Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

[Raven Crowking]

Except it's impossible in D&D to get wounds that actually mean anything.

I have noticed, having played every edition from Holmes Basic through 3.5, that when PCs start losing hp, their behaviour changes. Their wounds actually mean something.

Of course, you could use the WP/VP optional system from the 3.5 UA, which means that a real wound will really mean something in game terms as well.


RC

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

While truthfully, 4e borrows "lightly" from M:TG, it does share some similar mechanical expressions, particularly in the exact area of round-resolution. Players have a Start of turn (which resolves ongoing effects, similar to upkeep), Actions in turn (main phase/attack) and End of Turn (cleanup) as well as interrupt/instant actions. While other editions of D&D have had similar elements, the format from 4e immediately reminded me of M:TG's round setup.

Similarly, I found game runs much smoother if (and WotC will gladly sell you) you use power cards to track your powers, which gives the game a sorta-card game feel. Clearly, they are optional. However, WotC seems to be nudging players in that general direction.

With respect, I'll concede the point that the game has structured turns. But games of all types have structured turns. Monopoly; roll dice, move piece, buy property / pay rent.

I too think the game runs smoother with cards. I've made a crappy set of cards for the characters I play. However, I'm the only one to have done so in the groups I play with. Most simply keep track of their powers on paper, marking when they have used them. However I used the Psionic Power Cards from 2nd edition and made my own spell cards for 3rd. I think this is more of individual preference then anything else.

 

[radferth]

Umm, what? Putting an Efreeti and the City of Brass on the cover of the DMG is generic fantasy, but a Dragonborn is specific flavor?

I'd point out that Efreet and The City of Brass both existed long before the 1st ed DMG. Not so for Dragonborn.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Maybe you're not seeing the forest for the trees. The basic design of both M:tG and 4E is:

1) Simple set of base rules for combat.
2) Thousands of exceptions based on special abilities/powers/whatever.

That's the exception-based game design model. WOTC even states in one of the core books that they're following it. All those powers are the exceptions, and map pretty much directly to an exception on an M:tG card - both require "breaking the rules" for a special instance, because Guzzlewomps can be tapped to draw an extra card that goes directly to the discard pile unless it's a land, and 4th level Haberdashers can move an opponent a space on a successful hit, so long as it's Tuesday and they're wearing green tights.

Do you follow?

With respect sir, the games are radically different. DnD is a cooperative, open ended storytelling game. Magic is a competitive, collectible card game with a clear starting point and ending point. However, DnD has been an exception based game since I began playing it in 1997 with the 2nd Edition rules.

2nd edition saving throw system was exceptions based

• Paralysis, Poison, or Death Magic
• Petrification or Polymorph
• Rods, Staves, Wands
• Spells
• Breath Weapons

If you were attacked by a fireball from a wand, you rolled a different saving throw then if you were attacked by a Wizard casting fireball (Rods. Staves, Wands v Spells). If you were attacked by a Death Magic spell from a wand or from a Wizard, you rolled the same saving throw. Based on your save and the effect, the effect you saved against had full effect, partial effect, or no effect.

In 3rd Edition, you got 1 attack per round. Unless you had the cleave feat and knocked an opponent to 0 hp. Then you got a bonus attack on an adjacent target.

Magic is Like DnD

I believe your argument would be better if you addressed the type of Game Magic is: a resource management game.

The goal of magic is to reduce your opponent's life total to 0. You do this by managing the cards in your hand, your mana, your own life total, the spells you play, and the creatures you control. You also do this by manipulating or destroying your opponent's resources.

The 4E combat system is very resource management heavy. Daily, Encounter, and Utility powers, your hit points, magic items, and your action points, must be managed to defeat your opponents on the battle field.

Many games are resource management games though; Monopoly, Shadows over Camelot, or Settlers of Catan.

For me, it comes down to this: Magic is a competitive, collectible card game with firm goals, a winner and a loser, and a clear finish. While, DnD is a cooperative, story telling game with no firm goals, no clear finish, and no winner or loser.

Indeed, but it would be naive to assume that D&D hasn't been built to help sell them.

Again, I think it would be naive to assume that it wasn't designed with an eye to turning D&D IP into CRPGs, MMORPGs, and DDI online gaming. I could be wrong.

I too think it would be naive to assume that 4E was not designed with these possibilities in mind. I know D&DI was designed that way as they pulled Pazio's Dungeon and Dragon magazines to include as a part of it.

