Legens&Lore: Monte Cook takes over

[Bedrockgames]

See, this is the problem with this conversation. Everyone seems to want to pick and choose which apples to compare.

If you compare core to core, 1e to 3e, there are almost no similarities. Every class, every mechanic, every monster has been changed. Everyone works very differently. If we go by what Bill91 is saying and start comparing late 1e and late 2e to 3e, then why can't we compare late 3e/3.5 to 4e?

And, things like warlocks, forex, are hardly late in the development cycle. Complete Arcane came out in what, 2004? it was one of the very early 3.5 splats. So, it's not like the idea of punting Vancian casting wasn't present pretty early on.

To me, it's a pretty easy line to follow - the later era edition shapes a great deal of the next edition. Most of the changes are pretty clearly visible in the earlier edition and then incorporated in the later one.

Yeah but you are talking about optional splat books and the rules for a couple of optional classes. In 4E they completely redid the approach to classes and powers. Sure they did it by taking elements that may have existed in various forms elsewhere in the game, but it produces a much different system in my mind. You may see a natural progression from 3E to 4E. That is fine, it is a subjective call. For me it veered in a much different direction than I expected and the end product didn't resemble previous editions closely enough for my tastes.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you compare core to core, 1e to 3e, there are almost no similarities. Every class, every mechanic, every monster has been changed. Everyone works very differently. If we go by what Bill91 is saying and start comparing late 1e and late 2e to 3e, then why can't we compare late 3e/3.5 to 4e?

I think we just differ on this (which is fine). For me if you show me the 1E classes and compare those with the 3E classes, they both have the same basic shape to me. There are some major differences of course. But I don't see that same similarity when I compare 2E (or 1E) classes to 4E (or 3E to 4E). I see a very different game.

We can argue this till we are blue in the face of course. Nothing I say can (or should) alter your affection for 4E, and nothing you can say will alter my dislike of it. Presumably we've both played it extensively enough to form solid opinions on it. These arguments tend to put too much stake in trying to convince the other side that their impression of an edition is misguided. But even if you proved to me that 4E is in fact the next natural step in the evolution of D&D, that wouldn't change my feelings toward 4E, it would just mean my understanding of why I don't like it is wrong. It is like trying to convince someone they like brocolli. If the person says i don't like brocolli because the texture is too rough and you convince them it is not in fact tough, they'll still hate brocolli.

 

[BryonD]

I'd say the largest changes in 4e have been to flavour, not to mechanics.

I'd greatly dispute that as being demonstrable.

The root of 1d20+mods vs DC doesn't go far at all in undoing the rather dramatic mechanical overhaul of the bulk of system in establishing what those mods and DCs are.

Every class has the exact same +1/2 BAB
No skill points / Every class / every skill +1/2 level
healing surges
minions
monsters and PCs are mechanically different than PCs (this alone is HUGE)
1-1-1 diagonals
powers system that is the mechanics backbone
DCs based on character level, not intrinsic to the item or situation
I'm sure I could go on and on, but frankly, that already creates a night and day difference that simply rolling a D20 doesn't put a dent into. And it has simply been too long since I played 4E to recall more shooting from the hip here.


I do REALLY agree that the 3E is very different than prior edition claim is valid. I think the whole "our game is more true to the legacy" argument is stupid from both sides. Relative to 3E and 4E, prior editions are reasonably consistent. And, frankly and imo, before 3E came along D&D had really stagnated. Much better systems were out there. 3E was a massive success on large part because it saw that and learned from other games and flat out stole a lot of great ideas that other designers came up with first.

Yes, you can point to this or that in either 3E or 4E that harkens back. And you can point to radical departures for each.

But suggesting that 3E and 4E are primarily the same except for flavor is just a bizarre claim.

 

[ggroy]

I thought he was writing sci-fi/fantasy in the non-gaming genre.

Monte Cook wrote a book on conspiracies.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Guide-Conspiracies-Assassination-Controversial/dp/B0058M7TWC"]Amazon.com: The Skeptic's Guide to Conspiracies: From the Knights Templar to the JFK Assassination: Uncovering the [Real] Truth Behind the World's Most Controversial Conspiracy Theories: Monte Cook: Books[/ame]


No idea how good or bad it is.

 

[TheClone]

Just let me throw this in, when talking about what 5e might become. On our blog someone wrote that he things 5e might get a modular approach. One very simple core system (like Mearls musings are) and optional packages for further additions, like skills and whatever. Or even, and that sounds much more tempting to me, doing all the specific stuff for different campaign settings as modules. Like a set for modern, another for Eberron.

I find the idea of a common subsystem and additions for settings pretty interesting, as long as e.g. the fantasy settings will not differ totally. But the idea of having optional rules for everything is pretty scary. Sounds like every single group is playing by different rules then and you have to negotiate rules before starting even to build a character.

