I realize many of you no doubt have a lot of details on this already from various other sources (fan pages, etc.), but this is the first I heard of it, as I don't follow much RPGwise anymore, save for the good work here on Canonfire.
EDIT: When we all have some time, maybe we should post comments to the article, talking up Greyhawk? It's CNN, so a fair number of people may see it... _________________ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell
Well, I hate to say that it couldn't be any worse than 4th ed., but I'm sure it could be.
I think I agree with you, Jeminnab, about not wanting to invest in another set of rule books. I would have to be so impressed as to consider the new edition the End-All-&-Be-All of D&D to be willing to do that. I haven't invested in Pathfinder yet and having played it for the last 9 months I think it is an improvement over 3.5e. It's just too much money for me to dive into all over again.
Still, it would be nice to see them put together a rules system that actually streamlines everything.
While it's true another rule set would involve another big investment, besides what we have already invested. I hope it is a big hit and provides material we can all find useful if we decided to pick up a book or two.
...maybe this will address our concerns... it would be fantastic for them to use Greyhawk as the "established" world for 5th, and then putting out all kinds of supplements/mods for it... would be nice to see "something" like Living Greyhawk brought back too... maybe... the future holds all answers ...as usual. This being said, maybe they'll sell off the rights at a reasonable price and Mr Mona can pick it up!
I won't hold my breath on 5th being "the D&D Game", but its nice to know they have Monte Cook in on it.
Also, I very much that Wizbro copies White Wolf's marketing example and releases, oh, what that would be of a joy, a print-on-demand-sale for OOP books.
Interesting, though, to see that most people are not so much concerned about *rules*, and more about *structural* changes. ...For example, bringing Greyhawk back has nothing to do with rules, and would be probably the best thing for the hobby. _________________ "A Minstrel's Memory": PBPs & Other Games, since 2005.
I have been with the brand D&D since 1985 and took it rather personally when the most recent edition failed to live up to my expectations. I will be interested in looking at a new edition of the game but only because I would love to see the World of Greyhawk come back to life in an official capacity, again, the Rules side of things is a non-issue as I have moved on to BRP/RuneQuest.
I do take issue with the rampant commercialism, however, as in the last decade and a bit there have been too many editions requiring significant financial investment.
Wizards have an opportunity to "do the right thing" now, I hope they do!
I have looked and spent a lot of money on my hobby since I first started playing. I spent more money on older editions and less so on new ones, exception being Pathfinder were I have invested into all there hard covers.
WotC/Hasbro have lost the passion for the game IMO and only see the franchise as a cash cow for investores. Will the new version meet everyones expectation? Doubtful.
BUT if they follow PAIZO's business model, which seems that they are already doing then maybe they will deliver a winner this time round.
Simply put they need to empower the DM and put the game back into his control and let the story unfold.
Cash has been the motivator for everything post-2E, not improving the rules.
3E lasted about - 3 years and 3.5E for another 5 years. 4E, 2 years and 4E Essentials - ! year. So it is concerning to see that as the years go by WotC are producing more editions closer together. Where as with TSR you had 1E and 2E that lasted more than 10 years.
Cash has been the motivator for everything since Gygax was forced out of the company.
Fixed that for you. :D
2e was real doozy with its never-ending product list and never really offered many actual improvements over 1e (and in some cases made some backwards steps). The beginning of 3e was really good before the claws from Hasbro's buyout really sunk in (and the creation of the OGL was inspired). I think 3.5 was a rules improvement over 3e, but it followed in 2e's footsteps of product glut (with an ever decreasing ratio of real content versus page count). 4e, I can't comment on because I never liked what I saw and just ignored it.
I really hope that 5e is a good game, but unless it really shines I won't be attending---I'm happy with the edition that I play and don't have to buy anything more for it.
Cash has been the motivator for everything post-2E, not improving the rules.
Oh yes, everything prior to 3E had nothing to do with money at all. We all know that EGG didn't churn out nearly as much material as he could have, though perhaps that somewhat had to do with him visiting Hollywood, getting a cartoon on tv, in a prime Saturday morning time slot, on a major network(CBS), all for obviously philanthropic reasons. Methinks your rose-colored glasses are somewhat obscuring the 20/20 hindsight.
The shorter product life does have everything to do with a more mainstream/modern business model. The gaming industry is somewhat notorious for lagging behind with regard to business practices/technical ability, though that has drastically changed over the last 20 years. What some are catching on to is that, while gaming might have a life cycle of interest similar to other childhood hobbies, what is different is that the retention of those who are interested in gaming is many times greater than it is for, say, LEGOS. Why? LEGO content doesn't change with age; gaming content does. Maybe HASBRO's acquisition of WotC has taught them some new things, meaning they likely have new research that tells them that D&D has greater retention among its players than Candyland does among its players.
Ergo, they could could reap the rewards of what is a huge market...if they can get their hooks into the many and varied facets of the D&D market. Enter the current plan. They want to give the most people what they want, because then the most people will buy what they are selling. EGG and company had it pretty easy as businesses go- they were making what they wanted, and it just so happened that everyone pretty much wanted the very same thing. After so much formative time, different people have different ideas as to what is "good". So, this new plan is a very good idea from business standpoint, both developmentally and with regard to customer relations. One has to be willing to give it a chance though, so I have signed up. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I appreciate I am likely in the minority here as someone who has bought and enjoyed 4E as a simple to use system, particularly for encounter design. That said, there are things missing from it that I wanted included particularly around the facilitation of "old school" sandbox style play. You can do that in 4E but the game is really built around the story-centred adventure path model of campaign design. Published adventures also over-emphasised combat from the get-go but again, that is something individual groups can address within the system.
Turning to 5E, or whatever it ends up being called, the info and articles I have read point towards a much more "old school" feel and a modular rules set up which will allow groups to build the campaign they want to play. The stated intention of Wizards with this edition seems to be an attempt to reunite the fractured fan base as much as they can with a game that appeals to fans of all previous editions. I know they would say that and I know it is a bold ambition but even those in charge of the design accept they did not make enough of an effort to bring everyone along with 4E. The open playtest is intended to address that as I see it and I for one am excited by it.
Sadly, it seems FR will be the default initial setting but it seems the modular approach lends itself to GH supplements later.
I think the best approach would be to have 3 versions of 5e
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Basic Edition
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Advanced Edition
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Tactical Edition
Best way to appeal to a bigger demographic. Again if the new edition works on a modular system where you purchase rules as pdfs that print out and fit into a binder then you could build up your own personalised PHB, DMG and MM.
I first started in 1981 with the blue book, and went back and bought the original Greyhawk/Blackmoor/Eldritch Wizardry rules, then got AD&D1, then eventually AD&D2. I didn't have time for D&D 3.0, which probably saved me $100, but got D&D 3.5 because I like the "skills and feats" concept. I haven't gotten around to D&D 4.0, probably saving me another $100. I have used scenarios from D&D 3.0, and converted, and would be willing to do the same for D&D 5.0 But I doubt I'm going to rush out and buy the rules, particualry at full price.
Oh yes, everything prior to 3E had nothing to do with money at all. We all know that EGG didn't churn out nearly as much material as he could have, though perhaps that somewhat had to do with him visiting Hollywood, getting a cartoon on tv, in a prime Saturday morning time slot, on a major network(CBS), all for obviously philanthropic reasons. Methinks your rose-colored glasses are somewhat obscuring the 20/20 hindsight.
I was only referring to rules editions. 1E obviously ended with a glut of mostly-useless hardbounds and 2E ended up doing the same thing. Even so, I think the PRIMARY catalyst for 2E was an honest intention to reorganize and improve the rules.
2E was essentially the same game. Modules for different editions required minimal conversion, technical jargon was largely uncharged, rules could be carried over, etc. Heck, all of the major changes were summarized in a Dungeon Magazine editorial!
Comparatively, I hardly recognize 3E + 4E and it's a real pain to use my handful of new products without the accompanying rule books. These editions have their supporters and I'm sure they're fun to play, but they're more about planned obsolescence than improving the rules.
All of these are still on my bookshelf and get used on a regular basis, as do my 2nd Edition and other books, exception is 3.0e they never get touched, I dont think I even used them to run a game period.
At one time I wanted to learn 3/3.5, primarily just to run or play the cool Paizohawk stuff (adventure paths, Maure Castle, etc.) Oh, and weave EGG's Necropolis and Osirion together into a kick-butt Khemet/Erypt campaign. But I just never got around to it. _________________ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell
Cash has been the motivator for everything since Gygax was forced out of the company.
4e, I can't comment on because I never liked what I saw and just ignored it.
I really hope that 5e is a good game, but unless it really shines I won't be attending---I'm happy with the edition that I play and don't have to buy anything more for it.
