D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Zardnaar]

Yet no one here has applied to join my anti-WOTC resistance group??
Or did everyone else form one and didn't invite me??? D: D: D:

That's called the internet.

 

[Remathilis]

The best example I can think of that had the potential to do this is 1e/2e D&D, mostly due to their modular subsystem-based design. To add more playstyles and-or tweak what was there, just add more modules and-or subsystems and suggest what they should replace and-or how they should fit in.

I mean, many of us did this with 1e without really realizing it - we took what was intended as a very complicated system (that expected a certain granular and somewhat gritty playstyle) and simplified it by eschewing such things as weapon-vs-armour-type and redoing the initiative system. Dragonlance showed us how some different playstyles could be incorporated and used as-written. Dropping xp-for-treasure is another easy way of quickly (in theory, anyway) changing playstyle. And so on.

I don't see that as a function of modular design as much as a function of disparate systems that didn't function as a coherent whole. For example, there is no unified skill system, so you ended up with a bunch of different mechanics (NWPs, thief skills, etc) all trying to do the same thing. You could remove the bonuses and penalties for vs armor because the system math never took them into account anyway. XP for GP only could be removed if story and RP awards were added. The advantage was that you could break off any part you wanted to remove or replace, but the disadvantage is they often were not designed to take others into account and that lead to conflicting or clashing rules.

 

[Staffan]

* beside slowest leveling ever. Early 2E was slow late 2E they upped the xp awards in adventures.

It was always up to DM in 2E how much to hand out. I suspect some were very slow. DMGs not very clear on how much to hand out and draws no distinction between short and long adventures.

2E through modern eyes can be very fast leveling. Just hand out massive xp awards for goal, roleplaying or exploration.

You could do that back then as well. How common that was no idea hence *.

I believe there's a passage in the 2e DMG that says that story awards shouldn't, overall, be more than the adventure's potential encounter awards. I believe the optional RP and class (and, in Dark Sun, race) awards go on top of that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I believe there's a passage in the 2e DMG that says that story awards shouldn't, overall, be more than the adventure's potential encounter awards. I believe the optional RP and class (and, in Dark Sun, race) awards go on top of that.

Yeah there's all sorts of ifs buts and maybes.

You ciukd run 2E as a mix of okd and new. Ideally unified ability scores and more generous leveling and xp awards. I would let PCs level with 0 encounters tbh.

Aa long as it was relevant to campaign eg exploration, roleplaying and hitting xp milestones etc

 

[TiQuinn]

The Dragonlance modules are not terribly different than earlier modules despite all the hoopla. They’re certainly no more railroads than, say, the GDQ modules where your character is executed if you choose not to accept the mission.

I agree with the rest of your post, but having recently looked at both of these modules, Dragons of Despair throws the same character in the PC’s way multiple times because they have to choose to escort her, no matter what. That was the way the book went, so that’s the way the module goes. The module actually prefers that you NOT create your own PCs, and use the pregens. Why? Because they’re the characters from the book. I think TSR loosened up on the railroads more after that, but DL itself is a bad example to compare to the GDQ series.

 

[AlViking]

We don't have NO idea. We don't have an exact idea, but we certainly don't have NO idea at all.

As to your other point, that door swings both ways. If a product is "high quality" but can't sell, then in what way is it "high quality"? What does that even mean?

I mean, I don't disagree with you really, but if you're just saying that high quality is nothing more than some completely subjective assessment, basically amounting to "what I like versus what I don't" then quality isn't really the word to use to describe it.

Certainly in terms of physical attributes the 5e books aren't very high quality. They rather notoriously fall apart easily and are made very cheaply. But I don't think that's what you mean either.

I think it's quite common to call something you happen to like "high quality". I don't think of Dsiry Queen as high quality but the company does have high standards for their stores. If I go into a DQ I know what I'm getting whether I'm in Florida, Oregon or anywhere in-between. Is it the highest quality? It happens to have things I like, including convenience, variety, price, availability. I wouldn't expect anyone to call it high quality.

On the other hand many people would consider a vintage Rolls Royce from the 1930s high quality even if by today's standards it would be a slow, unsafe gas guzzler.

Quality, and how people define quality, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with the rest of your post, but having recently looked at both of these modules, Dragons of Despair throws the same character in the PC’s way multiple times because they have to choose to escort her, no matter what. That was the way the book went, so that’s the way the module goes. The module actually prefers that you NOT create your own PCs, and use the pregens. Why? Because they’re the characters from the book. I think TSR loosened up on the railroads more after that, but DL itself is a bad example to compare to the GDQ series.

My point being, in play, at the table, it’s not hugely different. In both series, you are forced to go through a series of adventures with very little choice. Each adventure locks you into the next. Each adventure is pretty linear with few actual opportunities to deviate from the written adventure.

IOW when we talk about “playstyles”, it is important to pin down what people actually mean. Because playstyle itself is so vague that it often just means “games I like”.

 

[Mournblade94]

error

 

[TiQuinn]

My point being, in play, at the table, it’s not hugely different. In both series, you are forced to go through a series of adventures with very little choice. Each adventure locks you into the next. Each adventure is pretty linear with few actual opportunities to deviate from the written adventure.

IOW when we talk about “playstyles”, it is important to pin down what people actually mean. Because playstyle itself is so vague that it often just means “games I like”.

Gotcha. For me, playstyle in this context is talking about whether it’s a resource management game (equipment, encumbrance, rations, NOT HP and spells) versus a tactical skirmish game versus a storytelling heroic action (or storytelling horror or storytelling mystery, etc). To me the mechanics for each of those are so different that mixing and matching them creates a bad kind of Frankenstein monster. I personally don’t think 1e or 2e ever got out of being a resource management game even if the adventures were trying to make it a heroic action game. The two never blended well.

 

[Mournblade94]

My point isn't that people shouldn't liek what they like, but rather they should play the game they like rather than constantly complaining that the current game isn't the old game. Just play what you like.

This thread was inspired by a poster literally saying that they would give the current game a try if only it used the old art. Literally used the old art.

That is what is exhausting. Just play 2E or whatever.

No. We want our tastes to be supported too. If you don't like that customer feedback then move along.