Why I really like D&D.

[TwoSix]

I think that's a wee bit of an overstatement.

Overstatements draw responses.

What if those people want something a little different next campaign? Every addition has its drawbacks/merits.

Can't change be derived from multiple evolving editions, rather than a continual rebooting in the search for an ideal, combined with a loss of support for the previous versions?

My hunch is that most players aren't on a grail quest for their ideal version of D&D. Am I alone in gaming w/people who'd happily play several editions of the game, and who maintain an interest in the game's current/continued development?
I mean, I'm really digging AD&D right now... but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in what's coming down the pike.

I'm also interested, but I don't think any goal of unity is going to happen. I'm also more than happy to play multiple editions, but I also know many people who prefer to stick with one. Why not cater to them as well? And if you like multiple editions, wouldn't you be happier to see products for any and all of them?

 

[Mallus]

Overstatements draw responses.

Touche!

Can't change be derived from multiple evolving editions, rather than a continual rebooting in the search for an ideal, combined with a loss of support for the previous versions?

Sure -- but it's a resource issue. WotC is going to focus most of it's development on the next/new edition. Leaving other companies --like Pazio-- and smaller 3rd party/hobbyist developers to support the rest.

And if you like multiple editions, wouldn't you be happier to see products for any and all of them?

Like I said, there's a limited budget for new product development. Right now Paizo's churning out good 3e-comptible materials, and the OSR is creating a plethora of new materials that work with older versions, including whole new variant systems.

There's no lack of support for other versions of D&D, even with WotC out of the game. It's nice that they're reprinting AD&D --my 25 year old copies are getting worn-- but there's just no need for them to, say, ramp up full-scale AD&D supplement production. I hope they keep reprinting from their back catalog, though. Most of my old modules are equally worn!

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ah, I think we were talking about this, why do you find 4th delivers the best LotR/Middle-Earth campaigns?

First, you need two explicit optional rules and a houserule to get LotR working in 4e. All are quite simple.

The toggles are:

• Inherent bonusses/low magic items
• All PCs are of the martial power source unless you can write a good background reason as to why. Races: restricted and obvious (elves, dwarves, halflings, humans, half-orcs, possibly shifters)

Good background reasons can include "Beorning bear warrior" (warden or barbarian), beserker (either Barbarian or beserker using non-flashy powers), and a number of others.


The house rule is

• Extended rests may only be taken in a "place of safety" (Bombadil's/Rivendel/Lorien/etc.)

This extra rule almost perfectly replacates the rhythm of the early parts of LotR with things getting tenser and tenser and more and more desperate until the PCs manage to reach a place of safety, and then bing. They are back to full strength.


But this is setting the stage.


If you accept that all the party except Gandalf are martial characters then 4e has obvious advantages in terms of depth of treatment. But that's not enough.

First, the skill system. Some characters are clearly more skilled at some things than others - but no one is obviously incompetent. This is how 4e works - and how AD&D does. It's not a bad fit. (There are better - but I think 4e has about everything you need). That said, the only actual bad fit here is 3.X.


Far more importantly there's the magic system. Gandalf, despite being subtle and extremely powerful casts about half a dozen spells in the whole of the trilogy - and none of them that flashy. Whatever Gandalf is he isn't a classic D&D wizard, and given the way he faces down the Balrog sword in hand, the D&D wizard is a truly terrible match for Gandalf. So for that matter is an AD&D F/MU (or just about any other casting multiclass). Far too much magic. If he's closest to anything outside 4e it's the 3.5 Bard with a range of coincidental spells. On the other hand a combination of AEDU with obviously magical dailies and Ritual Casting suits him perfectly.



