A difficult question

[Emerikol]

I don't ask this to be confrontational, but how much of 1e/2e did you play? For me 3e was the hugest, most ginormous change in my role playing experience. It was the first time that the game had a more or less unified rule set. In the old days, joining a new campaign was really tricky because, in my experience, each group ignored a large part of the rules that your previous game didn't, and emphasized rules that your previous group ignored. And there were always tons of house rules.

Try firing into melee using 1e rules: "Assign probabilities to each participant" (you've already lost me, Gary.) Half-value for s, 1.5 for L, "Total the values for each group and ratio one over the other." ..."Thus, 4/7=56pc or 60pc chance per missile..." (1e DMG pg63)

Did you know that the first time you listened at a door you may "keen-eared"? Neither did I.

Edit: Even with grognard nostalgia, I have not heard a call to start using "segments." Or, my personal favorite, the randomly generated prostitute table. The distinction among Sly Procuresses, Saucy Tarts, and Haughty Courtesans can be game changing.

I've been playing since the red box. I DM'd 1e.

A lot of the stuff there at the end of your post is fluff and not really systemic.

The firing into melee is clear to me? Assign weighted chances by size. I would probably assign 1 to small, 2 to medium, and 3 to large to keep it simple. I may think this is a lot of effort for what it gets me. But this kind of stuff is corner cases. I'm talking the basic structure of the game.

I agree that 3e was cleaned up math and standardized. It added feats and skills. That was additive. If you take away feats and skills, you have essentially the same game. It would look like a retroclone instead of 1e because of the math cleanup.

Sure in 1e there were lots of niggly rules and DMs tended to take them or leave them. That hopefully is very 5e and I'm for it. I don't consider that that big a change compared to what 4e did. It still looked like D&D to me. I do dislike that 3e got rules heavy and would prefer something rules lighter with more DM empowerment but thats me. I don't want 4e because I don't like it but even if I liked it I wouldn't think I was playing D&D if I didn't look at the name no the cover. I guarantee Gygax would have sued the pants off 3e if someone else had released it during the 1e era. He would have looked at 4e and shrugged and went on.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

4E wasn't a bigger change from 3.5E than 3E was from 2E. 4E was certainly further away from AD&D than 3E was, and the first statment may not be obvious to those who played 3E/3.5E as AD&D as opposed to those who played 3E as 3E.

 

[Emerikol]

4E wasn't a bigger change from 3.5E than 3E was from 2E. 4E was certainly further away from AD&D than 3E was, and the first statment may not be obvious to those who played 3E/3.5E as AD&D as opposed to those who played 3E as 3E.

I think I'm agreeing with this. If you counted units of change then 3e was a big change. But design concept wise 4e was farther removed. No arguments there. I guess I'm hoping that 5e will conceptually be more like pre-4e. I don't mind though if lots of rules are tweaked or even rewritten for balance. I'm sure I wouldn't like some but I mean I'm open generally to the idea.

 

[Grabuto138]

I've been playing since the red box. I DM'd 1e.

A lot of the stuff there at the end of your post is fluff and not really systemic.

The firing into melee is clear to me? Assign weighted chances by size. I would probably assign 1 to small, 2 to medium, and 3 to large to keep it simple. I may think this is a lot of effort for what it gets me. But this kind of stuff is corner cases. I'm talking the basic structure of the game.

I agree that 3e was cleaned up math and standardized. It added feats and skills. That was additive. If you take away feats and skills, you have essentially the same game. It would look like a retroclone instead of 1e because of the math cleanup.

Sure in 1e there were lots of niggly rules and DMs tended to take them or leave them. That hopefully is very 5e and I'm for it. I don't consider that that big a change compared to what 4e did. It still looked like D&D to me. I do dislike that 3e got rules heavy and would prefer something rules lighter with more DM empowerment but thats me. I don't want 4e because I don't like it but even if I liked it I wouldn't think I was playing D&D if I didn't look at the name no the cover. I guarantee Gygax would have sued the pants off 3e if someone else had released it during the 1e era. He would have looked at 4e and shrugged and went on.

The stuff at the end of my post was fluff, but also illustrated how fiddly 1e/2e rules were. They were so fiddly that every gaming group was pretty much playing a separate game.

But aside from the fluff at the end of my post, I still contend that, contrary to your post, 3e was a monumental change to the game. "Character Optimization," "P.e.a.c.h.", and all the other player-side facets to the community are based in a large part on the unified, largely agreed upon, set of rules that 3e created. Prior to 3e, it was a fool's errand to try to bring a leveled character into a new campaign since they, in all likelihood, were literally playing a different game.

Edit: I encourage any interested party who did not play 1e/2e to check out the DMG and PH. Emerikol suggested that firing into melee was a corner-case. But pretty much every rule was a corner case. Almost every rule was essentially its own system disconnected from everything else. Each gaming group picked some, ala carte, and dismissed others. For example, we mostly all agree on "standard/move/minor" plus "full round" if you are playing 3e. Many 1e/2e games dismissed segments entirely, which made for a completely different gaming experience.

