Could this be the future format of 4th Edition D&D?

[Zendragon]

double post, my bad

 

[Zendragon]

I think the poll results are speaking volumes on this subject.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I think the poll results are speaking volumes on this subject.

Yeah, but he's already stated that he knew the results would be skewed due to certain factors. Which begs the question: why put up the poll in the first place especially on THIS particular forum.

I'm not saying that he doesnt have the right to, just that if he's gonna discount the results of the poll because it's not the desired result then why put it up to begin with?

I'll post my response to UK's idea in a bit, but I voted NO.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

YES, I would like to see D&D involve into this.

I would enjoy the game about the same. Possibly more so if it played significantly faster.

I would enjoy the design work more, and have sufficient credits to have reasonable expectation of someday working on the product line or one directly inspired by it.

My design work would likely be more lucrative, improving my quality of life in other ways.


So this shift would have no major downside for me, and considerable upside.

 

[Cam Banks]

Let's take the new model UK is suggesting for the moment and subtract the pretty packaging elements (board, minis, etc) which, as he says, many people are already sort of using.

What else is different from 3.5? I mean, you have rules included in this boxed set, so how do they differ from what has gone before? There's a good chance whatever changes you'd like to make are just as important to those who are against this development as the additional packaging elements are.

So, rather than continue to discuss the brand and the marketing side of things RE: getting people to notice the game through game components, which may or may not be helpful and interesting (and which could easily be done with the current rules as they are), I'd like to hear more about what actual rules changes are being proposed. That's where my freelance work comes from!

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Mark!

The issue here is not 3.5. The issue is the model that you have described and how ir stands on its own merits (which you are avoiding here).

How am I avoiding it - I outlined the reasons behind the changes and why I was making them in the first post. Since then I have responded to every pertinent question put to me.

However, none of those supplements that you mention above are required for 3.5. The add-ons in your model are required (at least, that is how you have described them). That is why your model is limiting.

Ah. Well I disagree that you 'need' the add-ons. Each boxed set is a fully playable game in its own right. However I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books. But as I have also said 3 core rulebooks would cost as much as 2-3 boxed sets.

None of which are unique to your model. So I ask again - what does your model offer that I don't already have?

If your question is what does my model offer 3.5 gamers I would say.

1. User Friendliness. Character creation (and specifically NPC creation for DMs) is a doddle.
2. Better Looking. Theres no denying that fact.
3. Quicker. Less book-keeping = more playtime.
4. Tactical Awareness. Far easier to keep track of tactical situations.

OK, then you fail to see that. Not my problem - it's your model after all, not mine. You have yet to show what your model offers that the current system doesn't. Despite your claims to the contrary, 3.5 can be stripped back in complexity without sacrificing balance.

No it can't. List the elements of 3.5 that can be stripped back?

Your model offers nothing new. And its modular nature requires the DM either to sacrifice flexibility or design things himself, thus failing to progress beyond the current situation with 3.5 in any way whatsoever. Sorry. No sale here.

I think your assessment is wrong. What is this flexibility you are sacrificing. Start listing things?

I have listed above where I think this model surpasses 3.5. What I didn't mention was that this product also has mainstream potential.

 

[Mark Hope]

What else is different from 3.5? I mean, you have rules included in this boxed set, so how do they differ from what has gone before? There's a good chance whatever changes you'd like to make are just as important to those who are against this development as the additional packaging elements are.

Absolutely . This is what I would like to hear more about (as I've said a couple of times already). What does this model offer me that I don't have already?

Edit: Cross-posting with you here, UK . More to follow...

 

[Nifft]

Hiya U_K!

How much of that was regurgitated and how much was new material though. Also remember that the Complete series brought the early splat books into colour.

However, that aside, I don't know how well those early 'Complete' books have sold.

I don't know either... but on the "reselling" front, consider "Races of Faerun" to be 3.5e-ization of FRCS. Cheaper to make, but profitable and possibly required for those in love with the setting.

Yes but you are not suggesting the abandonment of tabletop gaming in favour of online gaming are you?

So the question becomes what shape is the tabletop game going to take.

Abandonment?! No more than you're suggesting abandonment by proposing a tabletop family oriented 'boardgame'.

