I don't want 5E, I want a definitive D&D (the Monopoly model)

[prosfilaes]

Back in the day you just said "2E" or "3E" and people showed up and knew what to do.

This little part of the quote seems to have gotten passed over but, I'm going to call shenanigans here. This is simply not even close to true.

You say, "I'm running a 3e game" and I show up with an Unearthed Arcana gestalt character built using Scarred lands Relics and Rituals and races from Races of Stone and you're going to have zero problems with me sitting down and playing?

I don't think so.

Then why'd you bring the character? He said you "knew what to do", and the fact that you're saying "I don't think so" indicates you did know what to do and that what to do did not include gestalt characters.

The same goes for 2e. With several HUNDRED supplements for 2e, the odds of you coming to the table, sight unseen, with a character that is going to fit into any given campaign are slim to none. Skills and Powers? Faiths and Avatars?

Moreover, he never said that everyone could show up with a character and play that character; he said that they could show and know what to do.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The same goes for 2e. With several HUNDRED supplements for 2e, the odds of you coming to the table, sight unseen, with a character that is going to fit into any given campaign are slim to none. Skills and Powers? Faiths and Avatars?

I mean, heck, take three 2e clerics - one built with only the 2e PHB, one built with Faiths and Avatars and one built with the Complete Priests Handbook and you're going to have completely different characters.

But everyone is playing the same game? I don't think so.

One thing I feel about 2E though (excluding the skills and powers book---which I never allowed anyways) is most of the supplements had a pretty similar feel and flavor. I didn't find it too hard to incorporate material from many of the 2E books into my campaign (and none of the kits from the handbooks ever broke my game). But the splat books in 3E were another situation entirely. These were all over the map in terms of flavor and mechanics. 4E seems pretty similar in that respect.

 

[BryonD]

And every edition of D&D is a game where you take control of a character in a fantasy world and roll dice to collect experience points and loot. Face it, the differences are in the minutiae. We see them, because we have our faces in it, but to a casual observer? I doubt my family even realizes I've played different editions over the years.

First, the casual observers are not relevant to the conversation. Second, by this standard GURPS, Warhammer FRP, HERO, you name it, they are all differences in the minutiae.

"The devil is in the details" is a far more apt assessment.

How the mechanical system deals with responding to my action and resolving what the rolls of the dice mean is massively critical to the experience.

Now, maybe that isn't true for you. I have no way of knowing. But for me, and many others, it is.

3E and 4E play AT LEAST as differently to me as baseball and football. Probably more because I'm equally content with both football and baseball.

 

[BryonD]

An additional thought.

Critics are very quick to point at 4e and say how different it is from previous editions. Yet, whenever anyone claims that you can do something in 4e that is either difficult or impossible to do in earlier editions, the very same people are equally quick to point out how these things aren't actually different at all, that the earlier editions can do every single thing that 4e can do (and probably do it better).

Yet, if the game is so vastly different than earlier editions, shouldn't it be able to do things that other editions can't? How can a game be so completely different on one hand, yet incapable of doing anything different on the other?

This completely misses the point.

I absolutely agree that ANYTHING I can do in my 3E games, anyone else can do in their 4E games. I've stated that on multiple occasions before. The difference is in how doing those things is modeled and the differences are night and day.

So, which is it? Is it a totally different game with almost no ties to previous editions or is it an evolutionary link in a constantly evolving game?

Neither. It is a new RPG. It has ties to AD&D, just as GURPS and 3E have ties to AD&D. But 3E, GURPS, and 4E remain all new RPGs distinctly separate from AD&D.

Oh, and just a point about Monopoly. The idea that there is one way to play Monopoly is also ludicrous. What happens when you land on Free Parking? What happens when I land on a space and don't buy the property?

The answer to that is going to vary pretty strongly from table to table - basic, fundamental rules that are entirely game changing.

Again, this misses the point.

Which version of Free Parking causes you to confuse Monopoly for Chutes and Ladders or ANY other board game?

