[WotC's recent insanity] I think I've Figured It Out

[tuxgeo]

I'm glad you're happy. If you want to see some interesting 4e house rules for BECMI-style dominions, try these:

Strongholds and Henchmen for 4e | Greywulf's Lair

War Machine, revised: Mass Combat for 4e | Greywulf's Lair

Also, the Adventurer's Vault 2 seemed to have a lot of items that were ready made for an adventuring lord's stronghold.

C.I.D.

Bit of price inflation there? Not to drag this thread fully into House-Rule territory, but:

Your first link suggests paying Henchmen 1 GP per day; that's above the prices listed in the 3.x SRD, which lists 1 SP per day for untrained, or 3 SP per day for trained hirelings (not that such a minor difference matters much at Level 10. . . .).

 

[catastrophic]

I always thought a good angle for strongholds would be to give them a character sheet like a pc. It might be a bit complex, but then again depending on what you wanted to do with it, it might just take a re-skinned 4e PC, or something comparable.

If you're talking literally about a stronghold, you could sally fourth with your army hard boiled style, with each pc running a character to represent their personal forces. On a more abstract level, a town or keep you controlled could be run as a PC in a broader, strategic combat scenario to represent the effects of patrols and the like on nearby populations of goblins and such.

Beyond that, you could even reskin 4e combat as statecraft, and have a single battle represent a year of trade, politicking, squabbles over land claims, and the like. Moving on the map would not represent geographic movement obv, but rather your strategic focus in the region you occupy. So on a single round of such a combat, the party's wizard might cast thunderwave on an enemy cult, to represent the mages guild they run going into small townships in the region and teaching the locals warning signs and minor charms to help them deal with cult incursions.

 

[Cyronax]

Bit of price inflation there? Not to drag this thread fully into House-Rule territory, but:

Your first link suggests paying Henchmen 1 GP per day; that's above the prices listed in the 3.x SRD, which lists 1 SP per day for untrained, or 3 SP per day for trained hirelings (not that such a minor difference matters much at Level 10. . . .).

Yeah you're right.....hmmmm. That would make more sense, even if you're talking about a hired minion who expects to see frontline combat.

I'll refrain from ad hominem attacks for questioning me with the old srd rules by saying that I like Greywulf's second link though, and his overall assertion that 4e captures a lot of BECMI's spirit.

 

[Dark Mistress]

I think I get what Rousner was getting at, of course I am not positive and with him getting the boot doubt we will know.

Anyways i think it was not just rules but support for none combat actions PC's want to accomplish. Like the rules Paizo added in Pathfinder for kingdom building. They are there to help a GM, run kingdom building if the PC's want to do something like that.

I THINK that's what he was getting at.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

"Look, no one at Wizards ever woke up one day and said 'Let's get rid of all our fans and replace them.' With 4th Edition, there were good intentions. We are D&D fans. We want D&D to be the best roleplaying game it can be. We're always open to change, to reacting to what people say."--Mike Mearls.

To me, this thread and so many others like it seem like evidence that Mike Mearls needs to do what he says: be open to change and react to what people say.

Speaking as someone who's been watching this from the outside, I'd say that 4e is popular and has adherents and converts and apologists. But something is preventing it from achieving the traction, the market penetration, that previous editions did.

And that something is the fact that not everyone wants what 4e provides. D&D no longer has a fanbase. It has about a dozen small fanbases that add up to one large one, but they aren't all going to switch to radical new concepts.

When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones. When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones. Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones? It makes no sense at all.

Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them. Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like. And then they'll all be happy.

 

[DragonLancer]

When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones. When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones. Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones? It makes no sense at all.

Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them. Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like. And then they'll all be happy.

I agree with you but it won't ever happen because of the pennypinchers at WotC/Hasbro. To them it's all about efective cost management and you don't get the investment back still publishing four editions of the rules.

IMO what needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!

 

[Sorrowdusk]

In 30 years of gaming, in D&D and probably 50 other systems, I've never once had a character who was motivated by the sorts of things you're talking about.

Great campaigns, great settings, and in particular great conflicts. Intriguing adventure concepts. Mystery. Atmosphere. These are all pulls, at least for me, and they are all areas where RPGs really shine.

But the chance to build a stronghold or start a guild? Whatever.

AD&D assumed a certain set of built-in ambitions and these were good and served two generations of gamer well, but WotC could do better.

Epic Destinies are as close as WotC gets, but I think they're a cop-out. First, they're sort of the opposite of ambition. They're what you get when you've already achieved everything else. I'm talking about stuff like.