I'm saying that just as a battlemat and plastic minis didn't end tabletop gaming (but rather add to it, for some), the computer could soon be useful as a tabletop accessory.

I mean why would Wizards want to make a D&D card game when they have Magic the Gathering. That sector is already covered.

You could always have a Miniatures game that was Skirmish/Army based, but again thats a different product to what I am suggesting.

But why not have separate products which each are fully functional games in their own right, and also come together to form a giant robot act as different wheels in one larger system?

Some aspects of d20 are already mini-games in their own right. Look at starship combat in Star Wars d20, for example. Look at the grapple rules. Look at mage-vs.-mage combat.

D&D Minis is already a skirmish game in its own right (and a fun one); it's nice that its parts can integrate with D&D so usefully. I'd propose that a mapping of D&D into M:tG would make a sweet conflict resolution tool for high-level mage battles... but I have no clue how to go about doing it.

Anyway, just my two herring.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Lorgrom]

The more I read peoples responses to this idea. The more I see an RPG that is currently suffering becouse of a similar (be it not as far) change.

The current edition of RuneQuest from Mongoose Publishing. They took a game that quite frankly was very simple compared to DnD. Then tried to make it even more simple. Result (at least from the players in my area who have played the older editions) being no one likes the new rules. Yes they are very similar to the last edition. But there were enough changes to leave a terrible taste in the players mouths. We decided to use the settings prsented and use the previous editions rules for actual game play.

I have a feeling that IF DnD is changed into anything close to what your suggesting. The same reaction (except on a much larger scale, see the voting responses) will happen. Perhaps good for a new setting or two, but the majority will keep using older editions for actualy playing. Or worse yet, completly change games and leave DnD in the dust like they did with Gamma World, etc.

 

[Mark Hope]

Hey Mark!

Ey oop .

How am I avoiding it - I outlined the reasons behind the changes and why I was making them in the first post. Since then I have responded to every pertinent question put to me.

I meant in my post above, not in the thread as a whole. No biggie.

Ah. Well I disagree that you 'need' the add-ons. Each boxed set is a fully playable game in its own right. However I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books. But as I have also said 3 core rulebooks would cost as much as 2-3 boxed sets.

I don't want separate games in their own right. I want the whole shebang, and I'm not bothered about the cost (well, within reason, heh). I have a strict but broad cost vs. usefullness index. If it meets my needs, I'll buy it. You nailed the issue on the head with "I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books."

If your question is what does my model offer 3.5 gamers I would say.

1. User Friendliness. Character creation (and specifically NPC creation for DMs) is a doddle.

I have no trouble with characters or NPCs. I know that some do, but I cut my teeth on converting hundreds and hundreds of 2e Dark Sun critters over to 3.0 and then 3.5, so it's already a doddle.

2. Better Looking. Theres no denying that fact.

Sure there is. I haven't seen what your model looks like - maybe it looks like tacky garbage. I know what my props look like, and they're gorgeous. Works of art, mate ...

3. Quicker. Less book-keeping = more playtime.

You may be right here. But you can make 3.5 quicker and with less book-keeping, so that's not a selling point for me.

4. Tactical Awareness. Far easier to keep track of tactical situations.

I'm not seeing this one. With maps, mats and minis, our group has no trouble with this. I'd like to hear how you see your model as being an advancement over what we currently have.

List the elements of 3.5 that can be stripped back?

No thanks. You forget - I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just offering responses to your suggested model. So I'm not bothered if you agree with or accept what I am saying. I will say, though, that I run games for my kids (who are 5 and 8) with no feats, skills, special combat options or the like. The game runs fine - much like a Basic or Expert game from the old days. Balance is fine. Maybe you find that kind of thing hard to do. Not me.

I think your assessment is wrong. What is this flexibility you are sacrificing. Start listing things?

Again, no thanks. I've stated clearly enough above (for my liking) where flexibility is lost through the piecemeal modularity of your model. You accept as much when you say "I would concede that a single boxed set won't give the options of 3 core rule books." That's what I'm talking about.

(I'm not trying to be contentious here mate, btw . I'm just really not needing to convince you of anything - just responding to your suggestions.)