Civility

[trancejeremy]

Now, if you want my further analysis, I'd go ahead and say that 4e was a little closer to 1e for me in terms of design and combat being the most pertinent thing in the game. 1e was very close to a board game (after all it was started as an addon for strategy games) as there weren't a ton of rpg rules or outside of dungeon rules in the early rules. Of addons revised that. 2e has more of Arneson's influence and had more of the rules that we familiar with 2e dnd and 3e dnd.

Maybe OD&D (the little books) but the 1st ed AD&D DMG had lots of info about non-dungeon stuff. Outdoors, in the air, on ships, underwater, and planar travel.

And while it certainly doesn't compare to later books on world building, it does cover the basics pretty well...

And it's hard to judge Arneson by the game he published after D&D (Adventures in Fantasy) but it's quite wargamish, certainly a step back from AD&D. (Then again, if you judge Gygax by Cyborg Commandos...)

 

[Roland55]

I don't know if it's possible for the next iTeration of the D&D game to please most fans of OSR, 3e, 4e, and Pathfinder. Maybe the best they can hope for is making a game that is everybody's second favorite edition. It's not everybody's favorite version of the game, but at least its one we can all agree on.


Yay mediocrity!


(sorry)

Civilly, respectfully: Nope. Too soon to give up. Give the folks at WOTC a chance ... maybe even help them try.

AFTER we've had a strong, sustained shot and it DOESN'T work -- then we can try for mediocrity.

Also: it's been another day, and I've remained civil. One day at a time.

 

[DonTadow]

Maybe OD&D (the little books) but the 1st ed AD&D DMG had lots of info about non-dungeon stuff. Outdoors, in the air, on ships, underwater, and planar travel.

And while it certainly doesn't compare to later books on world building, it does cover the basics pretty well...

And it's hard to judge Arneson by the game he published after D&D (Adventures in Fantasy) but it's quite wargamish, certainly a step back from AD&D. (Then again, if you judge Gygax by Cyborg Commandos...)

Sorry trance youre right, i remember the first groujp of books was more about the game and then came the real 1st edition which had more rpg rules. I got to work with ARenson more, and I'll admit, i am biased. But it aklways came across that if gygax had his way, we'd have fewer rpg rules.

 

[pemerton]

I will expand what I said saying to include that the game has roleplaying elements, but that roleplaying, as semi-pseudo-sorta stated by one of the designers, was not the main point in some regards at least. ('D&D is a game about combat, not about traipsing through the faerie rings to interact with the little people...' gods above and below I hate that line... )

I agree that 4e prioritises combat over traipsing through faerie rings. And personally, that's a priority I share. The PCs in my game will eventually make it to the Feywild(they've been aware of a magical tower that will take them there for 5 or more levels and a year or so (real time) of play, but keep getting distracted by other goals), and when they do there will be physical confrontations waiting for them.

But 4e combat is not at odds with roleplaying, in at least two sense of roleplaying: (i) it is not at odds with playing a game in which the player advocates for a particular fictional persona (the PC) who is understood not just as a playing piece but as an imagined person; and (ii) it is not at odds with the importance of fictional positioning.

That's not a reason why anyone should enjoy it. My (i) and (ii) are also true of Tunnels and Trolls, but I'm personally not a big fan.

But, as [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] has also indicated, it is a reason why it is (or at least comes across as) somewhat mischievous to describe 4e as a boardgame. (And yes, it uses some boardgame techaniques - a squared "board" and tokens or figures, just as all versions of D&D use some gambling techniques, namely, the rolling of dice to generate random outcomes. But Traveller, in play, isn't very much like craps, even though it uses 2d6 for a lot of stuff.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I agree that 4e prioritises combat over traipsing through faerie rings. And personally, that's a priority I share. The PCs in my game will eventually make it to the Feywild(they've been aware of a magical tower that will take them there for 5 or more levels and a year or so (real time) of play, but keep getting distracted by other goals), and when they do there will be physical confrontations waiting for them.

But 4e combat is not at odds with roleplaying, in at least two sense of roleplaying: (i) it is not at odds with playing a game in which the player advocates for a particular fictional persona (the PC) who is understood not just as a playing piece but as an imagined person; and (ii) it is not at odds with the importance of fictional positioning.

That's not a reason why anyone should enjoy it. My (i) and (ii) are also true of Tunnels and Trolls, but I'm personally not a big fan.

But, as [MENTION=15142]MajuruOakheart[/MENTION] has also indicated, it is a reason why it is (or at least comes across as) somewhat mischievous to describe 4e as a boardgame. (And yes, it uses some boardgame techaniques - a squared "board" and tokens or figures, just as all versions of D&D use some gambling techniques, namely, the rolling of dice to generate random outcomes. But Traveller, in play, isn't very much like craps, even though it uses 2d6 for a lot of stuff.)

I will point out that GDW directly published the combat systems for Traveller as boardgames. Mayday and Ashanti High Lightning. (Both good games.)

Frankly, 4e has a lot more semblance to a board game than Traveller does to craps. If there was a dice game where all you were looking for is a total of 8+ then maybe, but not craps. Heck, you roll dice in 4e too, should I compare that to craps? (Must resist dropping the 's'... must resist dropping the 's'....)

So, null argument. I can make a lot more comparisons between 4e and board games than your 'yup, you roll dice' comparison for Traveller.

