Hypothetical Question about future D&D

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I would humbly submit (since humble submissions seem to be all the rage) that both the 1E ranger & bard were effectively the first 'prestige classes', in that neither could be entered as a level one character. In both cases, you had to take X levels in 2 (ranger) or 3 (bard) specific base classes before you could qualify for your first level in the actual ranger or bard classes. This places the initial concept in the core books for 1E rather than the 1E UA (which also introduced the barbarian, as well as the cavalier).

Are you sure about the ranger? I don't remember that at all, and played one in my first 1E campaign for several years.

I agree that the bard could be considered the first prestige class, especially now that Complete Adventurer has a prestige class that emulates the 1E bard and brings it all back full circle.

(By the way, did you break Graffe.com?)

 

[Ranger REG]

Would the folks who said that they would always play D&D care about the underlying system? Or are they playing it for the name?

Puh-lease. I'm not blind.

I never buy products strictly by label. If it wasn't for Eric Noah's Third Edition Web Site before and during the release of 3e that previewed a lot of the new rules and changes to the new edition, I'd probably wouldn't have bought it in 2000.

 

[Silverleaf]

I humbly submit that, although that may have been in your heart, it didn't make it onto the page as I read it. Your posts read like both a championing of a very specific edition of Basic D&D and making that the explicit baseline.

Regardless of my feelings about B/X D&D, one cannot ignore the fact that there is a vast chasm between it and 3e. Mind you, I could have used OD&D (the 3 little books from '74) as an example and the chasm there would be even greater still. The further one goes back, the more differences there are.

Despite being a former hardcore Mystara DM (and mad poster to the mailing list -- I recently had the strange experience of seeing one of my old pieces I don't remember creating quoted on RPG.net), I think that's a strange baseline to set, if one were to pick one.

It's not a baseline, as there really is no such thing. D&D is a moving target, and while everyone will rally under the cry of "sacred cows", nobody can seem to agree on exactly what constitutes a definitive, universal list of the ones that define D&D (previous long-winded threads on this very subject are a testament to the etherealness of D&D).

If your point is that D&D has changed radically over time, meaning that 3E does not constitute much of a break, so much as a continuing evolution, I agree.

I'd argue that 3e/d20 made a bigger break than ever before, what with the integration of a feat and skill system in every aspect of the game. While there were "skills" in some previous editions, they were entirely optional, thief skills notwithstanding of course (they don't constitute a "skill system" as they're too limited in scope).
The addition of feats, skills and yes also unlimited multiclassing have severely eroded the strong archetypal nature that all previous editions shared. In that way alone, 3e distanced itself more from all previous editions than any of them had ever done before (I'm talking core rules here not optional supplements like 2e Player/DM Option books, or to a lesser extent the 2e Complete X Handbooks) But besides that there have been quite a few other significant changes, many of which Akrasia noted.

I'd also argue that 3e was WotC's idea of marketing D&D to the M:TG generation. Instead of building a deck, you just build a PC or monsters, and then you duke it out. Who knows what the next edition of D&D will look like? The only thing that's certain is that it will change to become appealing to the next generation...

 

[Digital M@]

At this time in my life, I cannot see buying a bunch of new RPG books. When D&D 4E comes out, I will most likely buy a PHB and stop DMing and become a casual gamer. I for one, would not mind seeing the license change to Hasbro only. While 3rd party publishers have given us lots of great stuff, there is too much crap to be sifted through. I prefer to KISS

 

[Ranger REG]

At this time in my life, I cannot see buying a bunch of new RPG books. When D&D 4E comes out, I will most likely buy a PHB and stop DMing and become a casual gamer. I for one, would not mind seeing the license change to Hasbro only. While 3rd party publishers have given us lots of great stuff, there is too much crap to be sifted through. I prefer to KISS

So, basically you're anti-OGL. You think they should go back to being propietary content so at the very least WotC would be involved in both legal and creative processes (currently, only involved in just the legal matters regarding the OGL enforcement).

 

[Snapdragyn]

Are you sure about the ranger? I don't remember that at all, and played one in my first 1E campaign for several years.

I could be wrong (& the 1E books aren't in CA with me), but I seem to recall that ranger had to do x levels of druid & y levels of fighter; the bard had to do x levels of druid, y levels of thief, & z levels of wizard. I think. I know one of them had to do 3 different classes before becoming an actual <whichever>, with all of the xp fun that entailed in those days.

(By the way, did you break Graffe.com?)

No, I hear that was some drunken dorf named Ringo.

 

[William Ronald]

I could be wrong (& the 1E books aren't in CA with me), but I seem to recall that ranger had to do x levels of druid & y levels of fighter; the bard had to do x levels of druid, y levels of thief, & z levels of wizard. I think. I know one of them had to do 3 different classes before becoming an actual <whichever>, with all of the xp fun that entailed in those days.



No, I hear that was some drunken dorf named Ringo.

Rangers in the 1E books was a regular class, which did not have to take levels of fighter or druid. Bards were required to have some levels of fighter and thief, before becomink a bard. Note that one of the problems with the 1st edition bard was that many people assumed the 10d6 was in addition to the hit dice gained as a fighter or a rogue. This often lead to the Beserker with the Banjo syndrome as someone I used to know called it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

At this time in my life, I cannot see buying a bunch of new RPG books. When D&D 4E comes out, I will most likely buy a PHB and stop DMing and become a casual gamer. I for one, would not mind seeing the license change to Hasbro only. While 3rd party publishers have given us lots of great stuff, there is too much crap to be sifted through. I prefer to KISS

I just don't see how limiting choice could be a good thing. With only one source, if what was being produced by that source was crap, what alternative would you have? Besides that, if all you want to buy is the core books, what difference does it make if there are 3rd party publishers? It's like saying: "well, I only like one kind of ice cream, so I'd prefer that all the other flavors were no longer being made, to make my choice easier." You can easily ignore them, which lets everyone have what they want - you get your flavor, and everyone gets their pick of theirs.

 

[Romnipotent]

I sense that strong games with the older ruleset may just ignore it all. The RPGA will be converted and the Living players will either leap along like lemmings, be bribed with minis, books, dice, and pole dancers (I'd start playing again), OR leave it.
I already play a D&D game, Kalamar based, using the gurps ruleset... which has changed how I run D&D, making it more home brewski

 

[Zappo]

I don't judge games without having tried them. I would try it out no matter what, and then decide. Chances are that when 4e comes out, I'll be pretty tired of 3.5e anyway, so it'll have the newness factor as a positive - but if it is bad, I won't play it.

What I don't get is the folks saying that if 4e comes out and is bad, they'll quit D&D entirely. That doesn't make sense to me. I'll just keep playing 3.5e.