Dear Mike & Monte

[Upper_Krust]

They're very, very different in terms of motivations and desired end results in the long-term scale of things. I went out of my way to try to emphasize that and differentiate Paizo's daemons from the yugoloths of the Great Wheel, both because most of the IP surrounding the 'loths was closed content, and I wanted to make them unique enough on their own so that the oft-repeated criticism of the 'loths as being second fiddle to demons and devils wasn't an issue with the PF daemons (not that I agree with that criticism).

Other than being NE fiends, they're rather different beasts entirely.

Yugoloths were liars and manipulators. They were the oldest of the fiends, the architects of the Blood War, and the paradoxically self-important, utterly selfish -slaves- of the concept of Evil that they served. Mortals didn't matter, not at all, but they would suffer nonetheless. In their own words they wanted only to strive towards perfection and create a perfect multiverse: one which was utterly devoid of mercy.

Daemons are pitiful lost wretches venting their self-loathing on the multiverse. The daemons despise and obsess over mortal life. They want to see the spark of life extinguished from the planes. They don't care about pain, or destruction, or your suffering in the slightest. They just want you dead and to add another soul to the pyre. They aren't the eldest race of fiends, they don't serve baernaloth masters from the primordial earliest days of creation, and in fact they're utterly alone, with no greater masters to serve and at times flailing about as to the philosophical implications and rationale behind what they do. Everything will die, and then what? Perhaps they themselves don't know. There is no plan, there is only an unending hunger.

None of your above babbling does anything but obfuscate the otherwise crystal clear situation which is all about your volte-face.

In 2006 when I posted on the FC3 thread that the daemons should be tied to the Four Horsemen you were TOTALLY against the idea.

Fast forward a few years and 'all of a sudden' YOU REALLY LIKE the idea to the extent that you wrote a book about it!

Instead of 'manning up' and just saying "yes it was a good idea Krusty, you were right", you faffed about with a load of backpeddling on how these horsemen are VERY, VERY DIFFERENT.

If you think the PF daemons are just yugoloths plus the 4 Horsemen, I must have failed at some juncture.

I haven't read any material on the matter beyond the Pathfinder Bestiary 2. Your name is not mentioned within the credits of that book and thus any personal failure/success on your part is lost to me.

That said, beyond the obvious embarassment of this situation, you shouldn't feel downhearted. Your own book, the Book of the Damned (which I have yet to check out), seems like my 'cup of tea'...hardly surprising though, given the initial impetus behind its premise.

EDIT: That's my last on this subject since it's horribly off topic in this thread. Want to talk more, make a thread for it.

I apologise for the momentary derailing of the thread. I think we have said all we need to say on the matter and to be fair if I laugh any more I'm liable to do myself a mischief.

 

[P1NBACK]

I hate to pick on you, TheFindus, but your answers are just about the opposite of what I want.

Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook, here are my wishes:

1. Wait for a couple of years with the next edition, please do. I am having a lot of fun with 4E as it is. Do not feel pushed or nudged too much by those who have a problem with what 4E is now and want it to be removed. You do not know if they will like the new edition. You do know, however, that I and many others like 4E very very much.

4E is getting its ass handed to it by Pathfinder and other RPGs. I'm not saying rush a product out of the door, but day-by-day I hear about more and more people switching to Pathfinder.

Me personally, I don't play either 4E or Pathfinder at this point. I've gone back to old school D&D (via clones), so I don't really have a stake in either system. What I see though is 4E continually losing ground. If that continues, it'll become harder and harder for 5E to pull players away from those ongoing games. I don't think WotC = D&D means much anymore. Hell, I've introduced people to "D&D" via playing games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess and Adventurer Conqueror King. So, the actual mechanics of 4E at this point are so far from what a lot of people think of when they think of "D&D" that I don't think there's any reason to latch onto the system as it stands.

2. Do not "bring the magic back" if that means that a magic user is stronger than a fighter. I wish for balanced classes.

No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic.

There's something interesting I've noticed about playing old school D&D and it's that the problem stemmed more from changes to what came before and leaving other things the same than from how things actually were from the get-go.

3E mucked this up quite a bit. For example, people decry Wizards as being "too powerful" in 3E. Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not because Fighters didn't have spells like in 4E. It's because 3E took all the good stuff Wizards had from previous editions and stripped away all the limitations.

