Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5627648" data-attributes="member: 59082">See, I disagree with this. I like Philotomy's "adventure test" although don't find that TSR D&D, 3E and 4E are as incompatible in terms of adventure running as he says they are. In fact, I've proven otherwise, at least for myself. I started running a 4E-version of White Plume Mountain a few months ago with very little conversion prep time. I took the 1E and 3E versions, swapped in 4E monsters, and eyeballed the rest. Cake, really. You don't need any conversion for "fluff"; traps are relatively easy to convert, as are anything requiring skill tests. Monsters are also quite easy - you just swap in your edition of choice's version. Etc.But this might boil down to personality types and the degree to which one cares about details. I don't mind Fiating and Ad Hocking as necessary or, for instance, making up difficulty classes for skill tests on the fly, so conversion is relatively easy. It requires some work but not a lot. Possibly, although neither would be a game changer and completely reinvigorate the game, imo. But what you say here is why I think "5E" (in whatever form it takes) won't be a complete reboot, but more of a revisioning and retooling of 4E. This relates to delericho's comments quoted below, and one of the Big Questions, imo, if you are Mearls and WotC: How can we revision and retool D&D while both retaining close compatibility with the 4E rules set, and thus hopefully the 4E base--the only "bird in hand" we have left--and making it appealing enough to lapsed and new players that they'll give it a try?In my opinion, the answer is related to this idea of the "complexity dial." If you strip back 4E to its core you can find a very simple game that can be the basis of numerous variations of game play, from a virtual recreation of 4E to a more classic feel. In other words, "5E" doesn't need to be a new game system, what it needs to be is a re-organization of the game into a more modular approach.Stripping back the game to its core isn't only mechanical, it also means making the core, "Basic", game be classic D&D and only classic D&D. Dragonborn and "elfier elves" belong in optional supplements, not the core rules. And so forth.You're right - call me lazy, thus the "+".I completely agree and think it possible, likely even, that Mearls' recent articles are akin to a kind of pseudo-alpha testing.I agree, although the problem--or challenge, really--in our current information-rich environment is that bloat and "better ways to do things" occur much faster than before. Maybe the good folks at WotC have a file folder that they've kept since 4E first came out of "things to do differently with 5E" and when that folder gets to a so-many-inches thick, they say "Time for a new edition." Of course it doesn't really work that way, but my point is that this "folder" probably got to maximum capacity much sooner than in previous editions, and this isn't only because of flaws in 4E design - but because of the nature of information in 2008-2011 vs even 5-10 years before.The "answer," I think, is not to publish a new edition every  2-3 years to reboot the game, but to make DDI the core rules set of the game and incorporate micro-changes as they arise, with new "revised versions" of the core rules every few years, as well as rules annuals reflecting new material.The 4E game system is very simple at its core. Actually, it is virtually the same game as 3E in terms of the core mechanic and the "inner circle" of rules. If WotC could solidify that core rules set into the "basic game," then everything else becomes a modular option, and therefore there is less need for "new editions" and what we might see are revisionings, new modular packages to attach to the core game, etc. I get what you are saying but think you're being a tad extreme (more than a tad). If 3E isYes,then 4E is certainly not gangsta-rap. It might not even be Rush, but it could be something like Primus - spastic rock with elements of prog.I'm more of a King Crimson than a Yes fan, and I've used them as an analogy for D&D, something like so:Chainmail: Giles, Giles and FrippOD&D: In the Court of the Crimson King/In the Wake of PoseidonB/X: Lizard/IslandsAD&D 1E: Larks Tongues in Aspic/Starless and Bible Black/RedAD&D 2E: Discipline, Beat, Three of a Perfect Pair 3E: Thrak, aka 90s version4E: Construcktion of Light/Power to BelieveNow my personal favorite version of King Crimson is the 1972-75 version under the heading 1E. And I certainly prefer any of the earlier versions of King Crimson to their 90s-present stuff. For D&D it is a bit different; I actually feel that, overall, each edition has gotten better, or at least changed in an interesting way. But my point is that even if Power to Believe sounds nothing like In the Court of the Crimson King, they are all still King Crimson. I don't have to stop listening to Starless and Bible Black (my favorite album of theirs) even if they haven't made music like that in 35 years.Perhaps a better Yes analogy would be Close to the Edgevs Owner of a Lonely  Heart, and that might even be more extreme than various versions of King Crimson.You may be right - it is a vicious cycle that they've found themselves in: new edition, core rules, main supplements, fringe supplements, bloat, new edition, etc.The question, I think, which I touched on above, is whether or not they can "go back to the drawing board" and present a game that remains compatible enough with 4E, but also appeals to lapsed and possibly new players.</blockquote>

Verification