|
Jimbozig posted:
I guess I have to ask whether dungeon world is D&D by your definition. I honestly feel very weakly about any of the points that I've made, and you won't hear me defend them very strongly. I'm mostly throwing in devils advocate discussion points because I like hearing what everyone else has to say about the topics.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Barudak posted:You could make a functional game using ability scores but as long as ability scores convey both mental and physical traits and imply a huge difference between having them be fully trained and left bare its never going to work once any sort of roleplay shows up. This was also less of a problem because ability scores were initially random. So a high Strength did not preclude a high Charisma or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
Ability scores originally did barely anything except a bonus to experience and DM's discretion. They mattered about as much as alignment did in later editions. D&D has many, many rules foibles in its history as a result of somebody wanting to change something in earlier rules so that it "makes more sense" without paying any attention to how that change cascades into gameplay. When someone is saying that your class features should all hinge on your ability scores and that everyone should randomly roll ability scores 3d6 down the line, we have a big problem. Edit: VVV That happened to 4e years ago, actually. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I think it's important to remember that D&D is just a brand. Brands are whatever the brand's owner chooses to define them as. The public can accept or reject the brand, but they don't get to decide if something is 'Coke' enough, or 'McDonald's' enough. How long will it take for someone to start referring to 4th edition as New Coke
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:How long will it take for someone to start referring to 4th edition as New Coke Do you mean in this thread, or in general? Because I'm pretty sure that must have happened before it was even released. I have no intention of making a New Coke derail. Though hilariously the analogy is surprisingly apt, since New Coke formed the basis of Diet Coke, which is now insanely popular even though people keep bringing up New Coke as some kind of failed enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:How long will it take for someone to start referring to 4th edition as New Coke I'd be surprised if this hadn't already happened. The spirit of D&D for me is throwing around a bunch of fruity shaped dice and telling my players whether or not they slayed an Orc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Do you mean in this thread, or in general? Because I'm pretty sure that must have happened before it was even released.  was different so there were media frenzies about it and people pre-bigoting themselves against it before even trying, and making up reasons why it was obviously horrible. It's both pretty interesting in retrospect, and pretty depressing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I guess I have to ask whether dungeon world is D&D by your definition. For some people Dungeon World undoubtedly already is D&D. If WotC went crazy (possibly in a good way) and bought the rights to DW and published it as the new D&D, then in an important sense it would become D&D. Plenty of people would rail against it, but they've been doing that to new versions of D&D for as long as there've been new versions to rail against. fatherdog posted:How long will it take for someone to start referring to 4th edition as New Coke
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:This was also less of a problem because ability scores were initially random. So a high Strength did not preclude a high Charisma or whatever. Halloween Jack posted:Ability scores originally did barely anything except a bonus to experience and DM's discretion. They mattered about as much as alignment did in later editions. Thanks for bringing more nuances. Its really unfortunate that any alternate use for them rather than 3e and 4e's this is what determines what your character is good at in and out of combat is being lost in the shuffle while at the same time making these scores super, super important in 5e. In a lot of ways I think another thing holding back the 5e team is a desire to make random roll and a point buy a functional counterpoint of each other is a really, really bad idea because it hinders efficient development of them into anything new or interesting. Asimo posted:And is also one of the big early prominent examples of grognard word-of-mouth ruining something for no reason, since New Coke pretty much polled higher in every taste test they did, but it Polling higher in taste-tests is not a determinant of a better product. For instance, many products like cooking sauces tout that they do better in taste-tests than competitors but ultimately these products usually sell less than their competition. In food products, during taste tests people will typically select the more sugary and sweet one as it is the biologically "tastier" one. When it