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

[JamesonCourage]

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.

That's due to exposure. Considering that these same people wouldn't know the difference between a 3.X or 4e game in the middle of a fight using minis and an uncommon board game, I don't think their perspective is particularly relevant when it comes to being able to tell the difference between D&D editions.

From my experience, the average person can't tell the difference between a mini-less D&D game and homework (I've been asked many times if I'm working on something for college when I was working on D&D stuff, even if I had dice out).

The average person can tell the difference between baseball and football, yes. They can't tell the difference between D&D 3.X on a grid and pretty much any of these: List of miniature wargames - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To that end, I don't see how that kind of perspective is really relevant to the discussion, other than a "the details are more important to us than to them, but it's still important to us" sort of way. Which, again, I don't think is really relevant to what BryonD's point was.

Just my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

 

[technoextreme]

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.

How does this work when most of the 4th edition splat material liberally takes from 2nd edition?

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

What motivation does WotC have to cater to them? My issue, which I don't see where you've addressed, is that this is not a financially feasible action. If you want to sell to people who don't want to buy new books, you've got to sell to tens of millions of them, like Monopoly does. I never actually saw a Red Box in a Walmart; until you've solidly cracked that market, they'll have to sell to people who buy new books.

This is a good point and possibly foreshadows that any "definitive" or enduring version of D&D probably, sadly, won't have the D&D logo. If such a game ever gets momentum. Also the game won't have beholders, sigh.

So I imagine their is a large market of people who like dragons, LOTR, Harry Potter, video games, or even acting, talking in funny voices, and improvising. They just don't have that gamer gene - which is incredible patience and willingness to learn D&D. They're kept away from D&D because they see really big complex rulebooks. They've heard horror stories about people with brothers that own 20 hardcover books. Or they've heard gamers complaining about how they memorized all the 2E stuff and then they went and made it all totally obsolete. Or they were the type that was "with it" until it changed, the scene flipped and they just gave up. They tell acquaintances and D&D gets tagged as this game for ultra-nerds with huge amounts of time and a unique patience for learning extremely complicated games.

Just think what the thirty hardcover books on someones shelf conveys to someone who doesn't understand how they're all optional supplements. I have to memorize all that? That's like ten-thousand pages of rules. Most games come with books that are 10 pages - that's a thousand times more rules. That gamer can't explain to their non-gaming coworker why their game occupies shelves full of rules. But if that gamer tells the non-gamer "yeah, it sucks, all of those books are obsolete. You have to buy new books" that'll make an impression. That's the kind of talk that scares people away from gaming.

D&D is daunting, and the number of editions you see just makes it exponentially more difficult for a non-gamer to think they'll ever get it. So between the borderline gamers and the former gamers who gave up with edition changes, I think there's a larger market of people that are kept away from the game by the perception that it's unstable, ridiculously complex, and constantly revamped entirely. If a gamer knows the rules he memorized fifteen years ago will still be in print and played he's more likely to make the large commitment to entering the hobby. That's not the case - I've known a lot of people that dropped out of the hobby for this reason.

And you can always sell supplements and adventures and rules books and D20-modern/Gamma World 4E-type spin-offs to a larger audience. For example you could have a stable base game and an arcana-book with more advanced rules for healing surges, will defenses, etc. Take it or leave it. This would be a less divisive implementation of some of the 3E/4E innovations.

So a stable base game would improve D&D's image, cause less people to drop out and more people to give it a try. I know that's hard to demonstrate.

(I stare at my shelf full of roleplaying games, things like Traveller and GURPS 3e, GURPS 4e, Over the Edge, TORG, Underground, Nobilis, Aberrant, In Nomine, Trail of Cthulhu and the Mountain Witch.) <sarcasm>You have my deepest sympathy; I can't imagine what it must be like to have to pick among so many vastly different systems. And they're threatening to come out with another one; how horrible.</sarcasm>

Ya know, not to be rude but I find this pretty dismissive and lacking of empathy for all the people that don't come to these forums and have huge collections of indie-RPGs. You may have a steady group group that will play just about anything. I like to introduce non-gamers or former gamers to the hobby so I'm just trying to keep it simple.

I'm a guy with three shelves of RPG books and a $600 miniature collection I carry around in the biggest fishing tackle box I could find. So we're both huge gaming nerds. I have a lot of friends with great D&D memories but they haven't bought a book since I convinced them to buy 2E/3.0. I don't get to visit them much since they live so far away. When I do I'm always trying to get them to try 4E or C&C or 3.5 since I have resources for those - and it's just hard to get them to try to learn new rules. Because of time and money. And they loved D&D and they have lots of time. It's hard to get them to play D&D but it's awesome when it happens. Please don't be dismissive of those folks. They're like us, they like the same things, and it's hard to get them into games for legitimate reasons. You come off as pretty condescending for people that are probably a lot like yourself but just may not have the time and patience for so many game systems.

 

[BryonD]

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.

First, you have substantially distorted my point. I said "they are all RPGs" So saying that a casual observer would see that point doesn't offer any comment of the actual differences. I never said playing 4E wasn't roleplaying. I've often said exactly the opposite.