"I want to build a keep."
"I want to start a guild."
"I want to create a new spell."
"I want to be a Baron."
"I want to be...." whatever your character wants, apart from a dude who kills monsters.

@mattcolville
@CharlesRyan

"Yuletide Salutations!

Gaining lots of treasure is something I always favored. To keep it moving I encouraged players to have their PCs hire many retainers, troops, build a castle, etc.

Christmas cheer,
Gary"
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=125997&page=148

To each his own, but that aspect has always been one thing thats fascinated me, although I've not often advanced to the point at which I had the funds to actually do so, many of my characters had something of the aim in addition to their other personal goals.

I agree with you but it won't ever happen because of the pennypinchers at WotC/Hasbro. To them it's all about efective cost management and you don't get the investment back still publishing four editions of the rules.

IMO what needs to happen is for them to stop changing the rules every damn edition. Pick one and stick with it!

I disagree. Change is invevitable, the rules will always evolve to some degree, otherwise the game would remain mechanically stagnant. At the same time, each edition IS different, because it plays different, if the rules never changed there would be no more editions and vice cersa. I think the attitude is one that says new editions are supposed to improve upon the old ones, but nonetheless, I will admit, people will have their preferences.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Speaking as someone who's been watching this from the outside, I'd say that 4e is popular and has adherents and converts and apologists. But something is preventing it from achieving the traction, the market penetration, that previous editions did.

And that something is the fact that not everyone wants what 4e provides.

It should be noted that this was deliberate on WotC's part. The designers specifically tried to define a "sweet spot" and then geared the game to aim for it.

If it was your sweet spot, then 4E is fantastic. But if it wasn't (or if you liked the variety of previous editions), then there's really no way that 4E is going to convert you.

I'm not sure whether to classify 4E's embrace of dissociated mechanics as part of this same inclination (largely eliminating the simulationist elements of D&D's previously successful wedding of simulationist and gamist mechanics) or something separate. But it's also proven very problematic for many former fans.

To put it a different way: D&D used to have a big tent. 4E very consciously decided to eliminate that big tent in the belief that "do one thing and do it well" was a better way to go.

Personally, I think D&D abandoning the "big tent" model is really bad news for the RPG industry: D&D remains the gateway product, and when the gateway product suddenly starts appealing to a more exclusionary set of tastes, the problem is self-evident.

Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

When Agatha Christie wrote a new novel, she didn't stop publishing the old ones. When Metallica wrote a new album, they didn't stop selling the old ones. Why, oh why, when you produce a new edition, do you stop printing the old ones? It makes no sense at all.

Print all the old editions again, and licence trusted third parties to support them. Let your customers decide for themselves which flavour of D&D they like. And then they'll all be happy.

Actually books go out of print all the time. While some authors such as Ms. Christie have the overall popularity to make re-printing smaller numbers of her older titles worthwhile as paperbacks, it makes less financial sense for D&D with it's relatively smaller demographic and the limited shelf space. Press runs cost money, and the set-up cost for them is the same whether you print 100 copies or 1 million. It might make sense to print a larger number, if they will sell quickly, but if not, you are stuck with the inventory costs instead.

Also, older Agatha Christie novels and Metallica albums provide something unique to the person being introduced to the artist for the first time. The new 4e D&D player who is enjoying the game is much less likely to go and spend money on an older ruleset that isn't compatible with their current one simply to experience it the way someone might want to read every book by an author or hear every recording by their favorite band.

It just doesn't make much business sense to leave all versions in print.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Essentials is supposedly their way of trying to make their new tent a little bigger. That may be a good thing in terms of attracting people new to gaming; but I suspect most of the people who got left out in the cold by 4E have already found new tents for themselves.

This is me EXACTLY.

I've played/supported every edition since Red Box basic. Even though I moved away from 2nd Ed eventually I played for about 4 - 5 years before I did so. 4E is the first edition that I havent supported. I've moved on to Pathfinder as my fantasy RPG and as long as it's around that's what I'll be playing. WOTC has effectively lost me as a fan of D&D and that's OK. I'm playing what I like. 4E's design is not for me and I'm glad that I see that people in this thread have seen the same thing about it that I have. It's not a terrible game just not the game that I want to play.

And seriously? No one wants to build a castle of fort? Most of my players, especially in the 1E days either wanted to or actually DID build bases and small castles and fort. If for no other reason than to have a place to store their loot! I had players figuring out how much gold they'd need to build something then HAND ME THE LAYOUT ON GRAPH PAPER.

From my recollection this sort of thing was kind of encouraged if not in the rules (I dont have my 1E DM's guide anymore *sniff*) but in Dragon Magazine articles as well.