 

[Animal]

I don't know how to answer this question, because i think about DnDNext in completely different terms.
I want it to be a fun game, that's all. I don't want devs to specifically cater to demands of the masses. When first edition was created there were no polls and public playtests. They just did their thing and many people saw it and said "Man, that's a game i want to play". Some people nitpicked at certain rules, houseruled heavily, but still loved it. So I want DnDNext to be a game i want to play and go from there.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But, in any case, 4e cannot really be cloned, regardless of how much demand might materialize if such a clone were as promptly available and as aggressively marketed as Pathfinder. Hasbro is a notoriously litigious company, happy to C&D or even sue even those who haven't quite technically infringed on its IP, knowing that they don't have the resources to defend themselves, and the GSL gives them what little excuse they need to do that.

This is a good and interesting point. But there is one good counter-example here. OSRIC. Hasbro hasn't sued them into submission.

The trick is you don't release under the GSL - that would be plain silly. You take advantage of the fact that 4e is a d20 game and release under the OGL. Game mechanics can not be patented, and so you need to re-write every bit of fluff text that you don't steal straight from the OGL.

There is no campaign to destroy 4e. We are talking of a new edition.

Bull! There's been a five year long campaign to destroy 4e starting before 4e was ever published with complaints like the Tyrrany of Fun and the Disassociated Mechanics that appeared before 4e was even published, and regularly including outright lies about what 4e is and how it works. I don't think it's been an organised campaign but it's been a campaign none the less.

AFICT, here, what's going on is that the industry has long since become niche, but D&D, resting on it's 'first RPG' laurels, can't face up to the fact. The niche of 2e was 'grognards who reject change,' niche of 3.x was 'power-mad system mastery,' and the niche of 4e was probably just 'casual play' (not that there wasn't plenty for serious gamers, but what it did /better/ than competing games was casual play).

One of several things. Another thing it does very well is 'non-power-mad system mastery'. I like my system mastery but I really don't like system mastery turning the game into a pretzel. Therefore I prefer 4e. It rewards me for system and tactical mastery without ruining everyone else's fun. A third thing it does is creates good DMs and works very well for new DMs.

It was a lot of fans say "What happened to my D&D?" Thats all. Just like you are talking about 5e right now. There will be a 6e you know. Is it destroying 5e? I guess so technically. But then 1e,2e,and 3e have all been destroyed correct?

No. The campaign right now from 4e fans is to get WotC in an act of brand-suicide to stop pissing off their existing fans in a way that makes the way they treated 3.5 fans round the production of 4e look positively polite.

One of the ill consequences of avoiding the system mastery issue is the loss of a lot of flavor elements.

Well it's a good job 4e doesn't do either then. What it does is not actively set out to reward System Mastery because that would be stupid. And compared with any previous edition a 4e fighter is positively dripping with flavour, and so is anyone else who isn't a Gygaxo-Vancian Caster. The 4e Monster Manuals have as much flavour as the 2e Monstrous Manual and leave the 1e ones and 3e ones in the dust. They just are produced to be used at the gaming table rather than read by the bedside.

I personally am as unreasonably biased for Monte as you are against. But not because of 3e. I just think he is the leading game design mind of our generation.

Eep! I rank him somewhere behind Ron Edwards. And I'm no fan of Ron Edwards.

Sure in 1e there were lots of niggly rules and DMs tended to take them or leave them. That hopefully is very 5e and I'm for it.

Why? It has all the downsides of being rules heavy and none of the upsides.

 

[Emerikol]

This is a good and interesting point. But there is one good counter-example here. OSRIC. Hasbro hasn't sued them into submission.

The trick is you don't release under the GSL - that would be plain silly. You take advantage of the fact that 4e is a d20 game and release under the OGL. Game mechanics can not be patented, and so you need to re-write every bit of fluff text that you don't steal straight from the OGL.

I'm 100% sure if there is a market there will be a game. In fact I suspect there will be a game anyway. I'm for it. I am not 100% sure there is a super big market for 4e when you have a different game with D&D on the label. But you don't need WOTC level sales to be successful as a small publisher. Look at Pathfinder.

Bull! There's been a five year long campaign to destroy 4e starting before 4e was ever published with complaints like the Tyrrany of Fun and the Disassociated Mechanics that appeared before 4e was even published, and regularly including outright lies about what 4e is and how it works. I don't think it's been an organised campaign but it's been a campaign none the less.

There has been outrage sure. Some guys at WOTC who thought they knew better swapped in another game and called it D&D. They've all been fired now by the way. Mike Mearls was at the bottom of the pyramid in those days and now he's at the top. But how do you even go about destroying a game? Saying you don't like it? Was their a campaign to keep it out of game stores? I mean sure I may personally get together with friends and decide to buy and play something different but thats always been true.

If you mean people have vociferously argued against the design philosophy of 4e in the hopes it doesn't appear too much in 5e then sure. Thats true every edition as well.

One of several things. Another thing it does very well is 'non-power-mad system mastery'. I like my system mastery but I really don't like system mastery turning the game into a pretzel. Therefore I prefer 4e. It rewards me for system and tactical mastery without ruining everyone else's fun. A third thing it does is creates good DMs and works very well for new DMs.

