What does it matter?
Legends and Lore: Preserving the Past
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
What does it matter?
While I realize I could be completely wrong here (and only time will tell if I am or not), I think a lot of people are reading way too much into the few paragraphs the weekly column provides. Sure, there's certainly meaning to what he writes. He's not going to write about something and then absolutely refuse to take those words into consideration when designing future material. However, I don't think anything he's written should be taken as saying "Going forward, we're only going to be looking at doing what was done in previous editions and hasn't made the cut into the current edition."
Rather, what I think he's getting at is that perhaps in some respects, WotC has tried too hard to please all the people all the time with some of their inclusions. In other words, he knows that monsters like the peryton will be largely ignored by many DMs, yet others will find a use for them. But, just because there are plenty of DMs, or groups, that won't consider using a particular monster, feat, power, item, etc., doesn't mean that the material in question shouldn't be considered. Even if I don't see a use for the peryton, perhaps something about it will trigger a different monster or encounter idea for example. A prime example for me is that I have never been all that fond of gricks, grells, and chuuls. They just don't inspire me. That being said, I have friends who absolutely love these critters. Just because I don't use them doesn't mean they don't belong in the books.
As for the Hat of Disguise, [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]_Midget has it right in that all Monte is saying is that rather than creating something new that does almost exactly the same thing a previous item did, just update the old item to fit into the current rules framework. Functionally, what's the difference between an Ointment of Disguise and a Hat of Disguise? Sure, there's a slight story difference, but by and large as a practical matter, the two are the same, so why bother designing something new when the wheel already exists?
Put another way, if I designed a monster that writhing serpents for hair and a gaze that could turn a creature to stone instantly, and then said it was called "Statue Maker", few people would agree.
[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]: I love your idea for the future of DDi. It actually would not surprise me at all if this is indeed what WotC intends to do down the road -- particularly as storage costs continue to drop. Even sorting them for official and home brew stuff would be easy (and is already in place). When you create a new creature with the Monster Builder, it's name shows up in green in the monster list, clearly marking it as a home brew. It would be easy to do the same with an item builder, power builder, feat builder, etc. Even the tag that is used to designate the item as home brewed could then be used as a filter in the Character Builder. The CB already classifies new characters by type of campaign and I would think (though I am not a programmer) that it would be relatively easy to designate the "LFR" character to not allow any home brew material. Of course, it would still be up to the DM to ensure that all the players are abiding by the rules, but really, that's no different than it is now.
Rather, what I think he's getting at is that perhaps in some respects, WotC has tried too hard to please all the people all the time with some of their inclusions. In other words, he knows that monsters like the peryton will be largely ignored by many DMs, yet others will find a use for them. But, just because there are plenty of DMs, or groups, that won't consider using a particular monster, feat, power, item, etc., doesn't mean that the material in question shouldn't be considered. Even if I don't see a use for the peryton, perhaps something about it will trigger a different monster or encounter idea for example. A prime example for me is that I have never been all that fond of gricks, grells, and chuuls. They just don't inspire me. That being said, I have friends who absolutely love these critters. Just because I don't use them doesn't mean they don't belong in the books.
As for the Hat of Disguise, [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]_Midget has it right in that all Monte is saying is that rather than creating something new that does almost exactly the same thing a previous item did, just update the old item to fit into the current rules framework. Functionally, what's the difference between an Ointment of Disguise and a Hat of Disguise? Sure, there's a slight story difference, but by and large as a practical matter, the two are the same, so why bother designing something new when the wheel already exists?
Put another way, if I designed a monster that writhing serpents for hair and a gaze that could turn a creature to stone instantly, and then said it was called "Statue Maker", few people would agree.
[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]: I love your idea for the future of DDi. It actually would not surprise me at all if this is indeed what WotC intends to do down the road -- particularly as storage costs continue to drop. Even sorting them for official and home brew stuff would be easy (and is already in place). When you create a new creature with the Monster Builder, it's name shows up in green in the monster list, clearly marking it as a home brew. It would be easy to do the same with an item builder, power builder, feat builder, etc. Even the tag that is used to designate the item as home brewed could then be used as a filter in the Character Builder. The CB already classifies new characters by type of campaign and I would think (though I am not a programmer) that it would be relatively easy to designate the "LFR" character to not allow any home brew material. Of course, it would still be up to the DM to ensure that all the players are abiding by the rules, but really, that's no different than it is now.
OnlineDM
Adventurer
I can't XP [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] again, but I like the idea of "open source monsters" and "open source items" and so on. Add in the ability to rate these things as you use them or read them, and it becomes even easier to decide which should become "official".
Yeah, I think this is a cool approach. I have no idea if it would ever happen, but I'd like it a lot.
Yeah, I think this is a cool approach. I have no idea if it would ever happen, but I'd like it a lot.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
I get what Monte is saying. I fully agree with minimizing redundancies in an already bloated game (ALL editions). I get the nostalgia. The history of the game is important.
For me though, old items, monsters, and adventures were not the biggest issue - you can easily make that stuff up - the biggest headache in edition changes, and 4e was the worst for this so far, IME, has been characters.
Here we are, three and a half years into the 4e development cycle, and there are still old characters and concepts that I'd be hard-pressed to do in 4e. The gap between PH1 and PH2 was the worst for that.
If I had anything to say on the matter come "next edition," or whatever, it would be that the game try to cover as many of the bases as possible within the first 6 months of the release schedule. If it has to go into two books, or three books, preferably make them all come out back-to-back.
