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

[Bedrockgames]

Hussar: no doubt the setting materials were all over the place ( though they were each pretty internally consistent), and i viewed this as a strength. But i was thinking of the core supplements, the brown, blue and green books. For me they didn't stretch the mechanics or tone as much as later editions. I mean i love 3e mechanically but it sometimes veered too much toward dragon ball z for my taste (unless you took care limiting prestige class and feat options). I just found the overall tone of the 2e supps more down to earth.

 

[prosfilaes]

WTF?

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

What part of board gamers do you not understand? Exactly one of those games has any serious adult players; the rest are for children or families with children.

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.

Okay, Settlers of Catan. But I have two problems with Arkham Horror; first, it fails the eternal part, since it was out of print, and second, the 1987 game is not the same game. Look at Arkham Horror - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ; the boards are completely different, the investigators have different stats. It's at least over the D&D3 / D&D4 divide.

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.

<sarcasm>Because gamers (by which I assume you mean roleplayers) all have to learn D&D.</sarcasm> Frankly, I see a least one factor being a lack of interest in playing a six-hour multiplayer game, particularly where that six-hour is just one session.

They're kept away from D&D because they see really big complex rulebooks.

Then why would D&D be the game we're talking about here? Really old D&D stuff may have qualified as light-weight, but you pile up the AD&D 1 PHB, DMG and MM, and you've got a hefty pile right there, and it hasn't got better since then.

Just think what the thirty hardcover books on someones shelf conveys to someone who doesn't understand how they're all optional supplements.

You've suggested nothing to fix that; you've said repeatedly that we'd continue to get splatbooks and all the expansions. Which means that a casual player will still have problems dropping into a big group, as they'll have the PHB and everyone else will be working from PHB, Complete *, Races of *, etc. (or PHB 1-20, or whatever.)

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.

And yet you don't play Call of Cthulhu, or RIFTS, or even GURPS.

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.

Most of those aren't indie RPGs. Some of those are among the most successful games on the market.

I like to introduce non-gamers or former gamers to the hobby so I'm just trying to keep it simple.

Then why do you keep harping on one of the most complex games on the market? Why not Prime Time Adventures, whose basic rules fit on a index card and is usually played in four hours? Why not at least something that fits PHB & DMG in one 250 page book, instead of two 300 page books, like the Serenity RPG?

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.

So they have lots of time, but not enough time to get some familiarity with the new rules? Then why don't you play 2E or 3.0; even if you tossed all your old books, they're not that expensive to buy again.

And again, if you want to introduce them to something simple and stable, why choose D&D in the first place?

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

What part of board gamers do you not understand? Exactly one of those games has any serious adult players; the rest are for children or families with children.

It doesn't really matter if they're for kids. Very few popular and enduring tabletop games for kids or adults are rebuilt from scratch regularly.

<sarcasm>Because gamers (by which I assume you mean roleplayers) all have to learn D&D.</sarcasm> Frankly, I see a least one factor being a lack of interest in playing a six-hour multiplayer game, particularly where that six-hour is just one session.

The people I play with learn the new edition, usually to accommodate to what the group knows or what resources are most available, but they consider it to be a chore and need a push in that direction.

Then why would D&D be the game we're talking about here? Really old D&D stuff may have qualified as light-weight, but you pile up the AD&D 1 PHB, DMG and MM, and you've got a hefty pile right there, and it hasn't got better since then.

Okay, this is tricky but stick with me. A complex definitive D&D is fine, since most people are able to digest enough of one edition to functionally play. Most casual players can digest the core (not memorize it) and don't shut down when learning the rules. This seems to go smoother if it's the first edition they play - otherwise they may make some gripes about how things used to be.

For non-gamers complex rules are a deal-breaker, but for the casual crowd I think the combination of complex rules and planned obsolescence are the tipping point. Those gamers may shut down when they figure out all the rules they learned are antiquated and part of a cycle of planned obsolescence.

