L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Balesir · Feb 28, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
I'd buy this more if the people always trying to don the mantle of "High Priest of What D&D Is" were not universally set on telling me that what I did with D&D in the early days did not happen. It smacks more of agenda than any real interest in the health of the hobby.

I don't really care about the "D&D Definers" - they seem to have some sort of irrational investment in the (one and only, I suspect, in many cases) RPG they play being called D&D that I lack.

Many vociferous commentators also seem to conflate "D&D" with "roleplaying games", leading to a situation where they expect - or demand - that it fulfill all of their personal desires for what a roleplaying game should be capable of doing. I have no such desire; I play D&D 4E to satisfy a very limited element of what I love RPGs for. For the myriad other satisfactions that RPGs can bring, I look to other titles that are designed more appropriately to fulfill the relevant roles (currently mainly HârnMaster). Systems that try to mix all of the various aims together, I find, present what [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] amusingly dubs a "football bat".

Crazy Jerome said:
And of course, D&D didn't invent branding.

It's not so much the branding; vibrant and diverse brands can be built via judicious licensing and collaboration. It's the mindset that says IP must be "leveraged" - in other words customers must be bullied and manipulated without consideration of their aims or range of tastes. The power of control over IP must be seized and used, rather than shared for mutual benefit. And then they wonder why there are pirates of whom the "mostly law abiding" public have ambiguous views.

Odhanan · Feb 28, 2012

Rogue Agent said:
You're conveniently forgetting the part where your hypothetical 5E could simultaneously be several different games often with completely incompatible gameplay. OD&D didn't do that. And it's specifically that kind of multi-system / dual-statting support (which is what you'd effectively need) that has failed time and time again in the RPG industry.

Except I'm not talking about a multi-system / dual-statting support system at all.

Rogue Agent said:
As I've said before: I get that you really, really, really, really want 5E to be OD&D with all the stuff you don't like pushed off into an unsupported supplement where you can ignore it. But it's fairly clear that it's not going to be.

Well then, let me tell you I get that you really, really, really don't like my idea, but just because you don't like it or don't see any way to make it work doesn't mean it can't, or won't be.

Rogue Agent · Feb 29, 2012

Odhanan said:
Except I'm not talking about a multi-system / dual-statting support system at all.

In which case, we've gone full circle back to "you want 5E to be OD&D".

And while it's possible that I'm wrong and 5E will, in fact, end up being modular in the worst way possible, what I can absolutely guarantee you is that it will not be OD&D. Like Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 that it won't be.

Kynn · Feb 29, 2012

Rogue Agent said:
In which case, we've gone full circle back to "you want 5E to be OD&D".

And while it's possible that I'm wrong and 5E will, in fact, end up being modular in the worst way possible, what I can absolutely guarantee you is that it will not be OD&D. Like Mitt Romney, I'll bet you $10,000 that it won't be.

I don't think it will be either, but I also think that the misleading rhetoric tossed around by Cook & company has been aimed in getting people like Odhanan to think that "core 5e sans modules" will essentially be OD&D (even though it won't).

They're being deliberately vague in many cases, but one of the central conceits of the L&L columns has been to push forward something that sounds a lot like OD&D as "the eternal, always-existing core of D&D upon which we will build everything." I.e., they're trying to court the OSR/OD&D folks ... but they're likely to deliver, in the end, something which won't be palatable to them after all.

Khaalis · Feb 29, 2012

I still maintain that people are totally misconstruing the statement that 5E/D&DN will recapture the "Feel" of older D&D with meaning that the rules mechanics will revert to "BEING" an old system. Which simply isn't going to be the case. The new system is going to be a new animal altogether. There may be some mechanics that survive from different editions to blend into a new system, but the game will never simply revert to an older version.

I honestly don't see why certain people insist on dragging out arguments about 5E/D&DN/WotC being crap or a deal breaker if the new system isn't going to be exactly as the older version that person wants to play. You already have the old version you want. You already know that is all that will suffice. Why even bother discussing options of the new system when you know it isn't for you? Simply let the whole discussion pass you buy since you don't really want to add anything constructive. Going on every thread and saying that you won't buy the new version unless it fits specifically this "X" parameter is, IMHO, just trolling. I just don't get it.