Here Here! I second Azzy,
I long utilized 2e (and still reference all the supplemental books even now) and on resurrecting my campaign with new players used to a 3.5 platform ( in October) I have mostly migrated to 3.5 (with out all the prestige classes etc)
For Pluses, I must say I do like the skills and feats aspect. As for minuses, utilizing the same exp table for all, while it streamlines things, its real intent (IMO),is to allow for "epic levels" to be more easily attained.
Lastly, from a purely "capitalistic perspective" IMO EGG was generating varied potential revenue streams while still keeping the "canon" true. Once he "departed" the mindset changed to a generate $$$ first, maintain "canon" second, to retaining core player support a DISTANT third.
I guess we will see on the lastest offering
Any company that does not focus on profits does not function as a company long. I have signed up because the company has asked for our opinion. So I am willing to provide it. Skills was the big thing for me with 3.5e , feats are cool but a better structure is needed. Even the experience point table did not disturb me as one can alter how experience is rewarded as a DM.
A mixture between 3.5E with 2E influences is what I currently use. I think Wotc wants an edition that will bring it more fans increase its base and make itself a profit for many years to come. People fear change, sometimes you just have to be willing to accept change. Of coarse other times you can keep them the way you always have.
Oh yes, everything prior to 3E had nothing to do with money at all. We all know that EGG didn't churn out nearly as much material as he could have, though perhaps that somewhat had to do with him visiting Hollywood, getting a cartoon on tv, in a prime Saturday morning time slot, on a major network(CBS), all for obviously philanthropic reasons. Methinks your rose-colored glasses are somewhat obscuring the 20/20 hindsight.
I was only referring to rules editions. 1E obviously ended with a glut of mostly-useless hardbounds and 2E ended up doing the same thing. Even so, I think the PRIMARY catalyst for 2E was an honest intention to reorganize and improve the rules.
2E was essentially the same game. Modules for different editions required minimal conversion, technical jargon was largely uncharged, rules could be carried over, etc. Heck, all of the major changes were summarized in a Dungeon Magazine editorial!
Comparatively, I hardly recognize 3E + 4E and it's a real pain to use my handful of new products without the accompanying rule books. These editions have their supporters and I'm sure they're fun to play, but they're more about planned obsolescence than improving the rules.
I getcha. 2E really wasn't much of a departure from 1E, though there were a few changes of note within the core rules, and to dragons, giants, and those extra planar nasties- holy mackeral!
***
The game has been successful enough in all of its incarnations though, so perhaps they will be looking to do some sort of hybrid "greatest hits" version that combines what are seen to be the best aspects of each into one homogenous whole that more people will be open to. It will be interesting to see what Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, and crew come up with. Not saying I'm all in or anything, sight unseen, but I look forward to seeing what they come up with, and perhaps giving them some input along the way.
As to fearing the unknown, that reminds me of when I was a kid in the 80's, going to Waldenbooks to get fantasy paperbacks. Nearly the entire top shelf of the fantasy section, and then some, was filled with books by some guy named "Piers Anthony". Only having so much money to spend at that age, my only relevant thought was, "What if I get one Piers Anthony book, and like it? I WILL HAVE TO HAVE THEM ALL THEN!!"
Well, that is what 1E, 2E, and Basic/Expert/etc. D&D were like for me. I bought the core books/boxed sets and liked them. In not too long, my collection of gaming stuff was freakishly large(having 2 paper routes and no monetary responsibilities will do that! ). Then we have 3E, 3.5E., 3.75E(PF). The quick switch from 3.0 to 3.5 really trashed customer base confidence, but the tweaks really were pretty good. PF furthered that with their own innovative and interesting changes. so, I have a good amount of of "3.X" stuff too. I have the 4E core books, and one adventure, but that's it. I really am glad that I picked them up, as there are some golden nuggets in there, but overall it just isn't my cup of tea.
So, it is pretty much guaranteed that I'll pick up the 5E core books, whatever they turn out to be, but having the chance to actually give some input/feedback on their development will be nice for change. There are a lot of fanatic fans out there, with a lot of perspectives(from playing whatever editions of D&D, plus other games systems as well), so I am betting that the response they get will be enormous. Can't wait to see how it all shakes out. Considering lead times, A 2012 holiday release would probably be rushing things a bit much, so hopefully it will be a 2013 release.
The preliminary play test material will be unleashed in just a couple weeks at the D&D Experience on January 26th-29th in Fort Wayne, Indiana, so we should know more soon enough. Will anybody be going? _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
My one big complaint with 4e is that combat takes too long. We've got a limited amount of time to play each week, and it seems like many times we have to rush through the non-combat/story building parts so we will have time to get through combat. I'm learning how to deal with this by being creative with minions and structuring combat situations into less of a "kill them all" thing, but I hope whatever they working on for 5e helps out with this. We'll have to see. I agree that it's a good thing they're asking for feedback and help from the community, and I take the designers at their word that's what they're trying to do. It'll just remain to be seen if they are able to follow through with that.
...Skills was the big thing for me with 3.5e , feats are cool but a better structure is needed. Even the experience point table did not disturb me as one can alter how experience is rewarded as a DM...
-Skills and feats are why I switched, but the D&D 3.5 XP tables make more, too, both in their rationalization (all classes have the same table), and realtive easiness. In my campaign, it was almost impossible to make it to 2nd level Fighter before being killed or crippled.
smillan_31 wrote:
My one big complaint with 4e is that combat takes too long...
-I haven't noticed a difference.
smillan_31 wrote:
...I'm learning how to deal with this by being creative with minions and structuring combat situations into less of a "kill them all" thing...
-I've always used morale, going back to the morale rules in the AD&D1 DMG. It helped with playwer success, if noting else. One of the perks of being a PC is you don't check morale!
Cebrion wrote:
I saw this article earlier today. Looks like what we have here is a chance to put up or shut up.
vestcoat wrote:
The thing that strikes me is the shorter and shorter product life of the recent editions.
Cash has been the motivator for everything post-2E, not improving the rules.
-Considering that there was little difference between AD&D1 and AD&D2, I'd say that if there was motivation to dump rules on the market to "force" people to buy them, it was then, not later.
Cebrion wrote:
I saw this article earlier today. Looks like what we have here is a chance to put up or shut up.
vestcoat wrote:
The thing that strikes me is the shorter and shorter product life of the recent editions.
Cash has been the motivator for everything post-2E, not improving the rules.
Oh yes, everything prior to 3E had nothing to do with money at all. We all know that EGG didn't churn out nearly as much material as he could have, though perhaps that somewhat had to do with him visiting Hollywood, getting a cartoon on tv, in a prime Saturday morning time slot, on a major network(CBS), all for obviously philanthropic reasons...
-That cartoon was so over-rated. They hardly ever killed anybody...
Someone here used to use the DM as their avatar. Haven't seen it in a while.
Cebrion wrote:
...Maybe HASBRO's acquisition of WotC has taught them some new things, meaning they likely have new research that tells them that D&D has greater retention among its players than Candyland does among its players...
-Never played Candyland. But I'm sure it can't hold a candle to Shoots & Ladders: A few minutes to learn, a lifetime to master...
-Considering that there was little difference between AD&D1 and AD&D2, I'd say that if there was motivation to dump rules on the market to "force" people to buy them, it was then, not later.
You're making some serious leaps of logic.
Compare the Dungeon Magazine #18 to #82. #18 gives quick summary of the changes, and *bang*, everyone with the old 1E books was able to play the new 2E modules. #83, on the other hand, is completely foreign to a 2E gamer and the editor provides no help whatsoever. I remember getting it in the mail, seeing the stat blocks, and thinking "what the hell is this?"
I love the 1E books, but they're really not the easiest things to reference unless one's been using them for thirty years. Zeb's forward to the 2E PHB was spot-on with the focus on reorganization and making things easier to find.
In no way did 2E force anyone to convert to the new books. The new books were certainly convenient, but modules were still recognizable. There was also a plethora of cross-over and edition-neutral products released between '88-90 to ease the growing pains. Everyone I knew who was older than me was still gaming with their 1E books at the table well into the Nineties.
Comparatively, 3E was a perfect example of planned obsolesce - it required an immediate monetary investment as the old rules were virtually incompatible with the new products.
This is an opinion and hypothetical perspective for 5th Ed
5th Ed D&D... bring it . I look forward to see the evolution of the game, to believe this will be the final edition is not very likely, I could see another "edition" being put out eventually... its business and progressive development.
What you most likely may see is how first and second eds played out... the core rule books, followed by supplements, etc... then about 4 or 5 years down the road a new cover/interior art (with rules errata) being released again. More cost projections could be based off of figures, mods, supplements, special releases, etc to keep the interest and coffers robust... the thing of it is what will 5th ed be... how can it appeal to the older gamers while drawing in new ones... KISS (Keep it simple st...d).