Also - I have had more fun playing actual board games than playing 4e, so.....

The Auld Grump, Colonel Mustard, in the Conservatory, with the Lead Pipe.

 

[pemerton]

I have had more fun playing actual board games than playing 4e

I've had more fun playing board games than most of my Traveller sessions (love the PC generation, don't really like the actual play of the game). But I'm not sure what that proves other than that I should find a game more suited to my tastes than Traveller is.

 

[JamesonCourage]

We're still being semi-civil, but can we just drop it before it gets uncivil in a thread titled "Civility" about being civil? As always, play what you like

 

[thedungeondelver]

I think everyone here has been remarkably civil all things considered.

Here's a thing...what everyone needs to remind themselves of is this:

Even if the 5e rules are not at all what you want, it seems that one of the main tenets of WIZARDS OF THE COAST's next plan for D&D is to support all editions.

Unlike every step before, nobody's being left out in the cold this time - this is the vibe I'm getting from the LEGENDS & LORE columns, from playtest reports, from the various media reports.

We're all in it together this time. Regular season is over. It's the All Star game, and we're all on the same team.

You want no stats, no Vance style magic, no saving throws, "Wu-Jen" powers and everybody's a furry? Okay fine! As long as I can turn the knobs all the way back to the right, everything's cool.

I said about another post, and I'll say here, I'm getting a lot of fear out of the 4e side of the house. There's a lot of feeling that D&D is finally "perfect" and now here comes WIZARDS ready to tell you they're throwing your baby out with the bathwater. But what I think is going to happen is that we're going to look up in 18 months and find that we all have official and real outlets for what we want to play and they're all going to be supported and they're all going to be called D&D.

There's no need for us to go at each other. Have I gotten my hackles up? Sure; that's to be expected. But really this may be the most "mellow" transition, indeed one of the most happy ones, in the history of the game. Because, again, in 18 months, nobody's game will be orphaned.

Now...if it bugs you that there will be room at the table again (officially) for players of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 2ND EDITION, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3RD EDITION, and DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3.5E, I mean if it gets you really and truly worked up that in addition to 4e those editions' fans have an outlet (either through the system of 5e itself or some other official support) well, then maybe you should find another hobby. But really, I think with very little exception there's nobody really like that.

We all want what's best for our edition, and I feel we're all going to get it. Or something damn close to "best". Better than ever after an "edition break".

Now who's with me!

 

[pemerton]

if it bugs you that there will be room at the table again (officially) for players of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, 2ND EDITION, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3RD EDITION, and DUNGEONS & DRAGONS 3.5E, I mean if it gets you really and truly worked up that in addition to 4e those editions' fans have an outlet (either through the system of 5e itself or some other official support) well, then maybe you should find another hobby.

This doesn't bug me at all.

Unlike every step before, nobody's being left out in the cold this time

<snip>

I'm getting a lot of fear out of the 4e side of the house.

<snip>

But what I think is going to happen is that we're going to look up in 18 months and find that we all have official and real outlets for what we want to play and they're all going to be supported and they're all going to be called D&D.

I don't feel that I'm feeling fear, but I do feel that the design direction that is being flagged in the L&L columns - especially Monte Cook's - seems almost to wilfully disregard some of the features of 4e that make it such a strong game for (at least some of) those who play it.

Which creates the possibility that the design will leave a certain style of play out in the cold.

Which is fine as far as it goes - I can run my game with what I've got, I have a stable group, and I've GMed out of print games before - but would perhaps not be the best outcome for a unity edition.

Or, to come at it in another way: it is trivially obvious, to me at least, why for those who prefer a certain sort of AD&D play (Gygaxian, Pulsipherian play) 4e is not a very good game. A unity edition, then, will have to make some - perhaps many - changes if it is to support that style of play. But I find there is a recurrent tendency, among at least some of those who don't like 4e, to dismiss the playstyle preferences of those who like it, rather than to note what it is about 4e that is different from classic D&D and that supports that other playstyle.

If WotC want a unity edition, they need to think about their mechanics from both sides of the fence. So it's all very well to say "healing surges out", "warlords out" etc, but if this also means "pacing devices out", "inbuilt, effortless three-act combat pacing out", etc, then we have an edition that is not a unity edition but just a retro or reactionary one.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've had more fun playing board games than most of my Traveller sessions (love the PC generation, don't really like the actual play of the game). But I'm not sure what that proves other than that I should find a game more suited to my tastes than Traveller is.

And there, I think, is what has happened to 4e. Folks tried it, then went back to either older games or to a revised version of those older games. (Pathfinder, OSRIC, Castles & Crusades.)

For what it is worth (not enough to buy a cuppa joe) I know folks that call Advanced Heroquest a role playing game, and it was designed as a board game - the line between the two is pretty blurry.

I think that part of the board game accusation comes from an attempt at clarity and short term effects. That the balance between classes made the characters feel depersonalized for some - a game piece, not a character.

I could be wrong - I did not play long enough to confirm that premise.

The point that I was really trying to make though is that a lot of folks, on both sides of No Man's Land noted that board game feel, and that early on it was the 4e folks that were pushing that similarity - that there was less ambiguity as a result.

And that a good board game is not a bad game - I would rather play Clue than 4e, but there are a lot of board games, and a fair number of RPGs, that I have played where I would rather have been playing Clue.

At least I would rather play 4e than Talisman....

The Auld Grump