Over the last few months I have spent a little bit of time play testing D&DN, playing Pathfinder and even a few games of 2nd ed. It is hard to define where D&D went wrong but I think I have found the main catalyst for what happened. Much like the 20th century World War II may be the popular event but the cataclysm that shaped the 20th century was really WWI as it created problems that lead to WW2, the cold war and the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
It would be hard to pick the exact moment but I think I have narrowed it down to the main problem of D&D and what actually did go wrong. Almost everything that is wrong with D&D right now ultimately leads back to this event.
That event was......
The release of 3.0 in 2000. Now do not get me wrong as 3rd edition is my favorite edition overall even though I can admit I like 2nd edition as well. 3.0 was the edition that started the ball rolling however which ultimately lead to the 3.5/4th ed edition war and the rise of Pathfinder. Anyway I found an interesting quote in the 2nd ed DMG (1995 page 45).
"Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role playing"
That is a insult that has been directed at 4th ed but one could make the argument for 3rd ed as well. Just to be clear I do not think 2nd ed is the be all and end all of D&D either. In 2000 2nd ed was getting dated and I do not miss level limits, THACO, and racial restrictions on classes at all. 3rd ed was also popular and still is via Pathfinder but consider.
1. The splat book spam started with 3.0. 2nd ed had a few as well but they often focused on fluff and they were spread over 11 years. I would argue that 3.5 and 4th ed suffered from the weight of their own bloat.
2. There was a large shift towards player entitlement. 3rd ed was very easy to create magic items for example. Pathfinder and 4th ed both continued this trend and if you thought magic items were overpowered in 3rd ed and boring in 4th ed this is a consequence of that decision. A quick trip to the 3rd and 4th ed char op boards quickly reveals the assumptions about acquiring magical items and if the DM doesn't give them to you they are not that hard to acquire. There were power builds in 2nd ed as well (dart grand master+dual wield+ gauntlets of ogre power/girdle of giant strength). 4th ed put the magic items in the PHB, not the DMG.
3. Partly related to point 2 but 3rd and 4th both suffered from a a lack of quality adventures and splat books were heavily focused on player mechanical benefits- feats, prestige classes, powers etc. They let Paizo which at the time stat printing Dungeon Magazine. This would later come back to bite WoTC in the butt but they were basically to lazy or unmotivated to make good adventures based on profit. PLayer crunch sells better, starve the DM.
4. Boxing up the game. 2nd ed made no real assumptions as to what type of game you would play. The DMG was full of fluff and tidbits of history in regards to what equipment was available based on things like tech level of the campaign world. It was not assumed that the world was high or low magic and 2nd ed had lots of optional rules and campaign settings with variants in it. 3rd ed assumed a somewhat high magic world with things like magic mart while 4th ed went further and added creatures with supernatural abilities in the core rule (Eladrin, Dragonborn). The fragmentation of the player base probably has something to do with this approach IMHO.
5. Losing the "feel" of D&D. 2nd ed books have aged quite well and one can still mine them for ideas. They were fluff heavy and even educational as they often used real life examples from history in the core books. The 2nd ed fighters handbook is still quite enjoyable to read 24 years after it was printed. Being honest how much fun is it to read the Complete Warrior or Martial Power just for fun? The style changed due to a focus on mechanics.
6. Mechanics (again). The major problem of the transition from 2nd ed to 3rd ed was CoDzilla. Put simply they buffed the heck out of spell casters, removed restrictions they had on them, nerfed the fighter (used to have great saves, could move and full attack) and then to top it all off let them advance at the same rate as other classes. 3.0 was fundamentally broken right out the door, 3.5 tried to fix this. Pathfinder still has issues around this and 4th ed attempted to fix it but arguably in the wrong way and alienated the player base.
In conclusion the change over from 2nd to 3rd ed I think was the main catalyst for most of the problems in modern D&D. This is not to say that 2nd ed sits on a pedestal as the definitive version of D&D just that they could have done things better. Scuttlebutt on the forums once upon a time indicated that 3rd ed was not play tested at higher levels and 3.0 haste slipped through anyway. We have had 3 major versions of D&D since 2000, 4 if you count Pathfinder, 5 if you count D&DN. In the same time frame as 1st eds existence (1977-89, although it remained in print during the transition to 2nd ed) we have had 4 versions of D&D. WoTC broke D&D back in 2000 and have been trying to fix it ever since.
2e had flaws that 3.0 corrected (up-scaling maths, racial and level restrictions to classes, some clunky mecanics) but it opened the door for a different kind of game. (not better, not worst, just different)
2. There was a large shift towards player entitlement. 3rd ed was very easy to create magic items for example. Pathfinder and 4th ed both continued this trend and if you thought magic items were overpowered in 3rd ed and bring in 4th ed this is a consequence of that decision. A quick trip to the 3rd and 4th ed char op boards quickly reveals the assumptions about acquiring magical items and if the DM doesn't give them to you they are not that hard to acquire. There were power builds in 2nd ed as well (dart grand master+dual wield+ gauntlets of ogre power/girdle of giant strength). 4th ed put the magic items in the PHB, not the DMG.
I don't think that's a matter of player entitlement. I think it's a natural outgrowth of the magic items being pre-built into the math of the game.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
I sort of agree, but to me the main difference was that they were just that: options. Which is cool, everyone likes options.
starting with 3e, that kind of play was core: it was THE way to play the game
But one thing 4E failed to follow through on was creating adventures, and it was very difficult for third parties to get involved once WOTC limited access to digital tools. There are good third party 4E supplements but the digital barrier could not be penetrated. And the last straw was to limit the digital tools to online use.
I do not expect perfect balance but both 3.5 and 4th ed were designed as reactions to problems in 3.0 and 3.5.
Customized rules are fine but you do not need spell DCs to be as high as they were in 3.0 or spells like 3.0 Haste or the natural spell feat.
Part of me wants to place the downfall of 3E squarely on the universal ability modifier in general, and single-stat spellcasters in particular. The AD&D wizards really could have used something that correlated strength of the spellcaster with the difficulty of the save, and they could have used more spells per level, but tying everything into Int meant that a high-Int wizard was quadratically stronger - more spells and harder to resist, and they scaled much faster than expected since people were starting with Int well above the expected 15.
Even something like 3.0 haste wouldn't have been so bad, as long as spells had remained a limited resource, and those spells had more reasonable saves.
But, I digress.
D&D didn't "go wrong", It handled making mechanics out of story elements poorly.
Many RPGs, CCGs, and strategy games handled turning the narrative aspects into gameplay mechanics very poorly. Poor conversions. Unbalanced conversions. Blindness to metagame. Inflexible or rigid design. Etc etc.
Customized rules are fine but you do not need spell DCs to be as high as they were in 3.0 or spells like 3.0 Haste or the natural spell feat.
Part of me wants to place the downfall of 3E squarely on the universal ability modifier in general, and single-stat spellcasters in particular. The AD&D wizards really could have used something that correlated strength of the spellcaster with the difficulty of the save, and they could have used more spells per level, but tying everything into Int meant that a high-Int wizard was quadratically stronger - more spells and harder to resist, and they scaled much faster than expected since people were starting with Int well above the expected 15.
Even something like 3.0 haste wouldn't have been so bad, as long as spells had remained a limited resource, and those spells had more reasonable saves.
But, I digress.
Yup I lean towards the 2nd ed saving throws. Have a fixed DC of 20, fighters get +4+3/+2 or something like that and +1 every 2 levels. Basically give them the best saves in the game. To gain wepaon specialistation in 3rd ed the fighter had to spend more resoureces on it (2 feats vs 1 w/p) and lost the extra attack and could only complete it at level 4.
I think saves are still to high in D&DN. HP inflaiton and better saves would still allow 3.5 scaling damage spells but without the mass save or die effect of fireball in 2nd ed.
Whenever alignments appeared.
You never really liked that game did you ?
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Whenever alignments appeared.
You never really liked that game did you ?
Not the "head games" of trying to figure out what the guy at the end of the table behind the little cardboard wall considered to be "Whatever Whichever", no.
Whenever alignments appeared.
You never really liked that game did you ?
Not the "head games" of trying to figure out what the guy at the end of the table behind the little cardboard wall considered to be "Whatever Whichever", no.
Alignments have been a part of D&D since forever.
But there will always be DM who think they have to use the rules in non-fun ways
Whenever alignments appeared.
You never really liked that game did you ?
Not the "head games" of trying to figure out what the guy at the end of the table behind the little cardboard wall considered to be "Whatever Whichever", no.
Alignments have been a part of D&D since forever.
But there will always be DM who think they have to use the rules in non-fun ways
aka as the game tells you top use them.
Whenever alignments appeared.
You never really liked that game did you ?
Not the "head games" of trying to figure out what the guy at the end of the table behind the little cardboard wall considered to be "Whatever Whichever", no.
Alignments have been a part of D&D since forever.
But there will always be DM who think they have to use the rules in non-fun ways
aka as the game tells you top use them.
True, alignments had strange rules around them, but they were easily ignored since until 3e rolled along, alignments never really had a mecanical impact on the game (unless your DM was really anal-neutral, and insisted you lost exp for acting differently than the alignment you chose)
all those rules called for DM ruling, guess it made sorting good from lousy DM easier
It REALLY divided the community and left as many (if not, possibly, more) walking away as the 3.5 to 4th split.
But, yeah.
3rd Edition had issues.
And 4th had issues.
But I absolutely, totally, reject the claim that D&D has ever "gone wrong".
It also went wrong when the math became too high and there was only an average of about 2 encounters per game session.
The solution is to have fewer yet more unique and powerful powers.
Another solution is to reduce the math while still keeping the feeling of character advancement and differences and shortening combat.
But combat needs to be shortened while still allowing monsters to be powerful and threatening.
Basic to Advanced to 2nd edition were all somewhat gradual changes. The rules were different, but not THAT different. It was conceivable - in fact it was downright practical - to take an adventure written for 1st edition AD&D and use it with almost no conversion in a 2nd edition game. Even converting Basic to 2nd edition was almost trivial.
That was a huge advantage for 2nd edition, because it meant that the new edition was only building upon the foundations of an already popular game. Everything that came before was still useful and relevant. But 3rd edition presented a radically different ruleset. Whether those rules were better or worse than what came before, the new rules were entirely incompatible with the old rules. This wasn't building on the existing game, it was throwing away the existing game and creating a new one.
Though I have no personal experience with 4th edition, I know enough to feel confident saying that the same thing happened with that edition. It wasn't a natural evolution of the previous edition, it was a completely new game.
And of course, that is what 5th edition will be - a totally new game. But at this point I think we're too far down that road to turn back.
Maybe after 5th edition we can get off that destructive path of burning our old game to the ground and starting over every few years. Maybe this will be the new foundation of rules that evolve over the years, but without making the past obsolete. Probably not, but it's a nice thought.
I wasn't going to go there Quasadu. ALot of 3rd ed was kind of trialed out in the players option books. They did put alot of effort into making the transition smooth though.
Personally I think that if they had just stuck with what was in the PO books and refined it a bit (because let's face it, the PO books were all just kind of slapped together from Dragon articles, except for maybe Spells and Magic; that book was tight) that would have been a great 3rd edition. Where they went wrong was messing with the fundamentals - the underlying combat math, the saving throws, the skill system, the way that ability scores worked, switching from roll-under to DC-based checks... that kind of thing. Those are the things that made third edition incompatible with previous editions.
Of course this is all my opinion only, if that needs to be pointed out.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
PLayers Option books were named wrong.
That's an interesting theory. One could go that way or one could also consider that maybe they were appropriately named as they were intended to be players' options. From my perspective: 2e was the edition I played where I experienced the most instances of "petty tyrant" DMs (note, I also had one of the best DMs I ever had in 2e, and I used him as a model when learning to DM), and giving players options might have been a backlash against that kind of behavior.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
Isn't every option an option the player has to get the DM to allow? IDK of any edition that said DMs have to allow every available option.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
Isn't every option an option the player has to get the DM to allow? IDK of any edition that said DMs have to allow every available option.
My experience has been when playing with a meetup group or at the gaming store or at a convention. In general, it is the player's choice barring severe criticism from other players.
Whether the DM or the player chooses which character options are available is up to the table.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
Isn't every option an option the player has to get the DM to allow? IDK of any edition that said DMs have to allow every available option.
My experience has been when playing with a meetup group or at the gaming store or at a convention. In general, it is the player's choice barring severe criticism from other players.
All my gaming has been with friends and/or friends-of-friends. Heck, I've actually never been to any kind of convention. And even if I did, I'm a bit too shy to actually RP in front of people I just met.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
Isn't every option an option the player has to get the DM to allow? IDK of any edition that said DMs have to allow every available option.
My experience has been when playing with a meetup group or at the gaming store or at a convention. In general, it is the player's choice barring severe criticism from other players.