I can play Arcana Unearthed instead of Core 3E. I can allow a mix. I can allow Warlocks or ban them. I can play unlimited house rules into my 3E game.

And yet, do you personally think that ANY house rule to my 3E game would ever make you confused as to whether we were playing 3E or 4E after joining us for three minutes?

Every tweak of Monopoly remains CLEARLY Monopoly. Chutes and Ladders remains clearly a different game. Every tweak of 3E remains 3E and every tweak of 4E remains 4E and they both remain separate games.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

FIrstly the "Monopoly" model isn't the best comparison. Monopoly gets played didfferently from one house to another and except for ME, nobody I know has ever actually read the Monopoly rules - they just assume that they know how to play it. For the most part they're right, but as has been pointed out there are any number of house rules and overlooked details from the ACTUAL rules that can significantly change the game. The rules themselves now include a number of house rules as options. Furthermore Monopoly as a brand name has been given to any number of other games that are not even necessarily closely related to the original. Different versions of the original have also been devised to attempt to deal with its inadequacies as a not-really-well-designed game, since so much of the game relies upon random dice results (who lands where and when) rather than player strategy or tactics.

Even if you were to now create the "single, definitive version" of D&D you'd still have the problem of all those other editions still floating around out there. You would have to create this theoretical edition and then ensure that nobody plays any other version for the better part of a generation before you can be sure that everyone who has EVER played will be versed in the same ruleset as those who start playing this afternoon. Note that this means NOT just that everyone only sees one set of books but that nobody ever devises or uses house rules ever again. Unrealistic enough? Wait! There's more!

This theoretical ultimate version has to be one that everyone DOES want to play to the exclusion of all others... forever. We have die-hard fans of EVERY edition and the differences and preferences have been "discussed" at various temperatures for decades. You really think you can make everybody happy? That ANYONE will ever make everybody happy? Good luck with that.

I understand the sentiment, I really do. But yes you're dreaming to think it's even remotely possible, much less practical. The game has always been evolving even as every version has been put to print. It has never stopped changing and never will. And it isn't all just because we have different versions of the rules but because we all want different things OUT OF the rules. Some want gamist rules, some want simulationist rules, some want a bit of both. Some want simple rules. Some want to drown in options. Some want DM's to be firmly in control - some want players to be able to override the DM. Some just want to roll dice and kill things. Others want to wallow in thespianism. And they can want all of these in the span of a single nights gaming much less over decades of gaming experiences.

I'm edition-fatigued. We all play the same game with about a 1% difference between the editions/spinoffs/clones in what the actual game is. Those small variations on what is essentially the same thing create huge logistical barriers to actually playing the damn game.

Nope. I don't think you can have it both ways. These are either insignificant differences (both in amount of change and degree) or they are huge logistical barriers. And since it's YOU who's edition fatigued this can only come into play when YOU are changing editions - otherwise it's just a matter of teaching your chosen edition or making older players reaquainted with the game as you play it that has you fatigued.

If you meet Jim and invite him into your 3.5 game then yes, Jim may have to go buy a 3.5 PH. He shouldn't need anything else but dice to get started playing (and more importantly shouldn't want anything else until he's got his feet under him as regards those rules). This assumes Jim is unfamiliar with 3.5 and that Jim has no access to a computer to look at the SRD online anywhere.

If you meet Jerry and invite him to play your 2E or 1E game then if Jerry is unfamiliar with those rules he may need to buy a $5 PH off of Ebay or Amazon to get started - but you should be able to provide him with any other materials he might need at the start since you're running the game. Even if Jerry has played 1E and only 1E his entire life he is still likely to need YOU to explain how YOU run your game, what classes and races are available, the basic information about your game setting, house rules, alternate surprise and initiative rules, and on and on.

If you meet John and invite him to play in your 4E game but John hasn't played D&D since 1977 using the little brown books of OD&D is it not EXPECTED that either he would invest $40 in a new PH in order to participate or that you or someone else at the table would be able to provide him with a spare? Why would you invite him if you're going to turn him away if he turns out not to have the exact same gaming knowledge and understanding (much less materials) as you do? Of course you wouldn't.