You've suggested nothing to fix that; you've said repeatedly that we'd continue to get splatbooks and all the expansions. Which means that a casual player will still have problems dropping into a big group, as they'll have the PHB and everyone else will be working from PHB, Complete *, Races of *, etc. (or PHB 1-20, or whatever.)

Casual players play with advanced players all the time and it's fine.
Regarding the image problem of shelves full of gaming material, it's the difference between
"My cousin has 30 D&D books but he says you only need to understand pieces of one book to play"
And
"My cousin has 30 D&D books but he says you only need to understand pieces of one book to play. However all those books went out of date six years ago and now he has to buy new books because no one plays with the rules of those old books."
So it's better for the game to have an image of optional complexity than optional complexity and planned obsolescence.

And yet you don't play Call of Cthulhu, or RIFTS, or even GURPS.

Yeah, I don't know many people who play those games. I'll admit a lot of it is a product of brand loyalty and nostalgia.

Then why do you keep harping on one of the most complex games on the market?

Because my casual gaming friends and I like it? It's a good game. The complexity of all D&D versions is just right, it just becomes frustrating when it's endlessly rewritten and existing products. And we grew up with it and it's easier to talk them into D&D than most games I don't even know.

Most of those aren't indie RPGs. Some of those are among the most successful games on the market.

<sarcasm>Oh yes, Nobilis and The Mountain Witch, who hasn't played those? I'm sure all of my friends would jump right on the opportunity to play those games </sarcasm> Using sarcasm on a forum makes me feel dirty

So they have lots of time, but not enough time to get some familiarity with the new rules? Then why don't you play 2E or 3.0; even if you tossed all your old books, they're not that expensive to buy again.

Because some know 2E better, some 3.0, and I'm most versed in Castles and Crusades and 4E now. I wish we didn't have to reconcile those. I don't really like switching editions to accommodate what other people know.

And again, if you want to introduce them to something simple and stable, why choose D&D in the first place?

Um, well, because I'm sort of attached to it. D&D can be simple and should be stable. I want to play the edition I grew up with and have that shared experience with other gamers. <Sarcasm> I'm sure I'm the only person that feels that way even though it's totally stupid </Sarcasm>. (Can we agree not to do that? It's pretty condescending and makes me feel like a really awful stereotype)

Anyway, it's about shared experiences and a shared core. If there was an edition that wasn't built on planned obsolescence, and it's not my edition that becomes the core, then at least we could move towards a core book at the center of the hobby that grows with us and unifies us. You know, with an iconic cover and art and a familiar table of contents where everyone at the table knows where to find everything. Lots of people have strong feelings about editions. But there's also lots of people that don't really care what vehicle gets them to where they're going, they just want to get there and make sure all their friends are comfortable while sharing the ride with them

 

[Hussar]

Hussar: no doubt the setting materials were all over the place ( though they were each pretty internally consistent), and i viewed this as a strength. But i was thinking of the core supplements, the brown, blue and green books. For me they didn't stretch the mechanics or tone as much as later editions. I mean i love 3e mechanically but it sometimes veered too much toward dragon ball z for my taste (unless you took care limiting prestige class and feat options). I just found the overall tone of the 2e supps more down to earth.

Again, compare Complete Priest to Complete Book of the Elves. The 2e supplements were really all over the place.

To be fair though, I never got into the historical supplements ((That's the blue cover ones right? been a while)).

The class books though were all over the place with some drastically changing the power levels of characters and some beating classes over the head with a Nerf bat.