All my gaming has been with friends and/or friends-of-friends. Heck, I've actually never been to any kind of convention. And even if I did, I'm a bit too shy to actually RP in front of people I just met.
The difference regarding rules is incredible. (Again, just going off my own experience.) When I have a homebrew campaign with friends, it's so easy to decide rules, pick a setting, choose races, etc. That has been true for all 25 years I've gamed. No matter what the homegroup, it's just been easy. I think I've always been blessed that way, lucky to have good friends that are great players and DM's.
Outside the good friends bubble, it is a different world. Incredibly different world! In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the reason some of us view the game, and therefore rules, differently. It would certainly be neat to see what side of the fence everyone is on, and then see where they lie on certain rule debates.
Well some people still want a proper sequal to 2nd ed. I like he higher is always better part but I liked d20 better in non D&D settings being honest. d20 modern/future, SWSE.
I think the 2e rules needed fixing and I was very happy with 3.5e when it first came out. Many of the problems like xp charts and some of the mechanics were fixed. On the other hand 3e did introduce a number of changes that I just couldn't get behind (PrCs, multi-classing, spell changes, magic item creation, etc)
3e wasn't bad, but it all changed with the internet. The worse thing I recal was the 3e forums on the WoTC website. At one point they moved all the discussions about character optimization to another thread because it just wasn't welcome in the general forums, as most gamers frowned on min/maxing and/or treated them as mild diversion not to be taken seriously. Later on in 3.5e's lifecycle the designers started to cater to that crowd. They gave the min/maxers exactly what they wanted and negleted the game itself. At that point the new books stoped being about D&D as a whole and became more focused on min/maxing. Naturally, the min/maxers found ways to break the game and then complained about their own inventions (CoDzilla). Sadly, these guys were serious and the rules lawyers supported them. In the end, they demanded a system that could not be broken and reduced the DM to a cog in the mechanics.
My experience has been when playing with a meetup group or at the gaming store or at a convention. In general, it is the player's choice barring severe criticism from other players.
All my gaming has been with friends and/or friends-of-friends. Heck, I've actually never been to any kind of convention. And even if I did, I'm a bit too shy to actually RP in front of people I just met.
The difference regarding rules is incredible. (Again, just going off my own experience.) When I have a homebrew campaign with friends, it's so easy to decide rules, pick a setting, choose races, etc. That has been true for all 25 years I've gamed. No matter what the homegroup, it's just been easy. I think I've always been blessed that way, lucky to have good friends that are great players and DM's.
Outside the good friends bubble, it is a different world. Incredibly different world! In fact, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the reason some of us view the game, and therefore rules, differently. It would certainly be neat to see what side of the fence everyone is on, and then see where they lie on certain rule debates.
Yeah. Might make for an interesting poll/thread.
@Mechapilot: I bet you would show up at a convention and suddenly realize how great a player you are. That's my guess.
IDK. I generally play characters of the opposite gender. That doesn't go over so well with a modest but not insignificant number of people.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
Not really, the players option books were options for the DM's game. They never became player entitlements. Alternative spell casting, initative rules, critical hits, battlefield concepts, seige warfare, unarmed combat, etc were options that the DM had to allow. They realy didn't give the character anything new. Most of the options in those books simply provided alternative rules or expanded upon existing ones.
Isn't every option an option the player has to get the DM to allow? IDK of any edition that said DMs have to allow every available option.
The options in the Players options books were not character build options. They were game rules. For example a new way to run initative is not a character build option.
Well some people still want a proper sequal to 2nd ed. I like he higher is always better part but I liked d20 better in non D&D settings being honest. d20 modern/future, SWSE.
I think the 2e rules needed fixing and I was very happy with 3.5e when it first came out. Many of the problems like xp charts and some of the mechanics were fixed. On the other hand 3e did introduce a number of changes that I just couldn't get behind (PrCs, multi-classing, spell changes, magic item creation, etc)
3e wasn't bad, but it all changed with the internet. The worse thing I recal was the 3e forums on the WoTC website. At one point they moved all the discussions about character optimization to another thread because it just wasn't welcome in the general forums, as most gamers frowned on min/maxing and/or treated them as mild diversion not to be taken seriously. Later on in 3.5e's lifecycle the designers started to cater to that crowd. They gave the min/maxers exactly what they wanted and negleted the game itself. At that point the new books stoped being about D&D as a whole and became more focused on min/maxing. Naturally, the min/maxers found ways to break the game and then complained about their own inventions (CoDzilla). Sadly, these guys were serious and the rules lawyers supported them. In the end, they demanded a system that could not be broken and reduced the DM to a cog in the mechanics.
I was here back then. The min max boards were entertaining though as some people did post the min part as well It was not pure munchkinism.
Had the internet existed back in 2nd ed or at least was common as what it is now I am sure builds would have been put up. The builds reliant on gear would not have worked though. That is one difference I have noticed on other forums about older D&D. They talk about the game more less focus on the mechanics althoguh they come into it at times.
I liekd the forums here alot once upon a time.
Personally, I think "Character's Option" would have been the most accurate name.
Whether the DM or the player chooses which character options are available is up to the table.
Not at all. Take a look at the table of contents for those 2e Players Options books. The chapters are not about "Character Options". They are about game play options. It included new combat actions (for all characters), restructured the initiative system, and introduced retreats, fatigue, and critical events.
It's the player's (the DM is also a player) option to use those rules.
The concept of optional rules in 5e will look very similar.
Unrelated to one another:
1 - The point when it became a business first.
That's some time in 2e's lifetime, I'm almost positive - and it's not something that's going to go away. Forget "entitlement" issues - those are a symptom of needing to sell more books (potentially selling to all of your players, instead of just DMs). Or so the theory might go.
B - The point when it became easy for fans to communicate with all of the other fans.
Why? Because it makes it harder for people to just deal with their own games, and harder to just write off the (usually few) experiences you have with approaches and preferences that don't match with your own. Once it became more and more obvious that hey, everyone else doesn't want what you want, it felt more like "your game" might be taken away by these other crazy people (who, it just so happens, are having badwrongfun, but are clearly accusing you of the same thing). Or so the theory might go.
1/2e
Players are presented with a situation, ask question about the environment, brainstorm about what spells and equipment is avialable, and come up with a solution. This all takes place in the collectiive imaginations of the players and dm, in a fantasy world they all share. Players actions are limited only by their imaginations, and dms had to be on their toes.
3.5/4e
Players are presented with a situation, they immeadiatly look down. They look at their character sheets (or character book for 3.5 :p) glancing over a list of feats, spells, powers, magic items and more, then moving on, still looking down, to the map/whatever you want to call it. Relexive play rather than imagination tends to take over, exp. I'm in combat, I use cleave. Also at no point do they appear to be sharing a world, rather sharing a map and some character sheets. The challenge for dms was not being surprised by creative players so much, as coming up with creatures/scenarios that could challenge increasingly more powerful characters.
Pathfinder attempted to combat the power creep of 3.5 a bit, by adding negatives to non-passive feats. This made feats tactical rather than relexive actions.
Neither approach is wrong. Players and dms should be able to play the game they want. The origin of the problem is a certain company saying, this is our game, you'll play it the way we say, and you'll like it.
It would have been simple to introduce 3/3.5 while continuing to offer support to 1/2e, but they didn't
It would have been incredibly smart to continue supporting 3.5e while offering 4e as an alternate system, but they didn't.
This concept of new and official single version, with older versions being "wrong" and no longer supported, created uncessary and ugly tension between players and the company.
@Mechapilot: I bet you would show up at a convention and suddenly realize how great a player you are. That's my guess.
IDK. I generally play characters of the opposite gender. That doesn't go over so well with a modest but not insignificant number of people.
Might be true. But, at some conventions it would probably be pretty easy to find a table of accepting players, or quite possibly, players playing the exact same way.
1/2e
Players are presented with a situation, ask question about the environment, brainstorm about what spells and equipment is avialable, and come up with a solution.
...
3.5/4e
Players are presented with a situation, they immeadiatly look down. They look at their character sheets (or character book for 3.5 :p) glancing over a list of feats, spells, powers, magic items and more, then moving on, still looking down, to the map/whatever you want to call it.
So... The problem was that somewhere after the year 2000 people started writing down their "spells and equipment available" on paper, and then looking at it?
I mean, all those nerdy maps of grids and hexes with dungeons mapped out on them predate 3e, dont they? I'm not crazy, right? So it's not like WOTC invented grid-based combat. In fact, D&D evolved out of a tactical minis game. And a 2e wizard at higher levels had probably about as many spells available as a 4e wizard. And all those wondrous items named after Gary's PCs presumably predate this particular millennium too.
Honestly, if the problem for you is players sticking too closely to their prescribed feats and powers, then 5e should be the best edition EVER, because it has all the rules you need for improvisational combat via ability contests.
1/2e Players are presented with a situation, ask question about the environment, brainstorm about what spells and equipment is avialable, and come up with a solution. ... 3.5/4e Players are presented with a situation, they immeadiatly look down. They look at their character sheets (or character book for 3.5 :p) glancing over a list of feats, spells, powers, magic items and more, then moving on, still looking down, to the map/whatever you want to call it.
So... The problem was that somewhere after the year 2000 people started writing down their "spells and equipment available" on paper, and then looking at it? I mean, all those nerdy maps of grids and hexes with dungeons mapped out on them predate 3e, dont they? I'm not crazy, right? So it's not like WOTC invented grid-based combat. In fact, D&D evolved out of a tactical minis game. And a 2e wizard at higher levels had probably about as many spells available as a 4e wizard. And all those wondrous items named after Gary's PCs presumably predate this particular millennium too. Honestly, if the problem for you is players sticking too closely to their prescribed feats and powers, then 5e should be the best edition EVER, because it has all the rules you need for improvisational combat via ability contests.
Let me refer you to the sentence immeadiately before the part you decided to pull out.
"To me the difference (but not necessarily the problem) comes down to how scenarios tend to play out"
I was establishing the primary difference between 1/2e and 3.5/4e. AFTER that I went into the problem. The problem being with how WOTC chose to handle the two different approaches to the game. Please read before responding, otherwise an intelligent conversation is impossible.
1/2e Players are presented with a situation, ask question about the environment, brainstorm about what spells and equipment is avialable, and come up with a solution. ... 3.5/4e Players are presented with a situation, they immeadiatly look down. They look at their character sheets (or character book for 3.5 :p) glancing over a list of feats, spells, powers, magic items and more, then moving on, still looking down, to the map/whatever you want to call it.
So... The problem was that somewhere after the year 2000 people started writing down their "spells and equipment available" on paper, and then looking at it? I mean, all those nerdy maps of grids and hexes with dungeons mapped out on them predate 3e, dont they? I'm not crazy, right? So it's not like WOTC invented grid-based combat. In fact, D&D evolved out of a tactical minis game. And a 2e wizard at higher levels had probably about as many spells available as a 4e wizard. And all those wondrous items named after Gary's PCs presumably predate this particular millennium too. Honestly, if the problem for you is players sticking too closely to their prescribed feats and powers, then 5e should be the best edition EVER, because it has all the rules you need for improvisational combat via ability contests.
Dont confuse the debates with historical facts or logic.
To me the difference (but not necessarily the problem) comes down to how scenarios tend to play out
1/2e
Players are presented with a situation, ask question about the environment, brainstorm about what spells and equipment is avialable, and come up with a solution. This all takes place in the collectiive imaginations of the players and dm, in a fantasy world they all share. Players actions are limited only by their imaginations, and dms had to be on their toes.
3.5/4e
Players are presented with a situation, they immeadiatly look down. They look at their character sheets (or character book for 3.5 :p) glancing over a list of feats, spells, powers, magic items and more, then moving on, still looking down, to the map/whatever you want to call it. Relexive play rather than imagination tends to take over, exp. I'm in combat, I use cleave. Also at no point do they appear to be sharing a world, rather sharing a map and some character sheets. The challenge for dms was not being surprised by creative players so much, as coming up with creatures/scenarios that could challenge increasingly more powerful characters.
Pathfinder attempted to combat the power creep of 3.5 a bit, by adding negatives to non-passive feats. This made feats tactical rather than relexive actions.
Neither approach is wrong. Players and dms should be able to play the game they want. The origin of the problem is a certain company saying, this is our game, you'll play it the way we say, and you'll like it.
It would have been simple to introduce 3/3.5 while continuing to offer support to 1/2e, but they didn't
It would have been incredibly smart to continue supporting 3.5e while offering 4e as an alternate system, but they didn't.
This concept of new and official single version, with older versions being "wrong" and no longer supported, created uncessary and ugly tension between players and the company.
I would have to disagree, it isn't the editions that caused people to assume that their character sheet is the be-all end-all of what their character can do. I strongly suspect that there's a high degree of correlation between the Playstation Generation and the observed behavior. The Playstation Generation appears to have significant numbers of people who believe that CRPG's are the equivalent of RPG's and attempt to treat them as such.
