I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[GregoryOatmeal]

I can say that there is a definitive D&D and it was Gygax's, not WotC's D&D.

There should be a definitive stripped down D&D based on an older model, then follow that will books that add crunch for those with the time to bother with it (I'm fine without, personally). People with busy lives and/or professional careers can't accomodate rules-bloat in their games. Strip the thing right down.

If you haven't played it yet you should definitely try Castles and Crusades. That's exactly what it is. It's 1E without fidgety rules but with some of the more intuitive 3E innovations (like ascending armor class, not feats and skills that just seem to make the book and character sheet bigger). I think Gygax worked as a consultant on it. It's fast and awesome and great for drawing in the folks that used to play a little D&D but don't have time to learn rules. Personally for me that's the definitive D&D but I've realized for most people that's 3.5. Hopefully it'll stay in print and the core won't change.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Have you ever played Monopoly? I used to think it was a great board game back when I didn't know any board games. Now I play board games that I like a lot better, like Goa, Agricola, etc.

Would the OP be fine with if D&D when with a Monopoly type business model, and it basis it used was the edition you hated the most?

Yeah I've played Monopoly. It's sort of okay until towards the end when it turns into a big slog. The point was how popular games don't trip up by making constant major revisions. No other game could get away with the changes like D&D saw from 1999-2009. I suspect your board games wouldn't do that either (if they did revamp the game entirely they wouldn't entirely discontinue a popular product).

If WOTC committed to keeping any edition of D&D or a clone in print with new products I'd be fine. Personally I'd prefer the game not be 4E since it doesn't unify gamers, so many people don't consider it D&D, the rules are incompatible with just about every other D&D product, and matters of personal taste. But if people can unify behind it and I don't have to learn new rules and convince other people to buy books, that's cool. They're all good but imperfect games.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Actually, football has gone through major rules changes throughout its history. It started as that game where you kick the ball ("association football", "soccer", or just "football" outside the US). At some point rules were added for picking up the ball with your hands and the game of football changed ("union football" or "rugby"). Then, some rugby players in the US added rules for throwing the ball forward and football changed again ("American football"). There's also an Australian version ("Australian football"). All four are different and distinct games, but they all share a common history. Which is the "definitive" version of football?

Interesting analogy. Well at this point rugby is the definitive rugby. Clearly each grew into their own games that are actively supported by a stable set of rules, a fanbase, and the production of new content. But Rugby didn't kill high school football or cancel the NFL. And the new NFL rules definitely didn't cause a rival football league to catch on.

1E and 3.5 and a bunch of other editions are no longer produced. Obviously nothing is stopping me from buying the used copies of a book if I want to. But it's very disingenuous to say the variety of editions is not a major deterrent to getting a game going. Lots of people don't want to buy new books, read new rules, or play an edition besides the one they grew up with or own. Choice of edition has to be one of the biggest deal-breakers for getting people to commit to a campaign. In a way there's like 8 dead D&D editions (BECMI, 2.5, perhaps 4E Essentials...) that each require shared comprehension of out-of-print books and rules by a diverse group of players that can be quite opinionated. And those old 1E and 3.5 books will get covered in pizza stains and their bindings will break. I know PF is carrying the 3.5 torch and that's great, it's probably a better game than 3.5, but it's just another divison, another big book to buy full of slightly different rules to memorize. And I wouldn't have wanted it if 3.5 was still produced - there simply wouldn't be any need for this slightly different clone of an existing game. These things logistically makes it hard to play D&D casually.

If there was a big enough base to support 1E, 3.5, and 4E that's great. They could each blossom into their own games like Rugby. But if the partitioning of editions doesn't stop soon we'll have eight major versions of D&D, half of which are supported, all of which require big expensive books that may not even be compatible. 5E is just moving in the wrong direction. Choice is great but if everyone has to agree on the same thing it makes consensus more difficult. I've never been able to get really settled in to any roleplaying game to feel like I'm even using half the rules in the core books.

It's interesting how games evolve. We could be in the birthing stages of a bunch of enduring roleplaying games - roleplaying is still fairly new. Which is cool and has advantages and disadvantages. I just hope the dust eventually settles and some of the games stick. Maybe one day 4E will be a supported independent game like Rugby, while a few more editions are supported and have active communities. The Football/Rugby is the best-case scenario.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Interesting analogy. Well at this point rugby is the definitive rugby. Clearly each grew into their own games that are actively supported by a stable set of rules, a fanbase, and the production of new content. But Rugby didn't kill high school football or cancel the NFL. And the new NFL rules definitely didn't cause a rival football league to catch on.