Again, by this standard GURPS is also "D&D and Roleplaying".

If agreeing to that conclusion is meaningful to the point then expecting everyone to abandon all other RPGs everywhere and just play GURPS as a grand compromise for the sake of unity is a great plan. After all, why nit-pick?

Also, as a even as a completely non-sports fan, simply being aware of the culture gives you the knowledge to know the differences between football and baseball. A non-gamer isn't equivalent. But even with that, if a non-gamer truly watched and paid attention to the details for more than a few minutes, the differences between 3E and 4E would quickly become obvious. Of course, they would still agree that both are "role playing", just as an alien from another planet would quickly agree that baseball and football are both "sports". And yet the attentive alien would notice clear differences in the specific sports and the attentive non-gamer would notice clear differences in the specific role playing activities.

Asking which of 3E or 4E is roleplaying is just as dumb as asking which of football or baseball is a sport. Saying that there are no meaningful differences between 3E and 4E just because they ARE both roleplaying is just as foolish as saying there is no meaningful difference between baseball and football just because they are both sports.

 

[BryonD]

They just don't have that gamer gene

I've commented numerous times that there are gamers and non-gamers. Not keeping that truth well enough in mind was a design point that has contributed to the current circumstances.

D&D is daunting...

I have a big difference of opinion here. And I'll readily agree that my opinion doesn't reflect everyone and is no more valid then yours. But it remains highly different.

Where you see "daunting", I see "opportunity".

If you can design a game mechanic that achieves the exact same thing in a more efficient way, then that is awesome. But the second you start worrying about needing to make the game less daunting than it is as a goal in and of itself, you are underrating the real core of your fan base.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

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.

We should stop arguing about how analogous Monopoly is. The point is Monopoly is stable enough that it's not contentious. It would be impossible to replicate this for D&D, but WOTC dumps fuel on the fire and makes the situation much much worse.

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.

Of course, but it would be a stabilizing and unifying influence if WOTC had one steady edition forever in print. People would buy that game on the guarantee that it would always be there, and then they would have a deeper understanding of the rules and they would start to stick. While a lot of edition warring comes from educated preferences, a lot if it also comes from nostalgia, when people started playing, what books they're familiar with, and what they've committed to learning. A definitive version would mitigate the second source of edition-warring amongst newcomers, but not the first. For peoples edition-specific preferences I propose optional Arcana-style supplements that would allow you to tailor the base game into something with 4E or 2.5. For example you'd start with Castles and Crusades and buy a "3E Unearthed" add-on for feats and skills, or a "4E Unearthed" book for defenses and healing surges. Ideally this would be compatible with other materials.

People would always play other games and variations, but if one edition would stick it would mitigate this problem.

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.

Okay, lets go back to my original post

At it's essence D&D is a vehicle for creativity and improvisation. That game, a standard-issue roleplaying game, should be on sale for decades like Monopoly. It would still be D&D - where you can make up anything you want and spend $800 on new third party splat books and homerule to hell,

Seriously, where did you draw the conclusion that there would be one set of books and no house rules? I don't think anyone is advocating an end to house rules or splat books, just a single stable set of core books. And I've said like four times already including my original post house rules are integral to D&D. And Monopoly, in fact. Not even the 10-year old Battleship player or the 50-year old receptionist that plays Monopoly has beef with the idea of house rules. And that's fine.

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.

Two things.

• Lots of people believe learning rules takes time from roleplaying, simulationsim, thesbianism - they take time that could be spent doing that stuff. I think this is an under-represented group of edition-fatigued gamers that probably don't wallow in edition wars. They're probably under-represented on the edition-war threads or have dropped out of gaming altogether.
• A simple game like Castles and Crusades can have modular add-ons that facilitate rules for simulation, combat tactics, thesbianism, etc. The trick is to have a foundation that's strong enough to support such radical additions. DMs also often use house rules to steer their games in this direction

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.

You know with casual gamers who are accustomed to other editions or non-gamers this is hard. I have a no laptop and some casual gamers would have a hard time building a character off the SRD. A familiar edition mitigates start-up time and lets us spend more time in the dungeon killing stuff.

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>

Yeah, it is kind of cool to be part of a hobby no one understands like being into an indie band most people don't know. And it is sort of cool that gaming is this huge DIY wild-west frontier of options. But it also has drawbacks. I spend a lot of time teaching people rules and trying to settle them into various rules system

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

Of course

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

I've commented numerous times that there are gamers and non-gamers. Not keeping that truth well enough in mind was a design point that has contributed to the current circumstances.

Do you think their are psuedo-gamers? I think there's a lot of shades of grey that aren't really being wooed by the hobby.

If you can design a game mechanic that achieves the exact same thing in a more efficient way, then that is awesome. But the second you start worrying about needing to make the game less daunting than it is as a goal in and of itself, you are underrating the real core of your fan base.

That's probably true. But if you give them the option to have the complicated style they like and throw in some Eberron splat books and the Spell Compendiums I think they'll still show up.

And I don't think the game itself is very daunting, because most people I've taught it to "get it". They just don't want to learn it again. You can have complex rules and a deep core game, just the core just shouldn't constantly change.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

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.

