d20 CoC--a preview of 4th Edition D&D?

[Mercule]

1. character classes (Characters are all skill-based.)
- For better or worse, D&D will always have Classes. I think what we may see are something like the professions for d20 Modern (_if_ anything). I was among those who decried class/level based systems, but the multiclassing and skill systems in 3E have made me quite happy. 3E classes balance flexibility, power scaling, and simplicity quite nicely.

2. attacks of opportunity
- I'd be very disappointed if AoOs went away. I think they're great. Honestly, I don't see what all the confusion is about. Other than a couple of minor issues (casters/archers 5' stepping before casting a spell, etc.) the rules are quite intuitive and easy to use.

3. a division between arcane and divine spells (There's a single, unified spell list.)
- Talk about a bad idea for D&D. The wizard and cleric are fundamentally different in concept in D&D. They must have separate lists.

Now, I do generally dislike the Vancian system. It makes a _lot_ of sense coming from a wargame origin and I can't fault Mr. Gygax for it's inclusion in the original game. On the other hand, it really tends to blow my suspension of disbelief if I ponder it too much. I don't think everyone can be pleased with any system. I prefer fatigue-based casting, someone else might like hit or miss skill casting, and some people actually like the Vancian system.

I think this is where the OGL comes in. The standard will probably remain Vancian. I think a couple of well-balanced, non-setting specific alternatives will emerge and many people will use those in their games. I know I'd pay $20+ dollars for a well thought out system that met my needs. Unfortunately, there's going to be a lot of drek to sort through before we arrive at 2 or 3 good solutions.

4. alignment
- This will always be there. At its simplest, D&D involves paladins and like-minded heroes mowing through categorically evil adversaries, saving the world from evil without the need to consider the morality of their own actions. You need absolute labels of Good and Evil to do that. Honestly, anyone who is capable of handling the other aspects of a morally gray game is more than mature enough to ignore a rule that takes up one page in the PH.

 

[hong]

While not identical to my list of four things, it is certainly similar. I wish I had thought to mention d20 Call of Cthulhu's lack of a "fire and forget" magic system. I've seen several people (including some in the above-mentioned thread) complain about D&D's Vancian magic system.

That's because the people who don't have a problem with D&D's magic system (or AoOs, or classes, or anything else) are in the Rules forum, talking about how to actually _play the game_, as opposed to yakking about what-ifs.

 

[rounser]

I think a few people on this thread are a bit too emotionally and financially invested in 3E to consider a new edition, and resorting to arguments like:

a) Many people's suggestions want 4E to depart further from AD&D/oD&D than 3E did, so a new edition would be a bad thing since it would surely stray further.

b) There's no proof of concensus on what to change from 3E, therefore nothing significant should be changed for fear of ruining the 3E magic formula.

These conclusions against a new edition for "fear of straying too far" and "no concensus, no change" derived from messageboard vox pop and teetering on flimsy assumptions seem terribly weak to me. IMO, they hold little water when used as a rebuttal to the idea of a new edition, even if they are just being formed as observations on the 4E "what I'd like changed" speils of others.

 

[hong]

These conclusions against a new edition for "fear of straying too far" and "no concensus, no change" derived from messageboard vox pop and teetering on flimsy assumptions seem terribly weak to me. IMO, they hold little water when used as a rebuttal to the idea of a new edition, even if they are just being formed as observations on the 4E "what I'd like changed" speils of others.

Are you kvetching again, Rounser?

 

[rounser]

Are you kvetching again, Rounser?

Do you even know what the word means?

 

[WizarDru]

I think a few people on this thread are a bit too emotionally and financially invested in 3E to consider a new edition, and resorting to arguments like:

a) Many people's suggestions want 4E to depart further from AD&D/oD&D than 3E did, so a new edition would be a bad thing since it would surely stray further.

b) There's no proof of concensus on what to change from 3E, therefore nothing significant should be changed for fear of ruining the 3E magic formula.

These conclusions against a new edition for "fear of straying too far" and "no concensus, no change" derived from messageboard vox pop and teetering on flimsy assumptions seem terribly weak to me. IMO, they hold little water when used as a rebuttal to the idea of a new edition, even if they are just being formed as observations on the 4E "what I'd like changed" speils of others.

Actually, I don't see anyone saying that at all. What I see them saying is that CoC is NOT to be taken as an example of what 4E will be. Geoffery wonders if Monte Cook is thinking this way...his rants on montecook.com should make clear that it is exactly the furthest thing from his mind. Mind you, you're paraphrasing someone who's paraphrasing someone else in another thread, but that's neither here nor there.

If the change is justified or of great benefit, then most will welcome it. But if you think that a change merely for change's sake will not drive folks from purchasing new game material (and possibly from the game itself) you must not have been around for the changeover from 1e to 2e.

 

[rounser]

Actually, I don't see anyone saying that at all.