Then, tack on the fact that the high-level Fighters lost their strongholds and armies and 3E replaced them with "bonus feats" and suddenly you have a stark contrast between the two in power level.

There's a dynamic that can't be attained from "balanced" classes. And, the only reason you would need them to be balanced is if your game was only about combat.

Classes need to fill different voids, for different styles of players and personalities. There is more to the game than combat, and classes enable those players who enjoy the other things to excel in those areas.

Balance has nothing to do with that. So, why do we need it?

3. I wish for mechanics that can do without certain +x items built into the system. I would like to see magic items with special powers, yes. But my Battlemind should not need a +5 armor or a certain +x-to-attack-feat at a certain level just to be able to compete with a monster.

I agree, but I don't think magical items should be "special powers" either. I think magic should be dark, mysterious, dangerous and powerful.

A character should think twice every time they plan to use a magical item. They should give the player an edge, but be risky or have some sort of fallout. Using a magical item should be a hard choice.

4. Rely on digital technology to make the game easy to prepare for all players, including the GM. Being able to make characters and monsters in just a couple of minutes is a good thing for me, because I have a job, a family and several other hobbies.

Oh man, no way. If we have to rely on digital technology then the game is too complex already. I want a basic game I can play pickup games with by grabbing the box off the shelf when family members are over and want to give it a shot.

I want to be able to roll up characters in 5 minutes using dice, pencil and paper only and get into the game with minimal prep time.

If I need some online program or database software to manage all the options and choices, you've already lost me and those potential players who might actually try the game at family gatherings. I want to be able to say, "Yeah, you guys wanna try it?" and grab the box off the shelf after explaining what D&D is at a party and get playing right away. Instead of, "Well, we can play next Sunday - it'll take some time to go over character creation and all that...."

Screw that. By next Sunday those people will have forgotten all about D&D and I'm not interested in trying to wrangle them into the game when they've already lost interest.

5. I wish for a toolbox of options with a lot of narrative control. For powers I would like to see mechanical crunch, seperated from the power's flavor text that I as a player or a GM can change according to a situation.
I wish for a basic ruleset, with extras added on top, if I like to use them.

This is what killed 4E for me. Dissociating mechanics from the fiction even more so would not be my ideal version of D&D.

In fact, let's go back the other way. Let's design this game with the fiction first and mechanics to supplement that.

6. I wish for online magazines with good campaign arcs, optional locations or encounters that I can drop into my campaign easily and advice on how to apply my character's abilities to the fiction.

I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use.

Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.

 

[Matt James]

I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use.

Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.

A lot of the recent content does just this. DDI has had a facelift and it's very refreshing.

 

[P1NBACK]

A lot of the recent content does just this. DDI has had a facelift and it's very refreshing.

Awesome. Glad to hear that.

 

[El Mahdi]

Mr. Mearls and Mr. Cook, here are my wishes:

1. Wait for a couple of years with the next edition, please do. I am having a lot of fun with 4E as it is. Do not feel pushed or nudged too much by those who have a problem with what 4E is now and want it to be removed. You do not know if they will like the new edition. You do know, however, that I and many others like 4E very very much.

I have no preference as to whether a 5E comes out next week, next year, or next decade...or honestly if ever. No preference at all.

However, I just wanted to point out that even if 5E does come out, it can't affect the fun you're having with 4E unless you choose to let it do so...

Even if 4E is removed from DDI (which I think would be a colossally stupid thing to do, and would show they didn't learn a damn thing from the release of 4E), you still have all of your books. You can still play it as much as you want. You can even still use the VTT on DDI (as so many DDI subscribers take pains to tell players of other older editions...)

How does this affect your fun as concerns 4E???


*scratches head*

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey El Madhi!

However, I just wanted to point out that even if 5E does come out, it can't affect the fun you're having with 4E unless you choose to let it do so...

Well thats true, however, the release of 5E would surely herald the end of official 4E products from WotC. That would make 4E itself less fun though it wouldn't make playing 4E less fun.

Although that in itself raises an interesting point because at the moment (and this is only my personal opinion) there seems very little on the horizon from WotC that interests me. Ironically, Paizo (even though I don't and won't play Pathfinder) are still bringing out books I'd probably pay money to own/read.

