimstaff said "I'd think its fairly obvious us old-school fans are notoriously hard to please..."
I think, if that is the case, it isn't a matter of liking one edition over the other - it is a matter of unwillingness to accept the existence of a disliked edition. The 'new school fans' you accuse of being harder to please have found an edition they enjoy and are perfectly happy playing it - and don't have any issues with you instead playing 3rd or 2nd or any earlier edition. The old-school fans being referred to here, on the other hand, seem to take active offense at the presence of the new edition and the changes it has made.
Now, I'm not going to say they can't do so - everyone gets to have their own opinion. I'm also not saying this applies to all old-school gamers, or even a significant portion of them.
But I do think it is clear that they are the ones with an issue - not the new-school gamers who are perfectly happy to play the game they enjoy, and not worry about anything else.
What I'm saying is that with a good group of people I can enjoy any edition without being offended by the existence of anything. I won't speak for anyone else. The only game I'm playing in right now is 4E so I'm not approaching this from the perspective of someone who wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. There is a lot of intolerance on both sides of the fence. I don't give attacks or defenses of any system much credibility coming from anyone who hasn't played them.
.........back in my day television was called books.
All I was saying was that back in the old days we didn't need overloaded rules bloat to make a good game and today's games sell the opposite.
Simplicity is making a comeback so hopefully there will be room for us all.
And you had to read them with bare feet, while it was snowing. Walking uphill all the time.
Yeah, those were the days.
*Sigh*
ROFL! Darn right. We didn't have fancy amusement parks. When you wanted amusement you jumped off a cliff, and broke your legs....(wait for it)...........AND YOU LIKED IT!!
ROFL! Darn right. We didn't have fancy amusement parks. When you wanted amusement you jumped off a cliff, and broke your legs....(wait for it)...........AND YOU LIKED IT!!
And you had one set of dice--count 'em, ONE--and you had to fill in the numbers yourself with a gawddam CRAYON. And we liked it just fine!
Sadly that one was true for a short time, until I got the expert set-then we had 2 sets of dice to fill in with crayon
Ah yes, that was sweet. Almost as nifty as lead miniatures made of ACTUAL LEAD. Toxicity my ass! I'm still here! The lead residue that rubbed off on my fingers built character, gawddammit!!
Pffftttt...you whippersnappers were lucky --I didn't even HAVE any dice 'cept for six siders outta my brother's copy of monopoly.
We just played where you rolled six siders for everything..1-3 =success, 4-6= failure. And it worked just fine!!!
Later on, I got a paper route throwing 463 newspapers EACH AND EVERY MORNING, 6 days a week. Had to take MOndays off to rest my arms. And I made a quarter! That's right! a quarter! AND I WAS HAPPY TO HAVE THAT QUARTER!
Anyway, with that quarter I bought me some dice-chits! Cut 'em up and threw in an 'ol stinky mesh backed ball cap the dog pissed on. Woooohooo...now that was livin' high on the hog, boyzz!
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
What I'm saying is that with a good group of people I can enjoy any edition without being offended by the existence of anything. I won't speak for anyone else. The only game I'm playing in right now is 4E so I'm not approaching this from the perspective of someone who wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. There is a lot of intolerance on both sides of the fence. I don't give attacks or defenses of any system much credibility coming from anyone who hasn't played them.
And I don't disagree with you - I just think portraying it as 'old gamers' vs 'new gamers' is inaccurate. In either group, you will have plenty willing to embrace anything that leads to an enjoyable game, and plenty who will only stick to what they prefer.
But the core point you are getting at - of playing the game with a good group of people who are more focused on fun than any particular details - is one I agree with wholeheartedly.
And you had one set of dice--count 'em, ONE--and you had to fill in the numbers yourself with a gawddam CRAYON. And we liked it just fine!
In my previous group, one player still had his d20 from that set. It was pure evil. It would reliably roll the 20 on top, sit for a second, then rock back to the 1 (as opposite sides didn't add up to 21 like a proper die).
__________________ All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re not unreasonable; I mean, no one’s gonna eat your eyes
All we want to do is eat your brains
We’re at an impasse here; maybe we should compromise:
If you open up the doors
We’ll all come inside and eat your brains
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
In my previous group, one player still had his d20 from that set. It was pure evil. It would reliably roll the 20 on top, sit for a second, then rock back to the 1 (as opposite sides didn't add up to 21 like a proper die).
Heh. 'Course, when I got my GAMMA WORLD first edition boxed set, I learned the real pain of lame dice. The dice that came with that game were this weird, cheap plastic, far lighter than the "normal" dice that came with my Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert sets.
And don't even get me started on how we had to hide our AD&D 1e PHBs and DMGs from our moms 'cause they all thought they were Satanic! Yep, those were the days!
Here are some words that might help explain why some people feel there is a similarity. Emphasis added for...well, emphasis.
"Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. [This game] is assuredly an adherent of the latter [game] school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. [This game] is first and foremost a game for the fun* and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity."
"In all cases ... the reader should understand that [this game] is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun*, excitement, and captivating fantasy, [this game] is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun*, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste."
These words were written by Gary Gygax about 1E. You can find them on page 9 of your 1E DMG.
*Good god, he used the word 'fun'! Three times!
__________________ Iain Fyffe
Original member of the Rouseketeers!
I have played 4E. And just like all other editions of D&D, it is awesome!
no one quotes me in sigs - Crothian
For some reason, this doesn't fill me with rage. I must be interwebbing wrong. - Cadfan
Given that MY classic D&D included things like robots that shot lasers and missiles and changed into cars (I was a big Transformers fan), knights that could change into animal forms at will and used staffs to cast spells (I was also a big Visionaries fan) and "wizards" with magic staffs that had access to both druid and magic-user spells (inspired by the wizards of Earthsea which - you guessed it - I was also a big fan of), any version of D&D that defines itself by what it excludes isn't MY classic D&D. 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
