Rampant Anti-Groggism

[CRKrueger]

One thing I do sympathize with 4e players about - DDI. When WotC fired their old playerbase and told us we were no longer needed and were playing games the wrong way in true Forge-inspired fashion, we had the old stuff still in print. With DDI, buying a book that is going to be errated 12 times in two weeks is a fool's errand. Most 4e players I know have 1 book, the PH. If WotC does pull DDI, their edition is gone unless they've downloaded everything - which is what they should be doing.


Mod Note: I gave two warnings. But still, inflammatory language continues - if you really want to take a vacation, you could save us all the trouble and go play Skyrim, or something. Please stop it, folks. ~Umbran

 

[Mark CMG]

One thing I do sympathize with 4e players about - DDI. When WotC fired their old playerbase and told us we were no longer needed and were playing games the wrong way in true Forge-inspired fashion, we had the old stuff still in print. With DDI, buying a book that is going to be errated 12 times in two weeks is a fool's errand. Most 4e players I know have 1 book, the PH. If WotC does pull DDI, their edition is gone unless they've downloaded everything - which is what they should be doing.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure it will be a problem -

The Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Game System License

d20 System Archive

3.5 D&D Archives

Original Adventures 3.0/3.5

Cliffhangers Archive 3.0/3.5

 

[nedjer]

If core consists only of options of one or two editions, the game doesn't embrace all editions - as 5E's supposed to do. I know it might fail just because truly achieving that is impossible - but I'm advocating of how we should at least TRY to do it.

Because that's how I feel when I'm being pushed into a corner I don't want to be in. I'm not proclaiming 4E-only inspiration, but people react to any mention of it as if it was the depths of the Ninth Hell, and force me to defend it from other editions. I do not want a "we vs us" mentality. I defend "we're all important" mentality. It's when someone wants to push my personal preferences out of the "us" when I feel victimised.

Maybe I'm overdramatising, I do happen to have a "talent" for that, but it doesn't change that the problem *is* there.

It's possible to have a multi-core design working like a car's gears. 1st gear is handy for steep learning curves, 2nd gear lets you accelerate into 3rd gear . . .

Your preferred style of gameplay is going to live beyond a single edition as a result of the plans for 5e. I can't see how this would have happened with a 5e that was a replacement. That's maybe not exactly what you want, but it probably gets you a living 4.25e instead of a 'has to be new' standard model 5.0 with a dead 4e.

 

[Ichneumon]

I can't imagine being anti-grog, especially in a thread started by someone named "jack daniel".

But how I see the actual topic is this: Over its 40 years, D&D has showcased several ways to play, and its "mix" - the elements that go into it - has been greatly varied. When you're familiar with one mix, changing it may feel new and exciting, or it might feel like a travesty. But how you respond has more to do with your personality than whether the particular mix you're assessing is hewing to some vital D&D-ness.

Having played all versions of D&D from 1st to 4th, I've experienced a variety of mixes, and have found that I like the ones with dragonborn, tieflings and tactical combat in them. I also enjoyed playing 2e Planescape that mixed in factions and bariaur (half human half ram). "Gygaxian Era D&D" has its own particular mix of gameplay and elements which many gamers are still fond of. I'd never begrudge anyone's right to enjoy playing it, or to prefer it exclusively. But it's still a way to play D&D, not the way to play D&D.

Dragonborn, warlords and eladrin don't spoil D&D. They just change the mix. In DDN, if it lives up to its promise, there'll be more ways to stir the pot than in any other edition. You still might not get the brew you like, but if not, there'll always be your favored edition to go back to. Which is a good thing. D&D remains a richer game while all of its versions keep being played.

 

[Libramarian]

But, lest we forget, the little white books and the blue basic set were the first to point out that a player could potentially play any kind of character, monsters included, provided they started on par with other 1st level characters and advanced with experience (or age, in the case of dragon PCs).

A very good point, and I question anyone's old school credentials if they are so conservative that they don't want anyone to play "weird" races ever.

BUT. There is a big difference between making something core and making something optional. D&D Next should be more conservative with the core, and only put things in there that they don't think will ever be removed in the future. The core is the D&D brand identity, and should respect the history of the game, and shouldn't have a "faddish" feel. If we have a core that isn't changing around in a way that feels like what WotC marketers think "kids today" want, this shows brand strength, which is an important and valuable thing.

That's why I'd like to see human, halfling, elf and dwarf as the only races in the core book. Same as OD&D. And then dragonborn, warforged, bariaur, centaurs, shardminds, and whatever else tickles the fancy in optional modules/house rules.

(But I recognize that we've already had a Tiefling sighting, so...this is already in the "what might have been" file).

 

[IanB]

stuff that was a mistake to include in the core in the first place

This is the core of the issue here. None of us can speak with authority as to what that stuff may or may not be.

 

[Mark CMG]

This is the core of the issue here. None of us can speak with authority as to what that stuff may or may not be.

I'm not so sure and I think it depends on the criteria we are using to determine whether this element or that element should be included in the core of any game.

 

[francisca]

I'm not so sure and I think it depends on the criteria we are using to determine whether this element or that element should be included in the core of any game.

I think he's right, Mark.

I mean, people still argue about whether Psionics, Weapon vs. AC, and Weapons Speeds "belong" in 1e.

There won't ever be more than "large minority" consensus. Modularity is the only way WotC has a chance of making 80% of the market happy. I just hope for WotC's sake, the 80% are more than 60% happy with the core, or DDn won't be going much of anywhere.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think he's right, Mark.

I mean, people still argue about whether Psionics, Weapon vs. AC, and Weapons Speeds "belong" in 1e.

There won't ever be more than "large minority" consensus. Modularity is the only way WotC has a chance of making 80% of the market happy. I just hope for WotC's sake, the 80% are more than 60% happy with the core, or DDn won't be going much of anywhere.

That's a good point but it might just be speaking more to the trouble with trying to be too inclusive in what should be core. We might all be coming to an understanding that the "core" is something that should be a very tight game that allows for a great number of additional options, and designed to support a wide range and even unusual combinations of those options, rather than beginning with a bloated core in which some aspects feel contradictory to other aspects. Perhaps the authority I feel we have is not in deciding what should be in the core because it is or is not worthy but rather that it simply lessens the idea of "core" being "core." We are, on the whole, ageeing but perhaps coming at it from different angles.

 

[nedjer]

There might be some clues on classes in the lexicon of D&D, as certain classes are 'legend', i.e. come up in conversation constantly and form part of the common language of the game. E.g. Paladin cuts across almost all editions, is forever appearing in thread titles and 'love or hate 'em' is part of the fabric of the game. I could go without playing one ever, but it would be a very slimline core if they were left out.