comes time to consume large amounts of it, the sweetness can be a major turn off resulting in purchase of the "worse tasting product" Of course much of it is also psychological in nature and as an advertiser myself I wouldn't begin to deny that but I did want to point out some nuance to that particular issue. Barudak fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I guess I have to ask whether dungeon world is D&D by your definition. No. And neither is pathfinder. If Nintendo made a game about orcs and humans and undead fighting, it wouldn't be warcraft. The fact that it's being made by the owners of the IP is important. Burger king is like McDonald's, but it's not McDonald's. There may be burger joints that do McDonald's thing better than McDonald's itself does. Some people think Dungeon World is better than D&D at its own game and that's perfectly fine. If it was made by WotC and WotC slapped a D&D label on it, it would totally be D&D. It's perfectly valid to ask what makes a good burger or what makes a good fantasy RPG, but asking what makes a McDonald's burger like it's something that can never change is silly. Should they keep adding "pink goo" to their burgers for legacy reasons?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No. And neither is pathfinder. If Nintendo made a game about orcs and humans and undead fighting, it wouldn't be warcraft. The fact that it's being made by the owners of the IP is important. Burger king is like McDonald's, but it's not McDonald's. There may be burger joints that do McDonald's thing better than McDonald's itself does. Some people think Dungeon World is better than D&D at its own game and that's perfectly fine. If it was made by WotC and WotC slapped a D&D label on it, it would totally be D&D. Bravo, sir. This is an exemplary response.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:TLDR: I don't think the fans get to decide what makes D&D, D&D. The thing is, they sort of do, but not in the way you're probably thinking I mean. McDonald's and Coke don't have to worry about being "[brand] enough" because they're too big to fall. The two have monumental mainstream appeal (for reasons that aren't just "people think they're the best" obviously, but that's another thread entirely, probably in D&D ironically), and burger and soda grognards aren't controlling all discourse surrounding them. In fact, there isn't discourse in the way D&D and other tabletops have it - Very few people who drink Coke will ever discuss what "real coke" is, not because there aren't forums to do it at, but because the ratio of people who care to those who just drink whatever the waitperson brings them when they order a coke skews heavily toward the latter. Coke's userbase gives no fucks, so of course Coke doesn't have to listen to a very small percentage of people who are vocal about what the Coke brand represents. Wizards of the Coast doesn't really have that luxury. A much higher percentage of roleplayers will talk about their experiences online or in public places like hobby shops than McDonald's customers will, and all that chatter shapes opinions. This has been documented many, many times on this forum by people like Happyelf and Ferrinus, but the "Not My D&D" folks absolutely dominate the topic. You can't defend 4e on many forums without getting banned for either trolling or "starting an edition war," even if you were just responding to criticisms which might be outright falsities. Many people here have vivid memories of strangers in hobby shops scoffing when they bought PHB2 or similar dismissals, with very few stories to the opposite, where some random person sees them buying the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and tells them how glad they are that 4e tried to reboot the cluttered setting. WotC can't just ignore these people, not because of their individual opinions, but because they have shaped the dialogue surrounding D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
I had no idea that 4E players were so persecuted, or that TG was some kind of safe zone for them. A shelter in the storm, as it were.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:How long will it take for someone to start referring to 4th edition as New Coke I am gonna go into PSP and start in about how PRIDE was where all the real fighters were. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No. And neither is pathfinder. If Nintendo made a game about orcs and humans and undead fighting, it wouldn't be warcraft. The fact that it's being made by the owners of the IP is important. Burger king is like McDonald's, but it's not McDonald's. There may be burger joints that do McDonald's thing better than McDonald's itself does. Some people think Dungeon World is better than D&D at its own game and that's perfectly fine. If it was made by WotC and WotC slapped a D&D label on it, it would totally be D&D. This is maybe a little too reductionist to be satisfactory. McDonalds and D&D and all your other examples pretty clearly have established brands that conform to certain preconceptions. You can slay sacred cows all you like, but if you kill enough of them the brand