If WotC went back to the original idea (2nd ed/ 3.5-ish blended with 4th ed miniature based combat rules, use of stat/spell/special cards) and spread it out with an introductory line, basic for youth and starters with artwork/a simple rules approach to reflect this, then have an advanced rules system, more in-depth/expandable and mature related… reaching out to the older gamers...let’s take the kiddy gloves off WotC. No need to re-invent the wheel here, there is more than enough material to sort thru.
It’s a lot of work, a monumental task and it won't be able to please everyone, but as long as WotC gives it its proper respect and effort, I will look forward to adding the volumes of books and game accoutrements to my lifelong collected endeavor of D&D since 1981.
...and if they make Greyhawk the modeled world with lots of supported materials, then re-introduce FR and whatever other game campaign sets they like (maybe Magic's)...then all will be right again in the Universe
Funny that you mention M:tG. I am surprised WotC hasn't developed the M:tG world into a full-blown RPG setting long, long ago. With all of the cards that have been put out and with the novelization, somebody out there could put something together.
I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing.
I concur with this and would ADD, if they must keep the core deities, then quit mixing them with Parthenons' that
a) make no sense (zeus,etc) or
b) changing the perspectives/ alignments of those a fore mentioned at a "whim" with out explanation for the changes, ie Vecna ascension as a deity, alignment shifts of St Cuthbert and Fharlanghn for example. Even though they are CLEARLY Greyhawk inspired.
IMC I have done as a thread here has suggested and began "combining" a deities' "influence" to cover potentially multiple spheres and or even be "known" under various names.
My one big complaint with 4e is that combat takes too long...
-I haven't noticed a difference.
Yeah, I should have explained that when I ran 3e I ran combat more like 1e. When I did finally play in a 3.5 campaign, my first reaction was, "Man, this is WAY to complicated." So yeah, 4e combat probably doesn't really take much longer than 3.5 combat run by the book.
smillan_31 wrote:
...I'm learning how to deal with this by being creative with minions and structuring combat situations into less of a "kill them all" thing...
jamesdglick wrote:
-I've always used morale, going back to the morale rules in the AD&D1 DMG. It helped with playwer success, if noting else. One of the perks of being a PC is you don't check morale!
Morale is good, but I'm talking more about just making a value judgement about when monsters and npcs just say, "Screw it, I've had enough." Though I have been discouraged in this by the wizard in the party, who has to try and chase down everyone who tries to escape, shooting magic missiles at them while they're running away. I finally decided I had enough last night in an encounter where the goal was to fight their way through some enemy guardsmen on the street to get their lord's family to safety. The last minion threw down his halberd and ran down the street to escape and the wizard had to go out of his way, ignoring the guard captain, who still had plenty of HP, to dink this minion with a magic missile because, "He might be going for help." It didn't really slow down the encounter last night, but he's dragged out combat a few rounds past when it should have ended, doing this. To the extent of leaving the other players a couple of hundred feet away while he chased these guys down. I've decided that if he does this in the next encounter he gets to fight an otyugh by himself for a couple of rounds. See how he likes that.
My one big complaint with 4e is that combat takes too long. We've got a limited amount of time to play each week, and it seems like many times we have to rush through the non-combat/story building parts so we will have time to get through combat. I'm learning how to deal with this by being creative with minions and structuring combat situations into less of a "kill them all" thing, but I hope whatever they working on for 5e helps out with this. We'll have to see. I agree that it's a good thing they're asking for feedback and help from the community, and I take the designers at their word that's what they're trying to do. It'll just remain to be seen if they are able to follow through with that.
Agree that this is the biggest issue with 4E and without house-ruling the solutions you suggest are the best ways around this.
I've experimented with cutting monster hit points in half as was suggested a couple of years ago by someone at WotC and this seems to work although combat then has a different feel with more encounters between rests.
Compare the Dungeon Magazine #18 to #82. #18 gives quick summary of the changes, and *bang*, everyone with the old 1E books was able to play the new 2E modules. #83, on the other hand, is completely foreign to a 2E gamer and the editor provides no help whatsoever. I remember getting it in the mail, seeing the stat blocks, and thinking "what the hell is this?"
I love the 1E books, but they're really not the easiest things to reference unless one's been using them for thirty years. Zeb's forward to the 2E PHB was spot-on with the focus on reorganization and making things easier to find.
In no way did 2E force anyone to convert to the new books. The new books were certainly convenient, but modules were still recognizable. There was also a plethora of cross-over and edition-neutral products released between '88-90 to ease the growing pains. Everyone I knew who was older than me was still gaming with their 1E books at the table well into the Nineties.
Comparatively, 3E was a perfect example of planned obsolesce - it required an immediate monetary investment as the old rules were virtually incompatible with the new products.
-I'll put it this way. As you say, there was minimal difference (and minimal work required) between AD&D1 and AD&D2.
But how many people ended up buying a whole bunch of books just to stay up to date with those minimal changes which required minimal effort?
Anyway, I missed 3.0 by distraction, and 4.0 by choice. I doubt that 5.0 will be any different, but I'll wait.
Cebrion wrote:
...I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing.
-What's the problem with the core using Greyhawk deities?
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...I concur with this and would ADD, if they must keep the core deities, then quit mixing them with Parthenons' that
a) make no sense (zeus,etc) or
b) changing the perspectives/ alignments of those a fore mentioned at a "whim" with out explanation for the changes, ie Vecna ascension as a deity, alignment shifts of St Cuthbert and Fharlanghn for example. Even though they are CLEARLY Greyhawk inspired...
1) Did they change Fharlanghn's alignment in 4.0?
2) Was there an explanation for St. C going LN (LG) from LG (LN)?
3) I guess these are fair points for Cebrion's argument, although I think Greyhawk can ignore the core for it's specific setting in this case. The core reules seem to make Wee Jas into a Queen of the Undead, when she is clearly anti-undead. The worst change was Grumsh going from LE to CE, along with all the orcs. Almost two decades of LE orcs down the drain (yeah, they were CE in the original). What a mess.
smillan_31 wrote:
jamesdglick wrote:
smillan_31 wrote:
My one big complaint with 4e is that combat takes too long...
-I haven't noticed a difference.
Yeah, I should have explained that when I ran 3e I ran combat more like 1e. When I did finally play in a 3.5 campaign, my first reaction was, "Man, this is WAY to complicated." So yeah, 4e combat probably doesn't really take much longer than 3.5 combat run by the book...
-Actually, I've never played 4.0. I meant I didn't see a difference between 3.5 and AD&D 1 or 2.
smillan_31 wrote:
...Though I have been discouraged in this by the wizard in the party, who has to try and chase down everyone who tries to escape, shooting magic missiles at them while they're running away. I finally decided I had enough last night in an encounter where the goal was to fight their way through some enemy guardsmen on the street to get their lord's family to safety. The last minion threw down his halberd and ran down the street to escape and the wizard had to go out of his way, ignoring the guard captain, who still had plenty of HP, to dink this minion with a magic missile because, "He might be going for help." It didn't really slow down the encounter last night, but he's dragged out combat a few rounds past when it should have ended, doing this. To the extent of leaving the other players a couple of hundred feet away while he chased these guys down. I've decided that if he does this in the next encounter he gets to fight an otyugh by himself for a couple of rounds. See how he likes that.
...yes, this definitely sounds like an individual who is going to get himself in trouble some day...
...I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing.
-What's the problem with the core using Greyhawk deities?
Nothing, so long as they use all of them or none of them, not put forth some cornucopia of gods from disparate settings together as a homogenous pantheon, which they are not. Either they should create their own Core pantheon of gods that have no origins in any campaign setting, or they should mention every god from every pantheon according to type, just as a reference, for the various Domains(Spheres)(i.e. "Wee Jas of the World of Greyhawk, Bubba of the Forgotten Realms, and Fritz of Eberron are just a few of the gods from the different Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings who preside over the domain of Death.").
Barring that, one should not be putting forth information in Core books as if were part of a campaign setting(because it is not a campaign setting), particularly when it is a hodge-podge of information from multiple campaign settings. Years of people asking what gods are Core gods, and which are not, and if the other Core gods are also a part of Greyhawk, tells us that this is somewhat confusing to newer people. So, the information shouldn't be put forth in such a way. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
My complaint with the "Edition Wars" is pretty simple- once you have rules you should STICK TO THEM! Publish anything else you want. You have a whole world, a whole universe even, to populate and expand on. But leave the mechanics alone.
I've been playing since 1979,
all AD&D for 1st ed,
skipped 2nd ed completely save for maps (I do love my maps).
3rd ed got picked up mainly because I had no one left to play with since all the 1st ed old guard had migrated away/quite playing/ whatever. I have to admit that I did like it though.
And wasn't too cranky about 3.5 since I had very little in the new edition at that point.
But 4Ed was too much, in cost and in the amount of change.
And now I'm mostly Pathfinder, who I think will learn from WotC"s error and not alienate their base by pulling this trick themselves (ok, I hope they will ).