Just looking at American football, there's NFL (pro) rules, NCAA (college) rules, NFHS (high school) rules, CFL (Canadian pro) rules, and UFL (minor league pro) rules. All of the leagues fall under the category of American football, but they all do have significantly differing rules.

For example, the NFL and NCAA have different rules on what constitutes and in-bounds catch (one foot in for NCAA, both feet in for NFL). The CFL uses a one-yard neutral zone between the offense and defense where the other leagues use the length of the ball. The CFL also has the field goal uprights aligned with the goal line, while the others use the back of the end zone. The UFL is pretty close to the NFL (mainly since it's a replacement for NFL Europe), but it does have different rules on what constitutes a legal formation. NFHS uses 12-minute quarters while the others use 15. These are just a handful of examples, there are plenty more.

From a fan's perspective, if you understand the basics of American football, you can watch and enjoy any of the leagues. From a player's, coach's, or (especially) referee's perspective, you need to know the specific rules you're playing by.

Which rule set is the definitive version of American football? Most might say NFL rules, but there are a lot of die-hard college fans that would say NCAA. Canadians might say CFL. I've met people who say high school is the purest form of the game, so they might say NFHS. I doubt anyone would argue for UFL... but that still leaves us with 4 sets of rules that could be considered "definitive" depending on who you ask.

 

[prosfilaes]

Interesting analogy. Well at this point rugby is the definitive rugby.

I think sports analogies are inappropriate here. There is no proprietary owner of rugby or football, and the owners of the NFL don't make money by selling the game to players, instead making it by exhibiting games to watchers.

1E and 3.5 and a bunch of other editions are no longer produced.

Not produced under the name D&D. Most of them are pretty much still out there under some name.

Lots of people don't want to buy new books, read new rules, or play an edition besides the one they grew up with or own.

What motivation does WotC have to cater to them? My issue, which I don't see where you've addressed, is that this is not a financially feasible action. If you want to sell to people who don't want to buy new books, you've got to sell to tens of millions of them, like Monopoly does. I never actually saw a Red Box in a Walmart; until you've solidly cracked that market, they'll have to sell to people who buy new books.

Choice of edition has to be one of the biggest deal-breakers for getting people to commit to a campaign. In a way there's like 8 dead D&D editions (BECMI, 2.5, perhaps 4E Essentials...) that each require shared comprehension of out-of-print books and rules by a diverse group of players that can be quite opinionated. ... 5E is just moving in the wrong direction. Choice is great but if everyone has to agree on the same thing it makes consensus more difficult.

(I stare at my shelf full of roleplaying games, things like Traveller and GURPS 3e, GURPS 4e, Over the Edge, TORG, Underground, Nobilis, Aberrant, In Nomine, Trail of Cthulhu and the Mountain Witch.) <sarcasm>You have my deepest sympathy; I can't imagine what it must be like to have to pick among so many vastly different systems. And they're threatening to come out with another one; how horrible.</sarcasm>

It's interesting how games evolve. We could be in the birthing stages of a bunch of enduring roleplaying games - roleplaying is still fairly new.

We could be. If so, I don't put much hope in WotC being the harbinger of this change. Look towards Call of Cthulhu, which actually has stayed fairly stable over the years. Look towards fan games and the OSR, which hopefully can keep the same game available for decade after decade without worrying about the lack of sales. Look towards people who can do this, instead of towards a company that's dependent on a level of sales inconsistent with your enduring stable RPG.

 

[MGibster]

One of the problems with keeping to absolutely one edition is that preferences change over the years. Generally speaking, I don't care for the same kinds of movies, food or even music at 30+ that I favored when I was 15. The same is true of role playing games. What was perfectly fine in 8th grade (2nd edition AD&D) was no longer acceptable by the time I was twenty. AD&D 2nd edition didn't suddenly get worse, my interest simply changed.

 

[Hussar]

This started as another rant about why WOTC should reprint 3.5 but forked into a related train of thought.

/snip Back in the day you just said "2E" or "3E" and people showed up and knew what to do.

/snip

This little part of the quote seems to have gotten passed over but, I'm going to call shenanigans here. This is simply not even close to true.