ceases to have value. The question people are asking is not "ACCORDING TO AN IP LAYWER WOULD ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE BE D&D IF THEY CHOSE TO PUT THAT ON THE COVER" because of course it is. McDonalds could put the transmission of a 57 Chevy in a box and call it a Big Mac if they wanted. What people are asking, what actually makes for a productive line of discussion, is "how far can they deviate from certain cardinal points of a given brand and still conform to the popular conception of that brand, and what might those cardinal points be in the first place." Which actually facilitates discussion and could possibly even lead to conclusions or new ideas rather than trying to shut it down and claim a flawless victory on technical grounds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I had no idea that 4E players were so persecuted, or that TG was some kind of safe zone for them. A shelter in the storm, as it were. A point of light, if you will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:The thing is, they sort of do, but not in the way you're probably thinking I mean. McDonald's and Coke don't have to worry about being "[brand] enough" because they're too big to fall. The two have monumental mainstream appeal (for reasons that aren't just "people think they're the best" obviously, but that's another thread entirely, probably in D&D ironically), and burger and soda grognards aren't controlling all discourse surrounding them. In fact, there isn't discourse in the way D&D and other tabletops have it - Very few people who drink Coke will ever discuss what "real coke" is, not because there aren't forums to do it at, but because the ratio of people who care to those who just drink whatever the waitperson brings them when they order a coke skews heavily toward the latter. Coke's userbase gives no fucks, so of course Coke doesn't have to listen to a very small percentage of people who are vocal about what the Coke brand represents. Ugh. No. Of course their is a vocal minority of toxic customers. If you think such minorities don't exist for larger companies, or that they're just "too big" to ignore, you're wrong. There is a Jack-in-the-Box Taco Club, where people line up around the corner for new restaurant openings to get their lovely tacos. There are websites cataloging McRib sightings. And yet both companies have moved away from these vocal core groups of loyal customers to provide what the market research indicates people want to buy: higher-quality, more complex meals. McDonalds used to define the bounds of the QSR industry; now, they exist in a much larger, more varied market. They have to work to distinguish themselves. Not that the golden arches are suffering, in any way, but that is mostly because they have realized they aren't the industry leader any more - and so they've continually evolved to offer something new and exciting above the Big Mac. Wizards knows this, too; they have consistently told the Magic grognards to piss off when they whinge endlessly about new cards or rules changes or whatever. Magic stays in the top 3 because it's consistently one of the best choices in TCGs, and that's a constant process (especially in the wake of also-rans like the WoW TCG).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I am gonna go into PSP and start in about how PRIDE was where all the real fighters were. Jimbozig posted:No. And neither is pathfinder. If Nintendo made a game about orcs and humans and undead fighting, it wouldn't be warcraft. The fact that it's being made by the owners of the IP is important. Burger king is like McDonald's, but it's not McDonald's. There may be burger joints that do McDonald's thing better than McDonald's itself does. Some people think Dungeon World is better than D&D at its own game and that's perfectly fine. If it was made by WotC and WotC slapped a D&D label on it, it would totally be D&D. Countblanc posted:The thing is, they sort of do, but not in the way you're probably thinking I mean. McDonald's and Coke don't have to worry about being "[brand] enough" because they're too big to fall. The two have monumental mainstream appeal (for reasons that aren't just "people think they're the best" obviously, but that's another thread entirely, probably in D&D ironically), and burger and soda grognards aren't controlling all discourse surrounding them. In fact, there isn't discourse in the way D&D and other tabletops have it - Very few people who drink Coke will ever discuss what "real coke" is, not because there aren't forums to do it at, but because the ratio of people who care to those who just drink whatever the waitperson brings them when they order a coke skews heavily toward the latter. Coke's userbase gives no fucks, so of course Coke doesn't have to listen to a very small percentage of people who are vocal about what the Coke brand represents. I'm stepping into cultural criticism here, but I believe that in a consumer culture we increasingly identify our cultural heritage in products we consume. This gives people the notion that they share "ownership" of a brand in a moral, if not legal, sense. Brand owners