The rules are just the wheel. Reinventing them will not get you any further up the road. It just means every time you stop some more passengers get off the wagon...
Either they should create their own Core pantheon of gods that have no origins in any campaign setting, or they should mention every god from every pantheon according to type, just as a reference, for the various Domains(Spheres)
Here here to that! and as FCA has also pointed out , the "edition wars" did little to resolve this. It only helped support an exodus in mass as the public "determined" that the rules were "unstable" and in need of constant repair.
Cebrion wrote:
Barring that, one should not be putting forth information in Core books as if were part of a campaign setting(because it is not a campaign setting), particularly when it is a hodge-podge of information from multiple campaign settings.
To make generic core offerings (as Big C points out) means rolling out campaign specifics. I think this would also include removal"Tenser's Floating Disk, Bigby's Hand, etc".
:idea:They could then do as they started to by grouping those elements into "core canon" for each campaign, similar to what was done in James Ward's GH Adventures or LGH Gazetter. I would add that from a marketing standpoint (since this ultimately is about generating new capital) it makes better sense to return to the business plan of developing firmer "non-world" specific core offering, then providing CONSISTENT worlds, of various choice, for the taste of the the particular players whether they be Greyhawk FR, DS, etc.
BUT, in skepticism, I think the "core" problem is that WOC (and post EGG TSR), like Hollywood, has lost some of its creative ability to develop NEW plot elements, keep new elements separate from the "core flooring" and instead is content with regurgitating the works of the past in a new wrapper. I guess time will judge if this an epic blockbuster or another rerun
They probably visit this issue of how much campaign flavor to use in spicing up rules every time they start designing a new edtion. On one hand, it doesn't make sense, but on the other hand it worked really well when Gygax did it in 1st Edition rule books.
They probably visit this issue of how much campaign flavor to use in spicing up rules every time they start designing a new edtion. On one hand, it doesn't make sense, but on the other hand it worked really well when Gygax did it in 1st Edition rule books.
Because back then, Greyhawk was the only official campaign world. People may have heard of Arneson's Blackmoor and RJK's world (what was it called again?), but Greyhawk was it. Nearly everyone that created their own world, still included named NPCs like Mordenkainen, Bigby, Tenser, etc., so having rulebooks full of such campaign-specific references wasn't a problem. Now that there are so many different official campaign worlds, tying the official rulebooks to one of them or trying to include a hodgepodge of all of them within just seems to make a mess of things.
...I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing.
-What's the problem with the core using Greyhawk deities?
Nothing, so long as they use all of them or none of them, not put forth some cornucopia of gods from disparate settings together as a homogenous pantheon, which they are not. Either they should create their own Core pantheon of gods that have no origins in any campaign setting, or they should mention every god from every pantheon according to type, just as a reference, for the various Domains(Spheres)(i.e. "Wee Jas of the World of Greyhawk, Bubba of the Forgotten Realms, and Fritz of Eberron are just a few of the gods from the different Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings who preside over the domain of Death.").
Barring that, one should not be putting forth information in Core books as if were part of a campaign setting(because it is not a campaign setting), particularly when it is a hodge-podge of information from multiple campaign settings. Years of people asking what gods are Core gods, and which are not, and if the other Core gods are also a part of Greyhawk, tells us that this is somewhat confusing to newer people. So, the information shouldn't be put forth in such a way.
Agreed. This was one of the worst of the fluff changes made in 4E. A random mix of new deities, GH deities and cross-setting demi-human deities thrown together as something that was supposed to be a pantheon. I have always ignored it, of course, as I'm sure anyone playing outside the PoL setting did, but it was a ridiculous idea. Adding the Bane who wasn't the FR Bane was probably the worst fudge in this though so the GH deities that were there probably got off quite lightly.
I think the best approach would be to have 3 versions of 5e
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Basic Edition
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Advanced Edition
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Tactical Edition
Best way to appeal to a bigger demographic. Again if the new edition works on a modular system where you purchase rules as pdfs that print out and fit into a binder then you could build up your own personalised PHB, DMG and MM.
Hmmmm I like that idea.
I was thinking this too. Maybe not 3 versions, but bringing back the basic/advanced dichotomy might be the way to go.
...I'd much rather see Greyhawk of course. I would also like to see the menagerie of Core deities removed altogether from the Core books. Come up with a stand-alone, generic set of Core gods if they must, but leave everything specific to any campaign setting completely out of the listing.
-What's the problem with the core using Greyhawk deities?
Nothing, so long as they use all of them or none of them, not put forth some cornucopia of gods from disparate settings together as a homogenous pantheon, which they are not. Either they should create their own Core pantheon of gods that have no origins in any campaign setting, or they should mention every god from every pantheon according to type, just as a reference, for the various Domains(Spheres)(i.e. "Wee Jas of the World of Greyhawk, Bubba of the Forgotten Realms, and Fritz of Eberron are just a few of the gods from the different Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings who preside over the domain of Death.").
Barring that, one should not be putting forth information in Core books as if were part of a campaign setting(because it is not a campaign setting), particularly when it is a hodge-podge of information from multiple campaign settings. Years of people asking what gods are Core gods, and which are not, and if the other Core gods are also a part of Greyhawk, tells us that this is somewhat confusing to newer people. So, the information shouldn't be put forth in such a way.
-Ah. Your concern is for those playing other campaigns. How considerate!
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...To make generic core offerings (as Big C points out) means rolling out campaign specifics. I think this would also include removal"Tenser's Floating Disk, Bigby's Hand, etc"...
-True. Nothing wrong with "Floating Disc" or "Magic Hand."
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
...:idea:They could then do as they started to by grouping those elements into "core canon" for each campaign, similar to what was done in James Ward's GH Adventures or LGH Gazetter...
-Exactly.
Flint wrote:
...This was one of the worst of the fluff changes made in 4E. A random mix of new deities, GH deities and cross-setting demi-human deities thrown together as something that was supposed to be a pantheon. I have always ignored it, of course, as I'm sure anyone playing outside the PoL setting did, but it was a ridiculous idea...
-Thus, my lack of concern.
But now that I think of it, it's a waste of precious book space and money.
1. I am already 2 full editions "behind" in terms of rules. Any 3 or 3.5 items I have (LGG anyone?) are for the Greyhawk content. I have already purchased the necessities (multiple copies, and both electronic and hard copy to boot) to keep my personal campaign (and creative efforts) going for the rest of my forseeable future. But for those who enjoy the change and challenge of learning a new rules system, my hat goes off and I say, "Go to it." Rules, shmools. Its all about the 'Hawk.
2. If Greyhawk doesn't get supported again, I'm fine with that - I have seen an outpouring of creativity here during the 4E era that rivals the height of 3 and 3.5 in some ways, especially in terms of stuff that is very heavily 'Hawk and far less rules-specific. That is useful stuff - for everyone! Let the DM's and players pick their favorite rule set and have at it. (Heaven knows we certainly have enough editions to play with for variety.)
3. Adding to point 2 above, pick any era of Oerth and you'll find tons left to mine for adventures, articles and so forth. If 5E adds a new era, well, that just makes more room for creativity. It's a big Oerth - plenty of room to go round.
My 2 c.p.-worth... _________________ <div>Braggi, Swain and Varlet at Large<br /></div>
2. If Greyhawk doesn't get supported again, I'm fine with that - I have seen an outpouring of creativity here during the 4E era that rivals the height of 3 and 3.5 in some ways, especially in terms of stuff that is very heavily 'Hawk and far less rules-specific. That is useful stuff - for everyone! Let the DM's and players pick their favorite rule set and have at it. (Heaven knows we certainly have enough editions to play with for variety.)
1. I am already 2 full editions "behind" in terms of rules. Any 3 or 3.5 items I have (LGG anyone?) are for the Greyhawk content...
-I bought D&D 3.0's Fright at Tristor (and got Sunless Citadel along with it) for that reason, and some of the supplements (Masters of the Wild, etc) for the Feats.
Braggi wrote:
I look at it this way...
2. If Greyhawk doesn't get supported again, I'm fine with that - I have seen an outpouring of creativity here during the 4E era that rivals the height of 3 and 3.5 in some ways, especially in terms of stuff that is very heavily 'Hawk and far less rules-specific. That is useful stuff - for everyone! Let the DM's and players pick their favorite rule set and have at it. (Heaven knows we certainly have enough editions to play with for variety.)
3. Adding to point 2 above, pick any era of Oerth and you'll find tons left to mine for adventures, articles and so forth. If 5E adds a new era, well, that just makes more room for creativity. It's a big Oerth plenty of room to go round...
-"Support" for Greyhawk can actually be a bad thing, if they start screwing stuff up. If someone here comes up with something I don't like, I can ignore it an move on. But once it becomes canon, that's more difficult.
