So with

[Killian Kalthorne]

If you say so, but I disagree. Too each there own I guess.

[H]

Neverwinter in ruins.

where will the next dnd crpg take place???

In Eberron. Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge.

[Jaesun]

[quote name='H

[steelfiredragon]

I wouldnt, and wouldnt buy it.

 

eberron's problem is that every npc , pc and monster has a political agenda.

 

If i wanted to play intrigue, I play an evil drow in FR

[H]

eberron's problem is that every npc , pc and monster has a political agenda.

Why is that a problem? Scheming and political backstabbing tend to make excellent stories.

[newc0253]

They practically made alignment meaningless.

sounds like they got at least one thing right.

 

also, much as i like the old Vance-style spell system, it's pretty hard to argue that what they had in 3e was still Vancian: substituting spells? sorcerers? warlocks? if anything, it was 3e that was Vance-in-name-only...

Edited August 14, 2008 by newc0253

[Tigranes]

If i wanted to play intrigue, I play an evil drow in FR

 

What, "let's kill babies while doing our morning jog, because we're EVUL"?

[RangerSG]

They practically made alignment meaningless.

sounds like they got at least one thing right.

 

also, much as i like the old Vance-style spell system, it's pretty hard to argue that what they had in 3e was still Vancian: substituting spells? sorcerers? warlocks? if anything, it was 3e that was Vance-in-name-only...

 

No, they got it completely wrong. If they had removed it entirely, I'd have been upset, but I could've accepted it. If they'd have clarified the mess they made in 3e, then that would've been better. Instead, they nerfed it so it has not meaning, but left it in anyway. How is that right? It's so useless it could be ignored, but so hosed it cannot be. Like most of 4e, it's the worst of all worlds.

 

I don't disagree about 3e making a mess of the spell system, that said, once again, instead of fixing their mess, they threw it into an MMO blender and came up with just about the worst solution possible.

 

And since I don't care one whit about the FR, the whole 4e ruleset has no justification to me except for marketing, and since the marketing ploy was, "We're going to tell all you old-timers to honk off" I'm going to do just that. Pathfinder for me, thank you.

[Gromnir]

"No, they got it completely wrong. If they had removed it entirely, I'd have been upset, but I could've accepted it. If they'd have clarified the mess they made in 3e, then that would've been better. Instead, they nerfed it so it has not meaning, but left it in anyway. How is that right? It's so useless it could be ignored, but so hosed it cannot be. Like most of 4e, it's the worst of all worlds."

 

gonna disagree... big time. the mistake with 4e alignment is its bare naked existence, and the somewhat retarded (as in regressive) nomenclature. why use old descriptors from 1e quadrant alignment system if you no longer has a quadrant system? baffling. also, alignment in 4e, just as in all previous editions, serves no useful purpose.

 

nevertheless, 4e makes a big step in right direction by diminishing role o' alignment. now keep in mind that Gromnir has still only taken the most cursory look at alignment as it appears in the 4e core books, so if something changes or we missed something, feel free to correct us, but our understanding is that alignment in 4e is simply window dressing. if a giant dire wereplatypus attacks your party does it matter whether it is categorized as a monomtreme? no? is no specific actual rules that deal with egg laying mammals, so categorization as such not matter. same goes for alignment in 4e. your chaotic evil cleric not get special spells/powhaz that limit healing surges, and there ain't no silly detection o' _______ spells neither.

 

the obvious 4e move woulda' been to simply forgo mention o' alignment altogether. nevertheless, given how long alignment has been part o' d&d, we is willing to dismiss the busted labels as kinda likes scars... sure, the wounds is healed, but as long as scar remains you is never gonna forget the injury. d&d no longer is wounded by alignment, but we still gots some ugly scars.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

[quote name='H

[RangerSG]

"No, they got it completely wrong. If they had removed it entirely, I'd have been upset, but I could've accepted it. If they'd have clarified the mess they made in 3e, then that would've been better. Instead, they nerfed it so it has not meaning, but left it in anyway. How is that right? It's so useless it could be ignored, but so hosed it cannot be. Like most of 4e, it's the worst of all worlds."

 

gonna disagree... big time. the mistake with 4e alignment is its bare naked existence, and the somewhat retarded (as in regressive) nomenclature. why use old descriptors from 1e quadrant alignment system if you no longer has a quadrant system? baffling. also, alignment in 4e, just as in all previous editions, serves no useful purpose.

 

nevertheless, 4e makes a big step in right direction by diminishing role o' alignment. now keep in mind that Gromnir has still only taken the most cursory look at alignment as it appears in the 4e core books, so if something changes or we missed something, feel free to correct us, but our understanding is that alignment in 4e is simply window dressing. if a giant dire wereplatypus attacks your party does it matter whether it is categorized as a monomtreme? no? is no specific actual rules that deal with egg laying mammals, so categorization as such not matter. same goes for alignment in 4e. your chaotic evil cleric not get special spells/powhaz that limit healing surges, and there ain't no silly detection o' _______ spells neither.