can exploit this to get fans to basically donate money to a business or do work for free, but it can also really bite them in the rear end if they don't constantly meet fans' expectations. That's the phenomenon Coke ran into with New Coke, even if they did bungle the taste-tests. Just a warning, by the way, that comparing tabletop games to large corporations in radically different businesses tends to get ridiculous, quickly. See: "Someone should create the Apple of RPGs." Gau posted:McDonalds used to define the bounds of the QSR industry; now, they exist in a much larger, more varied market. They have to work to distinguish themselves. Not that the golden arches are suffering, in any way, but that is mostly because they have realized they aren't the industry leader any more - and so they've continually evolved to offer something new and exciting above the Big Mac. There's a big difference between cards/minis and RPGs, though: It's not that hard to organize a group to play AD&D1e, whereas a big part of the fun in cards and minis is in the organized play community. Most of the people who bitch about Magic and Warhammer will eventually roll with the changes. I'd really, really like to get a deeper insight into the disconnect between how WotC runs Magic and how it runs D&D and the development of Next. In the absence of any insider information, I'm inclined to agree with your assertion that WotC upper management is content to let Mearls and his buddies design a legacy game in the basement while they capitalize on the IP to produce profitable novels and board games. Halloween Jack fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:No. And neither is pathfinder. Eh, my buddies still call Sunday "D&D night", even though we've been playing Dungeon World for the last two months. When one of them plays Pathfinder with another group every now and then, he calls it D&D. If we end up playing Burning Wheel or Sacred BBQ or BECMI or any other game where we pretend to go into dungeons to fight dragons, we'll still call it Dungeons and Dragons. Because who cares
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Just a warning, by the way, that comparing tabletop games to large corporations in radically different businesses tends to get ridiculous, quickly. See: "Someone should create the Apple of RPGs." Someone should create a well-integrated, streamlined iterative product that engages a new customer base by not being trapped in the stodgy mindsets of competitors and by offering a new experience is not exactly something RPGs should shy away from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Elmo Oxygen posted:Because who cares Right. This is basically the Xerox effect. The phrase 'D&D' has become synonymous with elfgames, which just entitles consumers even more to feel that they have a right to define what D&D is and makes that definition murkier by the inclusion of stuff WotC has no control over. To the point where the 'soul' of D&D includes stuff that isn't and never was D&D. I don't envy WotC. One of the advantages McDonalds has is that they have strict control over their brand, even by franchise standards. D&D (and indeed, all RPGs) will always be filtered through DMs, and the experiences of play groups. They get to control the presentation of their game, the advice they give on how to run it, and the rules that the game uses, but they have almost no control over the end-user's experience. That's weird, and pretty unique to the RPG market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Someone should create a well-integrated, streamlined iterative product that engages a new customer base by not being trapped in the stodgy mindsets of competitors and by offering a new experience is not exactly something RPGs should shy away from. Dude there are a metric assload of people trying to do this in RPGs. Major brand holders who have established brands almost never do this, because it can derail the brand. You sort of saw it with 4E where they actually made big changes for the better, and the result was Pathfinder taking off like a rocket.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Dude there are a metric assload of people trying to do this in RPGs. Major brand holders who have established brands almost never do this, because it can derail the brand. You sort of saw it with 4E where they actually made big changes for the better, and the result was Pathfinder taking off like a rocket. To be fair that was more of a perfect storm situation; the 2E->3E swap had tons of groggy people decrying Diablo on paper, it was just that 3E went the OGL route and fully opened their doors to someone exploiting the fact that a lot of people are just averse to change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Dude there are a metric assload of people trying to do this in RPGs. Major brand holders who have established brands almost never do this, because it can derail the brand. You sort of saw it with 4E where they actually made big changes for the better, and the result was Pathfinder taking off like a rocket. I agree in the sense everyone's trying to do it. At the same time when I was looking at