Perhaps not explicitly, but the intended implications seem pretty clear to me.
The first point, from someone quoting Grazzt:

Some posters in this thread suggested that if character classes or alignment were taken out of 4E, it wouldn't be D&D. Let me quote Administrator Grazzt from the same thread I quoted in my post right above this. (His post is in response to someone saying that alignment is essential to D&D.):

"There are already a lot of people out there that say 3e isn't D&D. That it is too far removed from the original rules. Check the internet, I can think of a few sites that scream and yell that d20 and WotC and 3e ruined D&D.

Granted it is a lot different than anything previous, but take for example, a car: a camaro. Look at the late 60's and early 70's camaros, then look at a 2002 camaro. Totally different, and whether ya like it or not...its still a camaro. Just like 3e is different than its previous models, and whether ya like it or not..its still D&D. "

And the second, from Psion:

Don't pretend that because you have problems with certain aspects of the system, everyone does -- or even that everyone who has problems with the systems have the same problems you have.
And later:
With the implication that those people represent a significant enough portion of the fan base that it warrants changing. I'm just pointing out that these aspects are in large part what makes 3e a success.

Your own comment poses a straw man of it's own:

But if you think that a change merely for change's sake will not drive folks from purchasing new game material (and possibly from the game itself) you must not have been around for the changeover from 1e to 2e.

As an example, a change I'd like to see which falls into neither Grazzt's nor Psion's categories, nor your own of "change for it's own sake" is greater modularity of rules components and less references and balance interdependencies between them, such that you can switch out those bits you don't like without the hassle of game balance falling out of whack. It would be a feat and a half, but if 4E could pull that rabbit out of the hat, it would be "bettah" than 3E, IMO, and fall into none of your categories.

But that's just one opinion, and one possibility. There must be many, many more.

 

[Psion]

As an example, a change I'd like to see which falls into neither Grazzt's nor Psion's categories,

Careful, you are making an awful tenuous connection from the post that I was replying to to the following implication:

nor your own of "change for it's own sake" is greater modularity of rules components and less references and balance interdependencies between them, such that you can switch out those bits you don't like without the hassle of game balance falling out of whack. It would be a feat and a half, but if 4E could pull that rabbit out of the hat, it would be "bettah" than 3E, IMO, and fall into none of your categories.

I never said greater rules modularity would be a bad thing (with the disclaimer that depending on what you give up to give it, it might not be a good thing either). But I don't see how emulating CoC or the changes he recommended is going to get you that either. All he said can be summed up as the classic jabs at D&D (classes, alignment, etc.) that have both drawn inumerable criticisms over the years, but are also things that make the game such a mainstay. There is nothing inherently wrong with classes as a game mechanic, nor does anything say that we have to accept relative morality in the game to have it be a good game design. There is nothing about those changes that will implicitly IMPROVE the game.

 

[Sulimo]

I don't see how that is the next logical step. Truly classless is on the entire opposite end of the spectrum. Many games have classes or other archetypes in disguise. There is no reason to assume that classless is an implicitly desirable state.

Yeah. My pet game, Rolemaster, has classes and is quite skill based. Actually when I read through 3e it seems to be taking a few small steps to being somewhat like a d20 Rolemaster in some ways. I would've liked it to have gone a little further though by having combat skills as part of the skills system though.

 

[WizarDru]

Perhaps not explicitly, but the intended implications seem pretty clear to me.
The first point, from someone quoting Grazzt:

Well, as I said before, that was Geoffery quoting Grazzt from another thread entirely. How relevant that is to this discussion, I can't say, since I don't know exactly which thread it was from. It also wasn't concerned with illustrating that D&D would be moving towards CoC, which is what the discussion is essentially about.

Your own comment poses a straw man of it's own:

As an example, a change I'd like to see which falls into neither Grazzt's nor Psion's categories, nor your own of "change for it's own sake" is greater modularity of rules components and less references and balance interdependencies between them, such that you can switch out those bits you don't like without the hassle of game balance falling out of whack. It would be a feat and a half, but if 4E could pull that rabbit out of the hat, it would be "bettah" than 3E, IMO, and fall into none of your categories.

Straw man, nuthin, I was just being snarky. My point there was merely that if these tropes are so terrible, and so unusable, then why did they lure so many people back to D&D? If the changes improve the system (such as moving many, many mechanisms to a similar scale, such as ability scores) then change is good. However, there are very few folks who can agree on what those changes might need to be, yet.

Every time I see a discussion of what changes D&D requries, more often than not, it's a matter of taste, not a failing of the system. The implication that a classed based system is superior or inferior to a classless one remains unproven to me, either way. In the last 24 hours alone, I've seen posts saying that D&D's character creation allows for too much customization, that the magic item system is either too expensive or too readily available, that D&D combat is too quick, that D&D combat takes too long and so on and so forth. To make an upgrade as significant as a 4E, I would expect the system to have shown major cracks in the plaster before proceeding. I have yet to see those, so I the announcement of the necessity of a fourth addition a tad premature.