"Kill the Sacred Cow!"

[HelloChristian]

I read something that helped me to wrap my mind around the changes in the game. Here's the gist, "Whole people who started gaming in 1982 are concerned about any changes to Vancian magic, a newcomer to the game will be frustrated by such a thing and will wonder why he/she can't model Harry Potter more effectively."

I started gaming with Blue Box Basic, but I'm okay with changes to the game. I'm happy to see it evolving and thriving. Sure, some sacred cows will get killed off along the way, but if the game is more accessible to new gamers, then great. I balked at every new edition of the game, but eventually I settled in and had a grand time.

I do agree with your fundamental point, Wik, and that is that too much change can potentially alienate who have been with the game for a long, long time.

-----

Iridia is a weekly zine about miniatures and role-playing games, old and new. It's free, both in .pdf and rprint. There are even vidcasts and podcasts in support of each issue. Please visit online at www.IridiaZine.net It's cooler than ghost crocodiles and laser bears.

 

[Hussar]

And, really, take Vancian magic for a second.

This is only a sacred cow because of its existence in earlier versions of D&D. The idea of fire and forget magic certainly isn't a trope of fantasy. In fact, most fantasy sees either magic as a long drawn out process totally inappropriate for adventuring, or, the spell casters can cast all day long.

So, we have an element whose sole existence is dependent on the fact that it appeared in earlier editions. So, is that enough to give it the pass into the next edition? Previously, I think so, but, now, I think that game designers are being given freer reign in what bovines they can safely slaughter.

 

[HelloChristian]

So, we have an element whose sole existence is dependent on the fact that it appeared in earlier editions. So, is that enough to give it the pass into the next edition? Previously, I think so, but, now, I think that game designers are being given freer reign in what bovines they can safely slaughter.

This is a good point. Sadly, the reason why D&D magic worked the way it did was rarely explained. It was presented as is and there were few reasons behind it. A long time ago, in an issue of Dragon, there was a nifty article about it. The author suggested that D&D spells are like large math problems, with variables for time, geography, weather, mana flux, etc. When a wizard prepared his spell, he had to do so taking all of these variables into account. That's why it took so long to remember a spell and why it had to be done each day.

If there's no good reason for Vancian magic in the game, then why not change it?

 

[Shroomy]

If there's no good reason for Vancian magic in the game, then why not change it?

To take it one step further, in terms of mechanics (since you can always write fluff to explain mechanics), Vancian magic is a literary magic system borrowed to "balance" or "limit" the power level of the magic-user/wizard. If the designers found a better system to balance the power level, why not change it?

 

[Dragonhelm]

I read something that helped me to wrap my mind around the changes in the game. Here's the gist, "Whole people who started gaming in 1982 are concerned about any changes to Vancian magic, a newcomer to the game will be frustrated by such a thing and will wonder why he/she can't model Harry Potter more effectively."

Excellent point. I think I come from the old-timer background more and don't consider the new player as much as I should.

Sure, some sacred cows will get killed off along the way,

Sacred beef. It's what's for dinner.

I do agree with your fundamental point, Wik, and that is that too much change can potentially alienate who have been with the game for a long, long time.

Then it probably falls on the heads of the accountants and marketing people to figure out what fan base is going to provide greater revenue.

And, really, take Vancian magic for a second.

This is only a sacred cow because of its existence in earlier versions of D&D. The idea of fire and forget magic certainly isn't a trope of fantasy. In fact, most fantasy sees either magic as a long drawn out process totally inappropriate for adventuring, or, the spell casters can cast all day long.

So, we have an element whose sole existence is dependent on the fact that it appeared in earlier editions. So, is that enough to give it the pass into the next edition? Previously, I think so, but, now, I think that game designers are being given freer reign in what bovines they can safely slaughter.

Sacred mooooooooo!

I have to say that I really dislike fire-and-forget. I prefer a more spontaneous system. Part of the reason why I got into psionics in 2e was because you had more freedom to choose powers and use them in any combo you wished. A model like the XPH would work nicely for magic. Not sure if they're going that route or not.

 

[Wik]

When OD&D switched to 1e, the changes weren't particularly huge. While the system was rather different, the main gist of it was the same. Sure, a bunch of stuff was *added* (Half-orcs, assassins, monks, half-elves, etc..) and the mechanics varied quite a bit. But the world was the same.

2e knocked off half-orcs, monks and assassins (and then added them back - numerous times - in sourcebooks due to player demand). Level limits were increased, and a bunch of stuff was tacked on.

3e changed the rules and aspects of the game so much, that it made every published setting have to rework itself (it also made it difficult to "convert" some old 2e settings, most notably Dark Sun). Namely because the rules knocked off some of 2e's "sacred cows".

But I've been talking almost exclusively of D&D, which isn't the only game that has done this.

The 3e/4e shadowrun split in regards to Decking is a nice example. In old shadowrun, deckers were hackers that did their work seperated from the rest of the group. Designers (and some players) have complained that this meant the group never adventured together, and that the GM often had to switch between two groups (the decker, and everyone else) to keep the game rolling. And, to keep up with modern technology (people forget the original SR was made in the late eighties/early nineties), they had to let Deckers "go wireless".

So, in 4e, we have deckers that hack into systems as they move, meaning they need to stay with the group. A fundamental part of the shadowrun experience has been changed, supposedly to facilitate gameplay.

I can understand their reasoning. However, I'm not a huge fan of the switch. Maybe it's because I've read Neuromancer a million times, but I like how the decker was something seperate from the rest of the group - it feels "right".

And in old SR games I've played, it seemed like everyone had their own niche, and everyone did their thing on their own. No one in the group had a problem sitting out while the decker opened a few doors for them. Or, if that was going to be a problem, with the decker running two characters.

I really think that "everyone is seperate" was part of the play experience of Shadowrun. I haven't played SR 4e, but I know - even if the rules are entirely the same, which they aren't - that it would be an entirely different game experience. And I want to play Shadowrun, not something that's kind of like Shadowrun.

Imagine if 4e D&D comes out, and Turn Undead is gone (I actually hope it is, but bear with me for a second). Saving Throws are kaput. No more gnomes. Goodbye Vancian magic. The emphasis is taken away from dungeons (again!). Paladins no longer exist. Bards are gone (or are actually worth playing!). Wizards don't need spellbooks. Clerics don't need to pray to gods (one of the big 3e changes that I *still* hate!). Characters are more similar in hit points (no d4 for wizards).

Sure, it'll say D&D on the cover, but it just... isn't the same game, I guess.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

If they're serving sacred cow, I like to order the "finish it and it's free" sized portion. Sacred cows are sacred cows precisely because they're not the best decisions that could have been made; they were just the decisions that got made once and became memorable. I will, in some ways, miss the grand challenge of fitting quasi-Vancian magic and objective alignment into a campaign setting, but if it makes the game play better I'll design a milieu around the new edition's assumptions and have more fun with that. It's not like my 3.x books will burst into flames come May '08, in the event I miss the Old Ways.

@Wik: As I recall the Complete Priest's Handbook, there were clerics of philosophies rather than gods in Second Edition as well.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Sure, it'll say D&D on the cover, but it just... isn't the same game, I guess.

QFT

 

[rossik]

@Wik: As I recall the Complete Priest's Handbook, there were clerics of philosophies rather than gods in Second Edition as well.

the pacifist?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

the pacifist?

Not the kits. Scattered throughout the gods section were various philosophies and natural forces one could worship in place of a god; Evil, or the Life-Death-Rebirth Cycle, or Rulership for instance. I always got a lot of use out of them as weird, esoteric cults in the shadow of more 'traditional' god-centered churches.