[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[joethelawyer]

We were always building keeps for our characters and stuff when we were kids. This was a major part of the game for us. Of course, as a DM there was nothing better than using a player's map of his stronghold to plan a vengeful monster invasion.

It was great.

--Erik

I agree. The main goal for my AD&D MU was to build his 500 foot "Tower of Epic Phallic Symbol" so all would know his power. All the campaigns centered on looting gold and magic for the purpose of gaining power in the campaign world. Adventure and exploration were what you did to gain money and magic in your quest for world domination and reputation. It was a game of ambition. It wasn't about the combat...you fought only when you had to. Fighting wasn't balanced and all wussified with an expectation of success based on your uber-build...there was actually a more than decent chance you would die back then. Why attempt it?

That's still the way I play today. That sort of mindset is frowned upon in society these days. The political correctness of the 90's did a lot to kill off a generation of gamers who may otherwise have appreciated such a style of gaming.

I remember in 1976-77, in Second Grade, after gym class, whoever won whatever game we played that week got the right to sing at the top of their lungs a portion of the Queen song "We are the champions, my friend...", and shout out the part "NO TIME FOR LOSERS" and taunt the other team. What did that do for us? Whoever was on the losing team wanted to win next week and we would practice and try harder. We wanted to be winners and be able to wear the mantle of winners for the week. It made all of us better.

Now, everybody gets a trophy for showing up. You're a winner just for fogging up the mirror under your nose. That sort of mindset isn't one that encourages the type of game I play. The endgame with latter editions is assumed to happen, rather than something that exceptional players strived for and achieved only after the harshest of trials. Now you get it just for completing X # of tactical combat encounters which you knew you'd win anyhow, because the rules are designed to let you win.

 

[DragonLancer]

I don't think you can include VtM, really; there was quite a change between oWoD and nWod.

Old and new Worlds of Darkness are two very different animals. Masquerade is a different game to Requiem. Very different.

As Dark Mistress said, you have 3 editions of Masquerade and other than minor tweaks it is the same system all the way through. When WW wanted to change system they did away with the old game and made a brand new one with a similar but different system.

Although I agree D&D should have gone for smaller tweaks than an overhaul with the switch from 3E to 4E, I do seem to remember in the 90's that as D&D 2E started getting into being over a decade old it got plenty slammed - mostly by the WoD players I knew, but also by many of its long-standing players - about the game being "archaic" and losing fans left and right because its mechanics were being left in the dust by newer games with "modern" mechanics and systems (primarily skill-based systems, like the WoD books, GURPS and the like).

I can see that because 2nd edition was an overhaul of 1st edition and it made more sense but was essentially the same system as 1st. When WotC took over they changed the system to some more contemporary and did a grand job with the 3rd and 3.5 editions. However when it came to doing 4th was it nessecary to change the entire system? The D20 system worked very well. Why not just change and fix the flaws rather than change it? I don't think the OGL hurt them as much as they may think. The OGL was one of the best things to happen in the industry for a long time and most likely helped a lot of their sales.

I probably wouldn't include GURPS as a modern system either as it's very archaic and out of date IMO. But that's just my look at it.

 

[Shazman]

Yeah, at least the OGL let other companies make adventures and campaign settings for the game, some of which were very good. 4E could definitely use more companies making adventures and campaign settings for the system because WotC is astonishingly bad at it.

 

[Stormonu]

Old and new Worlds of Darkness are two very different animals. Masquerade is a different game to Requiem. Very different.


I probably wouldn't include GURPS as a modern system either as it's very archaic and out of date IMO. But that's just my look at it.

Well, I think if you're going to talk about 4E D&D vs. previous versions, I think it is proper to note the significant shift of oWoD to nWoD.

Can't say too much on GURPS, never actually played it; only know it by reputation.

In the end, I wish WotC had gone along the lines of Pathfinder, rather than going with the changes that resulted in 4E.

 

[DragonLancer]

Well, I think if you're going to talk about 4E D&D vs. previous versions, I think it is proper to note the significant shift of oWoD to nWoD.

I agree. I'm just pointing out that Masquerade and Requiem are two different game systems, not an update.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.' With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls.

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

Anyway, I don't at all doubt the team's thorough dedication to the game, or their good intentions. As a player and DM of D&D 2, 3, and 4, I don't feel 'fired' at all. I do feel like sometimes the Coasties succumb to groupthink and arrogance ("We've discussed it amongst ourselves, and we've made a decision, and we're the best D&D folks around, so it's the best decision, now don't you agree?"), but I think they try hard (or at least try hard now) to dispel those flaws.

The worst flaws of 4e have been piracy paranoia-inspired (which has nothing to do with the designers and everything to do with the suits), and One True Way-inspired (which is less about not caring and more about ignorance of the merits of contrary opinions).

 

[Umbran]

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

Did you perhaps miss the vitriol dumped on WotC around the time of the release of 4e? There's nothing weird about it. What you describe would not be a characterization of some of what was said at that time.

It was not a shining hour for gamers.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

There was a user on this very board who said WotC releasing 4E was akin to them shooting his dog.


And he was dead serious.

So, yeah Mearls probably was asked why WotC shot someone's dog. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

[mudbunny]

I'd be interested to see the context of that quote. Not that I'm disputing it, just that it sounds a bit...I dunno...weirdly defensive? Like Mearls was asked why 4e shot someone's puppy or something just before he responded.

There were users on the WotC forums who suggested the devs be strung up by their toes and beaten because of 4E.

 

[Stormonu]

Those both may have been me.

I got better though.