However, I do not begrudge WotC for trying to develop their product line or expand it. If a new WotC product comes out, I evaluate it based on my desire to own it, the amount of entertainment I will receive from the item, and the cost of the item.

I am completely befuddled at the cry's of WotC is trying to make us buy stuff! Yes, they are. WotC is trying to separate you from your money. The catch is, you get to decide if, when, and how much money you want to spend on WotC products.. Wizards of the Coast is in business to make money. They do that by providing hobby games for consumers to purchase and enjoy. If you do not enjoy the games they produce, don't by them. If enough people stop enjoying the products they produce and stop purchasing them, WotC will go out of business.

Yes, the subscription base model is very, very attractive as it has the potential to make a lot of money. As a consumer, I have made the decision not to buy a monthly subscription to D&DI. However, many people will buy it and enjoy it. I do not begrudge WotC for creating it (whenever it comes) and I do not begrudge those who purchase and enjoy it.

They're also pretty specific to WoW, just as WOTC is trying to make dragonborn specific to D&D. That's trademarkable product identity branding guff, right there. Do you think it was a coincidence that the tiefling got ousted from the PHB cover and replaced by the dragonborn? My guess is that "tiefling" got pipped for the flagship of branding, and when the distributors complained, the runner-ups (dragonborn) got to go in the driver's seat. They're trying to brand the game as something not generic. This is bad for D&D, as it can no longer do generic fantasy by default. People who homebrew don't necessarily want specific flavour. The implied setting is supposed to be a baseline, not a bleeding edge.

While I can not quote you numbers, Dragons sell. Anything associated with Dragons sell. While this is a personal opinion, I believe that the Dragonborn was put on the cover to help sell the book. I would love WotC to comment on it though

Homebrew, by its very definition, includes only stuff the DM wants in the game. When I run games, I am infamous for massively restricting magic, using steampunk technology, and having firearms. I'm not scared to do it, I do not think I'm violating "DnD" when I do it. I just do it. Implied setting means nothing to me and very little to the group of players I play with. Your experiences may be different though.

Not customer service retention, just customer retention. GW is cavalier with regard to pleasing and retaining their established players (i.e. who cares about them once they've bought several hundred dollars of minis they'll use a handful of times), and WOTC is showing signs of it too with 4E. The new edition is new in that 3E took a "softly softly" approach to the IP because they weren't sure whether anyone would convert. Maybe 3E taught WOTC that this fear was unfounded, and they could go to town on the game. It remains to be seen whether this is true.

What signs is WotC showing of being cavalier with their customer base? Examples always help

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Here's my take on things:

1E--Roleplaying a Tactical Wargame

1E applied roleplaying to the Tactical Wargame framework. In tactical wargames, your pieces are all expendible and this translated into the deadliness of combat. From a purely roleplaying standpoint, combat was very dangerous and something to be avoided, but the game itself was designed around combat and was mechanically the most satisfying part of the game. This game was new and had more than a few flaws to it, and as has been said before became more focused on roleplaying as time went on.

2E--DM is god

2E was an evolution of 1E that was fairly compatible and used similar mechanics, but the focus was different. It was built on the DM running the game to tell a story. 2E deified the DM more than any other version of D&D. It all but required it, leaving out rules and game mechanics for a lot of things and instructing the DM to create these things as they came up. While its core mechanics were similar to the deadliness of 1E, the DM was pretty much instructed not to run things that way, and most didn't.

3E--Character Creation is god

3E was completely based around character creation. It was probably the biggest flaw of AD&D compared to more modern systems that came up during the last years of AD&D. In response, 3E was created with probably the most compelling character creation rules that have ever existed for an RPG. This being said, the focus on character creation did end up having a negative effect on other facets of the game. A lot of the mechanics 3E kept from earlier editions didn't exactly mesh well with the new changes. Combat tended to disintegrate into rocket tag, especially at higher levels. Game balance was effectively a disaster, which again worsened as levels got higher. DMs were under an incredible burden because of character creation mechanics involved in encounter creation and trying to deal with the game balance problems.

4E--Gameplay is God

4E is designed around the concept that how the game plays is the primary consideration. Rules, mechanics, character creation, and everything are all geared towards making gameplay work as well as possible. As combat is the most mechanics intensive part of the game, it gets the most attention. Character creation is not geared to sacrifice combat ability for non-combat ability to a large degree because this creates gameplay problems. 3E's character customizability was stepped back a notch to improve gameplay while still maintaining a good degree of customizability. Non-combat situations have simple and easy to use mechanics, and is a bit light in this regard encouraging the DM to run with it like 2E did. Adventure design and DM preparation are much less demanding.