upcoming RPGs being worked on a few years ago little work was done on the critical aspect of defining new spaces for table-top games to exist. Apple's big innovation with its iPod and such wasn't that it played music, it's that it allowed the concept of how and when one played music to evolve with technology as it exists. I'm curious now because I've been out of the new game looking thing for a bit but is anyone trying to develop a cohesive delivery mechanism using tablets, smartphones, and laptops to both streamline the play experience and exert more internal control? This is something DnD Next needs to be doing if it wants a bigger slice of pie. Hell, if they wanted to they could use the same system to defeat the glut of unbought splatbooks and create focused campaigns to lure players into using the same system via remote campaigns and playtimes. So much money on the table not being pursued makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Someone should create a well-integrated, streamlined iterative product that engages a new customer base by not being trapped in the stodgy mindsets of competitors and by offering a new experience is not exactly something RPGs should shy away from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Barudak posted:So much money on the table not being pursued makes me sad. Time and again, we've seen that VTTs are expensive, troublesome, buggy, and, well, just like any other sort of software development. The first person to market with a decent networked tablet-enabled tabletop assistant will make some serious money, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Wizards has already tried and failed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
Gau posted:Time and again, we've seen that VTTs are expensive, troublesome, buggy, and, well, just like any other sort of software development. The first person to market with a decent networked tablet-enabled tabletop assistant will make some serious money, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Wizards has already tried and failed. Which, I guess is what I was thinking with the Apple comparison. First one past the post to deliver this product with enough money advertise it is going to win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
This is my edition. There are many others like it, but this one is mine. This edition is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, this edition is useless. Without this edition, I am useless. I must play this edition true. I must play better than my GM, who is trying to kill me. I must rule him before he rules me. I will. Before Gygax I swear this creed: my edition and myself are defenders of my hobby, we are the masters of our system, we are the saviors of Greyhawk. So be it, until there is no edition but fifth edition. Amen. e: 
petrol blue fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
I'm kind of amused by the way that Next is trying to distance itself from 4e by explicitly saying up front in the current playtest packet that you don't need minis or a grid for combat - then having combat be defined by things like 5' measurements, difficult terrain, line of sight, reach, manoeuvring around enemies, opportunity attacks... It's like they want to pare things down to a B/X level of straightforwardness, but they just can't let go of Gygax's 1e insistence (from the idea that the game was still meant for tournament play) of "there must be a rule for every little goddamn thing!" And the easiest way to do that is to tweak the cruft added with each subsequent edition rather than start with a blank page.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Rocket Ace posted:Every edition of DnD gets gradually more streamlined: i wonder why they don't take it one step further and toss ability modifiers. I like this, but I'd change things up a bit. First off, to steal something from the latest edition of Gamma World, I'd break down combat into using two statistics: Attack and Defense. However, I'd keep the standard six D&D attributes but play with them in this way: depending on the class, the statistic used for Attack and Defense changes. For a bog-standard example, a Fighter's Attack and Defense stats would be Strength and Constitution, respectively. The Fighter would use Strength + Level/Skill Bonus + d20 roll against a target number, which would be the target's AC + 10 (or die roll). Rolling under could work as well. The Defense stat or AC for the Fighter would be the Fighter's Constitution + Armor Bonus + 10 (or opposed die roll). So, when we introduce a similar but different class, like a Barbarian/Berserker type, the B/B's Attack roll is still Strength-based, but the B/B's Defense roll goes off their Dexterity, to reflect their rapid movement and deft avoidance in combat. For some, the Attack and Defense would be the same stat, like in the case of a fleet-footed, swift-stabbing Rogue or the nimble-fingered, fast-tracking Ranger, which would use DEX exclusively. Caster classes would likely use something like Intelligence as their Attack and Wisdom as their Defense, maybe changing it up so that Wizards are built that with INT and WIS