Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

I realize that "hard core RPers" are not necessarily fans of D&D, but I have fond memories of chasing bad guys across continents and through dark places.

Apparently at GenCon, WotC announced it will be trying to make amends for 4thEd.  Here is an Ars Article and a YouTube video of a live demo.  Apparently, players can help playtest.

[Reyd Karris]

Apparently at GenCon, WotC announced it will be trying to make amends for 4thEd.

It's not just the game mechanics that need work, but the overall company strategy. They took a hard line, "These are the mechanics, and we'll ignore any input" attitude. This was pretty much across the board, on every product. They lost a lot of players, and had to trim their product line to match.

I'm fairly bitter after they got rid of their Star Wars RPG license. Lots of good memories playing that RPG. I'm playtesting 4th, but to be fair, my heart just isn't in it.

 

[Norrin Ellis]

Advanced 2nd edition, best edition.

[Reyd Karris]

Advanced 2nd edition, best edition.

Yes, indeed.

[Ilsenae Alexandros]

Advanced 2nd edition, best edition.

Yes, indeed.

What?

I submit to the court Exhibit A: THAC0

I rest my case, your Honor.

[Reyd Karris]

Advanced 2nd edition, best edition.

Yes, indeed.

What?

I submit to the court Exhibit A: THAC0

I rest my case, your Honor.

Heh, did you ever play Gamma World? 

[Natalcya Katla]

What?

I submit to the court Exhibit A: THAC0

I rest my case, your Honor.

THAC0 was pretty easy to wrap my mind around. A bit convoluted in retrospect, but I never thought of it as such back then.

I had more trouble accepting the idea of 1-minute rounds, though. And 2nd ed's bizarre take on the True Neutral alignment pretty much only made sense within the Planescape setting, and then only barely.

Personally, I wouldn't go as far as saying 2nd edition was the best edition, but it's definitely the one I've played the most. As such, it's the source of many fond memories, more than any other edition is.

I never played 4th edition, actually. I remember being turned off it even before the full release. They released a sneak peek of the rules shortly before (which they demanded full money for - a little arrogant, if you ask me). I read the back cover of it, which was basically a bragging list about the numbers of monsters, character classes, fancy moves, pretty items and so on this new edition would bring to people's gaming tables.

And right at the bottom, it said: "And for those of you who like to roleplay - we haven't forgotten about you, either."

Yes. Yes, you obviously have. "Those of you who like to roleplay". Sheesh.

I put that one back on the shelf. 4th ed never interested me after that.

Mmm...Planescape...

[Jev North]

Gods, yes. My gaming group tried 4th a few times, but most of us could never shake the feeling that we were playing a tabletop version of WoW.

AD&D 2nd was a diamond in the rough; good intentions, but with strange quirks and ad-hoc rules.

3.5 was, I think, where D&D peaked as a game; rules that at least nodded vaguely in the directions of playability, sensibility, and balance. The problems with the line mostly involved WotC figuring out that for reasons of elementary mathematics, a shiny player splatbook sells about five times better than a well-written adventure or campaign sourcebook.

[Natalcya Katla]

I just don't see how game designers think it's a smart move to design a table-top RPG according to computer game design philosophy. I suspect the idea is to make it appeal to computer gamers, probably primarily MMO gamers, but I don't see it working that way. The primary strength of a computer RPG is that your computer is doing all the math and book keeping for you - as well as letting you interact with hundreds of other people, in the case of multiplayer games. The primary strength of table-top RPGs is that they traditionally allow for enormous flexibility in exploring and interacting with the setting, and a vastly increased number of options when it comes to approaching and overcoming the challenges presented by the environment.

What games like D&D 4th ed (which I haven't played, but have heard a lot about by now) and the newest edition of WHFRP (which I have actually played, and which underwhelmed me) offer is an experience which feels a bit like a computer game, but where you have to do all the math and book keeping by hand. The result is an inferior product to what computer gamers already have, and because it tries to slap game mechanics onto every aspect of the game, it loses much of the flexibility and free-form feeling that table-top gaming usually provides.

In the end, these games don't bridge the gap between table-top and computer RPGs. They just end up falling into the gap. Play to your strengths, people, seriously.

[orange]

It sounds like D&D Next is being built as a flexible system.  The GenCon demo I watched transitioned between things Battlemat play and ad hoc pretty quick.

[Graelyn]

Honestly, with Pathfinder, I don't see a need for a new D&D; I have one.

[Vikarion]

You should try Legend: http://www.ruleofcool.com/

[Lyn Farel]

I just don't see how game designers think it's a smart move to design a table-top RPG according to computer game design philosophy. I suspect the idea is to make it appeal to computer gamers, probably primarily MMO gamers, but I don't see it working that way. The primary strength of a computer RPG is that your computer is doing all the math and book keeping for you - as well as letting you interact with hundreds of other people, in the case of multiplayer games. The primary strength of table-top RPGs is that they traditionally allow for enormous flexibility in exploring and interacting with the setting, and a vastly increased number of options when it comes to approaching and overcoming the challenges presented by the environment.

What games like D&D 4th ed (which I haven't played, but have heard a lot about by now) and the newest edition of WHFRP (which I have actually played, and which underwhelmed me) offer is an experience which feels a bit like a computer game, but where you have to do all the math and book keeping by hand. The result is an inferior product to what computer gamers already have, and because it tries to slap game mechanics onto every aspect of the game, it loses much of the flexibility and free-form feeling that table-top gaming usually provides.

In the end, these games don't bridge the gap between table-top and computer RPGs. They just end up falling into the gap. Play to your strengths, people, seriously.

Quite a lot yes.

However and since I am far from an expert in tabletop games, I still find some games that have extensive rules actually making sense and pushing in the direction of realism and immersion, rules that have an actual meaning and that are not just here for the sake of being obnoxious to the players, can be very interesting.

Then it is always to the GM to keep what is good and triage everything to make it more enjoyable and keep his players immersed instead of spending time with shitloads of dices and math.

[Ava Starfire]

2nd edition (Or even 1st) will always hold a place in my heart.

After that it just got weird.

CAN I HAVE A MOUNTAIN DEW??

[Saede Riordan]

I've only done a couple of half sessions for 2.0 and 3.5, but I quite liked it. I need friends to game with.