Then there's hobbit PC resilience. I'd argue that the hobbits start the campaign as Level 1 PCs - but there's only one time I recall when one goes down in a single stroke (and no, the Morgul knife doesn't count - that's the condition track in action). This is, of course, Frodo in the Mines of Moria against something clearly set up to be higher level than the non-Gandalf high level party members. After the fight, of course, he spends a handful of healing surges with no magical intervention ("Put me down, I can walk") and is more or less OK. Also after the splintering of the Fellowship, Frodo and Sam go through hell (or Mordor) with no bed rest to recover hit points in sight. Getting reduced to 0hp by Shelob (as he was) would put Frodo on 1 or 2hp for the rest of Mordor under any pre-4e recovery rules. He's bleeding out as soon as just about anything goes wrong. Instead he was able to progress through Mordor (he's probably out of surges by now but still at least has hit points rather than is below zero as soon as Gollum attacks him). Frodo: Healing Surges In Action. And not a cleric in sight.



And there's the combat.


At Helm's Deep Gimli took on and defeated 42 orcs in melee. His AC isn't actually that great - in the books he wears a (non-Mithril) chain shirt. ""Gimli the dwarf alone wore openly a short shirt of steel-rings, for dwarves make light of burdens" You want to put someone in a chain shirt into a battle with orcs in pre-4e and tell me they killed more than 40 orcs without being laid up for a loooong time? Without clerical healing? What the hell level was he? Even in 4e using mook rules that's pretty good going.



And then there's everyone's favourite rapid-firing and incredibly accurate archer. Legolas. In the book it's unclear - but in the film he's quite clearly a 4e character - his sheer maneuverability and his shooting into melee both say that. This, however, may be an unfair comparison; I believe when putting the archer ranger's powers together film-Legolas was one of the models used for what a ranger should be.



So the magic's a decent match for a significant type of 4e magic (and terrible for classic D&D editions), the hit points, healing, and recovery are a match, the classes are a decent match, the skills are an adequate match, and the slightly cinematic combat's a good match. And there doesn't feel as if there's a hole in the party from lack of casters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This. It was not 4th edition fans that coined the terms:

3tards
and
TETSNBN (The Edition That Shall Not Be Named).

4th may have split the Player Base more, by not being Open, but as far as causing hardcore edition wars, it is a late comer.

Also by the standards of the 2e/3e edition war, the 3e/4e edition war is downright polite. For the level of vitriol, I'm quoting an e-mail sent by the RPGPundit to Mike Mearls on the subject of Monte Cook. And published by the RPGPundit.

Seriously dude, you need to put a muzzle on Monte Cook. Every time the guy opens his mouth about 5e he scares the living out of the majority of regular old-school gamers.
...
You realize that you might as well be telling old school gamers that it will glorify nazi atrocities, right?
...
how they are essentially saying (whatever he may have thought or intended to say) to old school gamers: "5e will be a game that will all over the things that you value, and we feel proud of telling you that and using the language of your Enemies, of the people that despise the type of D&D you love, to say it".
...

So seriously, get the man some kind of sensitivity counseling, or just disconnect his ing vocal cords.
​

That's hardcore edition warring. Vitriolic as the 3e/4e edition wars get I've never seen them come close to violating Godwin's Law or suggesting literally maiming one of the designers. Especially not from a paid consultant to WotC about someone he was supposed to be working with. (And the RPGPundit not only sent the e-mail to Mearls, he is sufficiently proud of his behaviour to put it up on his website).

 

[Jacob Marley]

Am I alone in gaming w/people who'd happily play several editions of the game, and who maintain an interest in the game's current/continued development?

Nope. In the past year my group has run a 1st Edition campaign and a 3rd Edition campaign. A couple of guys in our group are playing in a seperate 4th Edition campaign; last fall I played in a different 4th Edition campaign with my fiancee's best friend's boyfriend. And another couple of guys are running through a Pathfinder Adventure Path.

Granted we all have editions that we prefer, we just don't carry the visceral hatred toward the other editions that some posters on the internet seem to exhibit.

To paraphrase Almond Joy/Mounds commercials... sometimes I feel like playing edition X, sometimes I don't.

 

[Fifth Element]

Also by the standards of the 2e/3e edition war, the 3e/4e edition war is downright polite. For the level of vitriol, I'm quoting an e-mail sent by the RPGPundit to Mike Mearls on the subject of Monte Cook. And published by the RPGPundit.