and Sorcerers built entirely around INT. Clerical class would be based around Wisdom, for the most part, although Monks would probably be DEX for Attack and WIS for Defense, Clerics WIS for Attack and CON for Defense, and Paladins CHA for Attack and WIS or CON for Defense (kinda screwy but Paladins are supposed to be showboaters of the faithful). At the same time, keep armor restrictions based around individual attributes like DEX and INT: Rogue players will be attracted to leather armor because of the AC bonus while heavier armor would weaken their effectiveness in both attacking and defending. Meanwhile, while a Fighter player, since none of their primary rolls would be affected, will go with heavier armor. The same restriction could affect INT, as heavier armor reduces perception some, which would affect the caster classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:This is maybe a little too reductionist to be satisfactory. McDonalds and D&D and all your other examples pretty clearly have established brands that conform to certain preconceptions. You can slay sacred cows all you like, but if you kill enough of them the brand ceases to have value. The question people are asking is not "ACCORDING TO AN IP LAYWER WOULD ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO MAKE BE D&D IF THEY CHOSE TO PUT THAT ON THE COVER" because of course it is. McDonalds could put the transmission of a 57 Chevy in a box and call it a Big Mac if they wanted. What people are asking, what actually makes for a productive line of discussion, is "how far can they deviate from certain cardinal points of a given brand and still conform to the popular conception of that brand, and what might those cardinal points be in the first place." Which actually facilitates discussion and could possibly even lead to conclusions or new ideas rather than trying to shut it down and claim a flawless victory on technical grounds. But see my first post on the topic about what made WoW Warcraft. It wasn't JUST that blizzard put the name on it, but also that it shared the trappings and setting with the previous games. The mechanics were very different and could have been more different still without compromising the brand. My point is that it's not the mechanics that make the game D&D. Obviously they couldn't release Dresden Files RPG and put a D&D label on it and call it D&D. They need to keep the setting - the mechanics could change entirely. If you're asking what they absolutely need to keep at a bare minimum, I'd say they need to have Roleplaying (duh), Magic, Dragons, Dungeons, classic fantasy weaponry like swords and axes, Gods, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, and some assortment of other fantasy races and monsters. Y'know, fantasy stuff - D&D is a fantasy RPG. I suppose if they kept all but a couple of those, that'd be fine too. If WotC made a game with all those things and ditched dice altogether for a card-based resolution system, it'd still be D&D. Look at Dungeon Command - if you went with that as a base and added Roleplaying to it, including roleplaying individual characters, that could totally be D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:But see my first post on the topic about what made WoW Warcraft. It wasn't JUST that blizzard put the name on it, but also that it shared the trappings and setting with the previous games. The mechanics were very different and could have been more different still without compromising the brand. My point is that it's not the mechanics that make the game D&D. Obviously they couldn't release Dresden Files RPG and put a D&D label on it and call it D&D. They need to keep the setting - the mechanics could change entirely. If you're asking what they absolutely need to keep at a bare minimum, I'd say they need to have Roleplaying (duh), Magic, Dragons, Dungeons, classic fantasy weaponry like swords and axes, Gods, Elves, Dwarves, Goblins, and some assortment of other fantasy races and monsters. Y'know, fantasy stuff - D&D is a fantasy RPG. I suppose if they kept all but a couple of those, that'd be fine too. I feel like the existence and widespread popularity of Darksun is sort of problematic for this theory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:I feel like the existence and widespread popularity of Darksun is sort of problematic for this theory. Given that by creating stand-alone universe experiences which did not properly integrate with 2e Core material is what helped kill TSR I'd argue its actually a really good example of how its not "DnD" in a brand sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I like this, but I'd change things up a bit. First off, to steal something from the latest edition of Gamma World, I'd break down combat into using two statistics: Attack and Defense. However, I'd keep the standard six D&D attributes but play with them in this way: depending on the class, the statistic used for Attack and Defense changes. Rule of Cool's Legend (a game that started as a bunch of homebrew rules for 3.5) does something like this. Each class/racial chassis has a Key Offensive Modifier and a Key Defensive Modifier determined to 2 different stats. the KOM stats adds their modifier to stuff like Attack, Damage and DC for spells and effects. KOM adds theirs to AC and HP(after the newest changes). It is not perfect as saving throws still require the other stats(though it did the same as 4E where you could pick between two of the ability)but it was was a small step forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:If WotC made a game with all those things and ditched dice altogether for a card-based resolution system, it'd still be D&D.