You say, "I'm running a 3e game" and I show up with an Unearthed Arcana gestalt character built using Scarred lands Relics and Rituals and races from Races of Stone and you're going to have zero problems with me sitting down and playing?

I don't think so.

The same goes for 2e. With several HUNDRED supplements for 2e, the odds of you coming to the table, sight unseen, with a character that is going to fit into any given campaign are slim to none. Skills and Powers? Faiths and Avatars?

I mean, heck, take three 2e clerics - one built with only the 2e PHB, one built with Faiths and Avatars and one built with the Complete Priests Handbook and you're going to have completely different characters.

But everyone is playing the same game? I don't think so.

 

[Hussar]

An additional thought.

Critics are very quick to point at 4e and say how different it is from previous editions. Yet, whenever anyone claims that you can do something in 4e that is either difficult or impossible to do in earlier editions, the very same people are equally quick to point out how these things aren't actually different at all, that the earlier editions can do every single thing that 4e can do (and probably do it better).

Yet, if the game is so vastly different than earlier editions, shouldn't it be able to do things that other editions can't? How can a game be so completely different on one hand, yet incapable of doing anything different on the other?

It almost seems like 4e is only allowed to be different from earlier editions if that difference can be painted in a negative light.

So, which is it? Is it a totally different game with almost no ties to previous editions or is it an evolutionary link in a constantly evolving game?

------------

Oh, and just a point about Monopoly. The idea that there is one way to play Monopoly is also ludicrous. What happens when you land on Free Parking? What happens when I land on a space and don't buy the property?

The answer to that is going to vary pretty strongly from table to table - basic, fundamental rules that are entirely game changing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

An additional thought.

Critics are very quick to point at 4e and say how different it is from previous editions. Yet, whenever anyone claims that you can do something in 4e that is either difficult or impossible to do in earlier editions, the very same people are equally quick to point out how these things aren't actually different at all, that the earlier editions can do every single thing that 4e can do (and probably do it better).

Yet, if the game is so vastly different than earlier editions, shouldn't it be able to do things that other editions can't? How can a game be so completely different on one hand, yet incapable of doing anything different on the other?

It almost seems like 4e is only allowed to be different from earlier editions if that difference can be painted in a negative light.

So, which is it? Is it a totally different game with almost no ties to previous editions or is it an evolutionary link in a constantly evolving game?

First, I think defenders and detractors on both sides should take a deep breath and realize this is just a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to like, not like or be indifferent to a given edition. They are also entitled to have an impression of the edition even if others don't share it.

I can see how someone may look at 4E and say it is pretty much the same as previous editions, but I can also see how someone would look at it and say it is a huge break (I personally would be in the later camp). What people are really saying is, "It feels different/the same to me".

I can also see how someone would say 4E is different from previous editions and it rocks because of it (in fact most people I meet who like it, praise it for taking such a bold design direction).

IMO it feels like a very different game in play to me. Everything from flavor to mechanics just feels different. We could debate it all day, but proving one poster online right or wrong won't make a single difference in the popularity of 4E.

One thing that does bother me is I see both sides starting to assume the worst about each other (not directed at you Hussar....this just got me thinking on that subject). From the pro-4E crowd I hear them call the critics "closed minded or affraid of anything new", from the anti-4E crowd I hear them call 4E folk "unimaginative players of WOW or balance freaks" (or similar insults). I don't think any of this does the people making the remarks any good. Why should I care if Hussar loves 4E and it does the same thing for him that previous editions did? Two people can watch the same movie and have two completely different, but equally valid, reactions. Same with games.

------------

 

[ANewPosterAppears]

This started as another rant about why WOTC should reprint 3.5 but forked into a related train of thought.

Well at that point you're basically playing two different games. You've discontinued a successful game and began steering people towards a new game that divides gamers into groups. If one of them or both was popular and stayed in print forever I'd be happy because at the very least I'd have a deep roleplaying game I could play with just about any gamer.

Personally I'd prefer the game not be 4E since it doesn't unify gamers, so many people don't consider it D&D, the rules are incompatible with just about every other D&D product, and matters of personal taste.

No please, tell us what you really think.

Frankly I got tired of hearing "WotC/TSR needs to make one big unified D&D (that is not the edition I hate)" last time it made the rounds when 3e came out. Or was it 3.5? So many nerd fights, hard to remember.