This is all something that I think you just have to accept as part of the hobby in general - not everyone has the same knowledge, the same resources, the same experiences in gaming in general much less playing D&D in particular. You know, I think it may actually be GOOD for D&D and rpg's in general that we have so many different versions and so much inconsistency between them. This is not a problem - THIS IS D&D! </sparta>

Now, if you're telling me that the problem is that the older versions are not IN PRINT sign me up to that petition.

 

[wingsandsword]

As I said, most of the games that board gamers play are less than 10 years old.

WTF?

Sorry, Monopoly, Trouble, Life, Scrabble, Chutes and Ladders, Candy Land, Battleship, Clue. . .

Those games have been around decades. I was playing them as a kid ~25 years ago, and I've got those games for my kid now, and I see them on store shelves every time I go shopping. They may have made purely cosmetic changes to the gameboard and pieces, but the rules are the same (or close enough that we don't notice).

More serious, less casual, boardgame players may be after the latest and greatest games, but even the games I see boardgaming geek friends play often, the "new classics" are more than 10 years old now: like Settlers of Catan (16 years old now) and Arkham Horror was originally from 1987 (24 years old now) before being rereleased in '05.

Personally, I'd love for there to be the one, eternal "monopoly model" edition of D&D. I genuinely hate the edition treadmill of planned obsolescence with new editions regularly scheduled. I got off the treadmill at 3.5, and it would take something special to get me back on it.

My only fear is that such a permanent edition would be something more like 4e, since I'm firmly on the 1e/2e/3e side of the Edition War and not on the 4e side and would shudder at the thought of around three decades of D&D heritage being thrown away forever just in the interest of a permanent edition, instead of it only being cast aside temporarily and maybe being revived in the inevitable 5th Edition.

 

[Pentius]

First, the casual observers are not relevant to the conversation.

I can play Arcana Unearthed instead of Core 3E. I can allow a mix. I can allow Warlocks or ban them. I can play unlimited house rules into my 3E game.

And yet, do you personally think that ANY house rule to my 3E game would ever make you confused as to whether we were playing 3E or 4E after joining us for three minutes?

Every tweak of Monopoly remains CLEARLY Monopoly. Chutes and Ladders remains clearly a different game. Every tweak of 3E remains 3E and every tweak of 4E remains 4E and they both remain separate games.

The relevance of the casual observer is perspective. We can sit around here and talk about how much these differences in resolution mechanics or whatnot affect us, and it's true that we care. But then people start talking about which editions of D&D aren't really D&D, or aren't really roleplaying, but it's all silly nit-picking at that point. I, a complete non-sports fan, could tell baseball and football apart. But if we took a non-gamer and had them watch two games, one of which was 3.5 and one of which was 4, and then asked them which of the two was D&D and roleplaying, and which was not, they'd look at us like we'd gone crazy.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

No please, tell us what you really think.

Frankly I got tired of hearing "WotC/TSR needs to make one big unified D&D (that is not the edition I hate)" last time it made the rounds when 3e came out. Or was it 3.5? So many nerd fights, hard to remember.

It almost seems like 4e is only allowed to be different from earlier editions if that difference can be painted in a negative light.
...
Oh, and just a point about Monopoly. The idea that there is one way to play Monopoly is also ludicrous. What happens when you land on Free Parking? What happens when I land on a space and don't buy the property?

The answer to that is going to vary pretty strongly from table to table - basic, fundamental rules that are entirely game changing.

First I really didn't mean to set off an edition war, but it's pretty easy to do. I think the situation would be a lot less hostile had WOTC kept both editions around, but we can only really guess how that would have played out for the community and their balance sheets if that were reality. I've found a lot of the comments like "Just play PF, I'm tired of people whining about this" to be pretty dismissive. I think I wrote a pretty legitimate case for why it's inconvenient to have to jump between editions, even if it's PF and 3.5. If amongst three casual gamers one player has a 3.5 PHB, one has PF, and one has 3.0, how do I explain to them that two of them need to buy a different book and memorize slightly different rules?