-I bought D&D 3.0's Fright at Tristor (and got Sunless Citadel along with it) for that reason, and some of the supplements (Masters of the Wild, etc) for the Feats..
Amen, James. I think every edition has something useful, even if the rules are not compatible with what comes before or after.
jamesdglick wrote:
-"Support" for Greyhawk can actually be a bad thing, if they start screwing stuff up. If someone here comes up with something I don't like, I can ignore it an move on. But once it becomes canon, that's more difficult.
I understand how you feel here too. At first, when 3.0 came out, I was really worried about canon and the changes it made to the world. In reality, it worked out that it wasn't that hard to adopt what I liked and drop the rest for my personal campaign. Yes, there were differences, but what it really came down to was: did I want to let a company dictate how I had fun? Being someone who first came into Greyhawk around the middle of the 1E era, I took every pronouncement from TSR as being "from on high" back then.
However, signposts pointing to the way things are now were already in existence, even that far back. When Greyhawk was dropped in mid-2E, Roger Moore (a big Greyhawk supporter and someone who worked for TSR, Dragon and Dungeon magazine in several capacities over the years) posted to the AOL forums a missive on how the lack of support gave the fans the power to guide the world. When support was brought back, a lot of folks were worried in the same way you are now. (I know I sure was.) But what Roger had gone to such efforts to point out in the AOL forums never really changed - the genie won't go back into the bottle, I guess. (Far too cramped in there anyways, come to think of it. ) If it had, well, I think Canonfire certainly wouldn't exist, as just one example.
On the flip side, I can see how someone who runs, say, an event sponsored by WotC at a con might have some problems. If new developments from the company dictate that the game world goes somewhere silly, then you have to toe the company line. Guess that's why I never aspired to go pro with my scratchings and scribblings - I like the freedom here in the fan world. I'm also willing to put in the (admittedly) hard work to try and get the stuff I create up to something approaching a professional level in terms of format and presentation. Not everyone is though, and I understand that completely. It's quite time consuming.
So, it really comes down to personal priorities, I guess. Mine went from, "What is the official word - it must be official!" to, "Hey - I can have my own version of Greyhawk... and look at that! There are other fans out there who are walking a similar road to the one I'm on. Fellow travelers! Great!" That shift didn't happen overnight, but it came. All the changes forced it to. I don't have any regrets, in retrospect.
I should also add that the changes have brought me in contact with some great people. Let me illustrate from some of my own efforts as a fan from over the years:
* When Duicarthan created his excellent 3E fan module Dimensions Lost, I asked permission to translate it over to the rules I use and post the result. That meant I got to know him, and I'm really glad I did. He was always friendly, dedicated to the setting and, as a result, opened up a whole new avenue into Greyhawk for me through his different point of view and creative ideas.
* Similarly, when I asked Mortellan for permission to organize and old-skool stat his Ull Gaz and associated material, I got a chance to collaborate with someone who is creative, loves the 'Hawk and is a genuinely nice person to know. I had a barrel of fun running up the adaptation and bouncing ideas off of Mort - turns out we share a slightly zany sense of humor about magic items, for example. (Grin)
* When Len Lakofka (author of the Suel Gods, Lendore Ilse modules, Leomund's Tiny hut in early Dragon and so forth) started work on L4 over at Dragonsfoot, he asked for (and got) a lot of fan input. My contribution wasn't for the module - I ran up heraldry for a mage society in Lendore called the Red Star League. Len liked it and I was delighted to have done something one of the creative founders of the world enjoyed. I consider L4 every bit as "official", in terms of personal canon, as anything else out there. After all, it came from the same campaign that created L1 and L2.
(A quick side note, before I continue. Since this is my first time meeting and corresponding with you, I am dropping names and examples not to impress, but to make certain my arguments are properly grounded. If at any point I have offended or insulted your intelligence, you have my honest apologies - I really don't know your level of involvement in Greyhawk, personal or professional. I have no doubts as to the fact that you are passionate about it, and I certainly I admire that.)
Anyways, I could go on for hours in this vein. The point is, the changes brought me opportunities - and these are changes I would have been downright livid about back in my earlier days in the hobby. Yet without them, I wouldn't have met and worked with any of these folks. (Not to mention having a much more barren world of Greyhawk.)
It all comes down to what is important to the individual and are they willing to work to make it real. Editions come and go. So do the gaming companies supporting them. But once you fall in love with Greyhawk, it tends to linger a long, long time. And I think that's true no matter what they do to the game world officially.
Again, just my 2 c.p.-worth. Thanks for posting something I could really dig into and for reading this reply. It's fun to get my thoughts out in text and clarified.
_________________ <div>Braggi, Swain and Varlet at Large<br /></div>
...Being someone who first came into Greyhawk around the middle of the 1E era, I took every pronouncement from TSR as being "from on high" back then...
On the flip side, I can see how someone who runs, say, an event sponsored by WotC at a con might have some problems...
Besides the tournament thing, there's another practical issue to having a canon: The issue of what happens if a Greyhawk player joins a new group. It helps if everyone is on the same page. It even helps in discussions here. It would be hard to make sense of anything I say if (in my version of Greyhawk), Veluna is the place that suffered a coup d'etat and is now run by Orcish Hextorians.
And for some reason, I like the idea that ther world is shared.
It all comes down to what is important to the individual and are they willing to work to make it real. Editions come and go. So do the gaming companies supporting them. But once you fall in love with Greyhawk, it tends to linger a long, long time. And I think that's true no matter what they do to the game world officially.
Braggi, I've got to agree with you. Greyhawk is far more important that editions or game systems. There are people here that prefer a different edition that me (and probably despise the edition I play) and vice versa... However, none of that matters. What matters is the mutual love, respect and appreciation for Greyhawk we all share. And when someone has something great to add to the setting (there are many articles on this site as example, as well as maps and ideas and so forth), it doesn't matter which rule system it was initially tailored for because great ideas transcend editions.
But, then, I'm just really impressed with the Canonfire community as a whole.
A few things to clear up on D&D Next (or 5e as most are calling it).
1) It is not scheduled to release until GenCon 2013. We have about a year and a half of massive public playtesting leading up to this. So, if you want to have a say, go sign up now:
There is a BIG RED button at the bottom of the page, press it and join up. Have a say in how the edition is made.
2) Greyhawk will not be the supported campaign for D&D Next. They have already said that published support will be for the Forgotten Realms. Yep, FR wins again, its all about the novels gentlemen and ladies, and in that arena, Greyhawk loses.
3) This edition is not going to be a reprint of one edition, nor is it going to be a Rosetta Stone edition that lets you play actual 1e PCs with 2e, 3e, and 4e PCs. It will be its own discrete edition using "best practices" from all editions of D&D.
4) It will be modular, in that there will be a simple core rule set that can be layered with desired complexity. What the base game will look like will depend on the developers and info from playtesters. Again, if you want a voice in how D&D Next evolves, sign up and play test it.
5) OGL/GSL. Nothing has been said one way or another about this, or what it means 3rd Party support for D&D Next. The only thing they have said about is that they are working on it. The takeaway is that it is being planned right now and we can expect some means of 3rd party support being baked into the game.
I hope this helps,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
Last edited by Saracenus on Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
I already signed up, but haven't got anything yet other than a "Thanks for singing up!" e-mail, with links to the discussion blogs.
Do you know when the play test documents will be made available? Perhaps they already are and I've just missed them, or maybe they will unleash them after premiering them at D&DE this next week. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
1) Friends and Family - (I am one of these) these are made up of dedicated existing 4e playtest groups, but also include WotC employees and their friends/family, probably any 3rd party folk that are involved, and sundry folk that WotC want's time intensive playtesting from.
This group will be testing larger parts of the material before the general playtest groups to get the major bumps out.
We just got our first playtest packet for D&D Next this week.
2) General - (That is the one you sign-up for) They are still collecting names. This larger group is going to test specific aspects of the new game in larger numbers than the Friends and Family.
I haven't heard when the first material is going out for it yet. However, with D&D XP a weekend away and Friends and Family playtest just going out the door, I don't expect that it will happen until after this month.
You will know when they are ramping it up when you get an email from WotC with an NDA to email or fax back.
One thing to keep in mind, the general play test is probably going to involve thousands of players. With WotC's reduced staffing levels of the past few years I will bet it will take some time to get emails out with the NDAs, process them, and then send out playtest material.
Remember, I am just a volunteer and I do not have direct insight into when or how the general play test will start. My post is based upon how WotC has moved in the past (it took 3 months to get my playtest group through the system from when I was first asked join until the first 4e playtest material was sent out to us).
My hope is that they have allocated more resources to getting the general playtest applications out the door than the small, focused groups they were putting together for 4e.
My two coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
You can also find videos of some of the seminars and text transcripts at the Obsidian Portal Blog. There are also interviews with folks involved with D&D Next.
