Legens&Lore: Monte Cook takes over

[Balesir]

I don't know. For me the problem is I like the first three editions, it is a great go-to fantasy game, and I really don't like the 4th edition. I just want to see something like the old product back. Even if 4E wasn't part of the D&D line, it wouldn't appeal to me. Just not my cup of tea.

Yep, understood - and I'm fine with that; each to their own. I just let my frustration show, somewhat, in my previous post, but having found a system that really works for me, for a specific playstyle, I despair to see folks trying to bury it just because it's not the D&D they want. I am the converse of you, I guess; I would find 4E a thoroughly worthwhile system if it was not called "D&D". And, right now, that (unavailable) option looks to have a lot of advantages to it.

It just feels like they focused the product to the point where a lot of the existing customer base got turned off (but a narrow band was really into it). It is their call and I don't think they owe me anything as a consumer. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on which edition of D&D I like and where I would like to see them go.

Sure. I'm not sure how "narrow" the band is, but it's clear that some folk were turned off by "gamist D&D".

To some extent I agree with this. But I think 4E went too far. Is just too inspired by things like GNS theory. I don't want a "coherent" D&D system. I want one that appeals to a broad range of tastes.

I honestly don't think that's feasible. 3.X came as close as D&D has ever got to being "gamist capable" before 4E came along. Arguably it is a system capable of being "interpreted" or "modified" to suit a range of agendas/styles. The problem is, having seen 4E, I would never go back. 3.X just has no remaining "USP" for me - what I was using it for, 4E has bettered in every way. For those using it in different ways, this is far from true, of course.

I think the simultaneously best and worst WotC could achieve is to produce a "focussed" game for Sim Fantasy much as 4E is "focussed" for Gamism. No really sweet Sim fantasy model exists, so far - some come close (and are definitely better than D&D in any edition), but the "killer app" has yet to appear. This would be the "best" wotC could do because it would please those hankering for Sim just as 4E pleases those hankering for Gam; but it would simultaneously be the "worst", since those customers would never be able to go back to a compromised system, either!

 

[Balesir]

However, if it came to it, if there was another game that did the job, it would make a good substitute. However at the moment there actually isn't anything that quite hits the spot.

I think this is a key point. There are some systems that support Sim Fantasy OK - GURPS, Riddle of Steel, DragonQuest and HarnMaster spring to mind - but none of them are really "killer" at it. If one came along that was as good as 4E is at Gamist, I think I would have found the last two systems I need ever buy!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I honestly don't think that's feasible. 3.X came as close as D&D has ever got to being "gamist capable" before 4E came along. Arguably it is a system capable of being "interpreted" or "modified" to suit a range of agendas/styles. The problem is, having seen 4E, I would never go back. 3.X just has no remaining "USP" for me - what I was using it for, 4E has bettered in every way. For those using it in different ways, this is far from true, of course.

I think it is totally feasible. It will anger some of the 4E die-hards not doubt. But most gamers I know aren't after a purely "gamist" or purely "simulationist" experience. They want D&D that hits all the right buttons without going too far in one direction. I see no reason why one must design with things like GNS theory in mind or why if one choses to embrace GNS one couldn't hit a good middle ground between different areas of focus. IMO 4E just feels too much like a game. 3E was a little too far in that direction as well, but I could tolerate it.

I think the simultaneously best and worst WotC could achieve is to produce a "focussed" game for Sim Fantasy much as 4E is "focussed" for Gamism. No really sweet Sim fantasy model exists, so far - some come close (and are definitely better than D&D in any edition), but the "killer app" has yet to appear. This would be the "best" wotC could do because it would please those hankering for Sim just as 4E pleases those hankering for Gam; but it would simultaneously be the "worst", since those customers would never be able to go back to a compromised system, either!

But I don't want that either. If I wanted sim fantasy I'd have been playing a game more like rolemaster or runequest (which are great games, but not what I have in mind when I play D&D). The thing I liked about D&D was it was a kind of middle ground for me. It wasn't too far in the direction of simulationism. It wasn't too far in the direction of gamism. I think we may simply have different takes on these things (I recall we had a discussion something like this before and wouldn't want to drag this thread into a debate over GNS). But I guess I just don't view these things as mutually exlusive. I believe they can be balanced out to varying degrees.

 

[Pentius]

It seems to me, as someone who has put a few years in playing each system, that 3e looks more like 1e, but 4e feels more like 1e.