 

the obvious 4e move woulda' been to simply forgo mention o' alignment altogether. nevertheless, given how long alignment has been part o' d&d, we is willing to dismiss the busted labels as kinda likes scars... sure, the wounds is healed, but as long as scar remains you is never gonna forget the injury. d&d no longer is wounded by alignment, but we still gots some ugly scars.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Why is it 'better' to do something half-rear-ended than just bite the bullet and do it? Don't tell me "because it's always been in the game." They tossed Vancian Spellcasting, which is equally part of traditional D&D. So it wasn't for a lack of wanting to disassociate from the history. They already told us all that us old-time D&Ders were going to have to take a flying leap.

 

If you're right (and I don't think you are) and alignment wasn't a good system, then junk it. If it's wrong, keep it. But don't do what they did here, keep it but neuter it so that it's bloody useless even for RP purposes. I don't know that there was a 'single' design decision in 4e that I would consider acceptably thought out, let alone approve of as a player. It's a mess. Most of what they did reflects this sort of, "We're not sure what we want, so we'll nerf it until it doesn't influence anything" thinking. Pathetic. And I'm not a 3rd edition fan either, but almost every change in 4th ed. represents the same downhill spiral WotC has been on since they acquired the product.

[Gromnir]

"If you're right (and I don't think you are) and alignment wasn't a good system..."

 

it were a terrible system that served no purpose... but sadly the system had teeth. no group o' people could ever agree where the lines 'tween and twixt good/neutral/evil or the law/neutral/chaos actually were 'posed to be, but being good or chaotic had real impact on game mechanics. that is bad rules.

 

"We're not sure what we want, so we'll nerf it until it doesn't influence anything"

 

good. insofar as alignment is concerned, Gromnir is in favor o' exorcising it complete, so fact that it has been "nerfed" into impotence is a step in the right direction.

 

so why did wotc keep the stoopid labels? we got no idea... but fact that the labels no longer have a game mechanics application is a damned good move in the right direction.

 

btw, as for what wotc has done to d&d... 3e and 4e are much better systems than were the original d&d, ad&d, or 2e. original d&d were never played by anybody we ever met. ad&d represented the formalization o' the most commonly used house rules that made d&d actually playable. 'course those house rules were voluminous and contradictory, which is to be expected considering their organic evolution. hundreds and thousands o' bandages and patches to fix original d&d flaws and gaps? 2e were nothing more than ad&d with some few additional bandages and patches. is 3e and 4e flawed? sure they is, but both systems is far more coherent and rational than earlier editions o' d&d.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[RangerSG]

3e and 4e more rational than original AD&D?

 

Pfft. You have officially lost my interest.

[steelfiredragon]

[quote name='H

[Xard]

3e and 4e more rational than original AD&D?

 

Pfft. You have officially lost my interest.

 

dunno about 4E but as far as rationality goes 3E > infinite deep sequence > Previous editions

[Kelverin]

3e and 4e more rational than original AD&D?

 

Pfft. You have officially lost my interest.

 

dunno about 4E but as far as rationality goes 3E > infinite deep sequence > Previous editions

rationality is a fantasy game

 

You LOSE

[Gromnir]

3e and 4e more rational than original AD&D?

 

Pfft. You have officially lost my interest.

 

whatever the strengths of original d&d versions, rationality were not high on list. heck, multi-classing and dual-classing rules alone were 'nuff to make one wonder what thy gygax brothers were smoking.

 

d&d, the original rules, were contained in a collection o' very small soft cover booklets... rules bore more similarity to what would become d&d basic rules in later years. 'course between the time o' d&d release and ad&d release, we had lots o' role-players fixing d&d. by the time that ad&d were released, the d&d that were being played by folks at gencon tournaments bore little resemblance to the printed rules. ad&d were, more or less, a codification o' the most common and most popular house rules that were being used by players anyways. a mish-mash o' dragon magazine articles, and tourney house rules and some general wackiness thrown in to boot.

 

3e and 4e, on the other hand, were developed in a coherent fashion with emphasis on guiding principles. sure, clearly some stuff in 3e were busted... like ranger class and prestige classes and grapple, but overall, the rules in 3e were rational... 'least compared to earlier editions... which is to be expected considering how different were the development approach.

 

to be blunt, only the most deluded ad&d fanboi would try to argue in favor of 2e or ad&d rationality compared to 3e or 4e. is simply untenable. 'course rationality may not be you primary concern, and it probably shouldn't be. ultimately is 'bout having fun, eh? even so, ad&d rationality? *snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 15, 2008 by Gromnir

[taks]

i personally found AD&D/2E much more fun than 3E, but i wasn't a DM, either, and didn't care about many of the nits that really broke the system. so what if two rules were contradictory, pick the one you like and use it instead. it's not like there's a gun to my head saying "you must play THIS WAY or DIE!" duh.