While I am here I should probably segue into my thoughts on what 5th Edition should or shouldn't do.

1. Mechanically 4th Edition is brilliant. I'm not saying its perfect but it does so much fantastically, that the next edition must have a relatively similar structure to its backbone.

2. Boxed Sets

Break up the tiers into seperate boxed sets (just like the original Dungeons & Dragons).

- Red Box (Basic/Heroic), Green Box (Expert/Paragon), Blue Box (Master/Epic).
- Stagger the release of each boxed set by 4 months.
- Put different design teams (and different artists to give each a seperate look and feel) on each tier of play, in effect make them try and out-do each other.

Red Box
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide.
- PC Rules for Levels 1-10 and easy step guide to creating a character.
- Relatively Civilized World Areas (Towns, Forests, Hills, Swamps, Dungeons)
- Crux of the set focuses on Dungeoneering/Questing.
- Small Town detailed as the staging point for campaigns.
- Pick 10 classic themes (Goblin caves, Bandit camp, Orc fortress, Vampire Castle etc.), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme.
- Include illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters (representing 8 different classes and races) as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying.
- A character's race basically becomes the 'paragon path' of levels 1-10.
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Red Dice (one of each type)

Green Box
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide (reprint from Red Box)
- PC Rules for Levels 11-20 and easy step guide to creating a character.
- Hostile world areas (Deserts, Arctic Regions, Volcanic Regions, Underwater, Underdark)
- Crux of the set focuses on Stronghold Building/Running and adding Politics to your game.
- Mass Combat rules.
- Country detailed with players initially given a border keep to run (the keep thats part of the town detailed in the Red Box).
- Pick 10 classic themes (Drow City, Yuan-ti Fortress, Volcanic Prison, Liches' Lair, etc.), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme.
- Include Updated illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying.
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Green Dice (one of each type)

Blue Box
- Basic DM Rules and quick start guide (reprint from Red Box)
- PC Rules for Levels 21-30 and easy step guide to creating a character.
- The Planes (Feywild, Shadowfell, Astral Plane, Elemental Chaos, Far Realm)
- Crux of this set focuses on running a Country and the path to becoming an immortal.
- Continent detailed with players initially in charge of their own country (the country thats detailed in the Green Box).
- Rules for Gigantic monsters.
- Pick 10 classic themes (Demonweb Pits, Zehir's Pyramid, Iron Tower of Dispater, Tiamat's Lair), each targeting one level of play and create 10 monsters of varying levels and ranks around each theme.
- Include Updated illustrated character sheets for 8 iconic characters as well as the obligatory blank character sheet for photocopying.
- Small introductory adventure with maps and counters (optional deluxe/expensive boxed set with miniatures instead of counters)
- Blue Dice (one of each type)

Additional 'Companion' Supplements
- (Bi-Yearly) Monster Manual (for each tier) detailing 10 more themes each with 10 monsters. 80 pages
- (Bi-Yearly) Players Options (for each tier) detailing new classes and races. 64 pages
- (Bi-Monthly) Adventure (six per year, 3 heroic tier, 2 paragon, 1 epic). 48 pages. Focus on smaller adventures with maybe 12 important encounters detailed.
- (Yearly) Campaign Setting (not tier specific) each campaign world has a completely new starting point/goals for Level 1, Level 11 and Level 21 characters. Also has new 'takes' on the iconic (player) character examples.

 

[Hussar]

Upper Krust, the only thing I would add to your boxes is a gift certificate for a free year of DDI with every box.

That and my Red box would use the Chaos Scar as the base campaign. It's right there after all.

 

[Virel]

Monte & crew, take two weeks and dig out the Basic version of D&D and/or AD&D and play it. Actually play it.

See how rules light it is compare to 3e/3.5e?

See how fast it can play with a good DM?

Design something that plays and feels like that. Or just update the rules a little and call that 5th ed.

PS - Get rid of the feats & bring back the magic items, it's doubtful the game can support lot's of both.

Next actually playtest the new game before it's released. Not just with WotC hacks and fanboys. Then playtest it some more. Actually listen to the playtesters carefully. If you can find some old edition fans get them to playtest your new game too.