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
Last edited by Saracenus on Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
I've been following things over on ENWORLD. The goal sounds interesting enough. My general feeling of "???" is verging towards "cautious optimism". I hope that they will eventually release the test play documents used at D&DE in pdf form. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
This time things seem a little different and I have a cautious optimism about the game's potential. There may just be too much water under the bridge for me to return to D&D but I'm going to watch the progress with interest this time.
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
This time things seem a little different and I have a cautious optimism about the game's potential. There may just be too much water under the bridge for me to return to D&D but I'm going to watch the progress with interest this time.
ONce again you mimic my very thought. Wow! some things don't change. _________________ Eileen of Greyhawk, Prophet of Istus, Messenger of the Gods
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)
I apologize for my post if you saw it. It was born of frustration at all the negativity out there. But I need to not give into my own darker impulses and instead embrace the very hope I want to see around me.
Find the positive. See the potential. Let go of the past. And embrace the possibilities. See you at the gaming tables.
Thank you,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
The Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
Last edited by Saracenus on Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:41 am; edited 1 time in total
Find the positive. See the potential. Let go of the past. And embrace the possibilities. See you at the gaming tables.
1e...3e...5e. I expect great things, of the next edition of D&D.
That being said, a portion of the reason 4e did not appeal to me was its presentation. I did not appreciate being told to end my game. I did not appreciate being told what "fun" is. I did not appreciate being told that my game of choice was broken.
From what I have seen of 5e, they seem to have learned from their mistakes.
So, D&D is the opposite of the Star Trek movies- only the odd-numbered D&D editions are good?
And don't sweat it Saracenus. You've got more info than most at the moment, and yet you are in the position of being tongue tied via NDA. Just ignore the rampant craziness/negative speculation from those not in the know, or that wouldn't be satisfied with anything anyways unless EGG himself came down on a golden cloud and handed it to them personally.
So, enjoy the play testing. More folks will be joining you in that soon enough. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)
Oh, yes. Stuff exactly like that, Aeolius.
TBH, cautiously optimistic is about as positive as I get about a lot of things so please don't anyone think I'm down on what I've read about the next iteration of D&D.
A couple of things sound very interesting (Orcs going at all levels/tougher magic item creation/less tedious +1 bonuses); but I'll naturally have anyone who repeats that sunny view "offed" by some of my street brethren.
As with 4E, I am more than willing to pick up at least the core books, up until I read some that turns me against it. With 4E, I was on board until I read their "Rogue Build" sample, and got instant brain pictures of it being an analog video game. I love console RPG's as much as I do D&D, but I like them as two separate things. I do not want them mixed together...Ever.
Based off of what I have read about the intent of 5th Edition, it sounds like they're tackling the same questions Troll Lord Games did ten years ago, which led to the creation of Castles & Crusades. What I do not like about the prospect of 5th Edition, is that it can either compete with Pathfinder or the Retroclones of older editions of D&D. I know which I'd choose to compete against.
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)
Wow, they really put something like that in there? It makes them sound like they're terribly insecure--"we don't do that girly stuff in D&D, we're all macho all the time."
I guess including elements from traditional legends and folklore is a big "no" according to Mr. Wyatt.
Well, thankfully the 5e crew seem like they want to cater to older edition players as much as the current crop. I've signed up for the playtest and I hope that 5e will meet its goal of reaching out to D&D gamers of all stripes. The worst that can happen is that I don't like it any more than I liked 4e and I'll just continue playing my preferred edition. On the other hand, if it succeeds in being inclusive of the different play-styles and turns out to be a great game... WotC will actually get my money again.
Having joined the forums over there, I've discovered (hidden amongst the trolls and edition warriors of all stripes) some 4e players (who I've had very little dealings with since 4e was first published) that are really cool and pleasant. I'm hoping that both they and I can get a game that we enjoy out of 5e.
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)
Wow, they really put something like that in there? It makes them sound like they're terribly insecure--"we don't do that girly stuff in D&D, we're all macho all the time."
I guess including elements from traditional legends and folklore is a big "no" according to Mr. Wyatt.
Second this sentiment as to how this is received. I think Mr. Watt forgets "balance" exists everywhere. While there is a place for the hack and slash there is equally a place for joviality and good ole fashion "lore" as well. THAT is what makes a well rounded role-playing experience. IMO, if Wyatt needs further evidence, proof does exist elsewhere, why else would nearly every heavy metal rock band produce a ballad? Simple, because even they understand balance and appeal to a wider audience.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Well, thankfully the 5e crew seem like they want to cater to older edition players as much as the current crop."...."if it succeeds in being inclusive of the different play-styles and turns out to be a great game... WotC will actually get my money again.
DLG> *Pounds the table* Aye and Hozah to that! But until the dawn of that I keep my coppers in my bag.
The language being used by Wotc while 4e was in development totally turned me off ever looking at the edition.
"D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)
Wow, they really put something like that in there? It makes them sound like they're terribly insecure--"we don't do that girly stuff in D&D, we're all macho all the time."
I guess including elements from traditional legends and folklore is a big "no" according to Mr. Wyatt.
Second this sentiment as to how this is received. I think Mr. Watt forgets "balance" exists everywhere. While there is a place for the hack and slash there is equally a place for joviality and good ole fashion "lore" as well. THAT is what makes a well rounded role-playing experience. IMO, if Wyatt needs further evidence, proof does exist elsewhere, why else would nearly every heavy metal rock band produce a ballad? Simple, because even they understand balance and appeal to a wider audience.
Come on now, fellas. D&D really is mostly about slaying the bad guys, collecting treasure, and establishing your own kingdom. All the rest is the trimmings. If you really don't care much for the 'hack and slash' parts of role playing, then what you should really be don't is larping. Balance is fine. I agree that there is more to D&D than engaging in fights. However, the fighting is the basis of the game. It's what the level system is based upon. Without it, we'd all be zero-level commoners playing Pricks and Politicians.
Come on now, fellas. D&D really is mostly about slaying the bad guys, collecting treasure, and establishing your own kingdom. All the rest is the trimmings. If you really don't care much for the 'hack and slash' parts of role playing, then what you should really be don't is larping. Balance is fine. I agree that there is more to D&D than engaging in fights. However, the fighting is the basis of the game. It's what the level system is based upon. Without it, we'd all be zero-level commoners playing Pricks and Politicians.
SirXaris
LMAO
Once Again The master of Wit!
Not would I , (and not to speak for the others), imply that I prefer a game w/o H&S , but nor would I care for one that has solely that without a "bigger picture" at stake.
But for the Sake of Spirited Debate, ( ) I would disagree to your simplistic assessment of the Leveling system. As I'm sure you would concede & concur that one can achieve exps based on good role play, problem solving, and milestones achieved as well as combat.
Lastly my players would assure you I have a few pricks and politicians already well represented in my NPC leagues. Though most are not zero level. Which certainly makes them more fun from the DM's perspective.
hehehe
Not would I , (and not to speak for the others), imply that I prefer a game w/o H&S , but nor would I care for one that has solely that without a "bigger picture" at stake.
Oh, I agree that there needs to be a good story involved.
Quote:
But for the Sake of Spirited Debate, ( ) I would disagree to your simplistic assessment of the Leveling system. As I'm sure you would concede & concur that one can achieve exps based on good role play, problem solving, and milestones achieved as well as combat.
Yes, that is also true. Reading the original quote again (the one by James Wyatt), I interpreted it as attempting to address the main focus of D&D, not to say that Hack & Slash is the only valid aspect of the hobby. Perhaps that clarification is in order.
And I have to ask why are we rehashing what James Wyatt said over 5 years ago when:
(A) James is not in charge of development of D&D Next (that would be Mike Mearls, Monte Cook, Greg Bilsland, Jeremy Crawford, Robert Schwalb, and Bruce Cordell) and
(B) There has been a sea change in the tone and tenor of WotC in terms how they discuss the game, the future of the game and they are going to let you have at it for free* during the playtest period that takes place over the next year.
So, yuck it up guys. Bring the needless edition bashing**. Dredge up the hurt. I am sure this will contribute to a reconciliation of the hobby. We all are D&D players here (well most of us, there are a few Rune Quest Heretics).
For once I would like to talk about something positive at Canonfire.com and not have it immediately get side tracked by anti-4e sentiments.
I think the blogger Dread Gazebo said it pretty damn well (note this was aimed at 3e and 4e players for the most part, but it still applies) in his blog, My Fellow Gamers, Stay Classy.
* Unless you count the NDA you will have to sign as a price...
** Yes I am aware of some of my less stable 4e brethren out in other forums blaming old-school D&D players for ruining their edition, but then again I rebuke their behavior just as much I am chastising you here.