I'm not into system mastery. I am though against trying so hard to balance every single choice that many get eliminated from because they aren't good enough. Maybe a point buy feat system would be better. So I can buy two cheap ones instead of a good one. The loss is loss of flavor and fluff.

All of the profession/craft skills disappearing as skills was bad for me. Even though I know most of them aren't as useful as others for adventuring. That doesn't matter for me. I want the world modeled. I don't want excessive obsession with the game to the exclusion of world concerns.

No. The campaign right now from 4e fans is to get WotC in an act of brand-suicide to stop pissing off their existing fans in a way that makes the way they treated 3.5 fans round the production of 4e look positively polite.

It is my opinion that they cannot do worse than 4e did. Impossible in my opinion.

Well it's a good job 4e doesn't do either then. What it does is not actively set out to reward System Mastery because that would be stupid. And compared with any previous edition a 4e fighter is positively dripping with flavour, and so is anyone else who isn't a Gygaxo-Vancian Caster. The 4e Monster Manuals have as much flavour as the 2e Monstrous Manual and leave the 1e ones and 3e ones in the dust. They just are produced to be used at the gaming table rather than read by the bedside.

I didn't find the 4e fighter dripping with flavor. I found him full of gamish dissociative mechanic powers that added little or nothing to his flavor. Other than making the game one that is hard to take very seriously.

Eep! I rank him somewhere behind Ron Edwards. And I'm no fan of Ron Edwards.

I judge all work on it's own merits. And I don't go for adventures so I let Monte's go by mostly. But I love his games. I don't consider 3e "his" game. it was a committee design.

Why? It has all the downsides of being rules heavy and none of the upsides.

Because I think a smorgasboard of options that DMs choose to use or not is better than mandating everything. It's why I'm excited about 5e. I'm the guy you say doesn't exist. The guy who likes traditional D&D but wants something new in a new edition. We are a bigger faction than you think.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bull! There's been a five year long campaign to destroy 4e starting before 4e was ever published with complaints like the Tyrrany of Fun and the Disassociated Mechanics that appeared before 4e was even published, and regularly including outright lies about what 4e is and how it works. I don't think it's been an organised campaign but it's been a campaign none the less.

Yep. I think that's the real reason I ended up on the "4e" side of the edition war - I started out, as I usually do, skeptical of the new ed (particularly about the possibility that WotC might try to turn it into a CCG somehow - and, hey, there /are/ fortune cards, so they tried). But, I have a bit of a compulsion to speak up when something's mis-represented (in another thread, I was sticking up for 3e multi-classing, for instance), and, wow, did the mis-understanding, mis-representation, and outright lies about 4e come on thick.

One of several things. Another thing it does very well is 'non-power-mad system mastery'. I like my system mastery but I really don't like system mastery turning the game into a pretzel. Therefore I prefer 4e. It rewards me for system and tactical mastery without ruining everyone else's fun. A third thing it does is creates good DMs and works very well for new DMs.

4e, particularly the first two years, tried as hard as it could to avoid rewarding system mastery, and a lot of the continual stream of errata was spent in hammering down the system-mastery nails that stuck out. Yet there were /always/ optimized builds being bandied about. No game needs to 'support' or 'reward' system mastery intentionally, system mastery is unavoidable.

Why? It has all the downsides of being rules heavy and none of the upsides.

AD&D 1e has a special place in my heart, but that's the unvarnished truth. It was an early game, and it was intentionally a rules-heavy game with lots of detail - part of the famous 'two prong approach' that had supposedly more rule-lite, or at least less completist, BECMI on the other prong. (Disclaimer, I never played BECMI beyond the Basic Set and rarely even glanced at it after.)

 

[Lab Monkey]

There has been outrage sure. Some guys at WOTC who thought they knew better swapped in another game and called it D&D. They've all been fired now by the way.

Can we please stop with the '4e is not D&D' declarations?

[Emphasis added btw.]

For the record, I've been buying books and playing D&D since 1989. I've gone with every update and revision from 2e to Skills and Powers to 3e to 3.5 to 4th edition. I even went back and tried 1e for a time. 4th edition remains my favorite edition of D&D. I'm sorry that you disagree.

 

[Emerikol]

Can we please stop with the '4e is not D&D' declarations?

[Emphasis added btw.]

For the record, I've been buying books and playing D&D since 1989. I've gone with every update and revision from 2e to Skills and Powers to 3e to 3.5 to 4th edition. I even went back and tried 1e for a time. 4th edition remains my favorite edition of D&D. I'm sorry that you disagree.

Folks everybody knows that WOTC put D&D on the cover so I hope we are all clear what I mean by the above. I'm meaning that it was such a departure playstyle wise from previous editions that it no longer felt like the same game. Surely putting the name on something isn't all it takes? If they renamed Star Wars Saga - 5e and didnt' change anything else would it still be D&D to you? To me, and it was a quote from me, 4e did not look at all like D&D. It looked like a new game. It wasn't a version of an existing game. It was a new game.