This "resting at 9:05 AM" business

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I thin k the genie is out of the bottle. I don't thjink you'll get players to give back the power you gave them with 3.x. We're pretty much stuck with 800 hit point dragons and therefore the abilities of characters to deal with them.

Everyone gave back the Players Option powers to go to 3E.

If the new system had 100 hit point dragons, people would be fine.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Again, I just don't get this.
If I play a Magic-User in B/X, I know that my role is to cast the big spell now and then, NOT to cast a spell every single round. If I can't have fun in that role, I shouldn't play a Magic-User.

Look at what you're saying: "I accept that my role is constrained, because historically, that's how it's been."

Your basis for the old way being acceptable is that it's the old way.

Nostalgia gaming has its place -- witness OSRIC and C&C, not to mention the availability of the actual older versions of the game in PDF form -- but it's not an argument for future versions. There is NOTHING in any edition of any game that shouldn't be taken out, looked at, judged on its own merits, and killed or replaced, based on that test.

The old versions aren't going anywhere, for those that prefer them. The future is wide open.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Look at what you're saying: "I accept that my fun is limited, because historically, that's how it's been."

No, that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying it's NOT unfun to be effective in bursts. I'm saying it's NOT unfun to resort to the daggers or just hang back. I did not feel my fun was limited.

edit: Looks like you changed your text. Yes, I accept in a game my role is constrained. What's wrong with that? In baseball or soccer, I play a specific position. In poker, I get to call the game when I'm the dealer and not any other time. In a computer game, there are always some actions I can't do. The great thing about D&D is that while some elements of the combat roles are constrained, the game really is wide-open on the roleplaying side. Any character can become a lord and rule a dominion, any character can open negotiations with the dragon in the cave, any player can do the mapping, any character can come up with a clever ruse or trick.

Your basis for the old way being acceptable is that it's the old way.

No, my basis it is that it was a lot of fun.

There is NOTHING in any edition of any game that shouldn't be taken out, looked at, judged on its own merits, and killed or replaced, based on that test.

I completely disagree. As I said, I still play Monopoly, Scrabble, chess, baseball, card games, and nearly every other game as I learned them decades ago. Risk has one feature that is truly broken and makes the game unplayable, so we're always tinkering with fixes. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why D&D, as opposed to other games, is forced to go through this constant state of revolution where it evolves to something so completely unlike its earlier forms.

To me, someone who says "I want to play a wizard in D&D but I don't want to ever run out of spells" is like someone saying "I want to be a goalie in soccer but I want to be able to carry the ball anywhere on the field." Umm, what? I'd tell the wizard wanna-be "Look, maybe D&D isn't the game for you, this is how wizards are in this particular game." Or in recent years "Maybe you'd like to play a warlock."

 

[reanjr]

scrolls and wands leap immediately to mind.

Some (many?) people do not want to continuously rely on magic items to make their character even mildly functional and useful. Since 4e is getting rid of this atrocious mentality (at least they say they are) it makes sense to ignore this as an option.

Of course, part of the problem is that long term exploration isn't really a part of D&D and hasn't been since 1E (but I am a neo-grognard, so what do I know?) Set piece action sequences and summer-blockbuster "coolness" is what seems to drive thegame these days, so of course the PCs are going to burn all their best toys as soon as the proverbial stuff hits the fan, right?

The thing is a game designed to handle that type of action is not going to work very well at all for other types of games. On the other hand, a game designed like 4e sounds like it's going to be designed can handle the major scene blockbuster action just as well. Why not go with the method that does NOT give a big middle finger to half your audience.

Dungeons are dangerous -- full of nasty and horrible things, all of which want to eat you and some of which are smart enough to do so while you sleep.

As DM, why am I being told by the rules that I have to make dungeons crawling with dangerous, random, pointless, wandering monsters or else the game will break?

Anyway -- how do you feel about the idea that PCs can/should/must rest after just a couple of encounters. Do you run or play in games where this happens? Do you actively avoid it? Prefer it?

As you may have guessed, I try to avoid it. Adventurers should spend their time adventuring, not hiding and sleeping all the time.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

Again, I just don't get this.
If I play a Magic-User in B/X, I know that my role is to cast the big spell now and then, NOT to cast a spell every single round. If I can't have fun in that role, I shouldn't play a Magic-User. Also, if I play a Magic-User in B/X, I know that my character is one who can barely grasp the edges of this vast power called Magic. It's beyond my control but for a few times per day. In that case, a staff, some throwing daggers, and several flasks of oil and holy water are my character's "backup weapons." That DOES fit his character. At low levels, he's basically a normal and somewhat frail person who can once in a while command powerful magics.

I think that, for better or worse, D&D has been moving more towards instant gratification since 3e (arguably since Skills & Powers). 4e is likely to further in this direction, with cool things at every level and the ability to always participate in the action at the table. I don't view this as a bad thing, because it will make D&D even better in the "Kill and take it's stuff" department and I can't imagine it detracting from the roleplaying aspects of the game; meaning, the rules won't preclude them (may even support them more) and a good roleplaying experience depends largely on the group at hand.