My two platinum pieces,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
The Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
Saracenus, I'm sorry if you took offense at my criticism of James Wyatts' eyeball roll-inducing prose. If it's any consolation, you should get me started on 2e's whitewashing of demons, devils, removal of half-orcs, etc. when it it was originally published. ;)
Please don't take such criticism personally--it's nothing against you or other 4e players. It's simply that the authors (and their corporate overlords) occasionally do things that are rather off-putting--regardless of edition. Like I said in my previous post, I've talked to (and "friended") several really cool 4e players over on the WotC boards. After all, if we (collectively) want 5e to be a game we are each happy with, and for that we need to find our common ground and work together.
For the sake of togetherness, how about we all burn Lorraine Williams in effigy? :D
I like a lot of what I'm hearing; without going into specifics the game seems to be heading into an area where players of all types will find something that they can put their hat on. And that for me is D&D's place; a game which is strong on role-playing but which has the mechanics to handle conflict resolution and character improvement equally. There are plenty of niche games out there which do the individual aspects "better" (for want of a word) but not many that get all parts right.
The game is being presented to us in a non-patronising way and the designers are listening by means of the open playtest (okay, another company set the precedent for this, but it was massively successful and you'd be a fool to bury your head in the sand and say "not for us"). As for negativity; I really do not like 4e but, buried deep on another thread somewhere I stated that I wished it all the best because we need a strong industry in order to promote creativity.
But (there was bound to be one of those) I've personally spent a lot of time changing my Greyhawk to a completely different system and I'm not going to undo that and "come home" now. I also wonder whether those that migrated to Pathfinder will be thinking the same. The toughest challenge for Wotc may not be the game design but the marketplace. I will buy the basic game and I'll certainly encourage some of the players I know into running a game when I need a break. And, if things continue in the way they are, I'll really be looking forward to 2013.
In a nutshell, there are reasons why players did not switch from one edition to another. Those reasons will vary, from persons to person. To be honest, if WotC is trying to build an all-encompassing universally-accepted version of D&D, then looking at what issues players are passionate about, i.e. edition wars, would prove most helpful.
There are those who did not like 2e, there are those who did not like 3, and there are those who did not like 4e. I remain hopeful that 5e can woo them all.
There is a difference between understanding differences between editions and edition warring. One is productive and can lead to some interesting discussions and the other is about taking a position and defending it unto death, something less then helpful.
It's awesome when a majority can gather around and club Lorain Williams or Rose Estes (low-hanging fruit) because because most of us really dislike both of them and we can bond over our mutual distaste for them. As sad as that sounds we bond by being against the "other/outsider."
However, when we turn inward with the same energy and start clubbing each other, that gets ugly.
I will freely admit that WotC erred greatly in the PR/Marketing approach to 4e (and I will say they screwed a lot of 3rd parties when they shifted from 3e to 3.5). I do not hold WotC blameless for the current state of the market.
I can appreciate the mistrusts and hurt that people feel towards them as a company and certain individuals that did a piss poor job representing them.
Then again, if you stopped listening to what they are saying after that point and every time they (or folks like me that want to discuss a topic like 4e or D&D Next) open their mouths you throw the same old quote up, what does that say about you?
What is it you want from the conversation that you feel compelled to dredge it back up, over and over?
What need is not being met?
I DON'T ask these questions because I want you to shut up, quite the contrary, I want to have a conversation and start moving forward.
Because in the end if you and I cannot communicate with some civility and respect what is the point?
I can appreciate the mistrusts and hurt that people feel towards them as a company
I just spoke to a fellow player and suggested that he put his name forward for the playtest but he rather impolitely declined; I won't repeat the exact words. So, unfortunately, you're right about the above Saracenus.
We do need to move on and see what happens this time. To be fair I think Aeolius did end his last post on a positive note so I think, like me, he's probably cautiously optimistic.
...you throw the same old quote up, what does that say about you?
That quote sums up 4e, to me.
Quote:
Because in the end if you and I cannot communicate with some civility and respect what is the point?
I WAS being civil. If I wanted to be ugly, I'd start in with things like "4e feels like a video game". "the 4e MM looks like a deck of cards taped into a book", etc. ;)
I have been nothing but optimistic with the premise of 5e. I simply hope that D&D Next will be equally dissimilar to both 3e AND 4e.
I am sorry if there was confusion about my post. I was not accusing you of being uncivil in your post, I was speaking your assertion (emphasis mine):
"{I}f WotC is trying to build an all-encompassing universally-accepted version of D&D, then looking at what issues players are passionate about, i.e. edition wars, would prove most helpful."
Being passionate about the issues = good. It means your are engaged, have skin in the game. But being passionate doesn't mean putting the beat down on those with opposing views. If there is no compassion you get...
The Edition Warrior. Being one != good. Yes most edition warriors have passion (though a few are in it for just the lulz) but they can hardly be seen as a positive force.
The very term sets the tone that you are in mortal conflict, that you must "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Trust me when I say there is no quicker way to close the ears of those you want to influence at WotC by taking this stance of The Edition Warrior. It certainly removes all desire from me to hear what you have to say.
Again, I am asking everyone (not just you) to politely join in a conversation about what the next edition of D&D can mean not only to you, but to me, or the gal that loves BECMI.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say. I really don't want to fight. I certainly don't want to bad mouth your edition or have you bad mouth mine.
Thank you,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
The Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
Trust me when I say there is no quicker way to close the ears of those you want to influence at WotC by taking this stance of The Edition Warrior.
To be fair, I think I lost their ear when I said that I looked forward to the day when I could play Glaucus, my spellstitched swarm-shifter dread necromancer emancipated spawn half0scrag sea kin lacedon with aboleth grafts, alongside Mr. Fluffykins, my awakened bunny rabbit. ;)
Anyhoo, I have read all the seminar transcripts and countless blogs and podcasts about 5e but never really intimated what I would like to see grabbed from each edition for D&DNext. Off the cuff my needs are few:
A little 2e era brought back. I say this only because it's kind of lost in my memory. I know I played 2e-Players Option for many many years and 3e in a way hit me over the head and gave me amnesia to how cool (or maybe bad) those rules/options used to be. So, a little 2e love would be neat.
The charm of 1e/BECMI. Again, the rules were from a simpler time, but it's one I see Wizards trying to recapture over and over despite the weight of rules they create. I like the idea of tiered hero levels (4e did this I suppose to replicate Basic, Expert, etc. sets) and name-levels (the prestige used to be achieving titles). Shorter stat lines for monsters is essential. There's many charming aspects of these eras that'll go unheeded due to "game balance" but I'll take what I can get in 5e.
And 3e you say? This is the most vexing edition for me. I hate it for being broken but like an addict I can't bring myself to run anything else now. So for D&DNext to break that hold it needs to have 3e-isms in it, most likely familiar feats or skill rules. I don't know. I do know I would prefer to get away from optimizing rules like magic item creation (perhaps thats a 1e/2e system I prefer) and PrC/template stacking (yes Aeolius I'm looking at you).
The very term sets the tone that you are in mortal conflict, that you must "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Where's Argon when you need a barbarian around.... hehe
Saracenus wrote:
Trust me when I say there is no quicker way to close the ears of those you want to influence at WotC by taking this stance of The Edition Warrior. It certainly removes all desire from me to hear what you have to say.
@S
Sorry I disagree, and don't wish any more than any of the others to have this turn into a Rev war, but I do think for WOC to improve their offering they MUST understand the differences that EACH edition group is passionate about, or they are simply wasting time, resources and effort
DLG
The very term sets the tone that you are in mortal conflict, that you must "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
I prefer Spongebob:
Fred: He poisoned our water supply, burned our crops, and delivered a plague upon our houses!
Protesters: He did?
Fred: No, but are we just going to wait around until he does?
Me, I am hoping 5e is a bit more cannibalistic. Why crush your enemy, when you can feast on their flesh and fill your battle wounds with their ashes, to steal their power?
mortellan wrote:
You guys are wacky.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." ;)
Since I have not played a face-to-face game of D&D since 1994, I am hoping that 5e begins by embracing online gaming via play-by-post, chat-room, and virtual tabletop. The first two methods will be mentioned in the rulebooks, while the third will be supported by an official D&D VTT app available for iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch. This app would of course support the options of playing an awakened octopus while adventuring in three dimensions.
I also want WotC to promote 5e with television commercials, print ads, and viral campaigns. It goes without saying that WotC’s current online community offerings need a complete overhaul, so they do not appear as clunky as they do currently.
And I am hoping that the concept of “complexity dials” pans out. I for one enjoy combat-light roleplay-heavy adventures that emphasize story over stats. If I could “dial combat down” to a minis-free operation that involved only Initiative, to Hit, and Damage I would be a happy camper.
Since I have not played a face-to-face game of D&D since 1994, I am hoping that 5e begins by embracing online gaming via play-by-post, chat-room, and virtual tabletop. The first two methods will be mentioned in the rulebooks, while the third will be supported by an official D&D VTT app available for iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch. This app would of course support the options of playing an awakened octopus while adventuring in three dimensions.