 

[Hussar]

Um, well, because I'm sort of attached to it. D&D can be simple and should be stable. I want to play the edition I grew up with and have that shared experience with other gamers. <Sarcasm> I'm sure I'm the only person that feels that way even though it's totally stupid </Sarcasm>. (Can we agree not to do that? It's pretty condescending and makes me feel like a really awful stereotype)

Anyway, it's about shared experiences and a shared core. If there was an edition that wasn't built on planned obsolescence, and it's not my edition that becomes the core, then at least we could move towards a core book at the center of the hobby that grows with us and unifies us. You know, with an iconic cover and art and a familiar table of contents where everyone at the table knows where to find everything. Lots of people have strong feelings about editions. But there's also lots of people that don't really care what vehicle gets them to where they're going, they just want to get there and make sure all their friends are comfortable while sharing the ride with them

What version of D&D is simple? I suppose Basic/Expert might qualify for that, but, only gamers would consider a 130 (ish) pages of rules to be a simple game.

And, why should the game be stable? Gaming is still a VERY new hobby - it's only about 30 years old or so. We've learned and continue to learn new things about what works and doesn't work in a game all the time. Things that seem like a really good idea now become the problems of next year.

I have to admit, I hope what you are hoping for never comes to light. You're talking about a stagnant game with rules mired in a single mindset. No thank you.

Nothing, absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from playing any edition of D&D for the rest of their lives. If the people near you are not playing your edition of choice, there's always the online option.

I want fifteen different versions of D&D all competing. It makes for better games.

 

[prosfilaes]

A complex definitive D&D is fine, since most people are able to digest enough of one edition to functionally play.

The only way that's true is if it's circular; most people (who play D&D) are able to digest enough of one edition to functionally play. From what you say, you have no clue whether a simpler game might attract more people; you haven't tried it in the least.

Casual players play with advanced players all the time and it's fine.

Casual players play whatever the people around them are playing all the time and it's fine.

Regarding the image problem of shelves full of gaming material, it's the difference between
"My cousin has 30 D&D books but he says you only need to understand pieces of one book to play"
And
"My cousin has 30 D&D books but he says you only need to understand pieces of one book to play. However all those books went out of date six years ago and now he has to buy new books because no one plays with the rules of those old books."
So it's better for the game to have an image of optional complexity than optional complexity and planned obsolescence.

Then don't put forth an image of planned obsolescence. If you're going to feed them the "oh, you don't need to worry about those books" line of BS, why complain new editions while you're doing it?

Yeah, I don't know many people who play those games. I'll admit a lot of it is a product of brand loyalty and nostalgia.

So you aren't willing to look for a game that will fit your needs, so D&D has to change?

<sarcasm>Oh yes, Nobilis and The Mountain Witch, who hasn't played those?

Which doesn't make the rest of them indie games. Do you understand that? Do you have a clue why blowing off every non-D&D RPG as indie games might just tweak someone off a little?

Because some know 2E better, some 3.0, and I'm most versed in Castles and Crusades and 4E now. I wish we didn't have to reconcile those. I don't really like switching editions to accommodate what other people know.

If you don't like multiple editions, why on Earth did you pick up Castles and Crusades? You made your own troubles there.

I want to play the edition I grew up with and have that shared experience with other gamers. <Sarcasm> I'm sure I'm the only person that feels that way even though it's totally stupid </Sarcasm>.

If two people feel that way, one of them is up a creek, because only one edition can be enshrined as the one. And all of us who left the editions we grew up with for good reason, we should just have our feelings ignored.

If there was an edition that wasn't built on planned obsolescence, and it's not my edition that becomes the core, then at least we could move towards a core book at the center of the hobby that grows with us and unifies us.

By definition, you're demanding an edition that doesn't grow with us. And I certainly don't want it to unify us; this concept that the RPG world can't tolerate even two renditions of the hoary old elves, dwarves and killing things archetype is pretty sad.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Monopoly made some fairly changes to the game a few years ago, FYI. I think the analogy you want is some other game. Which, I don't know, since they all either evolved over many years (chess was a very different game for much of its history) or simply doesn't have rules that people give much of a crap about (would anyone care if Operation changed a great deal?).