So we'll probably have to agree to disagree because I'm not attached to the old style. My first edition was 2nd, and being a singularly craptastic edition of the game, I don't have any particular nostalgic attachment to earlier editions. I want D&D to be a better game with each iteration, even if that means killing some sacred cows, but I can certainly respect those who enjoy the style of the older editions.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

So we'll probably have to agree to disagree because I'm not attached to the old style. My first edition was 2nd, and being a singularly craptastic edition of the game, I don't have any particular nostalgic attachment to earlier editions. I want D&D to be a better game with each iteration, even if that means killing some sacred cows, but I can certainly respect those who enjoy the style of the older editions.

Yeah, I get that. I don't agree, because I love the things that make D&D uniquely D&D, but you had to start with 2e. The trend towards instant gratification isn't going to make the game any better for me.

I just want to make sure people know I'm not saying "I like the old-school feel because it's old-school."
I'm saying "You keep saying these things are unfun, but they were WAY more pronounced in earlier games and didn't ruin the fun for me then, so I don't see them as a problem."

"Dead levels" in particular I just can't wrap my head around as a problem. To my mind, 3E offers TONS of goodies each level even without new spells known or class special abilities. BAB, saves, skill points, feats, ability points, AND hit points?

Of all the "flaws" that 4E is expected to fix, the three that I agree with are the "Christmas Tree Effect" (more prevalent in 3E than in earlier editions due to the Wealth By Level guidelines, Craft Wondrous at 3rd level, and cheap buffing items), the iterative attacks (a 3E mechanic that just slowed down gameplay quite a bit, and the skill system (a 3E innovation that is good in general but burdensome when creating high-level NPC opponents).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND why D&D, as opposed to other games, is forced to go through this constant state of revolution where it evolves to something so completely unlike its earlier forms.

Two reasons:

1) D&D doesn't sell like Monopoly or Scrabble or Risk does. Parker Brothers can rely on selling a good number of Monopoly games from now until the end of time. They don't need to come up with Monopoly expansions or revisions to make it a profitable game. Although, even there, they've come up with the Here & Now version, kid versions, innumerable licensed versions and so on. While these aren't quite as big of a change as the rules changes in D&D versions, no one really plays by the rules on Monopoly, anyway. (Seriously, when was the last time you heard of anyone auctioning off each space that someone landed on, but didn't want to buy?)

2) The state of the art in roleplaying design has come a long, long way over the past few decades, whereas board games have been around for centuries. I imagine EGG would have come up with something like the Ars Magica/Mage: The A* magic systems for D&D if he'd thought of it, but Mark Rein*Hagen and company only came up with the designs they did because they were standing on the shoulders of giants. If a better way of handling something in a game comes along, not only do lots of players want to buy it, but from a corporate standpoint, it doesn't make sense not to do it, since someone else will create a competing game if they don't. The explosive success of White Wolf in the 1990s certainly proved that D&D couldn't be counted on to be all things to all roleplayers forever.

To me, someone who says "I want to play a wizard in D&D but I don't want to ever run out of spells" is like someone saying "I want to be a goalie in soccer but I want to be able to carry the ball anywhere on the field." Umm, what? I'd tell the wizard wanna-be "Look, maybe D&D isn't the game for you, this is how wizards are in this particular game." Or in recent years "Maybe you'd like to play a warlock."

Or, maybe, instead of telling people to leave the game, you can look at what they're saying -- "I hate standing around, watching you guys having fun" -- and figure out how to make more players of the game have more fun.

The soccer goalie analogy is a bad one: They're rarely standing around bored, hoping someone will head their way.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I just want to make sure people know I'm not saying "I like the old-school feel because it's old-school."

/danacarvey on

"I had 2 hit points, 1 spell, had to wait around the whole adventure before I got to cast it and save the day, got bitten by a giant rat and died one room before we got to the evil overlord, and we LIKED IT that way!"

/danacarvey off

I'm saying "You keep saying these things are unfun, but they were WAY more pronounced in earlier games and didn't ruin the fun for me then, so I don't see them as a problem."

And what's fun for you is not necessarily what's fun for everyone else. This is a matter of taste, not absolute fact that you can point to. Fun cannot be measured by a funometer. What's fun for you is not necessarily fun for anyone else.

 

[Tarek]

Gandalf was a Maiar, not a wizard or magic-user. He was an Outsider, in D&D terms something like a Deva or Planetar.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Two reasons:
The explosive success of White Wolf in the 1990s certainly proved that D&D couldn't be counted on to be all things to all roleplayers forever.

Sure. And I don't want D&D to even try to be all things to all roleplayers. I don't think it needs to try to be White Wolf or GURPS or Rolemaster or Amber.
Don't like the randomness of rolling dice? You might like Amber.
Want more detail in your critical hits? You might like Rolemaster.
Want more "roleplaying" and less number-crunching? You might like White Wolf.
Want wizards who can cast spells all day long? Well, I'm sure there are systems out there like that.