D&D 4E Merric's thoughts on 4e

[buzz]

Sure I can! I had friends try to get me into Champions on several occasions; I invariably ended up running out of the room screaming and/or crying halfway through the session. (Manly tears, of course. Tears of rage.) No, Champions was for stinky powergaming losers!
...
Er. Can I amend my earlier statement? Suave, debonair, powergaming, um... Just complete it however you like.

:shakes fist in the air: Little whipper-snapper!

 

[houser2112]

I'm sure that's true, but it's also not relevant. Wulf was hypothesising that Monte had based cleric domains on Spell Law, since Monte once worked on Rolemaster. However, since Monte didn't start working for TSR until 1994 (well after 2E, including cleric domains, was released in 1989), he couldn't have influenced the addition of cleric domains to D&D.

I had never heard of Domains before 3E, but I noticed they bore a striking similarity to the Spheres concept from 2E. Is that what you're referring to?

I actually like the Spheres better, since they allowed more differentiation between clerics of disparate deities. Sure, the peaceful deity doesn't have the War domain, but there's no reason in the RAW that one of her clerics can't prepare Righteous Might anyway. Stating that she grants no access to the particular sphere that spell belongs to allows that differentiation.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm sure that's true, but it's also not relevant. Wulf was hypothesising that Monte had based cleric domains on Spell Law, since Monte once worked on Rolemaster. However, since Monte didn't start working for TSR until 1994 (well after 2E, including cleric domains, was released in 1989), he couldn't have influenced the addition of cleric domains to D&D.

Wulf wasn't hypothesizing anything. Wulf was observing that 3e Domains are structurally similar to Spell Law, with spells of each level listed under a single thematic heading.

I don't recall 2e doing anything like that-- but admittedly, I've deliberately forgotten most of 2e.

 

[buzz]

I don't recall 2e doing anything like that-- but admittedly, I've deliberately forgotten most of 2e.

I am aghast—AGHAST, I say—that a respected designer such as yourself would speak ill of 2e. I feel confident that, somewhere, fuzzy baby seals are crying out in pain RIGHT NOW.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I had never heard of Domains before 3E, but I noticed they bore a striking similarity to the Spheres concept from 2E. Is that what you're referring to?

I actually like the Spheres better, since they allowed more differentiation between clerics of disparate deities. Sure, the peaceful deity doesn't have the War domain, but there's no reason in the RAW that one of her clerics can't prepare Righteous Might anyway. Stating that she grants no access to the particular sphere that spell belongs to allows that differentiation.

Hrrmm... maybe that is what I'm thinking of. There's no way I'm crawling through a musty crawlspace looking for my old 2E manuals to verify. Someone please confirm or deny my senility?

Wulf wasn't hypothesizing anything. Wulf was observing that 3e Domains are structurally similar to Spell Law, with spells of each level listed under a single thematic heading.

I don't recall 2e doing anything like that-- but admittedly, I've deliberately forgotten most of 2e.

Apparently, I may have too. If I'm wrong, I'll adopt your observation as my hypothesis.

 

[pemerton]

In 2nd Ed, Spheres were lists of spells to which Clerics have access. They did not have the one-spell-per-level structure that Cleric Domains do in 3E. And it is the latter which (as Wulf notes) bears a resemblance to RM spell lists.

 

[Ty]

First, let me apologize a bit. I didn't intend to start a firestorm here in all honesty, regarding 4th Edition.

My first concern was pointing out what I personally saw as a potential issue on the redesign efforts. I guess you can lump it into the Devils n' Demons, teiflings/eladrins arguments. It's not easy being eloquent in a post on an internet board.

My second concern is that I'm a little concerned that Hasbro (and to some extent, TSR and WotC in the past) are focusing on demographics for gamers. Let me add a caveat here that I do not consider myself a "gamer." I'm wondering aloud if the focus on hardcore gamers who are more accepting of other game systems, be it PnP or electronic, may be part of a problem.

I don't know as if the question has ever really been asked of the D&D community as to whether a person is a gamer or a D&D player. I think it does have some impact in your product. I'd hazard a guess that the "grognards" consider themselves D&D players whereas the people who are more accepting of 4th Edition are probably gamers. Just an anecdotal observation, which as someone previously pointed out, is completely worthless for anything.

Look, I'm not going to try to defend my opinions point by point because it is just an opinion. I was trying to offer a potentially subtle distinction as to why some people are concerned about the 4th Edition whereas others are embracing it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with drastic mechanical changes to the game to make it more playable, more flexible, and more balanced. I was just making some observations that I'm not sure anyone has raised before.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

In 2nd Ed, Spheres were lists of spells to which Clerics have access. They did not have the one-spell-per-level structure that Cleric Domains do in 3E. And it is the latter which (as Wulf notes) bears a resemblance to RM spell lists.

Hey hey! Not bad considering that I haven't opened either book in probably 10 years.

Playing our game the other night, one of my fellow gamers (that is, a gamer moreso than a D&D player, but we'll get to that) was busting my balls over how many rules I could remember. My reply at the time was that it really wasn't that different from remembering song lyrics, movie lines, or sports stats.

My second concern is that I'm a little concerned that Hasbro (and to some extent, TSR and WotC in the past) are focusing on demographics for gamers. Let me add a caveat here that I do not consider myself a "gamer." . . . I'd hazard a guess that the "grognards" consider themselves D&D players whereas the people who are more accepting of 4th Edition are probably gamers. Just an anecdotal observation, which as someone previously pointed out, is completely worthless for anything.

It's not completely worthless at all. I think it's a 100% accurate observation.

What is worthless, in my opinion-- or at least excoriable-- is the tendency for grognards ("D&D players" as opposed to "gamers") to deny people access to the game. You see it manifested in all kinds of ways-- keeping kids out, keeping jocks out, keeping women out, etc. We want to keep "gamers" out as well? Is some kind of purity test necessary?

D&D is not your private playground. It needs new players to survive. Whatever changes they make (and I do not think they are all for the better, believe me...) as long as they bring in more players than they lose, it's a net win for D&D.

At some point, they might even lose me-- but if in 10 years I discover my kids playing D&D, even if I can't even recognize it, I'm a happy clam.

Have to look at the big picture.

 

[SteveC]

Runequest or Champions, actually. Talisman's a board game, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on the D&D team who'd say Talisman was superior to AD&D 1e or 2e.

I just wanted to mention that the Talisman they're mentioning is likely the roleplaying game from Bard Games. Back in the day (engage old-guy mode) Bard games came out with a series of supplements in the Compleat series...they were basically additions for D&D with the serial numbers filed off. They had an alchemist book (very good) a spell caster book and a warrior book.

All of these books were successful enough that they came out with a full-fledged RPG based around Atlantis. If you can find a copy (I have one in storage) you'll see a lot of interesting ideas that have become a part of other game systems, including 3X. Adding level to ability checks and saves is a part of it, as are skills that strongly resemble the feats we have today. I would certainly not say that Talisman was a huge influence on 3X (or 4X) but the influence is there.

You will see many of these books around at used bookstores from time to time, and they're very cheap. Take a look if you do.

--Steve

 

[buzz]

I just wanted to mention that the Talisman they're mentioning is likely the roleplaying game from Bard Games.

I think you mean Talislanta. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talislanta

And Ty is the only person mentioning Talisman (or whatever game he really meant). It's not in the quote from Heinsoo.