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Burning Justice posted:Rule of Cool's Legend (a game that started as a bunch of homebrew rules for 3.5) does something like this. Each class/racial chassis has a Key Offensive Modifier and a Key Defensive Modifier determined to 2 different stats. the KOM stats adds their modifier to stuff like Attack, Damage and DC for spells and effects. KOM adds theirs to AC and HP(after the newest changes). It is not perfect as saving throws still require the other stats(though it did the same as 4E where you could pick between two of the ability)but it was was a small step forward. This is another game that I wished people played on the forums, though the lack of a Monster Manual equivalent the last I heard might have something to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Given that by creating stand-alone universe experiences which did not properly integrate with 2e Core material is what helped kill TSR I'd argue its actually a really good example of how its not "DnD" in a brand sense. Horrible business practices on the back end killed TSR. Mismanagement at the executive level. Blaming Dark Sun or any of the other game settings is adorable but wrong. Grossly overprinting product they weren't tracking killed TSR. The executives treating the company as a hobby killed TSR. Not bothering with accountants until it was way too late killed TSR. Having several game worlds is pretty low on the list of things that did damage to the company. Winson_Paine fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:I feel like the existence and widespread popularity of Darksun is sort of problematic for this theory. That's like saying the existence of Chicken McNuggets is problematic for my theory of McDonald's as a burger restaurant. If WotC released an edition and only supported Dark Sun, that would be problematic for them although it would have some fans. Dark Sun is basically the alternative that they offer to people who aren't fans of their generic fantasy settings. Much like McDonald's offers fried chicken to people who don't want a burger. Edit: To be clear, "line extensions" can definitely get away with changing parts of a product that you couldn't normally get away with. An oreo is two chocolate wafers around a creamy center. They can come out with golden oreos as an item that they put next to oreos in the store, but if they were to REPLACE oreos with golden oreos, they would have a problem. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Mar 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:This is another game that I wished people played on the forums, though the lack of a Monster Manual equivalent the last I heard might have something to do with it. You're supposed to build monsters like PCs out of tracks (yeah, I know). They do have some MM3-style templates for standard enemies and 13A-style minions where you copy a statblock, tweak it, and throw on a track and/or some powers off a list to customize, last I checked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
Payndz posted:I'm kind of amused by the way that Next is trying to distance itself from 4e by explicitly saying up front in the current playtest packet that you don't need minis or a grid for combat - then having combat be defined by things like 5' measurements, difficult terrain, line of sight, reach, manoeuvring around enemies, opportunity attacks... OD&D has "For use with miniature figures" (amongst other things) on the cover. Red Box Basic D&D says your game will be "enhanced" by miniatures, but doesn't require them. AD&D spent a couple of paragraphs talking about how the official OFFICIAL ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS miniature figures are the only ones which comply in all respects to AD&D specifications and the AD&D MONSTER MANUAL. And yeah, it was bolded like that. There were rules about changing your facing, and flanking, and how that would apply to a hex vs a square grid. There was no mention of what to do with those rules without the grid. Distances were all measured in inches on the tabletop. I can't find anywhere that it explicitly states you need minis to play, just a lot of rules that talk in tabletop inches moved, degrees of turn, and how many figures you can gang-kill a large figure with. 2e doesn't specify minis at all. 3, 3.5, and 4 all have a paragraph about materials required to play the game which includes various phrasings of "minis and grid". So I have no loving idea how Next is "distancing itself" from specifically 4th Ed by not requiring miniatures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:40
|
|
