Rule of 3 -- 7/11/11

[Dice4Hire]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 07/11/2011)

1. Bit of a non-answer to Essentials and design. Good Q though.

2. Game day. Wish I could join.

3. Looks like they are looking for more submissions. God, I hope so. Some good user-generated adventures is what Dungeon needs badly.

 

[jimmifett]

1. Bit of a non-answer to Essentials and design. Good Q though.

I don't think it's a non-answer, just that they are not going to limit themselves to AEDU for design if it doesn't represent the intent well.

Perfectly fine with me, psionics showed that strict adherence to AEDU was not always needed, and essentials reinforced that.

 

[Zaran]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 07/11/2011)

1. Bit of a non-answer to Essentials and design. Good Q though.

2. Game day. Wish I could join.

3. Looks like they are looking for more submissions. God, I hope so. Some good user-generated adventures is what Dungeon needs badly.

Thought the first two answers were lame. #1 is well known but doesn't satisfy those of us that want more choices in character customization than essentials style builds. Their design philosophy builds the character for one playstyle of player instead letting that player pick from a list. Frankly I want the choice because my characters don't fit the molds that they think up for me.

#2 was just advertisement for an event and should not be answered in rule-of-three.

I won't gripe about the third one. I rather get content from you guys than none at all. I just rather the professionals put out more product.

 

[Dedekind]

Thought the first two answers were lame. #1 is well known but doesn't satisfy those of us that want more choices in character customization than essentials style builds. Their design philosophy builds the character for one playstyle of player instead letting that player pick from a list. Frankly I want the choice because my characters don't fit the molds that they think up for me.

I thought they made the point that the philosophy lets them cater to more than one playstyle. Now, they may not have addressed your playstyle yet, but they recognize that not everybody has the same style.

I really like that they posted sample submissions. That will probably more helpful then anything else they've ever posted on the subject.

 

[Quickleaf]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Rule-of-Three: 07/11/2011)
3. Looks like they are looking for more submissions. God, I hope so. Some good user-generated adventures is what Dungeon needs badly.

Interesting timing of that question. The next submittal period is October 1st to November 30th.

 

[Gargoyle]

1. I'm sort of taking this as an admission that Essentials really is 4.5, even if it wasn't intended to be initially, and even if it was chosen to be so retroactively. Maybe they've already admitted as much elsewhere, since I haven't been playing for a while.

3. Very nice of them to create submission examples. This is something they should do on a regular basis to encourage more submissions and to reflect their changing standards.

 

[Pour]

#1 kind of gave me hope, honestly, that we've seen and are seeing the streamlined and simplified versions of 4e (I had no problems with Essentials being that, but I don't want the whole game to become that), and that in the future they will not feel restricted to go for what I imagine is the other end of the spectrum, the more advanced, versatile and customizable options.

Heroes of the Feywild might be our first taste of that via the role-changing class rumored to be in it. I'm hoping late Paragon and more so Epic material in the future also caters to the idea of a more advanced game with a lot of varied approaches, extending beyond class and into just about every other aspect. I think it's definitely on the way, it'll just take time to produce...

#2 I just want 4e C1. I'll gladly pay. It'd make the most epic Dungeon issue ever, too, if you want to surprise us subscribers...

#3 is pretty awesome for every aspiring contributor. I never realized how simple and straightforward those proposals were.

 

[Dannager]

1. I'm sort of taking this as an admission that Essentials really is 4.5, even if it wasn't intended to be initially, and even if it was chosen to be so retroactively. Maybe they've already admitted as much elsewhere, since I haven't been playing for a while.

What?

How did you possibly get that from their answer?

All they said was, "Look, we're going to create stuff that fits in the 4e framework without worrying about being constrained by any particular format."

If anything, this was an acknowledgement that Essentials is just another part of 4e.

 

[Gargoyle]

What?

How did you possibly get that from their answer?

All they said was, "Look, we're going to create stuff that fits in the 4e framework without worrying about being constrained by any particular format."

If anything, this was an acknowledgement that Essentials is just another part of 4e.

I guess that's one way of looking at it.

I'll explain my opinion. I feel like Essentials is a 4.5 because they are changing 4.0 to conform to Essentials. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. In fact I like it. But how anyone can say that it's not a new version of the rules when the classes are getting revamped in DDI, and when the monsters have been revamped in Monster Vault, and when even new printed products have the trade dress and conform to the rules mechanics and design philosophy of Essentials is puzzling to me.

Granted, it's not like 3.5. They didn't invalidate anything with Essentials, but only because they already did that with extensive errata. All the changes and errata have effectively invalidated my 4E PHB, DMG and MM. I never use them because basic content in those books is a bit broken (not unplayable, just so heavily erratta'd and incompatible with DDI that I find it clunky to use). I depend on the Essentials books and DDI. So it's quite a lot like 3.5, except that this transition to 4.5 was done so smoothly that most people don't even agree that there was one. Bravo to WotC for that.

 

[BobTheNob]

I actually thought the answwer to the first question was really good. Not that I couldnt have guessed it myself, but Im so glad they have formally stated it.

The break from AEDU is (IMHO) the best thing they have done for 4e since release.