Throw it out and start over if it looks like the recent D&D offerings.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

<SNIPPAGE>
No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic.

There's something interesting I've noticed about playing old school D&D and it's that the problem stemmed more from changes to what came before and leaving other things the same than from how things actually were from the get-go.

3E mucked this up quite a bit. For example, people decry Wizards as being "too powerful" in 3E. Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not because Fighters didn't have spells like in 4E. It's because 3E took all the good stuff Wizards had from previous editions and stripped away all the limitations.

A lot of that is play style - what folks call the 15 Minute Adventuring Day. If the Wizard holds on to spells then it becomes less of a problem.

Unfortunately, I do not think that was addressed in the DMG, and it really should have.

Then, tack on the fact that the high-level Fighters lost their strongholds and armies and 3E replaced them with "bonus feats" and suddenly you have a stark contrast between the two in power level.

Again, playstyle - not every game benefited from having keeps and strongholds. Not every fighter wanted keeps and armies, and if the game was dungeon heavy then having that many expendable NPCs was a problem.

E.G.G. and co started with wargaming, and fighting men were very much a part of that. He liked having massive battles, but not everyone does. (It is worth noting that I do like mass battles, and naval conflicts. I want mass combat rules....)

Kingmaker, on the other hand, gets folks started on strongholds and armies at much lower level, and is all about realms. Great fun, even if the mass combat rules are a trifle shaky.

Not exactly disagreeing, just saying that sometimes the balance, or lack thereof, is in how the powers are handled.

Right now I am playing (yay!) in a Pathfinder game, my paladin and the summoner's eidolon are the two with the most combat under our belts. We had a session a month or so ago where not a single spell got cast - the witch was busy doing other things. (We were laying a trap for one of my paladin's superiors - who was working for the bad guys.)

Paladin, witch, inquisitor, rogue, summoner, and ranger.... We are an odd mix....

The Auld Grump

 

[Ahnehnois]

No. I don't want balanced classes. What I want are classes that tilt against each other and nudge each other and fill different gaps in the play dynamic.

...

3E mucked this up quite a bit. For example, people decry Wizards as being "too powerful" in 3E. Well, there's a reason for that, and it's not because Fighters didn't have spells like in 4E. It's because 3E took all the good stuff Wizards had from previous editions and stripped away all the limitations.

Then, tack on the fact that the high-level Fighters lost their strongholds and armies and 3E replaced them with "bonus feats" and suddenly you have a stark contrast between the two in power level.

I think what you're getting at is that magical has been made too mechanical and not magical enough. It should have arbitrary limitations and serious costs, and it doesn't. It didn't have enough costs before 3e.

There's a dynamic that can't be attained from "balanced" classes. And, the only reason you would need them to be balanced is if your game was only about combat.

Classes need to fill different voids, for different styles of players and personalities. There is more to the game than combat, and classes enable those players who enjoy the other things to excel in those areas.

Balance has nothing to do with that. So, why do we need it?

Well said.

Oh man, no way. If we have to rely on digital technology then the game is too complex already. I want a basic game I can play pickup games with by grabbing the box off the shelf when family members are over and want to give it a shot.

I want to be able to roll up characters in 5 minutes using dice, pencil and paper only and get into the game with minimal prep time.

If I need some online program or database software to manage all the options and choices, you've already lost me and those potential players who might actually try the game at family gatherings. I want to be able to say, "Yeah, you guys wanna try it?" and grab the box off the shelf after explaining what D&D is at a party and get playing right away. Instead of, "Well, we can play next Sunday - it'll take some time to go over character creation and all that...."

Screw that. By next Sunday those people will have forgotten all about D&D and I'm not interested in trying to wrangle them into the game when they've already lost interest.

This is where profit butts heads with making a good game. FWIW I totally agree. Insider is an attempt to monetize the game that hasn't inspired nearly as much revulsion as it should have.

I want tools that help inspire me to come up with my own goodness. If I download something from WotC's site, I want it to be environments and sites that are more akin to sandboxes with tons of little tidbits of things I can draw from and use.

Published adventures are of no use to me. I want resources, inspiration and monsters, magical items and exotic locales that inspire my imagination. I don't want a story written for me that I have to lure my players through.

You know, that's pretty much what I want. I wonder how many of us there are? (I'm guessing a lot).