New Legends & Lore (Rules, rules, rules)

[Salamandyr]

I do appreciate that they've moved away from the binary polls. There's even an "other" option.

I found the statement that "rule takes away the DM's ability to make a judgment call in her game" jarring. This is not at all how I think about rules when I run the game. I see them as tools that I can use to help me make judgements.

I don't make PCs roll to climb a ladder. At the same time, I've never climbed anything more difficult than the trees in my backyard when I was a kid. How am I going to judge if the halfling thief can climb the wall of the wizard's tower? I'll take a rule for that any day.

A little OT, but still in the realm of skill use; your post reminded me of something that really bugged me about 3e and continues in Pathfinder and 4th edition.

The abilities of the thief once represented actual "special abilities", like the ability to climb walls and hide in shadows. Note this isn't just hiding behind things, or climbing trees. This was, "if it's a dark room, you can hide" and, "handholds, footholds? Who needs them? Get up there!". As those special abilities got turned into skills, the thief essentially lost them. Yes, he can stealth, but needs concealment--something to hide in, or behind, and if that thing happens to be fog or shadows, he actually loses the ability to make a sneak attack anyway. Climbing walls became just a harder version of climbing trees, which the rogue gained no bonus for, and was often hampered by low strength.

One thing I'd like to see with any change is a return to rogues/thieves actually being able to do things with their skills that other classes can't do, like hide in the corner of a torchlit room, or climb supposedly impossible to climb walls that stymy others.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes. Early editions had a lot of emergent gameplay that has been lost because of the hard-coding of recent editions.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Conservative appeals to tradition will result in stagnation. With few exceptions, this column reads more and more like groundhog day. After two editions of some-what progressive formats, I seriously don't think an exercise in re-thinking the past is terribly useful.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Conservative appeals to tradition will result in stagnation. With few exceptions, this column reads more and more like groundhog day.

I think it is more about producing a consistent evolution of the product that preserves brand identity and appeals to the greatest number of people possible. Obviously broken rules need to be fixed and changes need to be made. But the question is how much of a break from previous editions do you make.

 

[Salamandyr]

Conservative appeals to tradition will result in stagnation. With few exceptions, this column reads more and more like groundhog day. After two editions of some-what progressive formats, I seriously don't think an exercise in re-thinking the past is terribly useful.

I find your use of "conservative" and "progressive" interesting. But seriously, not all change is progress. There are some things that 3rd edition did better than earlier editions. There are some things that 4th edition did better. However, there are some things that they did either worse, or did in a way that was new, but bad.

For instance, while you may feel that adding a skill system to D&D was progress, (and I'd say most people believe such) much of the way it was done in 3rd edition was, well, rather unsatisfying. And, at least to me, the changes it wrought in the system, like the way any action in the game devolves down to a die roll, to be not "progress", but mutation.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I find your use of "conservative" and "progressive" interesting. But seriously, not all change is progress. There are some things that 3rd edition did better than earlier editions. There are some things that 4th edition did better. However, there are some things that they did either worse, or did in a way that was new, but bad.

Yeah, I know. That's why I said "some-what".

But the question is how much of a break from previous editions do you make.

Well, that's my point. If you worry about this question too much then you get a hodgepodge of old/new ideas that goes stale.

 

[Salamandyr]

Well then, if something in a new version of D&D made the game worse, then wouldn't bringing back the superior mechanics that preceded the change be "progress"?

EDIT: Answering my own question. It's not progress or regression. In fact, the term progress is completely irrelevant to the conversation here. They're just different games. 4e isn't "better" than 1e because it has healing surges and skill checks. It's just a different game, one that some people might like better and others might like worse, for exactly the same things. There aren't any empirical measurements to show we are getting closer or farther away from some Platonic ideal of gaming.

From WOTC's position, they obviously want to find the combination of factors that will appeal to the broadest spectrum of gamers, but even then, the game won't necessarily be "better" to me or to you. It will just be different.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Ugh, I voted for the 3rd option but really wish that there was an option 2.5. I could have written the 3rd option much more concisely than he did.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Well then, if something in a new version of D&D made the game worse, then wouldn't bringing back the superior mechanics that preceded the change be "progress"?

Not really. That would imply that the older mechanic is superior.

 

[Salamandyr]

Not really. That would imply that the older mechanic is superior.

Isn't it the case that sometimes the older mechanic is superior? You imply such when you say that 3e and 4e are "some what progressive"