I've seen that sentiment more times than I can count on message boards for games, I recall one person insisting he shouldn't have to "Read a book" to play an RPG, and another person insisting endlessly that D&D is a boardgame.
I strongly suspect that behavior is an extension of that belief, and the expectation is the same as in a CRPG, what's on the UI is all that you can do. I'd be willing to bet that they'd do the same thing if you gave them 1st or 2nd edition today.
IMO, it's a problem caused by the video game industry tagging the acronym "RPG" on everything, while delivering Shooters and Action-Adventure, because there seems to be some need for people to brand themselves "RPGers" even if they actually hate the genre, and the Industry goes along with it just to sell a few more units. We haven't seen any evolution in CRPG's since Fallout 2, and most of what's released is a de-evolution where Players are taught to self-insert rather than RPG (Mass Effect, Bethesda games).
It's honestly really scary, Fallout 2 offered a more in depth RPG experience than anything in the last 5 years, despite having budgets 10x or more what Fallout 2 had, and having an order of magnitude more computational power.
So really, I don't think this is an edition issue, I think it's an issue caused by the video game industry mislabelling games and catering to a market that actually hates RPGs, ending up with people not understanding the scope of actions they can take in an RPG.
Maybe it's my personal experience alone, but having tried the 2e and 5e rules, I feel like playing a wizard or even a rogue in 5e is mechanically simpler and more robust than doing so in 2e. That being the case, I don't see a big marketing failure in WOTC's decision to stop selling older editions. (And hey, they're selling old school reprints and PDFs now, so cupcakes for everyone!)
I feel D&D has improved upon itself in every iteration. This trend looks to continue with 5th edition and the change to a modular game edition.
Well said.
Almost everything that is wrong with D&D right now ultimately leads back to this event.That event was......
The release of 3.0 in 2000. Now do not get me wrong as 3rd edition is my favorite edition overall even though I can admit I like 2nd edition as well. 3.0 was the edition that started the ball rolling however which ultimately lead to the 3.5/4th ed edition war and the rise of Pathfinder. Anyway I found an interesting quote in the 2nd ed DMG (1995 page 45).
"Reducing a character to a list of combat modifiers and dice rolls is not role playing"
How is 3e any different from 1st to 2nd in that regard? If anything, I'd think the basic, nothing-but-combat-stat characters of the earlier editions meet that description, not 3e. Every character had its HPs, AC and THAC0, but things like non-weapon proficiencies were optional. The combat stuff was mandatory, the roleplaying stuff was not.
Ultimately though, if people only care about combat, they're going to make their characters that way regardless of how much the system tries to force them to roleplay. I've played White Wolf games with people who just wanted to make dull, hack and slash characters (despite WW games being the "storytelling games") and I've played D&D with people who had extremely well defined characters and were far more interested in roleplaying than combat.
The idea that 3rd edition was what started all of D&D's problems is just ridiculous. The idea that people who play 3rd edition or 4th edition don't care about role playing is stereotyping and ridiculous. This is just thinly-veiled edition warring.
I feel D&D has improved upon itself in every iteration. This trend looks to continue with 5th edition and the change to a modular game edition.
I agree. If you ask me, 5th feels like an improve version of 3.5e.
I already made myself a 5th edition warrior. Fully support this edition.
4 was simply an attempt to merge TTRPG with MMO via the VTT, 4 was specifically written to transfer through the VTT, who knows what may have happened if the lead designer of the VTT didnt murder/suicide, but bottom line 4 was a fail that WOTC has never recovered from, Ryan Dancey was the cause of the OGL semi suicide and I blame him for a lot of the problems D&D has now (aka Pathfinder, ps he now works for Paizo) but in some ways Dancey is also the cause of the OSR, the OGL allowed many game producers to come out and make retro games which I think have been a major influence on the design philosophy of Next (or I hope they have been).
so now... I am hoping that rules modules and a different philosophy about design can save the ttrpg gaming hobby, the biggest threat to that I see is a want for profits and a want for standardization and "organized play."
There are still some aspects of all the editions that I like (even 4e, though I really don't like it overall), but it just seems to have lost its soul (to me).
Hopefully D&DNext will bring it back.
How is 3e any different from 1st to 2nd in that regard?
The original post did a great job of explaining exactly how it was different. You should really just go back and reread that, because all of the points are very true.
I have to agree with much of the OP. It seems that after 2e that D&D seemed to have lost it's...imagination...I guess is the best word for it. 3e still retained some, but 4 e (for me) completely lost it. .
4e gives me power over my fluff... sparks imagination better than hard wired stuff. Perhaps you have something reversed and you want the game to do the imagining for you instead of being freed. Simple example I can and do describe my characters knock down assault in a dozen or more ways, ranging from judo style throws to pressure point strikes to last second dodges that put an enemy on there tail. When was the last time a basic attack got described as a dodge.
By letting players feel entitled to too much, they become rapidly spoiled, and the game ceases to produce feelings of happiness and accomplishment but the constant idea that the DM is taking things away from them, and only a feeling of anger when they don't get whatever they feel they rightfully deserve.
Now I see why this confuses me: It in no way resembles any table-top RPG I've ever played - including D&D, any edition. It looks like this is mostly a jumble of either bad DMing or bad playing, or mostly a combination of the two.
"...what do you mean I can't play a Warforged Ninja in your Hyborian campaign, wah, wah!"
So it's a player being a spoiled brat?
People are talking like having the rules to make a Warforged Ninja (which is totally apropos in some campaigns) are bad things; players should have fewer options so that they never have the opportunity to ask for a Warforged Ninja in the Hyborian campaign.
This confuses me.
People are talking like having the rules to make a Warforged Ninja (which is totally apropos in some campaigns) are bad things; players should have fewer options so that they never have the opportunity to ask for a Warforged Ninja in the Hyborian campaign.
It's a presentation thing. With the way things were presented in 3E and 4E, it seemed as though Warforged Ninja were the default, and the DM was wrong to try and stop you. With the way 2E worked, for example, they declared right up front that Dwarves can't be Wizards - leaving the door wide open for the DM to swoop in and be the good guy, by letting you play one anyway.
That's the crux of why player entitlement is seen as a bad thing.
"...what do you mean I can't play a Warforged Ninja in your Hyborian campaign, wah, wah!"
So it's a player being a spoiled brat?
People are talking like having the rules to make a Warforged Ninja (which is totally apropos in some campaigns) are bad things; players should have fewer options so that they never have the opportunity to ask for a Warforged Ninja in the Hyborian campaign.
Not at all, a Warforged Ninja would be fine in my ongoing Planescape campaign, but not for others, which is fine, campaign integrity and all that.
At the risk of sounding condescending I suspect that the ammount you like the pre-built fluff and settings in the early editions is directly related to how little you know of mythology, legend and fairy tales to start with. In my experiance the less you of this you knew the more your liked/valued the early edition fluff. As I had almost all that introduced to me before I met DnD (Red box version) I found it contrived and limiting compared to what my imagination could deliver which is why I vastly prefer the fluff light edition that is 4th as I can fit it to my ideas based on the source lore rather than someone elses.
How does this relate to the idea of DnD going wrong? well it suggests to me that rather than go wrong they were instead aiming at different aesthetics which like art cannot be objectivly "Wrong" just more or less popular. BTW I think the videogame 4th most resembles isn't an MMO but rather a fighter like street fighter.
If your imagination is vastly superoir to that of pre-3e fluff then spend your own time and money publishing it. I personally, don't have the time to re-invent D&D mythology. Having default fluff doesn't in any way limit your freedom. If you want the balor to be pink and furry then you make them that way, nothing is stoping you.
IMO, D&D has a right to its own mythology. For example, I don't want the Tolken troll I want the D&D troll. I don't want all vampires to work like Anne Rice novels either, I want the D&D vampire. For me the authority is D&D not anything else. Even when I watch moveis, I often joke that the writers got a particular monster wrong.
The reason I like old school D&D based mytholoy is because it IS unique and it's not the same predictable fluff based on real world mythology and legends. Monsters in D&D are unique not because the designers got it all wrong, but because thats how they wanted the D&D version of those monsters to be.
As the DM, I can change anything as needed, but what I don't want to do is spend the time writing my own fluff. If the game is just a collection of mechanics then D&D has lost it's very soul. The 2e material is a great read and just browsing through the monster manual can give you all sorts of ideas for new adventurers. For example, I recal reading that Mimic innards are considered a delicacy in some circles.... now there is a good idea for a side adventure....
4 was simply an attempt to merge TTRPG with MMO via the VTT, 4 was specifically written to transfer through the VTT, who knows what may have happened if the lead designer of the VTT didnt murder/suicide, but bottom line 4 was a fail that WOTC has never recovered from, Ryan Dancey was the cause of the OGL semi suicide and I blame him for a lot of the problems D&D has now (aka Pathfinder, ps he now works for Paizo) but in some ways Dancey is also the cause of the OSR, the OGL allowed many game producers to come out and make retro games which I think have been a major influence on the design philosophy of Next (or I hope they have been).
If we did not have the OGL then WotC could cancel DnD and there would be nothing we could do about it. Only on the internet could "open source DnD" be considered to be a "problem"
Magic items in 2nd ed also helped balance the game out in some ways. Hold spells were not as much as a probelm for example due to the way saving throws worked but a ring of free action (freedom of movement) cold be handed out early on in the game and it made you immune to hold spells, paralysis graples etc.
IN 3rd ed though those rings were very expensive (40 000gp IRC) which basically removed them form low level play. Even if the DM decided to hand one out anyway RAW written you could sell it for half price (20k) and you would be better off buying a selection of +1 weapons/armor/rings/cloaks and stat buff items.
PCs in TSR wra tended to be over equipped by modenr standards but had to use what the DM gave them so there was less specialization. Its hard to abouse a keen weapon or the frostcheese combo if the DM just will not give you the required pieces.
Combos existed in 2nd ed of course but the DM was under no obligation to provide you with the required pieces, they were harder to make, and you could not buy them in the local magic mart. If you posted some of the 3rd and 4th ed "builds" on older edition sites you would probably be called a munchkin. 2nd ed did specifically say a little bit of min maxing is ok, but pointed out the downsides of carrying to far and see my quote from the DMG in the OP.
Some people liked magicmart, bu t if you thought magic itmes felt like a treadmill and were lacklustre in 3rd and 4th ed, theres your problem. Some people like it others do not and it is hard to cater to both camps as you either have price tags or you do not.
People are talking like having the rules to make a Warforged Ninja (which is totally apropos in some campaigns) are bad things; players should have fewer options so that they never have the opportunity to ask for a Warforged Ninja in the Hyborian campaign.
It's a presentation thing. With the way things were presented in 3E and 4E, it seemed as though Warforged Ninja were the default, and the DM was wrong to try and stop you. With the way 2E worked, for example, they declared right up front that Dwarves can't be Wizards - leaving the door wide open for the DM to swoop in and be the good guy, by letting you play one anyway.
That's the crux of why player entitlement is seen as a bad thing.
This.
It's all in the way it's presented. 2E offered options to play monster PCs and such as well, but it was always "with your DM's permission."
Modern editions often omit that big caveat with everything they do, so that it's no longer your DM allowing material, it's your DM banning material. There's a big difference there psychologically. The former makes you feel happy that you got to play some non-standard option, while the latter makes you feel angry at your DM for taking something away.
Some people liked magicmart, bu t if you thought magic itmes felt like a treadmill and were lacklustre in 3rd and 4th ed, theres your problem. Some people like it others do not and it is hard to cater to both camps as you either have price tags or you do not.
Just because something has a gp value doesn't mean that you have to have it sold in every "magic mart" in every village ever. Just because something doesn't have a gp value doesn't mean people won't still sell it.
In 2e, I allowed players to buy magic items with gp equal to 1/10th of their xp value. (I was also not a very good DM back then, to be fair - just saying that it can be done if the developers allow it or not).
In 4e my group entirely swapped over to doing inherent bonuses. As a DM, this allows me to give out fewer magic items, and the ones I do give out usually aren't weapons, armor, or neckpieces. My players rarely, if ever, buy magic items that are meant to give them an offensive advantage. It's usually "oh, a feather that turns into a boat, this might be handy someday" or potions, or the like.
More on topic, could somebody explain to me what "player entitlement" is, and why it related to D&D, and why it's a bad thing?
Player entitlement is basically the belief that the DM isn't all powerful, and that the rules exist to help protect the PCs from the suppposedly tyrannical DM. It's a philosophy that basically assumes the DM is being adversarial and unfair and requiring a bunch of rules to curtail his power.
The most obvious display of this is the "rule for everything" mentality, where the DM is straitjacketed by a ton of rules.
Player entitlement effectively gives power to the rules lawyers who are handed lots of ammo to fight almost any DM ruling, because emphasis is put on the events in game being legal, not necessarily on them being fun. The idea is that you somehow get a better game if everyone rigidly follows the same rules.
