Wire Fu Demonic Magical Superheroes

[Reynard]

a) Because Exalted sucks. Well, I shouldn't try to make a statement like that sound objective. Because I hate Exalted's mechanics and wouldn't play it if you paid me. (Well, ok, then I would, but it would have to be a substantial payment, not just covering my share of the pizza or something.)

Generally speaking, "hating mechanics" is one of those things I just don't get. d20, dice pool, percentile, whatever -- it's all just randomizers.

b) Because I don't want Exalted, with or without its crappy mechanics. I want D&D. What you are failing to understand here is that your opinion of what makes D&D D&D is not objective immutable fact. To me, stuff like warlocks and warblades capture the essence of D&D but do it in a way that's much more fun to play than anything AD&D had to offer.

What I am suggesting is that while these things can be fun, cool fantasy, they are not, traditionally speaking, part of D&D's core material. I think if you actually go back and look at D&D core material from all ediitons, you'll find that there are elements that have been pervasive. Those are what I am talking about in regards to what makes D&D D&D -- it isn't just subjective opinion. Now, that I prefer that is subjective opinion, and that I think D&D should remain D&D, as I just defined it, is subjective opinion. But this is a message board, so everthing anyone writes should be considered subjective opinion from the outset.

edit: Of course, my opinion of what constitutes the essence of D&D isn't objective fact either. But just because the current trademark holders are leaning more towards my opinion than yours doesn't mean they're missing the point of the game or selling out to get new customers or anything like that. It just means that they don't happen to agree with you on this issue.

I think it does mean that. It means they (WotC/Hasbro), who would have called for a new edition anyway, have decided, based on whatever informed their decision, to change D&D to appeal to a different market demographic.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

If you don't get hating mechanics, play some Exalted.

Like some fiendish blend of cardless M:tG (as translated by shonen manga authors for whom English is a third language they're not that interested in; I'm still waiting for a charm called 'Reggae Hairstyle Rock & Roll") and 40-die yahtzee played with d10s, all controlled via Feng Shui's shot clock.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Does this excite me? Yes. Put from a purely mechanical point of view. It's always felt to me that D&D rules were 'cannot rules' (you can't do this, you can't do that) but 4E will be 'can' rules.

3E was like this too. In previous editions, Wizards couldn't wear metal armor AND cast spells. Why? No reason, they just couldn't. In 3E, they can, they just get arcane spell failure. Same thing with TWF. Anyone can do TWF, you just get heavy penalities.

3E is 'can do' rules, but usually with penalty if it is something against their nature.

 

[Clavis]

Why do (general) you -- though I would like an answer directly from Doug -- want D&D to be Exalted when you already have Exalted. More to the point, why do you want to take D&D from me so you can have Exalted with D&D on the cover?

Allow me to be cynical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the single biggest factor in the success of an RPG is whether or not it's called Dungeons & Dragons. WOTC could make the rules mechanic involve licking a pigeon, and they would still get sales. They could change the cosmology to include a plane inhabited by clones of Paris Hilton with superpowers, and they'd still get players. That's because, playing a RPG and playing D&D are synonymous for a great many people. Even when they're using another ruleset, the social activity of getting together around a table and pretending to be fantasy characters is called "playing D&D". That's how strong the D&D branding is.

Under those circumstances, people know that the only way they can guarantee finding other people to play with, is to be playing D&D. And any new gamers you play with will learn the game in whatever the currently-published form is. Therefore, the important thing is to try to make sure the current form of D&D is the kind of game you like to play, because you'll most likely be playing it anyway. Therefore the anime fans want D&D to be more like anime, the GURPS crowd wants D&D to be more like GURPS, and the old-schoolers want D&D to be like it was 20 years ago. People who might otherwise like to play Exalted know that they're more likely to get to play Exalted if its called D&D.

 

[shilsen]

I am not talking about changing rules. that's why I cited all the editions. It is the tone at he table and the flavor in the campaign that determines whether the character struggles, breathing hard, pushing himself to the limit to get that ogre over the edge, or he does a double flip kick to the head Beowulf lift and arm-rending throw. Both were a successful attack/grapple check. If you assume the latter in the game, inherently, however, you negate the former.

