Monte Cook and 5e

[Dannyalcatraz]

A lot of things that 4e has, are just 3.x experimentations that end up on the core system

There is some truth to this.

I can agree that 3e and 4e are really different, but only if you consider the core books and just that.

I can't really agree: there are things you could do in 1Ed/2Ed/3Ed/3.5Ed core that you still cannot do in 4Ed using all the books.

 

[kimble]

I can't really agree: there are things you could do in 1Ed/2Ed/3Ed/3.5Ed core that you still cannot do in 4Ed using all the books.

And I agree with you on that. But I´m not saying 'you can do everything you did before'. I´m saying that 4e is mostly 3e + supplements with optional rules that many people never read. For them, 4e is really different from everything before.

But if you read UA, most Completes, etc, you already knew many of those ideas that end up on 4e. The thing is, they used to be optional. Now, those rules are part of the core system.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I´m saying that 4e is mostly 3e + supplements with optional rules that many people never read. For them, 4e is really different from everything before.

And I'm saying- as someone who HAS read all the books- that to me, 4Ed is a more radical departure from what went before in a way that 3Ed/3.5Ed were not. What mechanics were excised or radically altered inform my position as much as those things that were shifted from optional to core.

 

[GreyLord]

And I'm saying- as someone who HAS read all the books- that to me, 4Ed is a more radical departure from what went before in a way that 3Ed/3.5Ed were not. What mechanics were excised or radically altered inform my position as much as those things that were shifted from optional to core.

A similar thing, but much more drastic happened between 3e and AD&D.

In fact, 3e had an entire shift of how it worked and is basically a completely different game.

The biggest shift in thought was the way multiclassing worked without penalty, work, or sacrifice. It became more like dual-classing, but without having to meet any pre-reqs overall and not having to abandon your old class (except in rare instances), nor with any limits.

This made 3e more a game of skill packages rather than the typical archtypal classes.

In many ways it was like other games with skills or soft classes (classes with bonuses, but not hard set like AD&D or D&D pre-3e).

This shift towards rolemaster isn't unusual considering some of the people that worked on 3e...and in fact had been incorporating some of these changes as "Optional" previously. Of course, many other drastic changes such as mages being able to continue casting when hit, unlimited levels and class options for races, or even the magic store can be seen by others as changes so drastic as to create an entire new landscape for 3e.

Overall, 3e was incompatible with AD&D or the old D&D without a LOT of wrangling...in fact I'd say Palladium was more compatible than 3e...and they consider that a completely different system.

This wasn't necessarily good or bad, but as for compatibility...it broke most sacred cows and appealed more towards those who didn't like AD&D, but preferred other systems. It showed and brought back those people in DROVES!!!! In fact, for hits, I'd call it a homerun. Backwards compatibility on the otherhand, not unless you REALLY stretched it.

With 4e it is actually quite compatible with 3e. In fact I came out with backwards compatibility guides as well as how to play 4e as a 3e game...got a slap on the wrist (or perhaps in the face, however you see it) and statements as, if they still wanted to play 3e...they'll play 3e.

All 4e really is, is adding in these special "powers" for everyone. Take away the fighter's "powers" (and yes, then he quickly becomes underpowered related to everyone else), along with the rogues "powers", keep the strict restrictions on who can or can't have theivery (though warlocks probably would become immensely popular), and you suddenly have a very 3e like game.

Skills are simpler, Saves are simpler (or if you want, instead of using them as defenses, still roll to hit and then use their bonuses as saves instead). You have a different to hit progression...more akin to the epic rules for BAB increases along with saves...but then...that was already in 3e to begin with.

The BIGGEST and most incompatible change with 4e are how HP are handled. Want to run 3e modules with 4e...simply reduce HP to being what a character gets per level+CONS mod. That'll actually keep most of them under 10 HP for 1st level, but well over the low HP of older editions.

All 4e is, is basically an OGL form of 3.5 with powers tossed in and a few tweaks, far more tweaks than 3e had from the BASE/Core AD&D. The other big problem people have is with Wizards and how to rework from a Vancian point of view to a Ritual/Spell point of view. Rituals are actually REALLY easy for conversion processes...which leaves the spell portion...and that I can agree with you. It's about as hard to do as the spells from AD&D to 3e where a Wizard suddenly gets a whole bunch more spells to cast at 1st level, and many of them are VASTLY different then their older counterparts.