3e(or 3.5, or whatever) has a lot of elements one can point to and say "That was also in 1e!". You open the books, and you see alignment restrictions, you see vancian magic, you see wands with charges. You see a 3rd level spell called Fireball, etc. But in aggregate, the 3e rules play very differently than the 1e rules they look similar to. PCs and NPCs were made with the same rules, but 3e brought a higher level of transparency to those rules. This, along with a tighter core math system, meant that NPCs in 3e were very often a 'known quantity' to the players. With multiclassing, it looked similar(my character can drop being a Fighter and start being a Cleric!), but with the restrictions gutted, and so many classes having great stuff in the first few levels, a system that was originally about a character changing careers once or maybe twice in his lifetime was changed to something where you could have a new class each level. Class balance was still largely based around the idea that Fighting-Men were stronger at first, with Casters being better in the long haul, but loosened restrictions on casting created a system where Fighting-Men were surpassed quicker and harder by the Casters.

Conversely, 4e has many elements one can point to and say, "What the heck is that and why is it in my D&D!?" 4e has encounter powers, and healing surges, and 1/2 level mod. It has nice things for fighters, and no alignment restrictions and took out most vancian casting. It has Rituals, and treasure parcels, and primary attack stats, I mean come on, guys, I can attack with my Charisma? I guess looks really can kill. But, in practice, I'm finding(especially as a DM) that 4e feels more like 1e. Splitting the PC and NPC rules turned NPCs back into an 'unknown quantity'. In 3e, between rules transparency and divinations, it could be really hard to surprise a party. In 4e, though, I find my players huddled up in a safe corner, sending the Thief(an Assassin, for us) out into the next area, to scout it out. Our caster needs our fighter. There simply won't ever be a point where he can sit safe without his party. But the fighter needs the caster, too. Needs his flexibility, needs his knowledge. 4e often gets dinged for having less non-combat rules, but this too harkens to 1e. DM adjucations and rulings are a big part of play in my 4e campaign, because the PCs are going to get into situations the rules don't cover.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... The thing I liked about D&D was it was a kind of middle ground for me. It wasn't too far in the direction of simulationism. It wasn't too far in the direction of gamism. I think we may simply have different takes on these things (I recall we had a discussion something like this before and wouldn't want to drag this thread into a debate over GNS). But I guess I just don't view these things as mutually exlusive. I believe they can be balanced out to varying degrees.

I think that a well-designed version of D&D could be done that went for a very middle of the road appeal on GNS grounds. And I even agree that is the way that D&D should be done. However, I don't think many of the people calling for such would be very satisfied with that version. (I do think a lot of people would like it, but not necessary the ones calling for it.)

You do a well-designed game on those grounds, you are threading some tight channels. The ripple effects go throughout the system, and lead to all kinds of necessary choices that people don't like, because they don't see why they are necessary. So what many people actually want when they want no focus on any particular GNS element is they want the game to include a lot of the stuff they like and not include a lot of stuff they don't like. Make classes this archetypical, but preserve that much choices. Keep this class, race, spell etc. Lose the other one. Use that mechanic for damage, not this one. Trouble is, when you add up all the individual lists--when they aren't outright mutually exclusive, they are at least incoherent (plain English incoherent, not Forge-speak). Put my stuff in, and if that means the design is compromised, tough!

Down that route is merely a bunch of fantasy heartbreakers for 1E, 2E, 3E, or even 4E or PF. Before WotC did that, they'd be better served to obtain rights to RM, RQ, Fantasy Hero, GURPS Fantasy, and so forth. They already have the rights to Dragon Quest. Then do a slimmed down version of those games with a D&D sensibility, slap the D&D logo on the cover, and call it a day. It would cost less, and be a better product than a rewrite/rehash of 1E, et. al., as a means of putting idiosyncratic preferences into official print. Not saying that it would be a good idea, but it would be a better idea than the rehash.

 

[WheresMyD20]

There already *IS* a version of AD&D in print. It's called 'Amazon.com'.

Amazon.com: Used and New: Dungeon Master Guide (Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition, Core Rulebook/2160)

There you go. Used 2nd edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guides ranging from $1.99 to $6.00.

THIS is exactly why WotC will not EVER reprint (at least in printed book form) another version of AD&D. Because if you can buy copies of the original game for $1.99 and there six pages of these books available that nobody seems to be picking up... that tells us there is NO MARKET for this game. Sure, a few of you might pick it up either as a novelty or because there's a handful of you still playing 2nd edition... but there is not now nor will there ever be ENOUGH of you to warrant an actual reprint of the game that will turn WotC a profit worth going through the hassle to do it in the first place.

Mark_CMG's comments above are spot-on. There's a big difference between being actively supported and having 80 or so used copies available on amazon.com

Anyway, there are also 40 or so copies of D&D v3.5 available used on amazon.com. Still, Pathfinder is doing well, so there is certainly still a market for third edition even though there are used books out there. I don't think the fact there are some used AD&D books out there means that there's no market for the game.

I think if WotC gave AD&D a "fresh coat of paint" and married it to the Greyhawk setting & brand-name, it would do just fine on its own. Certainly, there are those who want a classic style game and by giving them their own product line under the "Greyhawk" brand name, they could capture that market without causing confusion regarding the D&D brand name, which now belongs to the 4e product line.