The D&D Virtual Table Top (VTT) has been in open beta for DDI subscribers for months now. It has been built to be edition neutral so that even if you don't play 4e or 5e you can use it (to be fair, the tools that support it directly, (the character builder and monster builder, do not support other editions right now). Subscribers can invite non-subscribers to play on it. So, electronic support is being developed as we speak.
As for baking in play-by post and chat room support into the rules, I am not sure how that helps you. What you are asking for is more of a social media offering with a mention in the books as an option for play. To facilitate this would require resources be diverted into their website and frankly I am not sure they have the will or skills to make that happen as a destination.
I do not want them to waste valuable core page space explaining how to use IRC chat or play by post. That might be an interesting eRules Module for people to buy if they need more instruction.
Aeolius wrote:
I also want WotC to promote 5e with television commercials, print ads, and viral campaigns.
Did you see how they handled the announcement of D&D Next? It was on CNN, Forbes (for Pelor's sake), the NYTimes, Wired, countless game blogs and then other news organizations picked up the story that were not part of the initial PR push.
The sophistication of the initial role out of D&D Next in comparison to 4e is light years apart. I think you are going to see a very impressive ad campaign from WotC.
Aeolius wrote:
It goes without saying that WotC’s current online community offerings need a complete overhaul, so they do not appear as clunky as they do currently.
You get not disagreement here. I just don't see them investing the resources in it heavily right now. They only have so much budget for this and they are prioritizing VTT, the CB and MB.
Aeolius wrote:
And I am hoping that the concept of “complexity dials” pans out. I for one enjoy combat-light roleplay-heavy adventures that emphasize story over stats. If I could “dial combat down” to a minis-free operation that involved only Initiative, to Hit, and Damage I would be a happy camper.
I don't know if base core game is going to be THAT rules light, but all descriptions from D&D XP point to a more 1e/2e rules light level with tweaks and refinements of the rules derived from 3e and 4e. There is even a little OD&D in there. We also know that "Theater of the Mind" style of play is built into the the core system. My friend Alphastream never used a mini or battlemat during D&D XP (see his post about it here).
I would really recommend that you check out the 5e section of ENWorld and read the info page link I posted up thread. There is a lot of info on where the alpha is at right now (remember it is subject to change based on playtest feedback and more development).
Thanks,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
The Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
As for baking in play-by post and chat room support into the rules, I am not sure how that helps you.
I represent the segment of the gaming population who no long have time to game. However, I do run a weekly chat-based game and ran play-by-post games before that. I have a wife, 7 kids, job, and hobby farm to attend to, so trying to coordinate regular face-to-face sessions would be difficult at best.
If WotC wants to win back more grognards, they would do well to accommodate more methods of play. That could always follow in the form of online articles and the like.
Quote:
My friend Alphastream never used a mini or battlemat during D&D XP
That sounds like a step in the right direction.
Quote:
I would really recommend that you check out the 5e section of ENWorld
I have several posts in the "New Horizons" forum. I have also posted a bit over at WotC's D&D Next section.
I started playing D&D around 1979, with Basic D&D. I then progressed through Expert to Advanced (1e). 2e arrived when I was in my last year of college. While I did not care for the core ruleset, I did purchase several supplements during that time, as well as serving as a TSRO for TSR's stint on AOL and their fledgeling website.
I started my first online play-by-post game "Into the Land of Black Ice" in 1995 in AOL's RPG Forum, before moving the game to TSR's AOL Forum and then TSR's website, and finally moving the game to my own website. My second PbP was "Beneath the Pinnacles of Azor'alq", a game that began with the 1e ruleset and switched midstream to 3e shortly after the arrival of that ruleset. Between those two games I ran a brief 1e planar adventure, "Penance of the Damned", via AIM.
Since July of 2007, I have been running "Heirs of Turucambi", a 3.5e chat-based game, via IRC. I considered fleshing out my all-animal campaign concept "Nature of the Beast" with 4e. Alas, the core rulebooks did not support druids, greenhags, and the Awaken spell, all vital to the campaign concept. Yes, I could have house-ruled them in and converted what I needed from 3.5e. In the end, I abandoned the idea.
It appears that I will be running Heirs of Turucambi when 5e arrives. I am hoping I can switch from 3.5e to 5e midstream, as I had done with BPAA. It all boils down to the complexity dials, a viable Conversion Manual, and how much time I have at the moment. My current players, as is the case with many online players, are also loathe to invest vast sums of cash into their gaming hobby. So any online offerings would have to be inexpensive.
I represent the segment of the gaming population who no long have time to game. However, I do run a weekly chat-based game and ran play-by-post games before that. I have a wife, 7 kids, job, and hobby farm to attend to, so trying to coordinate regular face-to-face sessions would be difficult at best.
If WotC wants to win back more grognards, they would do well to accommodate more methods of play. That could always follow in the form of online articles and the like.
I completely understand. Between school (accounting major, a second degree), work, my wife (plus two cats and two dogs), and training to lose about 100 lb. in a year I don't have much time for face to face gaming.
As it is my face to face group only meets every other Sun and I have had to give up playing/coordinating D&D Encounters at my local game store, life is just too busy and complicated right now.
With all that said, WotC does recognize that not all gamers can meet face to face (because of matters temporal, geographical, and/or lifestyle). I think you should start a thread either on ENWorld or WotC's boards on the topic so that you (someone with direct experience on the subject) can start a conversation with other players and hopefully folks from WotC. If you post up on ENWorld, make sure you bring it to the attention of Mudbunny he is a volunteer WotC admin (like the old TSROs) and compiles a weekly report to WotC that gets sent to the developers. Definitely do the open playtest and give feedback on how the the game can better serve your demographic.
Aeolius wrote:
I started playing D&D around 1979, with Basic D&D. I then progressed through Expert to Advanced (1e). 2e arrived when I was in my last year of college. While I did not care for the core ruleset, I did purchase several supplements during that time, as well as serving as a TSRO for TSR's stint on AOL and their fledgeling website.
Your start in the hobby mirrors mine, though my group started with AD&D (though the Holmes Box Set was the first D&D product I owned, my parents bought for me instead of the AD&D Player's Handbook). I did flirt with Basic and in college played 2e, but my experience was colored by the exclusive use of Dragonlance as a campaign setting and a fellow player who played a ******* Kender (hence my kill all Kender on sight policy).
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
The Sun King at Arms, Herald of the Great Kingdom
What I would like would be for WoTC to start printing all editions of D&D and let players choose which one they want to play. Stop concentrating on rolling out new rule options (leave that for articles in Dragon or similar publications) and focus on putting out adventures and campaign books. Stop trying to come up with a rule set that is going to please everyone, because you're never going to please everyone. But that's probably a bad business model and terribly naive point of view.
What I would like would be for WoTC to start printing all editions of D&D and let players choose which one they want to play. Stop concentrating on rolling out new rule options (leave that for articles in Dragon or similar publications) and focus on putting out adventures and campaign books...
-It could even save space in the booklet. Instead of "1 2HD orc stat stat stat stat stat etc and 4 x 1HD orcs stat stat stat stat stat stat stat etc," you could say "1 orc of above average size and experience in chain with shield, spear and sword, and 4 common orcs in studded leather with shields and spears" and let the DM worry about the details. This would allow for more on characterization, etc.
smillan_31 wrote:
...Stop trying to come up with a rule set that is going to please everyone, because you're never going to please everyone. But that's probably a bad business model and terribly naive point of view.
-Undoubtedly. If you do that, who will buy D&D 27.5: The Ultimate Edition?
What I would like would be for WoTC to start printing all editions of D&D and let players choose which one they want to play. Stop concentrating on rolling out new rule options (leave that for articles in Dragon or similar publications) and focus on putting out adventures and campaign books...
-It could even save space in the booklet. Instead of "1 2HD orc stat stat stat stat stat etc and 4 x 1HD orcs stat stat stat stat stat stat stat etc," you could say "1 orc of above average size and experience in chain with shield, spear and sword, and 4 common orcs in studded leather with shields and spears" and let the DM worry about the details. This would allow for more on characterization, etc.
smillan_31 wrote:
...Stop trying to come up with a rule set that is going to please everyone, because you're never going to please everyone. But that's probably a bad business model and terribly naive point of view.
-Undoubtedly. If you do that, who will buy D&D 27.5: The Ultimate Edition?
Or even adventures with the stat blocks for each edition. C'mon Wizards, it'll be at least + 1/3rd as big so you can charge people more money! You like money, don't ya?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
...as usual. This being said, maybe they'll sell off the rights at a reasonable price and Mr Mona can pick it up!
aka BusterBudd
Methinks your rose-colored glasses are somewhat obscuring the 20/20 hindsight. 
. I look forward to see the evolution of the game, to believe this will be the final edition is not very likely, I could see another "edition" being put out eventually... its business and progressive development.