Player entitlement also generally brings with it more choices in the hands of the PC. For instance a big one from 2E to 3E was that players (as opposed to the DM) got to choose what magic items they have, with the existence of magic item shops, easy item creation and wealth by level. In 2E, the DM pretty much had control over lots of stuff in the game world, even what spells your wizard learned, since you had to actively find them. And in 3E/4E, if your DM was cheap on gear, wealth-by-level specified exactly how cheap he was being, and what you "should" be getting.
4E took it a step forward beyond the 3E paradigm with the concept of magic item wishlists. Now not only could you purchase treasure, but you could also specifically tell the DM what magic items you wanted to get, and the DM was pretty much instructed by the DMG to give them to you.
As far as why player entitlement is a bad thing, it leads to a lot of arguments which break immersion in the story. In AD&D, you would pretty much try to react in character ot the stuff that happened, instead of thinking "Wait a minute, I think I can prevent this from happening by citing the rule on page 232!" It creates an argumentative rules lawyer mentality.
Player entitlement also spoils much of the fun of the game. Lets look at 4E wish lists for instance. Now instead of being happy you got a good item, you were simply upset the DM didn't give you what you requested, because you felt entitled to it by the rules. And if you recieved what you wanted, well you were entitled to it anyway. You're not really happy to get your paycheck, it's what you rightfully deserve and you expected to get it. You can only get angry if you don't get it.
By letting players feel entitled to too much, they become rapidly spoiled, and the game ceases to produce feelings of happiness and accomplishment but the constant idea that the DM is taking things away from them, and only a feeling of anger when they don't get whatever they feel they rightfully deserve.
To make matters worse, it sets a pacing for the whole game, such that what you get is formulaic and expected. In AD&D you could find very powerful magic items relatively early on if you were lucky, or you may find none at all. In 3E/4E, you know about what range of item you're going to get, and the progression of magic items is simply a treadmill, not something to get excited about. Because you're supposed to get magic items, and you're supposed to progress from a +1 sword to a +2 sword to a +3. That's the master plan and everyone knows it, so there's very little thrill of discovery or excitement.
This is absolutely what I experienced. The magic is gone. Bring the magic back!
"Player entitlement" is an entirely good thing.
Yup
I'm not claiming you can't have it but magic item distribution is a DM thing IMHO not a player right. The players can have fun with proficiencies/feats/powers etc.
In AMBER the roleplaying game you can spend points to make an item part of your characters story. The item maybe temporarily lost but comes back to the character eventually, in effect in D&D tems its like spending a feat ... called "Fated Bearer". Other games like HERO do something similar with point costing.
Items are game resourcces just like proficiencies/feats/powers -- In 0e/1e a D&D player didnt have any choice on powers didnt have any feats and had minimal proficiency choices too....
The lack of control of your spell repertoire meant the DM effectively designed your wizard character for you.
I don't mind wizards picking their own spells at all and it is somehting I do not miss form the TSR days although I will ban spells I think are broken or do not want to deal with for various reasons.
I do not like it though that a player can design a build like keen weapon+power attack in 3rd ed
Magic items were the fighters version of spells in 1e picture that for a moment ... they had no other component no feats no nothing... these things are game resources and the person most affected by them is the player... I suggest one might fix the real problem in 4e the extreme stackability of static bonuses *unnamed bonuses basically.. I believe is the cause of most cheese being extreme (much less extreme than similar in 3e but everything is relative)
Not a massive fan of stacking things up. One of my pet peeves about 3rd ed in relation to 2nd and 4th ed. I do not mid a little bit of stacking. One of the tihngs I prefer in 2nd ed like how I prefer BAB over thaco and 4th ed weapon properties over the 3rd ed ones.
You can stack stuff in 2nd ed but there is alot less of it and the DM has final say over the magic item parts of it while PCs can stack various seplls if they want to. I can see why they buffed the Cleric in 3rd ed but it created probelms in terms of buff spells and I an see why they let clerics attack+heal in 4th ed. Good ideas and they have been carried over to D&DN but they have added the concentration mechanic which I think is brilliant and 3rd ed/PF needs.
I want a 2nd ed speciality priest with elements of 4th ed for a cleric. The way Domains are in D&DN combined with words of power/concentration is a great blend of 2nd,3rd and 4th ed. They recycled the 3rd ed domain names but the domain functions very differently from 3rd ed. And they solved the stacking problem as well.
Win win win as far as I am concerned.
DM ain't DMing anything without a player group that wants to play.
I wouldn't want rules lawyers or spoiled entitled players in my game anyway. They're a pain to deal with.
How ironic.
[
Rewards like magic items should feel like accomplishments, as opposed to mandated rewards. When magic items are expected things you get all the time, they lose thier magic. They cease to be a reward, and become a paycheck.
And if rewards are not accounted for their reward in play can in effect be a cake walk.. or challenges being high for one persons character and meh for the other... how ummm unrewarding.
Well for a magic item to feel special, it needs to do awesome stuff. That means that it shouldn't be some planned part of your character that's a boring +1 to hit and damage. It should really make you noticeably more powerful. And yes, if you get a good item for yourself it will mean that you're going to be somewhat better than the other PCs characters until they themselves get a good item. Obviously you should never totally overshadow them, but a good magic item should make you feel like a badass.
But that has to be the nature of magic items if you want them to be a treasure people want to find. If magic items don't alter your power curve beyond "expected levels", then they're not really special, they're just crap you need to keep up on the treadmill.
Any reaosnable DM is goign to provide fun to his players. I'm not claiming you can't have it but magic item distribution is a DM thing IMHO not a player right. The players can have fun with proficiencies/feats/powers etc.
Neither side can enforce a right since either side can play with another group. Therefore, either compromise, buy-in, or play elsewhere. It's a voluntary association.
If player entitlement is a problem, then I would have to say that started no later than the Player's Option series of books, in late 2E.
+1... that mighta been the start of everything. I was in love with those books at first... until I watched them utterly destroy my game:P
I agree with the premise of the OP, though. I think 3rd Edition/3.5/PF are amazing achievements in game design. Simply the best tabletop game (for its genre) ever created in my opinon. But there were elements that started to creep in that have exploded since, and I believe they have largely lead to the criticism against 4th Edition.
I'm not claiming you can't have it but magic item distribution is a DM thing IMHO not a player right. The players can have fun with proficiencies/feats/powers etc.
In AMBER the roleplaying game you can spend points to make an item part of your characters story. The item maybe temporarily lost but comes back to the character eventually, in effect in D&D tems its like spending a feat ... called "Fated Bearer". Other games like HERO do something similar with point costing.
Items are game resourcces just like proficiencies/feats/powers -- In 0e/1e a D&D player didnt have any choice on powers didnt have any feats and had minimal proficiency choices too....
The lack of control of your spell repertoire meant the DM effectively designed your wizard character for you.
so if your a new wizard just done with school you can be spoiled and complain your master didnt give you the spells you want. the world is filled with spells stop being spoiled and go find them
Frankly, if the owners of a game system don't know how to run a business effectively, the game is in for a struggle. I have read much info on the business side of the game, and one can see the unraveling of things begin to take a strong hold with the Gygax/Blume wars in the mid 80s, which nearly destroyed TSR the first time. The game design was great for when it was released, but foolish business practices did more damage than rules changes (koffkoffRandomHousekoffkoff).
While we can spend all week arguing about who's idolized rendition of the game is superior, there is one issue that was probably the biggest problem with this game, and it goes way back. It also has nothing to do with rules.
Frankly, if the owners of a game system don't know how to run a business effectively, the game is in for a struggle. I have read much info on the business side of the game, and one can see the unraveling of things begin to take a strong hold with the Gygax/Blume wars in the mid 80s, which nearly destroyed TSR the first time. The game design was great for when it was released, but foolish business practices did more damage than rules changes (koffkoffRandomHousekoffkoff).
your right i know alot of people that love gaming that have opened stores that failed big time. they were dedicated and had a following but the design of the system and they way they run a business is seperate issues ie some great actors make terrible directors and vis versa
While we can spend all week arguing about who's idolized rendition of the game is superior, there is one issue that was probably the biggest problem with this game, and it goes way back. It also has nothing to do with rules.
Frankly, if the owners of a game system don't know how to run a business effectively, the game is in for a struggle. I have read much info on the business side of the game, and one can see the unraveling of things begin to take a strong hold with the Gygax/Blume wars in the mid 80s, which nearly destroyed TSR the first time. The game design was great for when it was released, but foolish business practices did more damage than rules changes (koffkoffRandomHousekoffkoff).
They've made a lot of stupid decisions during the WotC era(the OGL, the GSL, Essentials, the online character builder...)
And that's where I think some of the bad decisions were made for the game. TSR/WotC saw sales decline (in many cases due to bad business judgement outside of the rules, such as a stupid distribution contract) and panicked, causing crazy concepts to make the bad problem worse.
agreed
The OGL is an interesting discussion. Certainly, it was a decent enough idea on paper. But there was one fatal flaw that I saw, from a business perspective. It was far too open. Personally, I would have written it so that any company wanting to build product based upon the d20 engine would need to agree & sign a contract with WotC, and add in a 5-15% payment based upon third-party sales. So, if your company's d20 product sales were $200,000 in the fiscal year, WotC would receive somewhere between $10,000 - $30,000 of it. While that sounds like a lot, the third party organizations are receiving a ready product to build upon (the core d20 rules) that they do not have to put research into developing themselves.
one thing that i loved about 3rd editon and the ogl is that kenzer co made hackmaster which was a 2st editon dnd clone with ramped up difficluty it was a good game and they made alot of old modules new with the new system and really good honor point system
one thing that i loved about 3rd editon and the ogl is that kenzer co made hackmaster which was a 2st editon dnd clone with ramped up difficluty it was a good game and they made alot of old modules new with the new system and really good honor point system
HM had nothing to do with the OGL. KenzerCo licensed the 2E rules directly.
OGL was a great idea, probably should have put a 10 year time limit on it.
Over the last few months I have spent a little bit of time play testing D&DN, playing Pathfinder and even a few games of 2nd ed. It is hard to define where D&D went wrong but I think I have found the main catalyst for what happened. Much like the 20th century World War II may be the popular event but the cataclysm that shaped the 20th century was really WWI as it created problems that lead to WW2, the cold war and the Wall Street Crash of 1929.It would be hard to pick the exact moment but I think I have narrowed it down to the main problem of D&D and what actually did go wrong. Almost everything that is wrong with D&D right now ultimately leads back to this event.
That event was......
The release of 3.0 in 2000.
I couldn't point to one particular event, but if D&D went wrong, it was surely before the point that TSR went bankrupt. I think these discussions with rose-tinted glasses always wax nostalgic for the good old days, and don't acknowledge that a decade after D&D was a huge pop culture phenomenon, the company who made it went bankrupt. Clearly, something wrong happened there.
One can blame a lot on management and not the system itself for the bankruptcy. Then again, considering how quickly the RPG community as a whole embraced 3ed (a system very different from the 0ed-1ed-2ed continuum of D&D) tells me that D&D's lack of change was a problem that would've haunted whomever sold D&D by the 21st century.
1. The splat book spam started with 3.0. 2nd ed had a few as well but they often focused on fluff and they were spread over 11 years. I would argue that 3.5 and 4th ed suffered from the weight of their own bloat.
Others have pointed out how untrue this is (prevelant in 2ed, done with Unearthed Arcana in 1ed and the 4 supplements in 0ed), but I will grant that it became a big machine from 3ed forward. And I blame that on the bankruptcy.
The reason why WotC bought TSR and not the other way around is because WotC quickly learned how to leverage a property. If someone wants to buy your product, get it to them. If they've already bought it and want more, sell them something new. That's how they got the money to buy WotC and give it the top of the line quality you'd expect from the forerunner of RPGs.
3. Partly related to point 2 but 3rd and 4th both suffered from a a lack of quality adventures and splat books were heavily focused on player mechanical benefits- feats, prestige classes, powers etc. They let Paizo which at the time stat printing Dungeon Magazine. This would later come back to bite WoTC in the butt but they were basically to lazy or unmotivated to make good adventures based on profit. PLayer crunch sells better, starve the DM.
1ed/2ed benefitted from coming out first and defining D&D. We remember most old-school adventures for historical reasons (first killer dungeon, first series of connected adventures, first intro adventure, etc.). A lot of old-school adventures are really bad, and a few are good. Modern days adventures are more of a flat plane than a potential pit trap in quality.
Of course, personal experience creeps in. I never played these adventures, so they hold no special value to me. Keep on the Shadowfell has more resonance with me than Keep on the Borderlands.
4. Boxing up the game. 2nd ed made no real assumptions as to what type of game you would play. The DMG was full of fluff and tidbits of history in regards to what equipment was available based on things like tech level of the campaign world. It was not assumed that the world was high or low magic and 2nd ed had lots of optional rules and campaign settings with variants in it. 3rd ed assumed a somewhat high magic world with things like magic mart while 4th ed went further and added creatures with supernatural abilities in the core rule (Eladrin, Dragonborn). The fragmentation of the player base probably has something to do with this approach IMHO.