Now, this might not be a good example because you have to consider the author. Mr. Tarnowski is known for this sort of thing, which resulted in his being banned from pretty much every RPG board in existence. It's part of his online persona.

But it is interesting that a self-proclaimed old-schooler apparently sees *way* too much 4E in the 5E design process, while some 4E fans feel left out entirely. People tend to see what they want to see, including the cynics.

Your overall point is sound, though. The idea that 4E is the only edition to bring out the edition warriors is untenable, I think.

 

[Fifth Element]

My hunch is that most players aren't on a grail quest for their ideal version of D&D. Am I alone in gaming w/people who'd happily play several editions of the game, and who maintain an interest in the game's current/continued development?

Absolutely not. In reverse chronological order, the last campaigns I've played have been Pathfinder, 4E, 2E, 3.5, 1E and 3.5. No idea what will be up next after the current one is done.

 

[Mallus]

Also by the standards of the 2e/3e edition war, the 3e/4e edition war is downright polite. For the level of vitriol, I'm quoting an e-mail sent by the RPGPundit to Mike Mearls on the subject of Monte Cook. And published by the RPGPundit.

I forgot what a classy guy Pundit is (it's been awhile since I looked at his site).

... he is sufficiently proud of his behaviour to put it up on his website).

To be fair, being proud of his behavior is part of his shtick (which is borderline, if not outright, self-parody, right?). I wonder if he actually sent the email. I have to guy him props, though, for suggesting Mike get counseling. There should be more irony in D&D!

Granted we all have editions that we prefer, we just don't carry the visceral hatred toward the other editions that some posters on the internet seem to exhibit.

I never quite understood the idea that preferring something meant excluding everything else.

 

[Splurch]

I think the problem with a lot of the opinions are they are just that opinions. I played Red Box a few times when I was really young but mostly started playing in the late 80's early 90's with AD&D and have played every variation since then and a ton of other games as well. I think the reason 4th ED is being blamed by some as the community splitting edition is because it is, but not in anyway due to itself, it just had bad timing.

Let look at it this way there was a perfect storm going when it was released with the OGL and all the other companies making 3.5 books and with the down turn of the economy it was destined to fail to some degree. People were just getting over the fact that they had to get the 3.5 books from the 3.0 books and now introducing a game that had a different approach to play style was just the final straw. With the economy being as bad as it was and with WOTC now telling us their new edition books are not compatible with what we just bought to replace the 3.0 books with was a mistake and because there was already a ton of push back for the Tomb of Battle book (which I might add I love).

I believe they would of been better off just producing more optional splat books like Tomb of Battle then introduce a whole new system and the fact that a lot of role players are kinda elitist versus the powers are more like WOW and not a tabletop RPG thing. Also for some reason when Skills and Powers came out it lessened the blow into 3rd Ed a bit but the TOB didn't do this for 4th Ed and I'm not sure why to be blunt but I believe that was the plan.

I really like 4th Ed and I take it for what it is and I bought it the day it came out. I also bought about the first six or so books for it but my players got split on what they wanted to play (I have some that are more of the live action narrative type and some that are more of the gamist style) and the narrative group won out and we went back to 3.5 because that is what they prefer. Take it for what its worth I am more of a simulist gamer in all games (including loving Madden and NBA 2k and hating Blitz and NBA Jams) and I like the grittier the better kind of game.

What I think the OP really is trying to say is that we hope they can really unite the community so we can play with all our friends again and not just the ones who like this version or that version, and I hope for that as well.

Sorry for the rant, just my $0.02

 

[billd91]

There's a lot of speculative art in these sorts of interpretations...

First, the skill system. Some characters are clearly more skilled at some things than others - but no one is obviously incompetent. This is how 4e works - and how AD&D does. It's not a bad fit. (There are better - but I think 4e has about everything you need). That said, the only actual bad fit here is 3.X.

I'd say that 3e works just fine here. Nobody's incompetent, true, but there's little to suggest the DCs on most of the checks people are making are particularly high, either. That said, some characters clearly have better skills than others by a long shot. Frodo's perceptive skills are magically enhanced, but Aragorn's and Gandalf's are far ahead of most of the rest if they're able to notice Gollum stalking the group and navigate through Moria, respectively. Quite a few more skill ranks due to their depths of experience maybe?