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

Well, sure you have to hammer out the details about the options. And the ability to have options is great - it's something that keeps D&D fresh and awesome and dramatically alters the game. But in the end it's all built on the same foundation - they all run off the 2E core books. That 2E foundation was shared. We can all agree on the very basics of what 2E is, and we can agree to disagree about whether we extend or alter the game dramatically with supplements.

So I think they're playing the same game. But that game has a bunch of options as D&D has always had and will always have.

I could jump right in and start using the options books. Because they're all built off the same 2E foundation I already know. Just like I can jump into Magic the Gathering after not playing it for thirteen years. And that's my criteria - if I can jump in and add new stuff to a stable core I consider it to be the same game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How does this work when most of the 4th edition splat material liberally takes from 2nd edition?

I am not seeing this myself. The 4E splat books look a lot more like the 3E ones than the 2E books. 2E, IMO was one of the more gritty, vaguely historical editions out there. 3E and 4E just don't hit that note with me (I happen to like some of the notes 3E hits, but gritty and historical isn't one of them). The bigger issue though is the impact the splat books have on the game. With 3E and 4E each new book has major mechanical implications for the game. With 2E the compete books didn't really make that much of a difference mechanically. Maybe you could point to something you specifically had in mind.

 

[Hussar]

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.



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.

But, again, that's still not true. Reverse it. I show up with just my core PHB and he's playing Gestalt characters with fifteen different splats. Again, there's going to be problems. The original point was, that because everyone is working from the same playbook, everybody will be able to sit down at any table, just like it was Monopoly, and start playing.

That's ridiculous. Never minding the binder full of house rules many people had for AD&D, or the bajillion supplements, the idea that you can sit down at any gaming table and know the rules is just wrong. Try sitting down at a new table with an existing group and tell me that you can start playing with no hiccups.

First, I think defenders and detractors on both sides should take a deep breath and realize this is just a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to like, not like or be indifferent to a given edition. They are also entitled to have an impression of the edition even if others don't share it.

I can see how someone may look at 4E and say it is pretty much the same as previous editions, but I can also see how someone would look at it and say it is a huge break (I personally would be in the later camp). What people are really saying is, "It feels different/the same to me".

I can also see how someone would say 4E is different from previous editions and it rocks because of it (in fact most people I meet who like it, praise it for taking such a bold design direction).
/snip-

I guess my issue is that there are so many perfectly legitimate criticisms of 4e (or any other edition for that matter) that I just don't understand why we need to continually harp on this. Yes, 4e is different than 3e. No one is going to argue that it's not. But, EVERY edition has some pretty significant differences from the edition before it. Even 2e, which mechanically is pretty darn close to 1e, was the red-headed stepchild of gaming for years because it was considered so different from 1e. Basic/Expert D&D and 3e D&D share almost nothing, yet we don't have monthly claims about how 3e is "dividing the fanbase" and whatnot.

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.

Really? Planescape and Spelljammer. Faiths and Avatars and Complete Priest - those two aren't even in the same ballpark as far as flavour or mechanics and both vary wildly from core. I have to admit, I had a very different experience than you. I found the 3e (at least WOTC 3e) books to be pretty solidly incorporated into a unifying concept. 2e was all over the place. Then again, considering just how much 2e supplementary material there is out there (probably more than all other editions combined, discounting OGL 3PP), it's not too difficult to have some VERY different opinions on this.

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).

Look at what you just said there. You played those games 25 years ago. And, you're playing them again now. Sure. What about that 25 year gap? How much did you play any of these games during that period?

Would you really want D&D to go that same route?

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?

Move away from Monopoly and back to Football for a second though. Hang out on sports forums and see how divisive something like the Instant Replay rule is. This year, they changed the kick off line to the 35 yard line. Again, see how much chatter that generates.

See, your presumption here is that it's a zero sum game. That if the fanbase is divided, there are only half as many people playing each game. I think that presumption is false. WOTC has very much tried to go after a new fanbase. I don't know if they've succeeded or not, but, it does look like that's what they're trying to do. Paizo is catering to an existing fanbase. And that's great for the hobby. Those that want 3e still have it, in print no less. Those that want something new have that as well.

Or, think of it this way, if you took the active D&D gaming population in 2006, do you think it was increasing or declining?

Now, do you think the active D&D (4e+Pathfinder) population is increasing or declining in 2011?

Me, I think it's increasing. Everywhere I look I see larger numbers - forum sizes, DDI subs, Gen Con (although that may have had a lot to do with PAX), etc.

And that's freaking fantastic.

So, let the gaming population be divided. I'll happily play either game. I'm currently playing 4e, but, that's just because I want to and it's scratching my particular itch. But, choice is good. Choice means competition and that can only be good for gamers. I want Paizo and WOTC to be scratching tooth and nail for every gamer out there. I'm old enough to remember the drivel that came out of TSR because they didn't have to compete with anyone. I bought into the OGL movement and bought buckets of OGL stuff, and, competition there meant that the books got continuously better. So, fight on Paizo and WOTC. Keep it up. I hope nobody wins the top spot. Because, so long as the two of them are trading the top spot between them, then we win.