So. 2ed made no assumptions, and allowed for all, but its core materials stayed very low magic. 4ed gave options for both low-magic (All martial party with non-magical races, or all arcane party with magical races), and it's somehow fragmentary.
Let me posit something. What you thought was incusive? It wasn't. 2ed allowed for every flavour of vanilla in it (Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance) and thought it was a rainbow. Then, when faced with a system that could be a rainbow (Dark Sun, Eberron, and Forgotten Realms) you remove yourself from the market.
The fragmentations happens because what you say you want actually happens, and it's not at all what you really want. You want vanilla to be the rainbow, but the true rainbow is too big for you.
WoTC broke D&D back in 2000 and have been trying to fix it ever since.
WotC saved D&D in '96, and the grognards have never forgiven them for it.
[
Rewards like magic items should feel like accomplishments, as opposed to mandated rewards. When magic items are expected things you get all the time, they lose thier magic. They cease to be a reward, and become a paycheck.
And if rewards are not accounted for their reward in play can in effect be a cake walk.. or challenges being high for one persons character and meh for the other... how ummm unrewarding.
Well for a magic item to feel special, it needs to do awesome stuff.
I am far more interested in the character feeling special. I think there needs to be Beowulfs and Lancelots alongside those Elrics and Arthurs who almost seem out shadowed by there equipment.
I like items to be interesting without being awesome unlesss the character is invested in that as a substantive part of there story. The latter two might have a Theme called Fated Weilder. The prior two had magic items but nobody seems to remember there names. A good chunk of Beowulfs stories were actually presenting a trope about items being ureliable and how man needs to be self sufficient. (Lancelot defeated round table knights while unarmored and unarmed).
There is a third category which is probably the one D&D has done fairly well I kind of call it the Atlantean Soldier... they have magic items which are a tech surrogate they have boots of flying or zephyr cloaks, helms of mind blanking and sheilds of the sun and sword staves of the serpent or whatever, its mocked as the Xmas tree. But there is some precident for it in Legend (Perseus might have needed a star on his head) ... and if you are in a magi-tech verse like Eberron it is a standard fare.
Norse deities are almost all three categories at once.. Fated Weilders with named and awesome weapons... individuals whose personal awesome was staggering and yet users of enough peripheral magic for it to act like a technology.
Like I said I have asked players since way way back, what kind of things they were interested in for there characters and then we worked together sometimes with the characters themselves actively seeking legendary items similar to their ideas and so on.
I guess it makes some sense to skip over what was already fixed well... if the designers werent ummm bringing back things ( with apparent glee to watch people complain) already... hurray for my awrful lawful drunken monk. hmmm
Pretty much. Especially given that this edition is supposed to be a sort of "best of D&D", where people would generally prefer old mechanics to new ones (like the return of vancian casting over 4E powers), I think its actually very important to know what changes were not so well recieved and what changes were.
It should not come off as a AD&D is flat out better! thread, because AD&D had some godawful mechanics of its own. Out of all the dumb things in the game, I'd probably have to rank 1E's alignment languages as the stupidest concept ever created.
That is hard to beat. Lol.
if D&D has gone wrong in a way that is somebody's fault, it started with 5E's development. And the fault lies in dishonesty, not being clear, and making promises they can't deliver.
This exactly. There's never been "One Edition to Unite Them All!" nor can there be. If they're going to come out with a new edition, the only honest thing they can do is admit to trying to make a good game that people enjoy, which is no different than any other edition of the game.
While glossing over the problems with AD&D that 3E needed to address and did address. 2E had gone stale and needed to modernize. If they had kept things old school, D&D would be in worse shape than it is now.
True I am not saying 3rd ed was terrible or whatever as overall it is probably my favourite edition and 2nd ed needed a facelift. Most of it is not even about the mechanics. But if you are not happy with the fact that 4th ed lasted less than 4 years, 3.0 lasted 3 years and 3.5 lasted a bit less than 5 years I think my reasons listed are probably good ones.
Overall the mechanics in 3rd ed are better than second ed and they evolved into 4th ed. 3rd ed probbably did save D&D as a commercial reality. The bloat was to much thoug and I believe there was to much focus on the players due to a lack of adventures in both the 3rd and 4th ed eras. Part of that player entitlement is related to spamming mechanical options for the players. The game rules can't sustain that level of bloat in that amount of time as there are realy only so many concepts one can do before things start becoming silly.
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well. The bloat train has probably been responsable for the early deaths of both 3.5 and 4th ed. There is only so much you really need and sales probaby go down and then its new ediiotn time and WoTC has a tendency to burn the previous edition down whether is is 2nd ed, 3rd ed or 4th ed with D&DN. 1st ed to 2nd ed he changes were less severe, the game was kind of compatable, and 1st ed remained in print during the transition.
When I see what is required to gain and maintain the mastery of a craft, I find laughable to be able to go adventuring and develop or maintain other specialities not even linked to the craft mastered.
There things an adventurer can develop and maintain, like sculpting little objects, drawing (not painting), playing instrument he can carry and able to resist an adventuring life, or singing. But 10th level adventurers master weaponsmiths, potters, or magic items crafters make absolutly no sense for me. If a PC was a master craftsman when starting his new career, the mastery is lost, and the competence will be lost after a few more years to become abstract knowledge.
if D&D has gone wrong in a way that is somebody's fault, it started with 5E's development. And the fault lies in dishonesty, not being clear, and making promises they can't deliver.
This exactly. There's never been "One Edition to Unite Them All!" nor can there be. If they're going to come out with a new edition, the only honest thing they can do is admit to trying to make a good game that people enjoy, which is no different than any other edition of the game.
100% agree and I hate to say it but I think the developers' task is harder then they think because no matter what they create people will tear it down and nitpick every last detail.
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well.
I just want to remember that there are players and DMs who actually likes worlds with lots of magic items.
if D&D has gone wrong in a way that is somebody's fault, it started with 5E's development. And the fault lies in dishonesty, not being clear, and making promises they can't deliver.
This exactly. There's never been "One Edition to Unite Them All!" nor can there be. If they're going to come out with a new edition, the only honest thing they can do is admit to trying to make a good game that people enjoy, which is no different than any other edition of the game.
100% agree and I hate to say it but I think the developers' task is harder then they think because no matter what they create people will tear it down and nitpick every last detail.
I think that view is popular on these boards. Elsewhere, I see it as the exact opposite. I guess it balances out.
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well.
I just want to remember that there are players and DMs who actually likes worlds with lots of magic items.
You got more maic items as a general rule in TSR era D&D than in WBl and 4th ed D&D. The game did not require them though so if you wanted a low magic world with little magic items it still worked.
1. The splat book spam started with 3.0. 2nd ed had a few as well but they often focused on fluff and they were spread over 11 years. I would argue that 3.5 and 4th ed suffered from the weight of their own bloat.
Actually, splatbook spam started more with 2e. You're forgetting that each month there would be a splatbook for Dark Sun, a boxed set for Planescape, a Module for Spelljammer, a generic splat book, a board game. Next month it would be a splatbook for Forgotten Realms, an Al-Quadim adventure, a Birthright accessory, a deck of spell cards, a boxed set for Mystara. You're probably thinking of all the d20 products, not necessarily WotC releases.
Ever since the beginning of D&D, every single person that's played it fantasized about writing a D&D book and having their name right on the front cover. If anything, 3e and the OGL showed us that many may WANT to write D&D games, but just don't have the skills or talent. Sure, there are a few gems here and there, but the bulk of it was junk.
And before anyone says "Paizo/Pathfinder", I'll remind you those folks came from WotC, which means they DO have the talent to write D&D games.
2. There was a large shift towards player entitlement. 3rd ed was very easy to create magic items for example. Pathfinder and 4th ed both continued this trend and if you thought magic items were overpowered in 3rd ed and boring in 4th ed this is a consequence of that decision.... 4th ed put the magic items in the PHB, not the DMG.
No disagreement on the move of magic items from the DMG, but I wouldn't pin it fully on the idea of entitlement. While 3e didn't introduce the idea of starting at a higher level, there was much more to character building and so rules for creating higher level characters involved wealth by level rules.
Player entitlement started when people desired having their name on the front cover. Plus, 2e is when D&D encouraged ownership of the game. Don't like a rule? Change it. Is there a rule missing? Make it up! That's not lazy design, that's allowing people to participate in making the game work for their group. The reason the game changes so much between editions is because that's how people play, or would like to play. "Here, let's try building characters this way..."
("Why should I buy books if I have to make up my own rules?" Why should you buy a video game that lets you pick what your character looks like when you can just draw him on paper with a crayon?)
3. Partly related to point 2 but 3rd and 4th both suffered from a a lack of quality adventures and splat books were heavily focused on player mechanical benefits- feats, prestige classes, powers etc... PLayer crunch sells better, starve the DM.
There are more players than DMs. Each player buys (in theory) a PHB, but only one of them needs to buy the DMG. Does everyone in the group buy the adventure they're going to play? No, that's only for the DM. So yes, there is a profit to consider but also remember that the OGL let others make adventures. The idea was akin to WotC putting out say, Neverwinter Nights computer game, and letting other people make the modules for it.
I'll also throw out another word for you. "Support". Look at all the concern on the forums about "support" for their favorite edition. What is "support"? More splat books. People aren't requesting new adventures. Indeed, more people are asking for reprints/updates of OLD adventures. (What, I have to go through the Tomb of Horrors AGAIN?)
4. Boxing up the game. 2nd ed made no real assumptions as to what type of game you would play.... The fragmentation of the player base probably has something to do with this approach IMHO.
You can play different types of games with both 3e and 4e. The thing folks forget is you get out of D&D what you put in. If you're too lazy, or too busy to WORK at making your games fun, they won't be.
The way some people gripe, I wonder if they open their game books on a table in the middle of the room and just stare at them waiting for something to happen.
5. Losing the "feel" of D&D. 2nd ed books have aged quite well and one can still mine them for ideas. They were fluff heavy and even educational as they often used real life examples from history in the core books. The 2nd ed fighters handbook is still quite enjoyable to read 24 years after it was printed. Being honest how much fun is it to read the Complete Warrior or Martial Power just for fun? The style changed due to a focus on mechanics.You must have missed Eberron. Tons of fluff there. Same goes for Forgotten Relams. (Indeed, I never really played 3e FR, but I picked up quite a few books for the lore/fluff to use to build Neverwinter Nights modules.)
And with fluff comes complaints about the fluff. "I don't like the Spellplague!" "That idea is stupid!" I wouldn't be surprised if this was said at the WotC offices, "They don't like fluff? Fine, let them write it all since they clearly know better than us."
Yes, there were more mechanics in 4e, but you have to be able to read between the lines as well. Did you know, for example, that blue dragons were traditionally found in desert areas? And did you futher notice that in 4e, they're oceanside dwellers?
The other issue is buying the same fluff each edition. People complained about the huge changes in FR, which I thought was good. Eberron was going to move forward, not 100 years as FR did, but just five or so. That would give us new fluff, but the vocal complainers put a kabosh on that and the timeline wasn't advanced. So now I've got to pick up a 4e book with pretty much the same fluff I have for 3e.6. Mechanics (again). The major problem of the transition from 2nd ed to 3rd ed was CoDzilla. Put simply they buffed the heck out of spell casters, removed restrictions they had on them, nerfed the fighter (used to have great saves, could move and full attack) and then to top it all off let them advance at the same rate as other classes. 3.0 was fundamentally broken right out the door, 3.5 tried to fix this. Pathfinder still has issues around this and 4th ed attempted to fix it but arguably in the wrong way and alienated the player base.
Here's a secret: Every edition is fundamentally the same. Don't believe me? Which edition was the following statments made from:
"I listen to the door to see if there's a monster behind it."
"I attack the orc on the left."
"I'll brew a potion."
"When I go up a level, I hope I can get a +3 sword"
"I kick in the door and attack."
"I'll cast Magic Missile."
"I'm at the bar, and if there's any girls there, I wanna DOOOOO them!"
The truth is they apply to every edition. The only differences are in the game mechanics. But do you think your character cares which mechanic is used to kick in a door? Attack roll? Strength check? Your character doesn't care. You as a player shouldn't either. Your concern is as your character's. You decide on what you want your character to do. It doesn't matter if you roll a d20, or 3d6.
And again, it's the great thing about D&D is you CAN change the rules to be what you want. You're NOT locked in to what's printed.
The "problem" isn't D&D. It's the internet. :p
Webster, that spoiler needs to be read by everyone on thse forums nitpicking every detail looking and straing to find the smallest flaw in consistency.
It is a very fine quote, and I agree with it. But it is quite possible to err too much on the side of "Game" as well, and I would argue that did occur in some areas. It's a delicate balancing act, and even if you're shooting for "Game", it's possible to be too much "Game".