 

[BryonD]

And I'm saying- as someone who HAS read all the books- that to me, 4Ed is a more radical departure from what went before in a way that 3Ed/3.5Ed were not. What mechanics were excised or radically altered inform my position as much as those things that were shifted from optional to core.

It is a decidedly distinct departure.

As I've said before I think the biggest fundamental change is that it is vastly less flexible in play style. Which can be tricky because if you are someone who played earlier versions in the style that 4E focuses on, you see the same thing, only refined.

So it is probably very fair for someone to say that it isn't a departure "for them". It is when they can't see from other perspectives that the disconnect happens.

 

[kimble]

And I'm saying- as someone who HAS read all the books- that to me, 4Ed is a more radical departure from what went before in a way that 3Ed/3.5Ed were not. What mechanics were excised or radically altered inform my position as much as those things that were shifted from optional to core.

Actually what I mean with 'everything before' is 'different from 3.x'. For people that read those books, the new rules were not a big surprise. For those that never read those, seemed like the design team decided to recreate the game.
Trying to put it simple, for me is like this 3e + 4e are the same thing, in terms of design. They are just too different from what came before them. And one is just the result of continuous development of the other.
But what makes them different from previous editions is more about personal opinion and 'what is D&D?', and that´s a question that have a personal answer to each player.

 

[BryonD]

A similar thing, but much more drastic happened between 3e and AD&D.

I'll agree with this part. 3E was also a pretty significant departure.

I do think that archetypes and troupes were retained very well in 3E from prior games and it is vastly more direct in its relationship to the others. But the mechanics learned, a stole, a lot of great progress that had already happened in other games and brought that progress home to D&D.

It was a big departure mechanically and also philosophically because before that D&D was the reference that other people built out from.

The rest of what you said I pretty strongly disagree with.

... and you suddenly have a very 3e like game.

Skills are simpler, Saves are simpler (or if you want, instead of using them as defenses, still roll to hit and then use their bonuses as saves instead). You have a different to hit progression...more akin to the epic rules for BAB increases along with saves...but then...that was already in 3e to begin with.

I think you greatly underrate the significance of these changes.
Yes, both systems involve D20+mod vs. a target number. Of course monopoly and craps both involve rolling 2d6 and adding them. The context differences in the mechanics around that resolution are vast.

All 4e is, is basically an OGL form of 3.5 with powers tossed in and a few tweaks, far more tweaks than 3e had from the BASE/Core AD&D.

Heh. You realize that it is really funny to call 4E an OGL ANYTHING, right?

But your summary is just extremely inaccurate. And it seems to stems from a flaw in your analysis. That flaw is you are comparing that equal ability to resolve any given action in either system. Yes, you can take a 3E module and with minimal effort run it as a 4E module. And I could do the same with 4E module in 3E. That is true. And the mechanics for either system can resolve a story for how the party and the module interacted. So, up to that point, they are identical.

But the nature of the interaction and the play experience created would be vastly different.

 

[Umbran]

Reading through the thread, I am reminded yet again that the health of the game and the hobby depends less than most people think on the design specifics, and a whole lot more on the people, and how they treat each other, and how they approach gaming in general.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I never played much pre-3e D&D, because my group could never get a good handle on the rules. We found them absolutely unworkable, so we switched to simulating D&D with other systems when we got the D&D itch. In hindsight, I think this mostly came from the disconnect between 2e fluff and crunch. Our idea of D&D mostly came from reading 2e fluff, not from actually playing the game. We expected the rules to line with the experience described, but couldn't get it to work.

I got much better results playing 2e using 3e rules, which is kind of what we did in my 3e days. I actually think 3e did a better job of this than 4e in many ways, but 4e plays much smoother.

 

[TarionzCousin]

By the time I read this entire thread I was confused. I said to myself "Wait. What is this thread about again?"

Oh yeah: D&D 5E.

Mearls' articles seemed to be exploring the possibility of a modular system. What do Monte's articles indicate? To me, that he's learning 4E and speculating rather vaguely. I'm not complaining, but I don't see a clear direction for 5E yet.

But bringing Monte back makes me believe that 5E won't simply be a modification of 4E.