 

[SSquirrel]

An easy example in D&D might be the complexity of the weapon lists. You might have a base option Weapon B in the base game, much like the Red Box list, where you have 20 or so of the most iconic weapons, and damage ranges and abilities don't vary much. Then you have ultra simple option Weapon S where weapons are just color, all do the same damage, and about the only changes are in melee versus ranged. Then finally you have complex option Weapon C where the list is rather comprehensive, with real difference in mechanical effect, divided into groups, etc.

There was a great thread on weapons as special effects a few years back here on ENWorld. The gist was that you could have different classes having set damage dice and use feats to improve that. It wouldn't matter what weapon you used, you did that much damage. One of the prime examples was Jackie Chan beating people up w/a door, a staff, a ladder, etc. He still kicks the crap out of them no matter what he uses.

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.

November 2004 to be precise.

I like Monte Cook. But he was no fan of 4E. This seems like a strange decision based almost entirely on money for Monte rather than love of the game. Unless of course he's also there to help get D&D back to being D&D. That would be nice, though I'm pretty heavily committed to Pathfinder now.

Many of us still consider 4E to be D&D and quite happily so. I seem to recall a quick post or 2 from Monte when 4E was first coming out, but they were largely discussions about how the GSL was not going to allow him to make the games in a manner that was financially stable for him and he didn't like the mechanics as well as 3.x. I haven't seen anything since. That's 3 years ago. Maybe he tried 4E and found he enjoyed it. Stranger things have happened.

 

[billd91]

PCs and NPCs were made with the same rules, but 3e brought a higher level of transparency to those rules. This, along with a tighter core math system, meant that NPCs in 3e were very often a 'known quantity' to the players.

I read that and had to ask myself, "What version of 1e were you playing?" In 1e, NPCs weren't exactly unknown quantities to the players. 0-level humans were all over the place. Humanoids had limited hit dice outside of specific leaders, whose hit dice were also limited.

Our experience was that 3e really opened the horizons on NPCs and humanoids. Players had to learn fairly quickly that goblins weren't simply 1-1 HD fodder, sweepable by fighters of any level. That was a departure from 1e style play, but a pretty welcome one to those of us behind the screen.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Our experience was that 3e really opened the horizons on NPCs and humanoids. Players had to learn fairly quickly that goblins weren't simply 1-1 HD fodder, sweepable by fighters of any level. That was a departure from 1e style play, but a pretty welcome one to those of us behind the screen.

HELL YES.

I'll never forget the time when my players came across a group of orcs picking off what was left of a caravan and thought that because they were 3-4th level characters that is was going to be a cakewalk.

Right up until the Orc leader flipped out and went all RAGEY on them and his second in command almost killed the party rogue and fighter with one well placed cleave. I mean the PC's won the day but after that fight they were like "WTF!?!" You better believe everytime they came across what they thought were steamroll encounters they thought twice about just charging in all willy-nilly.

This is one of the reasons that I love 3x/Pathfinder. I love customizing the hell out of monsters. Trailblazer really gives a good philosophy on doing it with less of a mess as well. Basically saying if you want to give a creature levels in a class with out super inflating the HP of the creature just build the creature using the HD & levels of the class ignoring the actual creature HD or vice versa (use the creature HD and not the class HD/HP) it's been a while since I looked at it and dont have it in front of me but it helped make my life easier in my monster builds that's for sure.

At least until I got HeroLab...

 

[Hussar]

I read that and had to ask myself, "What version of 1e were you playing?" In 1e, NPCs weren't exactly unknown quantities to the players. 0-level humans were all over the place. Humanoids had limited hit dice outside of specific leaders, whose hit dice were also limited.

Our experience was that 3e really opened the horizons on NPCs and humanoids. Players had to learn fairly quickly that goblins weren't simply 1-1 HD fodder, sweepable by fighters of any level. That was a departure from 1e style play, but a pretty welcome one to those of us behind the screen.

I think you've missed his point. If, as ShinHakkaider's example shows, the orc goes all ragey on the party, the players know instantly that the orc has X levels of barbarian. Sure, the very first time this happens, it might be a surprise, but, after that, it's not.

Monsters were built however the heck you wanted in 1e and 2e. If I wanted my orcs to have 4 HD and a 19 strength, I could (and did - Blackrock orcs had a large dash of ogre blood in them). I didn't have to explain it, and, looking at various modules, for example, Tomb of Horrors, you have monsters which are completely divorced from the rules - the Four Armed Gargoyle and the Giant Skeleton.

If I wanted my Sage to know some esoteric bit of trivia, he did. I didn't have to make him a 14th level Expert with the combat capabilities of a CR 13 creature to do so.

I think this is more what's being referenced when they talk about PC's and NPC's not following the same rules.