When did We Stop Trusting Game Designers?

[eyebeams]

Pretty much every single 4e design post before the D&D Experience was saying "3e's mechanics are dog doodoo, and 4e does them better in every way! But we're not telling you how... yet!" I can't find the example that was clearest in my mind, but it was about treasure parcels, and involved a hideous misrepresentation of 3e's treasure system.

People exactly the same hyperbole about 2nd when 3rd came out, so why wouldn't they use it again?

 

[eyebeams]

For your example, to me it would be like WotC jacked up my house and moved it down the street, and replaced it with a house they like the look of better. So I can either have my old property/lot and the new house, or my old house on a different yard that is missing all my landscaping and vegetable garden.

No, it's like you already own a house, and somebody's selling other houses you don't care for. It doesn't affect you, the owner of a perfectly serviceable house, but when you talk to people who like those houses and people who are selling them, it annoys you that they boost them, or say bad things about your house. That's the difference between play and community discussion.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Perhaps you've never read the Complete Priests' Handbook... The whole bit with the spheres and whatnot that allowed you to customize clerics' spell lists to their religion is in the 2e PHB (building off of concepts introduced in the 1e Dragonlance hardcover). The Complete book doesn't have any new ideas on that front, but rather has a system for designing custom priests mechanically that always results in a class vastly underpowered compared to the standard cleric & druid. I seem to recall one gem of an example priest that had minor access to a sphere that had no 1st-3rd level spells... I felt robbed that I had paid money for that one.

Given the design advice on the cleric hidden in the book (it's at the end of the Roleplaying chapter, where it strongly suggests you reduce the cleric to All and two other major spheres and two minor spheres), and the way other priestly classes looked when they were apparently designed to balance with the core cleric (I'm thinking of the crusader and what I heard about FR specialty priests), I think the CPH's priest design was not a mistake, but a deliberate attempt to kill CoDzilla in its cradle.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I can't help but note that this thread has wandered far afield from the original topic ....

 

[catsclaw227]

I focus on bloodied because all that it could mean and the mountains of examples I can provide off the top of my head for it.

"The man in fornt of you is bloodied."

A: He is at half HP or less?
B: He is covered in blood?
B1: His own blood meaning he is weaker than his norm?
B2: Someone else's blood?
B2a: If was not intended and this person is not a threat?
B2b: He covered himself in someone else's blood to feign weakness?

That one word can mean so many things, but including it to a game mechanic was not good. I also wouldn't mind it being called doohickey, or thingamajig.

What's wrong with using the word "bloodied" as a term describing a game condition or mechanic? I mean, we have "level" with a lot of meanings.

And if the word bloodied is bothering you, then why can't a DM use his expanded vocabulary that you insist the designers use.

Why doesn't the DM just say: "You see a man soaked in blood." instead of saying "the man is bloodied"?

If Bloodied is a game term, then there are loads of other perfectly good descriptors a DM can use to describe a man soaked in blood, or cut up. If he uses the term "bloodied" then he means the "Bloodied" condition?

It really makes it easy that way. See? Wasn't that simple?

I mean, 4e bugs you a lot. So why rail against it? Why not just play your game and let us enjoy ours? Dude, you always have something negative to say.

 

[Lost Soul]

It is interesting that I stumbled on this thread. I think my sig says it well enough for me.
I remember getting the red box D&D as a kid and rapldly moving to AD&D 1E. It felt great. 1E in my mind was far superior to Basic D&D. (This thought would change a bit with the later Basic line expansions. ) When 2E came out I was all for it at first except that most of my 1E fun was initially absent. No demons or devils to vanquish. (Hey, when your fav char is a paladin that hurts more than u think!) High level rules were non-existant or poorly conceived. By the time TSR collapsed my group was hardly playing D&D at all. We drifted away to play Vampire or Ars Magica. It was pretty sad actually. Both Vamp & Ars were great games but the problem with them was that they didn't really inspire great heroism like D&D used to.
3E saved my gaming group! The rules were interesting and different. It was not just a rehash of the old. My group played the heck out of the monsters that were included in the back cover of the PHB on its release because the monster manual was a month away! It was great fun and everyone got the chance to try different classes.
I have been so disappointed with 4E. I feel that it was conjured up by corporate hacks to market to the masses. I feel that some of the old kindred rivals from my vampire games have come around looking for payback. I just feel uninspired. How could Mike Mearls think up a great game like Iron Heroes and then drudge up 4E. Was he behind the concept of the 4E wizard? The one letdown of Iron Heroes was the spellcaster class which Mike even admitted was an afterthought that was rushed into the game at the last minute.
If I am rambling, I apologize. I just feel that D&D is in the hands of "the man" and that it is meant to be dumbed down and sanatized for mass consumption like some cheap beer. I dunno. maybe I am just not relevant on the gaming perspective anymore. That could be the case as well....