 

taks

 

PS: i should add, in my pnp days, which were not very lengthy, and quite a long time ago, i never played high levels, either. i don't recall getting high enough to even cast 5th level spells until playing on a computer.

Edited August 15, 2008 by taks

[Monte Carlo]

I guess the next 4E D&D game could be comfortably set anywhere Pokemon is set, seeing as they are now virtually identical.

 

5E will be a trading card game.

 

From the ashes is the good news: 6E D&D will be a game played using 15mm metal minis using stripped-down rules in small samizdat-style booklets full of random tables. They'll call it Chainmail.

 

The biggest problem was D20*. They tried to make it the Windows Operating System of pen and paper gaming and look what happened.

 

Cheers

MC

 

 

 

* I like D20 and 3E, BTW. That's not to say I want every game to use the same mechanics.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Monte Carlo

[Gromnir]

"From the ashes is the good news: 6E D&D will be a game played using 15mm metal minis using stripped-down rules in small samizdat-style booklets full of random tables. They'll call it Chainmail."

 

yeah, and then people can play an elf again the way it were 'posed to be played.

 

choose elf.

 

roll stats.

 

...

 

were pretty much the end o' character generation in mc's ye good olde days. "elf" were both race and class and that choice were the only one you got to make... 'cause rolled stats were left up to chance and there were no feats or skills or any such other stuff. mc's elf looked like bobs elf. bob's elf looked and played same as phil's elf. phil's elf...

 

original d&d were a squad-based tactical combat game... and the tactical combat were pretty sketchy. nevertheless, it were the first... and for a while it were the only such game. so, the good news is that original stripped down d&d rules (which probably resulted in as much errata as actual rules) is dead and will never rear its ugly head again. maybe mc longs for the good old days when he could drive his model t down to the local speak-easy for some bathtub gin? too bad. the good old days rarely is all that good... save in nostalgic recollection.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kelverin]

You know what separates generic Elf's from each other in 1st and 2nd edition? Role playing, not stats. What a concept. You want want your character to be different then every other Elf? Use your ****ing imagination, don't rely on the rules to do your thinking for ya.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Kelverin

[Monte Carlo]

Ha, Grom's probably not too far off the mark. After all, nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

 

Having said that, the good old days weren't actually too bad. The lack of rules from the original D&D days was all part of the fun. Yep, people did spend inordinate amounts of time making up their own house rules for just about everything. No two D&D groups at my Sunday morning games club could actually play together (the first three hours were a UN Security Council style house rules negotiating session). 1E AD&D was actually invented as a sort of sop to the home-brew rules brigade (which is why 1E has a table for everything). The one thing it didn't have a table for was your campaign. Remember Rule One?

 

My beef with new D&D is the corporate sameness of it. The rot set in with collecting campaign settings with 2E AD&D. Sure, everybody is encouraged to do their own thing, but let's be honest the business model is and always will be selling splat books to collectors. 4E is the apogee of this.

 

I implore anybody really interested in pen and paper gaming to:

 

1. Find some like-minded gamers

2. Read some rules from some books you bought for pennies on ebay

3. Ignore the ones you don't like

4. Have fun, for chrissakes

 

The best gaming fun you will ever have is beer, pizza and using a shoe brush to represent a carrion crawler because you don't have the right miniature. You really don't need three hundred dollars worth of splat books and supplements.

 

As I said, nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

 

Cheers

MC

[Gromnir]

You know what separates generic Elf's from each other in 1st and 2nd edition? Role playing, not stats. What a concept. You want want your character to be different then every other Elf? Use your ****ing imagination, don't rely on the rules to do your thinking for ya.

 

most common response = dumbest response

 

then what makes one rule system superior? your silly response can apply to any rule system, no matter how bass ackwards, self-contradictory and staid.

 

what makes a role-play game fun will always, first and foremost, be the persons you is playing the game with. not matter how good or bad the rules is if the people sitting at the table with you is a bunch o' stiffs or dorks. bad rules can be ignored by playing with quality folks, and reverse is likewise true.

 

nevertheless, the "use your ****ing imagination" shtick is tired and... stoopid. give'em back the bucket-head icon.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Kelverin]

You know what separates generic Elf's from each other in 1st and 2nd edition? Role playing, not stats. What a concept. You want want your character to be different then every other Elf? Use your ****ing imagination, don't rely on the rules to do your thinking for ya.

 

most common response = dumbest response

 

then what makes one rule system superior? your silly response can apply to any rule system, no matter how bass ackwards, self-contradictory and staid.

 

what makes a role-play game fun will always, first and foremost, be the persons you is playing the game with. not matter how good or bad the rules is if the people sitting at the table with you is a bunch o' stiffs or dorks. bad rules can be ignored by playing with quality folks, and reverse is likewise true.

 

nevertheless, the "use your ****ing imagination" shtick is tired and... stoopid. give'em back the bucket-head icon.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Good fun indeed!

[Dark_Raven]

Good Fun! is using good old AD&D rules. Beyond me why they wanted to change rule sets other than steal make money from PnP game players.