 

[LostSoul]

This is bad for D&D, as it can no longer do generic fantasy by default. People who homebrew don't necessarily want specific flavour. The implied setting is supposed to be a baseline, not a bleeding edge.

I would say that D&D has never been able to do generic fantasy by default - elves, dwarves, how spells are cast, etc. all create a setting with all sorts of default assumptions. Ones that I always chucked out when I homebrewed.

4e is probably no different - though dropping "memorization" of spells makes things a lot more generic.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I'd point out that Efreet and The City of Brass both existed long before the 1st ed DMG. Not so for Dragonborn.

I don't see why it's necessarily considered an attack on WotC by the WotC fans when people say that they're trying to make their IP less generic ....

.... especially since that seems to be true. I've only got the PHB of 4th edition so far, but a very strong impression that I've gotten is that it's far less generic than, say, 3rd edition.

In fact, the GSL supports this view also. After all, it forbids any alteration of the races or classes in third party products -- if you want to use an elf, it MUST be a core D&D elf. This suggests a very strong move away from the 'generic' idea to me.

 

[Mister Doug]

I've only got the PHB of 4th edition so far, but a very strong impression that I've gotten is that it's far less generic than, say, 3rd edition.

I'm torn on this characterization, because IMNSHO all previous D&D editions were generic by association, pulling in a hodge-podge of influences from Tokien, Vance, Poul Anderson, Micheal Moorcock, etc., and rather than creating something open that could incorporate anything, making a hodge-podge of elements that was unique but with different homages, in-jokes and outright ripoffs that in the end didn't really look like anything but, well, D&D.

Base D&D is not generic and less of a clear hodge-podge of references to other fantasy ideas made into a Frankenstein's Monster of elements. But it also feels more to me like any random fantasy novel I would pick up at a bookstore as far as flavor goes, and thus in some ways feels pretty generic in a way that previous editions have not.

Of course, just about anyone I know ends up twisting any game they play into some different genre conventions they prefer, so I'm not sure any claims of different versions being more or less generic really survives long in the real world once DMs and PCs start getting involved in the evolving game.

 

[pemerton]

How did the rules of 2e support setting exploration and/or storytelling?

Excellent question!

The rules didn't, the settings did.

I recently got the Dark Sun boxed set cheap at my local game store. As fantasy literature it's OK, I guess, but reading those books gives me no idea of what sort of game I'm meant to play in it, and what it is that players are expected to engage with. This contrasts markedly with a game like The Dying Earth, which is also setting-heavy, but has extensive discussions of how the GM is expected to use the setting and how the players are able to make use of it in the course of play.

I know it verges on heresy, but I have the same sort of response to Planescape. A module like Dead Gods (I think that's the one) looks to me like it would simply take the players on a tour of Monte Cook's story. I don't see how it actually gives the players much room to play an RPG.

2e's settings and fairly minor revisions to the rules aimed at opening up heroic adventuring with an eye to buidling something more like literary fantasy. However, the fact that the rules were largely the same led, in my opinion, to a conflict between the rules and the change in goals.

I agree with this, and would if anything go a bit further - 2e's mechanics, its approach to modules and settings (the "tour of someone else's story" approach), and its desire to support a game of literary fantasy, are inconsistent considered as individual pairs, and doubly so when all three are considered together. I assume that, in practice, most 2E players went one way or the other - either (i) use the mechanics for 1st-ed style play and disregard the modules and settings, (ii) tour other stories and disregard the mechanics whenever necessary (a la Storyteller's "Golden Rule"), or (iii) play a game of literary fantasy by disregarding settings and modules, and using the ever-increasing character-build options as a substitute for explicity player-empowering mechanics.

2E was an evolution of 1E that was fairly compatible and used similar mechanics, but the focus was different. It was built on the DM running the game to tell a story. 2E deified the DM more than any other version of D&D. It all but required it, leaving out rules and game mechanics for a lot of things and instructing the DM to create these things as they came up. While its core mechanics were similar to the deadliness of 1E, the DM was pretty much instructed not to run things that way, and most didn't.

This would be option (ii) above. I wonder if you are right about how most groups played. I suspect a fair number must have continue to play 1st ed games but with a marginally more robust skill system.

 

[Steely Dan]

*snip*

Awesome breakdown – best I've seen!