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.
1.-Class and Race balance (the Wizard does not overpower the Fighter, at any level)
I remember in 1E AD&D, high level magic users were very powerful compared to classes like the fighter (at the same high level).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphimir Míriel
7.-Class and Race balance (no CoDzilla and the Paladin is still interesting at level 10)
I remember in a short lived 3.5E game I played in previously, the DM didn't have any restrictions on splatbooks. So what ended up happening was that the munchkin types were creating these low level characters which looked very overpowered. Essentially the game ended up being more like a cheesy "super hero" game in a fantasy setting, than what I would have thought of as a low-level D&D adventure.
If I wanted to play a super hero type game, I would have pulled out my old DC Heroes rpg.
These are some of the reasons why some of us find the idea of "Pathfinder as 5E" as a very bad step backwards.
Imagine a scenario where Hasbro/WotC cancelled 4E and closed down the tabletop rpg division, while subsequently licensing the D&D brand name to another (hypothetical) company for tabletop rpg use only.
Do you believe this (hypothetical) licensee company has any obligation to maintain D&D in its 4E or 3.5E forms?
In principle, a (hypothetical) licensee company can create a completely different fantasy rpg game which doesn't resemble any previous editions from TSR or WotC, while calling it "5E D&D" on the front cover.
Last edited by ggroy; 28th June 2009 at 04:49 PM..
Imagine a scenario where Hasbro/WotC cancelled 4E and closed down the tabletop rpg division, while subsequently licensing the D&D brand name to another (hypothetical) company for tabletop rpg use only.
Do you believe this (hypothetical) licensee company has any obligation to maintain D&D in its 4E or 3.5E forms?
In principle, a (hypothetical) licensee company can create a completely different fantasy rpg game which doesn't resemble any previous editions from TSR or WotC, while calling it "5E D&D" on the front cover.
I imagine that if I had just purchased the D&D brand from WotC/Hasbro, I would probably want to hire the best game designers out there to make a fantasy roleplaying game with Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards
I would put "Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition" on the cover and watch it sell like pancakes.
Of course, some people would stick to 4E, some others will continue playing 3.5 (or Pathfinder, or other derivative), and still some others will stick to AD&D or their favourite retro-clone... And others will play Warhammer FRPG, Exalted, Song of Ice and Fire or other non-D&D fantasy roleplaying games.
In short, everybody would keep on playing their favorite game... just like right now
-
Vi vs Emacs, Windows vs Mac vs Linux, Yankees vs Sox, Star Wars vs Star Trek, Kataang vs Zutara...
There are a lot of "fandom wars" out there in the Internet, because people deeply care about their hobbies.
And it is ok
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
I imagine that if I had just purchased the D&D brand from WotC/Hasbro, I would probably want to hire the best game designers out there to make a fantasy roleplaying game with Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Fighters, Rogues, Clerics and Wizards
I would put "Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition" on the cover and watch it sell like pancakes.
If you were the recipient of such a license to make a hypothetical "5E D&D", what would your vision and design goals be?
If you were the recipient of such a license to make a hypothetical "5E D&D", what would your vision and design goals be?
If this happened today? I would just print and sell an errata-ed 4E
In about six years? Sure, bring the latest developments of the past years into a new edition.
You have to understand that every roleplaying game is the product of its time. The way people play has changed over the years and the games have evolved with the players.
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
If you were the recipient of such a license to make a hypothetical "5E D&D", what would your vision and design goals be?
If I got the license, I know that I am hiring Steve Kenson (Mutants and Masterminds, True20, Shadowrun's Magic in the Shadows) to be in charge of the new edition.
I'd also try to bring in Charles Rice of RPGObjects, "Wulf" of Bad Axe Games (Grim Tales, Trailblazer), "Ranger Wickett" (Elements of Magic: Revised and other EN Publishing books), Curtis "der kluge" Bennett (Artificer's Handbook), Ari "Mouseferatu" of Lion's Den and WOTC freelancer, Justin Jacobsin of Blue Devil (Poisoncraft) and Steve "Ghostwind" Creech of Dragonwing among other from these boards.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 28th June 2009 at 10:42 PM..
"An industrial rebellion is afoot in the role-playing game (RPG) scene. Traditionally, a tabletop RPG provides its players with a firm rules system within which they can construct their stories, but recent corporate changes to the fourth edition of the oldest and most popular system—Dungeons & Dragons (D&D)—have spawned a negative response so strong that players have actually begun to alter the game system against the wishes of its owners. Further, they have begun to publish these changes. In this essay, I will attempt to detail the development of this fan-created rebellion."
Comments on the paper?
It appears that the article is supporting a fan fiction rebellion (and the title is misleading), The author tries to link game systems to fiction writing, but unfortunately published fiction and game mechanics are not considered the same under copyright law (copyright laws dont cover games), and in my opinion its unlikely gamers will ever have any reason to join fiction fans in a revolt agianst use of copyright laws, when games are not effected by them.
If you're still doubting my veracity, I'm looking forward to a possible version of d20 Modern with 4E style rules. That is if WotC ever gets around to releasing it.
Imagine a scenario where Hasbro/WotC cancelled 4E and closed down the tabletop rpg division, while subsequently licensing the D&D brand name to another (hypothetical) company for tabletop rpg use only.
Do you believe this (hypothetical) licensee company has any obligation to maintain D&D in its 4E or 3.5E forms?
In principle, a (hypothetical) licensee company can create a completely different fantasy rpg game which doesn't resemble any previous editions from TSR or WotC, while calling it "5E D&D" on the front cover.
It would depend entirely upon the terms of the license granted.
If the license were silent on the nature of the underlying mechanics or fluff of the game, the licensee would be free to do as he pleased...
But if he were wise, he'd look at the structure of the market before committing to any design goals.
And I'm sure every person on this website would have different prejudices about which mechanics and fluff they'd prefer.
For instance, one complaint that dogged edition after edition is that once a Wizard is out of spells, he's useless. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a feature, but I understand and empathize.
3.5 and 4Ed had 2 different "solutions" to this- 3.5 had reserve feats, 4Ed had at will & encounter powers. Personally, I preferred the former, and would have liked to have seen an expansion and refinement of that design; I didn't really care for 4Ed's power system...especially for non-casting classes.
For instance, one complaint that dogged edition after edition is that once a Wizard is out of spells, he's useless. Personally, I see this as somewhat of a feature, but I understand and empathize.
Back in the days of 1E AD&D, I houseruled the magic user to address this complaint. I allowed certain low level combat spells to have unlimited use with several caveats.
For example, I allowed a magic missile with unlimited use which did not always hit. I required a d20 roll of less than or equal to the magic user's intelligence score, for the magic missile to hit. So even with an intelligence score of 18, there was still a 10% chance of missing.
What do you think is the likelihood of Hasbro/WotC buying up Paizo in a friendly merger/acquisition, and then rebranding Pathfinder as 5E D&D?
Slightly worse than the odds the Moon crashing into Montana.
If a situation came that brought us a failing 4e and a thriving Paizo (and the odds of Paizo making a 3e-level dent in the market with essentially 3e-without-the-name is a long shot) you'd most likely see D&D 5e be a real WoW style MMORPG using the D&D brand-name as leverage than you would see Paizo absorbed and Pathfinder become 5e.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