Better yet, just release the "core rules compendium" then crank out all the classes, races, and other crunchy bits online in smaller chunks.
For me though, old items, monsters, and adventures were not the biggest issue - you can easily make that stuff up - the biggest headache in edition changes, and 4e was the worst for this so far, IME, has been characters.
Here we are, three and a half years into the 4e development cycle, and there are still old characters and concepts that I'd be hard-pressed to do in 4e. The gap between PH1 and PH2 was the worst for that.
If I had anything to say on the matter come "next edition," or whatever, it would be that the game try to cover as many of the bases as possible within the first 6 months of the release schedule. If it has to go into two books, or three books, preferably make them all come out back-to-back.
Better yet, just release the "core rules compendium" then crank out all the classes, races, and other crunchy bits online in smaller chunks.
chitzk0i
Explorer
This is what I don't get about his articles. He keeps suggesting things like, "This is what we should do going forward!" But they're all things the 4e devs already did and he doesn't acknowledge that at all. I guess he's trying to keep the articles edition-neutral, but it just makes him sound uninformed.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Actually this is what 4e sesigners do now. I don´t say that the slaughtering of some sacred cows was completely bad, but some people were really not that amused. So actually 4e designers, with essentials and thereafter seem to have learned a lesson.
And in my opinion 5e needs to be a new edition, but 4e needs to be supported. With tools and articles by freelancers.
And in my opinion 5e needs to be a new edition, but 4e needs to be supported. With tools and articles by freelancers.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
delericho said:
To pick up on this idea that a few people are mentioning, I think, in part, it's necessary because the current game has set up walls for itself.
Take, for instance, the ADEU powers system. At a certain level, that makes designing outside of that structure a big taboo. The envelope has been pushed with Essentials and with Psionics, but each time there is howls of fury from fans who abhor the very idea of the sacred ADEU structure being violated. This makes designing any class that, say, uses only Daily powers in a system reminiscent of an earlier-edition wizard automatically a controversial class, let alone how that class would interact with multiclassing and hybridization.
Or take the fact that within the ADEU system, 3/4 of those powers are attacks, and 4/4 of those powers are possibly combat-oriented in some way (though you can take some noncombat utilities, you can also take combat utilities, making it a choice between being a good fighter and being good at something else). This makes designing a class that sucks at combat but is better at sneaking -- like the old Thief -- nearly impossible. They tried that to a certain extent with the Shade, and again, howls of nerdrage at the -1 Surge.
Similarly, the system of healing surges and short rests means that making an adventure that isn't just effectively a "series of encounters" is tremendously difficult, too. The focus is on the encounter. It's hard to take it off of that and expand the focus to the adventure.
There's also difficulties in trying to shoehorn the current system into a cinematic combat system, or into a combat system that isn't minis-based, without effectively re-inventing the wheel (and throwing off the careful balance of 4e).
Or even less dramatically, take the "different fluff" that 4e has staked out: Archons are elementals and Angels are just servants of every god and dryads are creepy tree monsters. The current game won't reconsider those choices, but they invalidate a lot of what Monte's main point in the article is: preserving the past is a good idea.
The game has set up walls for itself, design-wise, and these walls need to be knocked down hard before they can be raised up again. The foundation might be solid (though the existence of expertise feats and revised monster damage and grindy combat might speak to flaws in that foundation, too), but it's going to have to be some pretty intense restructuring.
4e is not, at its fundamental level, a "game for everyone." It can't support everything. It knows what it wants, and it is pretty good at getting what it wants to get, but what it wants to get isn't always what people playing it want.
That's why I think that a 5e is...eventually...necessary. It'll probably retain a HUGE chunk of 4e in it, but I think it will mostly be running in the background.
This is the first Legends & Lore by Monte Cook that I've actually bothered to read, and I need to know: are they all like this??? He sounds like a reactionary; is it that he hates the present, is terrified of the future, and wants everything to go back to some imaginary "good-ol'-days"?
I worry for the continued improvement of D&D if he wants it to backward rather than forward from Essentials. (For context, I strongly believe that Essentials was a great revisitation of "the classic D&D flavour" that had sorta been washed out in 4E, while also being a great representation of the best mechanics of 4E; why wouldn't someone want to continue along that path?)
I worry for the continued improvement of D&D if he wants it to backward rather than forward from Essentials. (For context, I strongly believe that Essentials was a great revisitation of "the classic D&D flavour" that had sorta been washed out in 4E, while also being a great representation of the best mechanics of 4E; why wouldn't someone want to continue along that path?)
Would someone please tell me what's the problem with taking monsters of old and giving them an update? Hell old monsters are new monsters to someone that has never played D&D before.
Ever look at clothes trends? Ever notice how they are essentially a rehash of clothes that we used to wear and what our parents used to wear? Sometimes bringing in the old with a fresh new look is a great idea.
Ignoring something from the past just because it's from the past is just as bad as bringing something from the past just because it's from the past. Bring something back that was good back then and maybe it will be good now.
Ever look at clothes trends? Ever notice how they are essentially a rehash of clothes that we used to wear and what our parents used to wear? Sometimes bringing in the old with a fresh new look is a great idea.
Ignoring something from the past just because it's from the past is just as bad as bringing something from the past just because it's from the past. Bring something back that was good back then and maybe it will be good now.