Now a lot of these comments make it sound like I'm bashing 4E. It definitely is different and has it's merits and good innovation. I've never claimed (on this forum or ever) that 4E is dumbed down, a tabletop MMO, or a minis wargame. But it is divisive, particularly for the 3.5 players who saw support for their system end (and yes, obviously my heart goes out to the 1E and 2E players who went through the same, since my thesis is a call to stop discontinuing editions). Many players don't consider it the same D&D game and that's fine. That's their opinion and you can't change it, it just is. 4E also doesn't seem to have the support of the majority of D&D players (go to any meetup or forum discussing what people play or looking for recommendations about D&D editions and count what people are playing and recommending). Six years ago in my community almost everyone played 3.5, with the exception of a few 2E groups and various other independent games. That was the perfect split because their were other games you could play to get a break from 3.5, but everyone could get together and agree on a system and just play. That's not a claim that 3.5 is the best system, it was just nice to have one system most everyone could agree on.

This is not an attack on 4E but a lamentation on how it's divided gamers. Please don't be upset by it - I'm not trying to attack your game.

And people keep picking apart my Monopoly and Football analogy with things that seem to miss the point of my "solid foundation" discussion. Everyone D&D player I've ever met likes house rules. House rules in Monopoly and D&D are almost always easy to understand, rarely divisive, and not barriers to entry. They don't cause nearly as many problems as going from a large 2E PHB full or rules to a large 3E PHB full of rules, then having to do the same thing twice in the next 8 years. House rules and supplements keep games from getting stale. You're talking about small variations, rules updates, and house rules in Monopoly that are rarely a point of contention. I'm talking about WOTC discontinuing and totally replacing a very complex game that requires an an intense commitment of money and learning rules every four to eight years with a new game that requires you to undergo the same commitment. And statistically speaking any random gamer you meet isn't likely to have committed to the same system to you, since their are now in many communities at least four major and different D&D systems (1E, 3.5, PF, 4E) with independent rules, product lines and fanbases.

I really don't think my Monopoly analogy breaks because in some games you get money on free parking. Sure, it changes the game up a bit, but it doesn't divide people. Was that unclear? Do you really think money on free parking or no money divides Monopoly players like 3.5/4E divides D&D?

 

[Dausuul]

My only fear is that such a permanent edition would be something more like 4e, since I'm firmly on the 1e/2e/3e side of the Edition War and not on the 4e side and would shudder at the thought of around three decades of D&D heritage being thrown away forever just in the interest of a permanent edition, instead of it only being cast aside temporarily and maybe being revived in the inevitable 5th Edition.

And you can be damn sure that everyone on the 4E side of the edition war feels the same way about the prospect of 3E becoming the "permanent edition." I would leave D&D behind for good if that happened--or rather, I'd stick with 4E or my own hacked-together version and tell the permanent edition to go hang. Which kind of defeats the point of a permanent edition, doesn't it?

If Mearls and Cook can manage to square the circle and create a 5E that appeals to both sides (which I don't think is as impossible as it seems), I might be willing to accept it as permanent, or at least semi-permanent; a foundation that gets tweaked and polished over the years but stays essentially the same. As things stand, however, I'm not happy enough with any edition of D&D to want it to stick around forever.

 

[technoextreme]

I've gotta be honest, I just don't know how some people can think that 4E was an effort to provide a more accessible game.

Because the rules aren't a disjointed mess that you have spend hours looking at to figure out their intent which how other editions were designed. Face it when the creator of everyone's favorite edition uses the word Ivory Tower to describe how they built the game you have accessibility problems.

Having played all the editions except OD&D, I can say that there is a definitive D&D and it was Gygax's, not WotC's D&D.

Yeah but you are in the minority given how many people actually hate how certain aspects of 4E swung back to being similar to Gygax's version like the alignment system.