Far more importantly there's the magic system. Gandalf, despite being subtle and extremely powerful casts about half a dozen spells in the whole of the trilogy - and none of them that flashy. Whatever Gandalf is he isn't a classic D&D wizard, and given the way he faces down the Balrog sword in hand, the D&D wizard is a truly terrible match for Gandalf. So for that matter is an AD&D F/MU (or just about any other casting multiclass). Far too much magic. If he's closest to anything outside 4e it's the 3.5 Bard with a range of coincidental spells. On the other hand a combination of AEDU with obviously magical dailies and Ritual Casting suits him perfectly.

This has been contentious for years, ever since a foolish article tried to say that Gandalf was just a 5th level wizard. Clearly, the magical system isn't D&D-standard. If D&D's magic conformed to Middle Earth's, wizards would apparently have a lot less to do than they do in D&D. D&D's magic system is much more varied to make a better general fantasy game. But that doesn't mean it can't fit LotR. First, there would need to be a recognition that significant spell-casting draws attention and gives away your location to an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. That can color any magical system, limiting the freedom to blast away.

Getting reduced to 0hp by Shelob (as he was) would put Frodo on 1 or 2hp for the rest of Mordor under any pre-4e recovery rules. He's bleeding out as soon as just about anything goes wrong. Instead he was able to progress through Mordor (he's probably out of surges by now but still at least has hit points rather than is below zero as soon as Gollum attacks him). Frodo: Healing Surges In Action. And not a cleric in sight.

I'd argue Frodo isn't reduced to 0 hp by Shelob. He's poisoned by her and poisons can have a wide variety of effects under any edition. Note also that lembas may have some restorative effects. We also know that the orcs have some pastes that apparently restore health and energy - Merry and Pippin benefited from those. Did Frodo in the tower before Sam rescued him? We don't know.

At Helm's Deep Gimli took on and defeated 42 orcs in melee. His AC isn't actually that great - in the books he wears a (non-Mithril) chain shirt. "Gimli the dwarf alone wore openly a short shirt of steel-rings, for dwarves make light of burdens" You want to put someone in a chain shirt into a battle with orcs in pre-4e and tell me they killed more than 40 orcs without being laid up for a loooong time? Without clerical healing? What the hell level was he? Even in 4e using mook rules that's pretty good going.

In AD&D, that was certainly possible with moderate levels and not at all impossible in 3e. If most of those orcs were 1st level warriors, and Gimli was, say 7th, he could quite reasonably go to town.
Also, his chain shirt may not have been mithril, but it could certainly be treated in D&D as being magical. Plused items can be quite subtle, one of the things that makes them suitable for otherwise low magic campaigns. He does come from a dwarven kingdom where they make magical toys and tell them to markets as far away as Hobbiton where they will be gifts to scores of children. Gloin may say they have not matched their sires in armory, armors better than normal are probably within reach.

And then there's everyone's favourite rapid-firing and incredibly accurate archer. Legolas. In the book it's unclear - but in the film he's quite clearly a 4e character - his sheer maneuverability and his shooting into melee both say that. This, however, may be an unfair comparison; I believe when putting the archer ranger's powers together film-Legolas was one of the models used for what a ranger should be.

His rapid shooting and accuracy work pretty well from AD&D and 3e too. A high Dex fighter with a magical bow like Legolas is going to have a pretty good accuracy.

So the magic's a decent match for a significant type of 4e magic (and terrible for classic D&D editions), the hit points, healing, and recovery are a match, the classes are a decent match, the skills are an adequate match, and the slightly cinematic combat's a good match. And there doesn't feel as if there's a hole in the party from lack of casters.

And if you run a 3e campaign in which the vast majority of the opponents are martial-based (like they are in LotR), you similarly don't need a lot of magical support to take them on. Fighter-based war campaigns have been a staple of D&D for a long time.