As an example: Take Bethesda games. You can be the best fighter/magic-user/ranged/assassin and a vampire, and never miss or fail because of your Character's innate qualities. In some Bethesda games you can be the greatest fighter in the land at level 2, and could theoretically beat the greatest demon. In Oblivion, you're told the world is going to be invaded by Demons that will destroy the land, but the best thing you can do to prevent it, is ignore it. As long as you ignore it, it will never happen.
Being too much of a game is at least as bad, if not worse, then not being enough. Alot of the arguements I see here remind me strongly of Bethesda games.
Webster, that spoiler needs to be read by everyone on thse forums nitpicking every detail looking and straing to find the smallest flaw in consistency.
It is a very fine quote, and I agree with it. But it is quite possible to err too much on the side of "Game" as well, and I would argue that did occur in some areas. It's a delicate balancing act, and even if you're shooting for "Game", it's possible to be too much "Game".
As an example: Take Bethesda games. You can be the best fighter/magic-user/ranged/assassin and a vampire, and never miss or fail because of your Character's innate qualities. In some Bethesda games you can be the greatest fighter in the land at level 2, and could theoretically beat the greatest demon. In Oblivion, you're told the world is going to be invaded by Demons that will destroy the land, but the best thing you can do to prevent it, is ignore it. As long as you ignore it, it will never happen.
Being too much of a game is at least as bad, if not worse, then not being enough. Alot of the arguements I see here remind me strongly of Bethesda games.
I think a lot of people take their D&D way too seriously, and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing on its own it'd be nice if they'd stop hassling the rest of us with their issues.
Webster, that spoiler needs to be read by everyone on thse forums nitpicking every detail looking and straing to find the smallest flaw in consistency.
It is a very fine quote, and I agree with it. But it is quite possible to err too much on the side of "Game" as well, and I would argue that did occur in some areas. It's a delicate balancing act, and even if you're shooting for "Game", it's possible to be too much "Game".
As an example: Take Bethesda games. You can be the best fighter/magic-user/ranged/assassin and a vampire, and never miss or fail because of your Character's innate qualities. In some Bethesda games you can be the greatest fighter in the land at level 2, and could theoretically beat the greatest demon. In Oblivion, you're told the world is going to be invaded by Demons that will destroy the land, but the best thing you can do to prevent it, is ignore it. As long as you ignore it, it will never happen.
Being too much of a game is at least as bad, if not worse, then not being enough. Alot of the arguements I see here remind me strongly of Bethesda games.
This is a sensible post and I agree with this and what others have posted on this subject in theory. In practicality the where that line is differs not only from person to person but also for a given person over time. Therefore on a subjective matter such as this I find it best to accept the game as it is if you choose to play it. If you can change it and the people you play with have no issues then change it to suit you. But endless debate over the printed word and trying to redefine terms and the English language to suit a particular person's perception or temperment is counterproductive.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" Slick Willy
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well.
I just want to remember that there are players and DMs who actually likes worlds with lots of magic items.
Nobody is saying that high magic is necessarily bad. In fact 2E had high magic settings like planescape. The main feature is the ability for the group to choose high magic or low magic. That was a customizeable element that pre-3E had that 3E/4E do not. In those editions, it's assumed the game is high magic and you can't easily remove the high magic element whichout imbalancing everything.
2E encouraged lots of ways to customize your own game. Want to run an all-fighter game? How about a game with no magic? Want to use a d6 instead of a d20 for strength checks? 2E gave you the option.
That's the sort of thing that tends to be missing in the modern age.
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well.
I just want to remember that there are players and DMs who actually likes worlds with lots of magic items.
Nobody is saying that high magic is necessarily bad. In fact 2E had high magic settings like planescape. The main feature is the ability for the group to choose high magic or low magic. That was a customizeable element that pre-3E had that 3E/4E do not. In those editions, it's assumed the game is high magic and you can't easily remove the high magic element whichout imbalancing everything.
Bull pucky 4e is incredibly easy to play in low magic... easier than the cleric in every party editions by far. You can build a all martial party... throw in inherent bonuses (an easy rule) - which is supported in the character builder even (Note even before those rules were published the games numbers are transparent and its not a genius change) and build encounters using the same guidelines as ever. Totally trivial.
The inherent bonuse however are still duplicating the effects of magic items so it is not really low magic.
It is low magic, and this is why. If you take the inherent bonuses and turn them into negatives, then apply them to all the monsters, you remove the magic item math from them. But, that's a PITA, so it's FAR FAR EASIER to just apply bonuses to the PCs. Those bonuses aren't magic just because they're bonuses. In fact, the only reason you give the bonuses to PCs is because fixing all the monster bonuses is such a disproportionately larger task (or eats up more time if you're just apply the penalties to the monsters mid-combat).
In 2nd ed if you claimed you were running a low magic world and handed out +5 to hit, +5 AC, +5 saves etc you would probably be laghed at.
Every edition has made mistakes and, despite the mistakes that 2e did make, weaving magic item bonuses into the math of the system wasn't one of them.
And thats the problem right there. Its a math fix and not a game fix. You do not need an assumed +XYZ to hit at whatever level. Thats the mistake written large right there.
You do if you have any real hope of creating a method of making encounter creation easy while still creating effective encounters. If you take out the assumption of "+XYZ to hit at whatever level" then you are automatically cutting out the existence of a CR or Encoutner Level mechanic, which is a big boon to quickly creating challenging encounters that are neither cakewalks or TPKs.
No more assumed 4 or 5 players, no more assumed 2 defender, leader, striker, controller parties, no more assumed roles. If the party lacks a healer one can deal with it in various ways- encounter design and pacing for example. That created some of the problems 3rd and 4th ed had and the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks. That lead to the magic item treadmill and assumed party sizes of 4 in 3rd ed and 5 in 4th ed. Most fun I had in 4th ed was with 5 players, did not like at all with 3. 2nd ed we had fun with parties from size 2-9.
9 is to many BTW, 5 or 6 is the upper limit for PC party size IMHO, YMMV.
CR system sucked, 4th ed was better but only due to various other things and they still got the numbers wrong. I would prefer no encounter level mechanic and leave it up to the DM based on his players party composition, equipment, levels and numbers.
So make the DM's job even harder? Take the one thing that they've done to really cut back on all the guesswork and just toss it out? Go back to the days of "Oh, I guess I put in too many goblins this time. I can either let them finsih slaughtering the whole party or make them run away for no reason (or from something even worse than they are that would definitely kill the party)?"
Just because CR needed fixing doesn't mean it should have been abandoned, and they did actually make it better with encounter levels in 4e. But because it wasn't perfect as the almighty himself we should throw it out?
Its the main reaosn why I think hings like that and perfect balance is a waste of time. Get it to be close enough and let the individual DM sort it out based on the size, composition and equipment levels of his players.
I did see people pass on D&D because they did not have 4 or 5 memembers and they assumed tweaking the game was to hard or not worth the effort to make it work. It is a stupid and artifical gamist rubbish that 3rd and 4th ed have inflicted on the game. If you have 2-3 people play and they all wnat fighters or rogues let them go for it and change the type of campign. No more of this 3-5 ecounters per day and grind your players down mentality or assuming each encounter will use 25% of a parties resources.
Play the game not the metagame. If you have 1 DM and 1 player you have a potential game. RAW 3rd and 4th did not support this.
Giving the players some narrative resources certainly helps too.
Yet not in the PHB/DMG 1...
No, it was in the DMG2. Not being in the very first books isn't a negative.
Hahahaha, yes it is.
Any reason why?
If you have 1 DM and 1 player you have a potential game. RAW 3rd and 4th did not support this.
Uh.... but that's bull. Because they did.
Where's that Bill Nye meme when I need it....
EDIT: Apparently existing only in "Needlessly insulting (and with bad words, too)"-land, only suitable for 4chan. Dag, yo.
3rd ed. 4 PCs, each encounter uses 25% of the parties resources. Page 48-49 although it does say parties bigger or smaller will need to be tweaked. The CR ssytem assumes 4 PCs however (pg 48).
Any reason why?
Most people judge a system based on first impressions. It might not be strictly fair, but we only have so much free time, and we're disinclined to spend time on something we don't expect to be fun. If I play a game, and I don't like it, it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to give it a second chance. That's why the core books are more important than anything that comes later: everyone experiences the core books, while only those who already enjoy the edition are likely to see the later supplements.
The release schedule doesn't change the actual merits of the rules, whenever you decide to use them, but it does change who your audience will be, which will change how they are perceived.
Page 122 4thed DMG encounter design. 4, 5 and 6 PCs the assumed default.
bolded the important part.
Page 122 4thed DMG encounter design. 4, 5 and 6 PCs the assumed default.
And only the "assumed default" is "supported" now?
From that page:
"For larger or smaller groups, find the XP value for a standard monster of the encounter’s level on the Experience Rewards table and multiply it by the number of characters in the party."
3rd ed. 4 PCs, each encounter uses 25% of the parties resources.
CR didn't even work for that, so... Yeah, I'm not sure I have a response. No idea where my 3e DMG is to do the normal fact-checking.
Any reason why?
Most people judge a system based on first impressions. It might not be strictly fair, but we only have so much free time, and we're disinclined to spend time on something we don't expect to be fun. If I play a game, and I don't like it, it's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to give it a second chance. That's why the core books are more important than anything that comes later: everyone experiences the core books, while only those who already enjoy the edition are likely to see the later supplements.
Fair point, but blasting the system for not having something it did have is free game for ridicule. Like the people still up in arms because the Druid and Bard didn't come out soon enough.
3rd ed. 4 PCs, each encounter uses 25% of the parties resources.
CR didn't even work for that, so... Yeah, I'm not sure I have a response. No idea where my 3e DMG is to do the normal fact-checking.
Actually, I found that too.
p.48 of the 3.5 book:
"Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs, and parties of three or fewer are challenged by monsters with lower CRs. The game rules account for these facts by dividing the XP earned by the number of characters in the party."
Now, it wasn't very good (that goes for the whole of CR in general, which was, at best... special), but it was there.
It is making assumptions as to how big the party is and probably towards what the party composition actually is.
Like I said, you don't throw out something good just because it's imperfect. You figure out where it went wrong and then correct it.
Its the main reaosn why I think hings like that and perfect balance is a waste of time. Get it to be close enough and let the individual DM sort it out based on the size, composition and equipment levels of his players.
Perfect balance is impossible because we're talking about something created by people, who are inherently fallible. Given that, everyone who speaks of balance speaks of degrees of balance not some mythical perfect balance.
If you have 1 DM and 1 player you have a potential game. RAW 3rd and 4th did not support this.
Yes, 1 DM and 1 player was a potential game in 4e. And it's something that was made easier by knowing the encounter level rules.
With 3 players however 4th ed to us fell completely flat. Roles were missing and the PCs were kind of limited. The highlight of 4th ed for us was in 2010 when we got 5 people togather and they did have fun using the powers to interact with each other. I recall a healing faerie power the cleric used to heal adjacent people and the wizard was having fun with burning sphere. The PCs bunkered down and used ranged options and the sphere to defeat the encounter.
I am saying however the assumed default is wrong and the game should not be designed with that in mind. There should be no assuemd default in regards to party size, composition, tech level, magic level etc so you can play whatever you like. If you want to drench yourself in magic items and buy them in cited go right ahead thats on you. Do not assume that is the default and assume that the mechanics should take that into acount. Have you DM design tougher encounters to compensate or have fun in god mode for a bit whatever floats your boat.
I had a 2nd ed group who got to use an ancient races relics for a one of fight. At very low level they got to use +5 weapons and all the flash toys but they ahd to return it once they were done. These days peopel would cry foul about the DM taking away the PCs toys even though that was the whole point of that 1 encounter. Here is some whacked out toys have fun with it I'm taking it back after this session.
The DM giveith the DM taketh away.
With 3 players however 4th ed to us fell completely flat.
Uh, what? Most of my 4e gaming was with 1 or 3 players. It went great. Not having to "just guess" on encounter difficulty, due to both ELs and player and monster roles, plus the general increased survivability, made that far more functional than in many game systems.
It may not have been perfect - and it may not have been your cup-o'-tea, but it was certainly functional enough to play with.
You could run 3rd and 4th with less players certainly but it got to the point where other RPGs run better with smaller groups. You can swin across the English Channel, its easier to use a boat sort of thing.
It ran fine with tiny groups. In my experience it ran better (or at least easier) with tiny groups than, for example, SWSE, again due to the combination of ELs and Roles and survivability.
I get that you don't like it, I really do. God knows you've made enough threads about it. But once you get past not liking how it does work, it actually does work.
The inherent bonuse however are still duplicating the effects of magic items so it is not really low magic.