 

[Mark CMG]

Just let me throw this in, when talking about what 5e might become. On our blog someone wrote that he things 5e might get a modular approach. One very simple core system (like Mearls musings are) and optional packages for further additions, like skills and whatever. Or even, and that sounds much more tempting to me, doing all the specific stuff for different campaign settings as modules. Like a set for modern, another for Eberron.

I find the idea of a common subsystem and additions for settings pretty interesting, as long as e.g. the fantasy settings will not differ totally. But the idea of having optional rules for everything is pretty scary. Sounds like every single group is playing by different rules then and you have to negotiate rules before starting even to build a character.

Indeed. Make it simple but keep it simple. Adding tons of rules bloat to a supposedly simple system, when it is released in official form, and especially when the publisher of the supposedly simple system requires a bottomline revenue stream, might as well be claiming it is all official and core. An occasional optional rule to handle some isolated and unususal circumstance (like laser rifle rules in a 5E Blackmoor setting supplement, some sailing rules for a naval setting book, some mass combat rules for a war supplement) is one thing. Book upon book of addtional so-called "optional" character classes or builds (paricularly when tourneys and organized play will likely make them all officially allowable to players who might want to use the options), isn't really just modular optional rules.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I find the idea of a common subsystem and additions for settings pretty interesting, as long as e.g. the fantasy settings will not differ totally. But the idea of having optional rules for everything is pretty scary. Sounds like every single group is playing by different rules then and you have to negotiate rules before starting even to build a character.

Which might pose a problem.

It isn't a big hurdle if you want to join a campaign; just check with the DM and generate your character accordingly. Heck, it might even be an advantage that the system blueprint tells you something about the style of the group.

But what about one-off games, pickup games, store events and stuff like that? These types of games would become more complicated as there's no reliable baseline with which to work.

And now we have another interesting question about D&D's future: what is the intended or implied model of playing? Will it be campaigning as we know it or a more episodic model, easy to get in, easy to drop out?

 

[delericho]

Just let me throw this in, when talking about what 5e might become. On our blog someone wrote that he things 5e might get a modular approach. One very simple core system (like Mearls musings are) and optional packages for further additions, like skills and whatever.

Indeed. I'm pretty much convinced now that, in order to attract any decent numbers of new players, the core game really needs to present the simplest version of the game possible. Additional complexity can then be added in supplements, for those who want it.

But going with approx 1,000 pages of core rules is just madness - the game shouldn't be that complex!

But the idea of having optional rules for everything is pretty scary. Sounds like every single group is playing by different rules then and you have to negotiate rules before starting even to build a character.

Unfortunately, that's the necessary trade off. People like different things in gaming, and if the game becomes the really simple version I would like to see, with no option for further expansion, a huge number of people would immediately be turned off. I think you do need the scope to add those options to reasonably cover the bases.

Adding tons of rules bloat to a supposedly simple system, when it is released in official form, and especially when the publisher of the supposedly simple system requires a bottomline revenue stream, might as well be claiming it is all official and core.

This is very true, and quite sad. In all honesty, I think the chances of WotC ever producing my ideal version of D&D are incredibly slim - they'll either parse out the core to an extent that you need many supplements to meaningfully play (even 4e was too limiting in the first three books, IMO), or they'll package every rules supplement as a "must-have". Either way, the game bloats in a manner that just doesn't interest me.

 

[billd91]

Is the game different? Oh sure. No question there. But, most of 4e is immedietely recognizable from it's 3e origins. I'd say the largest changes in 4e have been to flavour, not to mechanics. In 3e, the reverse was true. The largest changes were mechanical, not in flavour.

Again, I cannot agree with you there. There were large flavor changes and mechanical changes that were at least as large in the 3e to 4e shift that did a lot to shift that flavor. I don't see nearly as much preservation of core mechanical principles of 1e/2e or even 3e in the transition from 3e to 4e as I can see from 1e/2e to 3e.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Maybe the game can take divergent paths? 4e Essentials has gone very basic D&D in that it is a more simplified game with fewer options in a red box. Maybe Monte can help write a new AD&D?

I'd love to see a version of AD&D back in print. Since WotC is understandably reluctant to have multiple versions of D&D in print at the same time, I think they'd have to publish a new version of AD&D without the D&D name on it.

The only way I can see something like this happening is if WotC took the Greyhawk setting and spun it off into its own product line. They could call it something like "Greyhawk Adventures" and have the rulebook be a fusion of the Greyhawk setting with an AD&D-based ruleset at its core.

Dragonlance had its own spin-off RPG and there were recent plans for a Ravenloft spin-off RPG (which got cancelled), so there is a precedent for a D&D setting becoming its own standalone RPG.