{Edit: Sorry for my own troll, but threads like this are just making me so incredibly frustrated. We can't just simply discuss 5E without it degrading...}

Bedrockgames · Feb 29, 2012

Khaalis said:
I that is all that will suffice. Why even bother discussing options of the new system when you know it isn't for you? Simply let the whole discussion pass you buy since you don't really want to add anything constructive. Going on every thread and saying that you won't buy the new version unless it fits specifically this "X" parameter is, IMHO, just trolling. I just don't get it.

giving an opinion about what you want and dont want in the new edition is constructive. We are letting the designers know what we think.

For me, i would like to see the core mechanics that were constant all the way up to 3e restored to the game (that incudes vancian magic). I want improvements, but i dont want change for the sake of change or drastic changes that make it play ike a different game. For me, 4e went too far. So i am hoping they listen to those of us who would like to see a new edition that feels more like pre-4e D&D.

Mr. Wilson · Feb 29, 2012

The ebb and flow of this conversation (and many others in this subforum) has brought to mind the nursery school rhyme, Humpty Dumpty. In this analogy, Humpty Dumpty equates to the DnD playerbase.

I'm starting to come to grips with the fact that despite WoTC's best efforts, they can't put us together again.

Khaalis · Feb 29, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
giving an opinion about what you want and dont want in the new edition is constructive. We are letting the designers know what we think.

Constructive comments on what you like and would like to see however, is different than the approach various posters have used which basically equates to "if every aspect of the game isn't identical to X version of D&D, it's a deal breaker and your new version is going to suck". That isn't constructive.

For me, i would like to see the core mechanics that were constant all the way up to 3e restored to the game (that incudes vancian magic). I want improvements, but i dont want change for the sake of change or drastic changes that make it play ike a different game. For me, 4e went too far. So i am hoping they listen to those of us who would like to see a new edition that feels more like pre-4e D&D.

This is a constructive statement, and I completely agree with the 4E statement. It's not that it's a bad game and it had a lot of great ideas, it just changed the core of the game, FOR ME, from an RPG to a tabletop minis battle-game. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see some of the ideas make it to 5E.

I also personally hate the Vancian system, but I fully agree that it should be part of the core since it has been in D&D through the vast majority of the game, and it IS D&D to some people. However, I also want other options in core, and I don't want someone to tell me I can't have those options because "Its Not D&D".

The simplest example is Ability Scores. I want to see a full set of options from rolling 3d6 in order to point buy and everything in between as part of core. I don't want to have to wait for expansion book X to find options.

It's also a personal beef of mine that too many people seem to fall back on the "if its not in the core book, I don't allow it" way of thinking. Which is also part of why I want the "options" as still part of core.

JMHO. YMMV.

Bedrockgames · Feb 29, 2012

Khaalis said:
Constructive comments on what you like and would like to see however, is different than the approach various posters have used which basically equates to "if every aspect of the game isn't identical to X version of D&D, it's a deal breaker and your new version is going to suck". That isn't constructive.

JMHO. YMMV.

The way I look at it, these are still useful statements because it give WOTC information. They should know that if x,y and z are not in the game that some people wont buy the new edition. They have to sift through the mass of statements like this from all sides and reach their own conclusion about what to heed and what to ignore. But suppose they see a pattern that suggests they could lose 70% of their current base if they go forward with a particular design decision? Definitely not a bad idea for folks to say what their personal deal breakers are.

Bedrockgames · Feb 29, 2012

Khaalis said:
I also personally hate the Vancian system, but I fully agree that it should be part of the core since it has been in D&D through the vast majority of the game, and it IS D&D to some people. However, I also want other options in core, and I don't want someone to tell me I can't have those options because "Its Not D&D".

JMHO. YMMV.

Only WOTC will be able to make that decision. Right now people are just expressing their preferences. If enough people say that merely having spell points as an optional rule means they wont buy, then you may be dissapointed with the final product. I dont think that is a common sentiment though. I just think many want the core mechanics to resemble 1e, 2e, and 3e in its basic make up as much as possible. In also see alot of folks who want things like spell points, powers, etc to be modular options. This makes sense because it is going to be a lot easier to build around a simlple core than to surgically remove stuff like encounter powers or spell point casters.