They do not glow for crying out loud.. I mean this that is silly. Its making a trivial invisible mechanical adjustment to the game in one place instead of whacking on encounter design. The numbers do not make things "magical".. there is no in game world focus ... no representation no mystery no story no magic, no nothing.
Since the higher levels have been released, I've had a lot of trouble keeping my players interested in the game past a certain point. I ask them about it and the main reason they cite is that the game doesn't feel any different in spite of being through a bunch of it and they're now level 12 (they started at level 5).
This is a big problem. The game might not need to change a lot mathematically but it does have to feel different. When I point out the increased damage, they say it's largely pointless because HP just grows with it. They prefer accuracy changing because they feel that being able to hit is where they really pay attention to the dice. If they assume they hit almost all the time, they don't feel that the attack roll is very meaningful.
The issue with damage, they say, is that with more and more dice you can pretty much count on an average. You have a hard time rolling exceptional damage, and even critical hits don't feel as cool as they did before with a multiplier because it's harder to see a marked damage increase with all those dice.
There's a sense among my players that the game should change as you level. They don't see that change happening and so they don't feel like levelling is worthwhile. I lay this at the feet of bounded accuracy because where the math is so flattened, it's difficult to show how getting better at things is changing the kinds of challenges the players face.
Maybe it's artificial, but it does change how we see things and it definitely creates boundaries insofar as there is no way a lvl 1 dude can hit a dragon. Sure, they can't do meaningful damage in this system but the fact that they're managing to hit it is important to my players. The tension in the rolling is often derived from a to-hit roll. You hit, AWESOME! you do damage. The damage isn't as big of a charge as hitting with an attack because it's the knowledge that you've hit and now can do awesome that gives tension to the roll of the die. If you know that you're pretty much always going to do damage with an attack, then there's no tension. If the damage scales up via more dice, then it drains the tension out of the damage roll because the highs and lows that we crave and give tension to the act are undermined by the law of averages.
Bounded accuracy doesn't really account for the human need to have risk. It flattens things out and normalises them to a place where you can almost assume what's going to happen. That's not a good thing.
Bounded accuracy doesn't really account for the human need to have risk. It flattens things out and normalises them to a place where you can almost assume what's going to happen. That's not a good thing.
Some things are still hard to hit, just not only if you roll an an unmodified 20, like in pre-5th Ed.
Maybe i'm just misinterpreting the monster rules but I completely disagree that things are hard to hit. I actually find myself creating stuff on the fly that are substantially harder to hit than what the beastiary shows.
The only reason I really bother to write about it is to give feedback in the context of the playtest. This is an adjustment that I'm making in my games - bounded accuracy is an issue in my games (at least, the stuff people talk about when they say "bounded accuracy," which might not be what bounded accuracy actually means since the term is totally ridiculous and doesn't accurately describe anything). I'm actively working against it in my games because I find my players do not engage with a flattened system where the characters do not mechanically evolve past their starting points in terms of how well they hit things.
Sorry, but that's how it is and that's how we roll. If DDN can't let me roll my way with their system, then I won't be adopting 5e as a whole product. I'll instead be adapting aspects of the playtest that I like, nicking ideas I hear and read about the final product and not buying the game. WOTC will not get my money. If they're happy with that, then that's A-OK.
I don't need WOTC to play D&D. None of us do. I don't even need them to sell me new ideas that are cool, 'cause I can get those now without paying them anything. After it's released, I won't need to pay them anything either 'cause I can go ask people who did pay and read forums here and generally pay attention.
Bottom line: I have what I need and I have what I want. If they can't offer me the option to use their product my way, then I won't use their product.
Few things:
On Inherent Bonuses: To me inherent bonuses seem to miss the point of low magic. They fix the math sure, and are good if you want to run "No magic", but the main issue with low magic is more that magic items you do find are prized peices of treasure, and the inherent system just seems to make them trivial. One of the big selling points for me in 2E was that magic items made you awesome. The belt of giant strength or gauntlets of ogre power was seriously a huge deal. Getting a cloak that let you fly at will was also a big deal. My main problem with 4E magic items is that they're all little minor trinkets that don't do anything exciting. Most of that naturally comes from the fact that you can buy/create items, which means that magic items can't really do anything earth shattering. Essentials might have been on the right track with introducing rare/uncommon items tha you can't create, but it still didn't really produce magic items that had dramatic effects like the 2E versions did. It's really hard to do anything with the 4E magic item system since magic items in 4E are just super bland.
On Small Group 4E: I've found this works just fine, in fact it's the optimal way to play if you ask me. In small groups, battles go at a reasonable pace, and the crazy high resilience of 4E characters is more of a boon because losing a PC is a lot bigger of a deal if you're running a 2-3 man group.
Since the higher levels have been released, I've had a lot of trouble keeping my players interested in the game past a certain point. I ask them about it and the main reason they cite is that the game doesn't feel any different in spite of being through a bunch of it and they're now level 12 (they started at level 5).
This is a big problem. The game might not need to change a lot mathematically but it does have to feel different. When I point out the increased damage, they say it's largely pointless because HP just grows with it. They prefer accuracy changing because they feel that being able to hit is where they really pay attention to the dice. If they assume they hit almost all the time, they don't feel that the attack roll is very meaningful.
The issue with damage, they say, is that with more and more dice you can pretty much count on an average. You have a hard time rolling exceptional damage, and even critical hits don't feel as cool as they did before with a multiplier because it's harder to see a marked damage increase with all those dice.
There's a sense among my players that the game should change as you level. They don't see that change happening and so they don't feel like levelling is worthwhile. I lay this at the feet of bounded accuracy because where the math is so flattened, it's difficult to show how getting better at things is changing the kinds of challenges the players face.
Maybe it's artificial, but it does change how we see things and it definitely creates boundaries insofar as there is no way a lvl 1 dude can hit a dragon. Sure, they can't do meaningful damage in this system but the fact that they're managing to hit it is important to my players. The tension in the rolling is often derived from a to-hit roll. You hit, AWESOME! you do damage. The damage isn't as big of a charge as hitting with an attack because it's the knowledge that you've hit and now can do awesome that gives tension to the roll of the die. If you know that you're pretty much always going to do damage with an attack, then there's no tension. If the damage scales up via more dice, then it drains the tension out of the damage roll because the highs and lows that we crave and give tension to the act are undermined by the law of averages.
Bounded accuracy doesn't really account for the human need to have risk. It flattens things out and normalises them to a place where you can almost assume what's going to happen. That's not a good thing.
Try ending your campaign after 10 levels. 1-10, 5-15 or 11-20.
Or, try shifting the focus of the game. 1-10 you're a Sir Lancelot, 11-20 you're a King Arthur. 1-10 you're a William Wallace, 11-20 you're Charlemagne. 1-10 you're Conan the barbarian-thief, 11-20 you're King Conan.
Some things are still hard to hit, just not only if you roll an an unmodified 20, like in pre-5th Ed.
Pre 3rd ed. there were to-hit tables instead of linear accuracy. This meant that you were less likely to find a tough monster that could only be hit on a 20 or a weak monster that could be hit on 2+. The easiest way to do that in newer editions is to say something like a natural 17 or 18 to 20 always hits and a natural 1 to 3 or 4 always misses.
Edit: I should have said pre 2nd ed.
I think I have narrowed it down to the main problem of D&D and what actually did go wrong. Almost everything that is wrong with D&D right now ultimately leads back to this event.That event was......
The release of 3.0 in 2000.
I can actually agree with that. But, at the same time, what success D&D has had since then can also be laid squarely at the feet of that event.
Post-Gygax, TSR and the D&D franchise had been run into the ground. D&D may still have had strong sales, but by 2000 it hadn't been in anything resembling a though-leadership position in the hobby something like a decade. 'Storytelling' was the big thing, and D&D was on the wrong side of the role-vs-roll debate (to be clear, it was the poster boy for "roll playing") that was driving things in the 90s. 3.0 revitalized the franchise in two ways. 1) the 'back to the dungeon' theme, which made it OK to play a real game again and call it 'roleplaying' instead of acting like a frustrated amature theatre troop all the time. 2) it went open-source, and, with D&D still the the 300-lb gorrilla in terms of units sold, that gave every other RPG producer the chance to jump on the d20 bandwagon and benefit from D&Ds long name-recognition dominance. Prettymuch everyone did, even WWGS spawned S&SS to participate, and D&D was back in a position of total dominance.
All quite wonderful, but also, as you rightly point out, the seeds of destruction.
I think I have narrowed it down to the main problem of D&D and what actually did go wrong. Almost everything that is wrong with D&D right now ultimately leads back to this event.That event was......
The release of 3.0 in 2000.
I can actually agree with that. But, at the same time, what success D&D has had since then can also be laid squarely at the feet of that event.
Post-Gygax, TSR and the D&D franchise had been run into the ground. D&D may still have had strong sales, but by 2000 it hadn't been in anything resembling a though-leadership position in the hobby something like a decade. 'Storytelling' was the big thing, and D&D was on the wrong side of the role-vs-roll debate (to be clear, it was the poster boy for "roll playing") that was driving things in the 90s. 3.0 revitalized the franchise in two ways. 1) the 'back to the dungeon' theme, which made it OK to play a real game again and call it 'roleplaying' instead of acting like a frustrated amature theatre troop all the time. 2) it went open-source, and, with D&D still the the 300-lb gorrilla in terms of units sold, that gave every other RPG producer the chance to jump on the d20 bandwagon and benefit from D&Ds long name-recognition dominance. Prettymuch everyone did, even WWGS spawned S&SS to participate, and D&D was back in a position of total dominance.
All quite wonderful, but also, as you rightly point out, the seeds of destruction.
At the timw I thought 3.0 was great, but in hindsight they messed a few things up. OGL I thought was great, in hindsight maybe a 10 year expiary date on it would have been a good idea.
d20 did save D&D but the execution was spotty. T edition wars and rapid edition cycling lead back to that event. 3 series of core rulebooks from 2000-2008, vs 11 years for 2nd ed. We're still throwing rocks at each other 13 years later. We are both class of 2001. the forums used to be great.
After designing a few dozen unique monsters, you automatically knew what that level 10 lurker's AC was without even checking the books.
Hence one of the problems.
I had fun with 4th Ed (DMed it for 2 years), but that 1/2 level malarkey and magic item/inherent bonus math was unnecessary, IMO.
That "malarkey" has been in every edition in one form or another. It is to be hoped bounded accuracy is a fraud and it will be in 5e too.
What this is is a treadmill. We constantly are looking at the carrot in front of our eyes and running to catch it as the ground shifts under us. We always have incentive to come back and keep on playing to get that carrot. The carrot may change from a +1 to a +6, but it is always there. Attempts to do without the carrot are ultimately met with the player not playing. "Why play? I'll get 5th level/+2 weapon/a bonus to my skills... anyway."
The lack of the treadmill will not kill the game right out of the box like some other problems can. But it will kill it just as surely.
It hasn't killed World of Warcraft and it's even more obvious in that game.
Different genre and does not help with the 4th ed = WoW attacks.
Really, who cares if people say that at this point? Different genre? It's close enough that human psychology about NOT wanting to chase that carrot has been shown to be largely inaccurate. And it would be in Hasbro's and WotC's best interests if they had 1/20th of WoWs revenue.
Try ending your campaign after 10 levels. 1-10, 5-15 or 11-20.Or, try shifting the focus of the game. 1-10 you're a Sir Lancelot, 11-20 you're a King Arthur. 1-10 you're a William Wallace, 11-20 you're Charlemagne. 1-10 you're Conan the barbarian-thief, 11-20 you're King Conan.
Frankly, I don't see why I should have to end a campaign that's got characters the players are liking. If the system is incapable of sustaining a long campaign by virtue of the fact that the progression doesn't accomodate us then I have to call it a shortcoming of the system.
Obviously, the roleplaying progressions are there, but the fact that there's little to no reflection of that in the mechanics is a problem in the system. Basically the malfunction is theirs, not ours.
Also, levels should feel crazy meaningful in a long campaign that involves slow progression. This.. eh. DDN's ability to offer significant levels leaves a lot to be desired. If I play for 3 months and get 4 levels, I want to see some pretty major changes in what sorts of creatures I'm fighting, what kinds of numbers I roll and what kinds of challenges I see. 2e's levels are just way better for that. 3e's are good too but the progression is a touch too quick for my liking; generally I have to axe xp gain in 3e by a pretty hefty figure to keep the pace of the game where I want.
DDN's offering lightning fast progression with very little meaning, which is the worst possible scenario for me.
WoW is one of those once in a generation things. Like the NES or PS2. The "WoW" killers have come and gone. The WoW generation has their internet crack and not that many of them are probably interested in pen and paper.
I play WoW, and I love my D&D. I also didn't like 4e at all. Where does this leave me?
And as someone who does play WoW and loves his D&D, one thing that WoW does is it detaches you from the numbers by stressing things like thresholds you meet and then ignore in favour of teamwork and tactical positioning/movement.