 

[El Mahdi]

Yea, I don't get this analogy either. I still play in a 3.5 game, and it's the same way we played two years ago. Nothing has changed for me.

In the spirit of compromise, and the fact we seemed to just be beating a dead horse, I partially agreed with that last analogy. I read it as: WoTC changed the RPG landscape with the release of 4E. Not necessarily a bad thing, and I don't ascribe any evil intent to them for it, but I can understand how it may have disillusioned some.

But also, I was starting to feel what Carnivorous_Bean pointed out, that I think we've started to drift a bit afield of Hussars OP.

So, I'm surrendering the field of battle to the rest of you gentleman (cough cough). Peace out, I'm going to bed.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Gang, come on, now. When the poster--or any poster, really--says "4E has ruined my game!" or "WOTC...or those bastards! They've ruined D&D with this new edition! D&D is screwed now!" etc, etc, in the same way that they have made the analogy of the *House* or the *neighborhood*--by pointing out that they can still use their rules, and their particular *home game* isn't effected, well, really now.

You're being needlessly specific--and avoiding the more obvious and reasonable interpretation of what the writer intends.

You all know--or should certainly know--that such a writer means the overall game for themselves, their *collective* game, in the general sense.

If you really insist of being hyper-specific, and need the writer's unstated implications spelled out to you...come on. I know you guys are smarter and sharper than that.

Yes, 4E could be seen to ruin many people's D&D, from all of the many specific systemic critiques, to the more generalised:

(1) The continuous history of the game progressing through various similar *editions*--has now taken a radical departure. This vast transformation of not merely some rules clean-up, and modification, but rather sweeping changes to the whole foundational *system* makes many people feel that it is unconnected with the previous editions of the game, and it feels so hugely different, that it no longer feels like D&D to them.

(2) Discontinuation of future products for the edition they are currently playing; It's a general principle that when a particular game ceases to have main-line, *official* game support, the particular game essentially becomes marginalised, and withers in the general consciousness, and extending accessibility to other gamers. This reality can, for many--make it very difficult if not impossible, to run any future campaigns with anyone other than their specific current group.

(3) With the aforementioned dynamics, one's current library of vast 3E products then become in a sense *obselete* and dated, essentially limiting their use to such *retro* games. Only people interested in playing in such a *discontinued* and unsupported game, will now allow full use of such material. I'm perplexed at how to explain this precisely, but it becomes a sort of "closed loop" creatively for future campaign miliues.

I hope this clarifies and helps a bit. Personally, I really like 3x, and I am still running 3.5 campaigns. I am enthusiastic about 4E, and am researching it for future adoption at a later date, as I deem appropriate.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Your experience matches mine pretty much exactly. Good first post, by the way!

Ken

It is interesting that I stumbled on this thread. I think my sig says it well enough for me.
I remember getting the red box D&D as a kid and rapldly moving to AD&D 1E. It felt great. 1E in my mind was far superior to Basic D&D. (This thought would change a bit with the later Basic line expansions. ) When 2E came out I was all for it at first except that most of my 1E fun was initially absent. No demons or devils to vanquish. (Hey, when your fav char is a paladin that hurts more than u think!) High level rules were non-existant or poorly conceived. By the time TSR collapsed my group was hardly playing D&D at all. We drifted away to play Vampire or Ars Magica. It was pretty sad actually. Both Vamp & Ars were great games but the problem with them was that they didn't really inspire great heroism like D&D used to.
3E saved my gaming group! The rules were interesting and different. It was not just a rehash of the old. My group played the heck out of the monsters that were included in the back cover of the PHB on its release because the monster manual was a month away! It was great fun and everyone got the chance to try different classes.
I have been so disappointed with 4E. I feel that it was conjured up by corporate hacks to market to the masses. I feel that some of the old kindred rivals from my vampire games have come around looking for payback. I just feel uninspired. How could Mike Mearls think up a great game like Iron Heroes and then drudge up 4E. Was he behind the concept of the 4E wizard? The one letdown of Iron Heroes was the spellcaster class which Mike even admitted was an afterthought that was rushed into the game at the last minute.
If I am rambling, I apologize. I just feel that D&D is in the hands of "the man" and that it is meant to be dumbed down and sanatized for mass consumption like some cheap beer. I dunno. maybe I am just not relevant on the gaming perspective anymore. That could be the case as well....

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

obsolescence

Oh, and SHARK,

You're right.. the obsolescence of 3.X is what I fear... I played RuneQuest throughout the 90s when it was more or less not a supported system, and it was difficult to get players, to say the least.

My hope for 3.X is that either

1) Pathfinder will be good enough to carry the torch

or

2) the continued existence of the online SRD will make the fact that 3.X is no longer supported by WoTC less significant.

I certainly have enough 3.X stuff to play for years...definitely until 5E comes out!

Ken