I see your point, and I'm all for using flavor at the table to push for different tones, but mechanics will still have some influence on the flavor. If a character is able to shove ogres over on a roll of 4 or higher on a d20 and has a Domino Push feat which lets him knock over four ogres in a line, it's a lot harder to describe the act as "character struggles, breathing hard, pushing himself to the limit to get that ogre over the edge." Whereas if the character is having to roll a 19 or higher and is fatigued after the action, it's a lot easier to do so. Tell the player of a D&D PC with 200 hp that his character takes a bone-crushing blow that almost takes him off his feet and then tell him he took 20 hp damage and he'll be confused, because flavor and mechanics were at odds. Tell him the same thing and tell him the giant critted his PC for 150 hp, and he's a lot more likely to buy the description.

Flavor and mechanics do affect each other, IMNSHO.

 

[Cadfan]

The "bad" has been a part of the game, defining it even, for 30 years. That has to say something about how "bad" it is. inertia alone isn't that powerful,

Its your assertion that the bad parts have been "defining" the game. I prefer the term "infesting."

You know, I was talking to a long time friend of mine last night. She had some sharp words with a white coworker who thought it was funny to joke about my (black) friend not being a "real" black person.

This conversation about D&D not being "real" D&D strikes me as very similar. Except my friend's coworker was offensive and unprofessional, and this is just petty.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why do (general) you -- though I would like an answer directly from Doug -- want D&D to be Exalted when you already have Exalted. More to the point, why do you want to take D&D from me so you can have Exalted with D&D on the cover?

I've actually never played or even read Exalted. Although the kickass OTT action looks interesting, I can't stand dice pools so I've never tried it.

You're right that there's no point whatsoever in replacing D&D with Exalted 2.0. In the quote I was only saying D&D looks like it will become a bit more like these sorts of games, not go all the way. While high level D&D is already pretty much superheroes, low level isn't. In fact that huge power gulf is a very distinctive feature of D&D, one I enjoy, that looks as if it may be lost in 4e. Otoh what we gain - a game that works from 1-30 - will probably be worth it.

A pet peeve of mine is trivial resource management - keeping track of arrows, iron rations, every last copper piece when you've got a personal fortune of 50 000gp*. I'm hoping 4e moves away from stuff like this and concentrates more on the action, the exciting parts of the game.

The rules are also too slow, in certain situations, like recalculating to hit and AC after some buffs have been dispelled for a mid-high level character.


*I think D&D should move to a much simpler wealth management system, but it won't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Also I have a great love of the weird sh:t in D&D, which has always been plentiful throughout the editions. Having reflected on this, I think my original quote may have been wrong. Despite the tiefling as a core race weirdness will most probably decrease in 4e due to the greatly reduced number of options going from core + 90 splatbooks to just core.

 

[Piratecat]

Because I want to respect the OP's wishes about keeping the thread positive, I will start a new thread for this:

Reynard, thanks for doing this.

 

[Reynard]

Allow me to be cynical.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the single biggest factor in the success of an RPG is whether or not it's called Dungeons & Dragons. WOTC could make the rules mechanic involve licking a pigeon, and they would still get sales. They could change the cosmology to include a plane inhabited by clones of Paris Hilton with superpowers, and they'd still get players.

This attitude is what concerns me. The last thing either designers, publishers or consumers should be saying or thinking to themselves is, "It doesn't matter as long as it has the D&D logo on it." We have all seen branded entertainment -- books and movies and comics and TV shows -- turn sour and become craptastic because the producers/publishers thought that they could do whatever they wanted.

Ultimately, though, you are right and only dollars matter in the long run. That's why i say, "I hope 4E falls flat." Not because I wish any of the people that work for WotC hard times and unemployment, but because I want a current, supported edition of the game I have loved for 22 years that is recognizable and dynamic. One of the things that 2E got right was its inherent blandness in the core, because it allowed for such diverse settings as Forgotten realms and Dark Sun, Dragonlance and Spelljammer. Too much "flavor" in the Core is a bad thing, IMO, because the style, asthetic and tone of a campaign is the function of the setting, the adventures and the people at the table.

Rewriting all the fluff and injecting it heavily into the 4E core is far worse, IMO, than any changes they could make mechanically. It isn't that it is hard to change this thing or that thing, to houserule this and eliminate that. It is that if you have to do it with damn near everything, there's no point in bothering. At the same time, it isn't wrong to want to play the current edition just for the reasons you cite -- readily available players, a shared experience and a community.