Incidentally, if you play modern Monopoly without any of the house rules (like money in free parking or allowing people to not buy a property and not auction it off), the game moves really fast and is a lot more fun.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

I took a community college class last summer taught by the #2 player in the latest American championship. There are definitely strategies and tactics used at the top end of the game and they make a massive difference in play.

 

[Barastrondo]

Anyway, it's about shared experiences and a shared core.

I would call that a noble goal, save that for genuinely shared experiences, you need to not just regulate the edition, you need to regulate individual games. Even in the days of 1st edition AD&D, there were the people who played modules, and those who didn't. There were the people who could meet another D&D gamer and compare notes about what they did in White Plume Mountain, or Against the Giants, or in the Slavers' Stockade, and there were those who couldn't, because they were playing homebrew adventures instead. And there's game worlds: playing in Arduin made D&D less of a shared experience than the guys playing in Greyhawk.

You see similar arguments as well when it comes to learning things about other worlds. A person who's devoted all his gaming energy to mastering the Forgotten Realms is going to be less interested in a campaign set in Greyhawk. There are the same arguments for "I'd like to play D&D with Rick, but I don't want to have to start learning a game world from scratch, and he really likes this Eberron thing."

Now, I fully acknowledge that these are more exacting complaints in a way. But I think they're also indicative of why the only truly shared experiences in gaming are those that happen when you share a table. Everything else is parallel experiences, and while they may not be as binding when you cross editions and house rules and game setting and adventures, I personally think they're solidly good enough. Or at least, I wouldn't trade up the freedom of a customized gaming experience that matches a table's preferences for something more shared. I don't want to set aside my swashbuckler about the personalized, player-driven intrigues in a wholly homebrew city setting and run The Sunken Citadel instead just so that my players will have Meepo stories to share with others. I feel the same way about rulesets.

 

[wingsandsword]

Monopoly made some fairly changes to the game a few years ago, FYI. I think the analogy you want is some other game. Which, I don't know, since they all either evolved over many years (chess was a very different game for much of its history) or simply doesn't have rules that people give much of a crap about (would anyone care if Operation changed a great deal?).

Incidentally, if you play modern Monopoly without any of the house rules (like money in free parking or allowing people to not buy a property and not auction it off), the game moves really fast and is a lot more fun.

They released new editions of monopoly, like ones with new properties to buy or gimmicks like using credit cards instead of cash or modular gameboards that can be customized for each time the game is played. However, the same old classic Monopoly that has been played for decades is still on sale in stores. I know, I picked one up earlier this year for my kid. The box had some variant rules offered in it that I hadn't seen before, but they were presented as variants.

However, with D&D, the only edition on sale is one released 3 years ago (of the 37 year history of the game) with zero backward compatibility to older editions. If you played 5, 10, or 25 years ago and wanted to get back into the game you'd find no product support and a horribly split player base.

The ONLY non-electronic game I played regularly as a kid that has changed substantially since then is D&D, and that kind of change is pretty unique to RPG's, and D&D as the most well known RPG.

Here's a way to look back at it. In 2006 the Dangerous Book for Boys was published, written by Conn Igulden. It was meant to be a guidebook for boys in various old-fashioned ways to have fun: tree forts, paper airplanes and things like that, as well as history and legends that boys should know. The author included a brief chapter on D&D as a good hobby for a young man. Even here on these boards there was some controversy because he wrote the chapter referencing entirely AD&D 1e. Posters here decried that he was not supporting the most recent edition. (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/219916-dangerous-book-boys-mentions-d-d.html) However, should he really have expected that the game he played in the 80's has been through not just new editions, but to ones that have changed the game so radically? Even if he had updated the book to use what the current edition was then (3.5), would people expect his guidebook, intended to be a timeless guidebook, to be released every few years updating it to reference the new edition of D&D?

If someone played D&D when they were a kid, 20 years ago or so, had not played it since then, and wanted to pick up a Player's Handbook or box set and share the fun of their childhood with their kid now they would be befuddled at how much things have changed and how the game is nothing at all like what they remembered.