They get away with it in WoW because the numbers can be min/maxed but it's all so universally accessable that the stress of the game is on how you play with others and the specific tactics from one boss to the next.
D&D asks for a touch more involvement with the numbers. Partly because you're actually determining the outcomes of things, partially because you have a virtually infinite number of scenarios and you're constantly determining what number to use in what situation, but mostly because the stress in combat is on the number game: what you roll to hit, how much damage you roll.
4e, for all its faults, did create a larger stress on tactical overlays and mats which actually detracts attention from the numbers. I'm not a big fan of battle mats in my D&D, but I do recognise how useful they can be and the benefits of their incorporation into the game and this is one major bonus.
I agree, WoW's one of those iconic things that happens once a generation, but I don't see how that negates interest in D&D and I don't accept that WoW players aren't interested in pen and paper. I also don't accept that as any kind of valid excuse to not use some of the stuff that makes WoW tick to make D&D better, even if it were true.
5. Losing the "feel" of D&D. 2nd ed books have aged quite well and one can still mine them for ideas. They were fluff heavy and even educational as they often used real life examples from history in the core books. The 2nd ed fighters handbook is still quite enjoyable to read 24 years after it was printed. Being honest how much fun is it to read the Complete Warrior or Martial Power just for fun? The style changed due to a focus on mechanics.
I can't be bothered to read 26 pages of comments, but this is such a good point. I still read my planescape materials even to this day. They have such amazing fluff to them that I can still use in my games; it just doens't get old.
You do if you have any real hope of creating a method of making encounter creation easy while still creating effective encounters. If you take out the assumption of "+XYZ to hit at whatever level" then you are automatically cutting out the existence of a CR or Encoutner Level mechanic, which is a big boon to quickly creating challenging encounters that are neither cakewalks or TPKs.
All that's really needed is a step where party swag is included in CR.
A party loaded up on about three-dozen total bonus and a rainbow of effects is going to obliterate an otherwise identical party without any magical items. Encounter math needs to be able to handle that.
You do if you have any real hope of creating a method of making encounter creation easy while still creating effective encounters. If you take out the assumption of "+XYZ to hit at whatever level" then you are automatically cutting out the existence of a CR or Encoutner Level mechanic, which is a big boon to quickly creating challenging encounters that are neither cakewalks or TPKs.
All that's really needed is a step where party swag is included in CR.
A party loaded up on about three-dozen total bonus and a rainbow of effects is going to obliterate an otherwise identical party without any magical items. Encounter math needs to be able to handle that.
I agree. However, as I said before, it's a reason to add to or modify the EL system of 4e and not a reason to just toss it out.
I agree. However, as I said before, it's a reason to add to or modify the EL system of 4e and not a reason to just toss it out.
CR and EL aren't essentially the same thing?
You do if you have any real hope of creating a method of making encounter creation easy while still creating effective encounters. If you take out the assumption of "+XYZ to hit at whatever level" then you are automatically cutting out the existence of a CR or Encoutner Level mechanic, which is a big boon to quickly creating challenging encounters that are neither cakewalks or TPKs.
All that's really needed is a step where party swag is included in CR.
A party loaded up on about three-dozen total bonus and a rainbow of effects is going to obliterate an otherwise identical party without any magical items. Encounter math needs to be able to handle that.
One reason why encounter math probably need to be tossed. Let the DM sort out things like that. It is virtually impossable to make it work as to much varience are at individual tables.
You do if you have any real hope of creating a method of making encounter creation easy while still creating effective encounters. If you take out the assumption of "+XYZ to hit at whatever level" then you are automatically cutting out the existence of a CR or Encoutner Level mechanic, which is a big boon to quickly creating challenging encounters that are neither cakewalks or TPKs.
All that's really needed is a step where party swag is included in CR.
A party loaded up on about three-dozen total bonus and a rainbow of effects is going to obliterate an otherwise identical party without any magical items. Encounter math needs to be able to handle that.
One reason why encounter math probably need to be tossed. Let the DM sort out things like that. It is virtually impossable to make it work as to much varience are at individual tables.
I don't think so. It might be as simple as a dial to up the required EL given a total number of +X items.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" /> One reason why encounter math probably need to be tossed. Let the DM sort out things like that. It is virtually impossable to make it work as to much varience are at individual tables.
Well, it's not bad to have a base guideline for parties that don't have magic items or something like that. Then the DM can adjust from there.
Obviously there will always require some DM adjudication but giving the DM a starting point or basic idea isn't a bad thing, especialyl for newer DMs.
I agree. However, as I said before, it's a reason to add to or modify the EL system of 4e and not a reason to just toss it out.
CR and EL aren't essentially the same thing?
The only difference between (3E) CR and (4E) EL is that (4E) EL was a better predictor of difficulty.
(I specify 3e/4e because 3e also had a mechanic called EL. It was based off the CR's of the creatures involved, and the vast majority of the problems people have with CR is because they don't know the EL rule even exists, despite it being right there in the DMG next to the CR rules. It was, however, a pain in the ass to calculate.)
how about they drop the whole challenge level junk and have dms do their job by designing encounters. its not really hard to do. i think by giving dms a monster manual and a basic rule on encounter design it will result in a good game.
That's what encounter level is: "a basic rule on encounter design."
how about they drop the whole challenge level junk and have dms do their job by designing encounters. its not really hard to do. i think by giving dms a monster manual and a basic rule on encounter design it will result in a good game.
The guidelines are there so Dms can approximate how powerful the encounter is, and don't risk either making a fight that was supposed to be a big tough challenge a cakewalk, or making a fight that was suppose dot be "another day on the job" into a TPK by accident.
1) It is to be hoped bounded accuracy is a fraud and it will be in 5e too.
2) What this is is a treadmill. We constantly are looking at the carrot in front of our eyes and running to catch it as the ground shifts under us. We always have incentive to come back and keep on playing to get that carrot. The carrot may change from a +1 to a +6, but it is always there. Attempts to do without the carrot are ultimately met with the player not playing. "Why play? I'll get 5th level/+2 weapon/a bonus to my skills... anyway."
The lack of the treadmill will not kill the game right out of the box like some other problems can. But it will kill it just as surely.
1) Not by us.
2) Nope, all of that is untrue; if the end result is you needing to roll an 11 on a d20, it matters not whether the modifier is +7, or +37, I prefer the former.
As a mathematical fact, it may not matter if the player needs +7 or +37 to hit with a roll of 11, As a subjective feeling, it is quite definitely different. Simply loot at all the games that use that treadmill.
It hasn't killed World of Warcraft and it's even more obvious in that game.
Not having much knowledge of WOW, I can't absolutely discuss this, but I understand it follows the basic treatmill pattern, with the player much stronger at higher levels[& facing stronger opponents with about the same net chance of success] and striving for more powerful gear constantly.
1) It is to be hoped bounded accuracy is a fraud and it will be in 5e too.
2) What this is is a treadmill. We constantly are looking at the carrot in front of our eyes and running to catch it as the ground shifts under us. We always have incentive to come back and keep on playing to get that carrot. The carrot may change from a +1 to a +6, but it is always there. Attempts to do without the carrot are ultimately met with the player not playing. "Why play? I'll get 5th level/+2 weapon/a bonus to my skills... anyway."
The lack of the treadmill will not kill the game right out of the box like some other problems can. But it will kill it just as surely.
1) Not by us.
2) Nope, all of that is untrue; if the end result is you needing to roll an 11 on a d20, it matters not whether the modifier is +7, or +37, I prefer the former.
As a mathematical fact, it may not matter if the player needs +7 or +37 to hit with a roll of 11, As a subjective feeling, it is quite definitely different. Simply loot at all the games that use that treadmill.
It's actually better to leave out the treadmill, because it's so darn easy to add back in. Just add character level to all ac, attacks, and saves, and monster level to the same.
It's actually better to leave out the treadmill, because it's so darn easy to add back in. Just add character level to all ac, attacks, and saves, and monster level to the same.
It is really easy to do. It's why I chalk up the dev's refusal to supply some models for a no-BA module to bone-headed subbornness.
Re: DM newness
A DM's gonna have to get to grips with system math eventually and shielding them from it will ultimately slow that process down. It's better to provide some kind of easy to understand at a glance system like levels that correspond to character levels to give them a place to start and then let them make their discoveries. They'll be better DMs for it in the end.
I much preferred 4e's monster levels to 3e's challenge rating 'cause it wasn't completely insane. Strip the magic item assumptions out of 4e's monster math and you've got something really workable for a new DM that's imperfect enough to encourage them to engage with the monster math themselves. From there they can learn to make the adjustments they need.
The biggest mechanic I thought 2nd ed did get right was the relative difficulty of creating magic item compared to 3.5, 4th and Pathfinder. That lead to powergaming builds and various problems for the game IMHO. It may be popular with the players as they can get their trinkets but there are negatives associated with that as well.
I just want to remember that there are players and DMs who actually likes worlds with lots of magic items.
yeaup. I'm probably not going to play a fantasy game with rare magic items for a long while. If Next can't be run with a wide proliferation of minor magic items, and commonly used high magic services (see: Eberron), or some combination of that and the sort of common magic found in the 4e Feywild book, without destroying game balance, then Next cannot be played the way my group wants to play DnD, and it will be the first edition of DnD that we can't use to play "our DnD" since 2e. And honestly, 2e wasn't that hard to houserule to work for us.
Bull pucky 4e is incredibly easy to play in low magic... easier than the cleric in every party editions by far. You can build a all martial party...
Same as every edition to date.
I had an all 2nd Ed rogue/thief party...magical...
And I'm sure you ran and built encounters exactly the same, too, and didn't let them find extra healing potions or anything.
Don't really care what your response is there, since there's no way for me to verify anything you say about your games, but it's pretty much objectively true that 4e made it easier than any edition before it to play with whatever level of magic you want, and not have to rework how you setup or run the game in order to do it.
Either way, the person you're quoting isn't saying that any other edition didn't support low magic parties, so what's your point?
Hahahaha, yes it is.
No, it's really not.
And before inherent bonuses, you could run a low magic campaign really easily, until late Paragon, maybe even Epic. Being a couple points behind the assumed numbers isn't actually a big deal in 4e, in spite of what the internet might make you think. In fact, my group is almost always behind, with at most one "big three" item per character (again, that's at most) being at the "assumed" bonus. We don't notice. We never run encounters that are lower than level +2, and we aren't even super optimised. We just work together well, and synergize class abillities/team strategy.
The game runs at a difficulty for us that is a probably "moderate to hard" where "everything at assumed numbers with all the math fix feats" is "normal mode", but if we optimized a little more, or if those math fix feats weren't needed, and we ran lower level encounters, we'd be having no difficulty. (which also wouldn't be any fun for us, but that's another topic)
The point is, no magic needs no adjustment in terms of character abillities, and with one optional rule it requires no adjustment for gear, and even without that optional rule, the adjustment "needed" is minor for at least 2/3 of the levels of the game.
So yeah, 4e works with low magic from the PHB1. It just works even better with DMG2.
That's a plus, not a minus.
Now where I think 3e hurt DnD was by opening the flood gates of product. It burned hot and fast and the min/max/munchkin players were sure to fan things to keep it burning.
- 3.X killed much of the fluff that had built up over AD&D. Look at other RPGs that sell themselves by their settings; D&D lost much of those selling points as players went on to other settings, campaigns and story-lines.
- 4th Edition plowed under the thematic remains of much of what was left and sought to re-invent the fluff of the system and distance itself from it's earlier AD&D days, purging vancian casting, and the influences of Greyhawk from the system. Suddenly D&D now seemed to lack selling points (even nostalgia) that it hasn't seemed to be able to replace.
- An increased market for RPGs has cut into D&D's supremacy as settings customized for theme and play styles can better cater to their audiences. If you only want to run Oriental games for example, rather than buying a copy of Oriental Adventures (or it's equivalent) you can buy a game who's system and fluff is dedicated to that setting.
- 3.X and 4th have both been poorly published systems. Too many books and not enough play testing and editing before release are looked down on in favor of less expensive systems where the 6 tiers of classes or massive piles of errata don't need to be considered. If you can just open a book and play without the hassle of poor design/editing, then that's what you're going to prefer.
- Shifting audiences have also taken their toll. While earlier systems were made BY wargamers FOR wargamers, more modern roleplayers are looking for more theatrical and cinematic systems. D&D has not delivered on either point with it's clunky and somewhat overgrown combat, unrealistic rules blasting apart the hope of "believability", and all wrapped up with a brand name that is increasingly lacking in style or substance.
Basically, the game system has been losing it's selling points over time and hasn't achieved any increase to compensate.
More/better fluff? No, it's still all locked in AD&D.
Smoother rules? No, gameplay is still clunky.
More realistic rules? No, you could tell me I was playing a demigod with more believability.
A better "feel"? No, it's still a wargame masquerading as an RPG system.
- Shifting audiences have also taken their toll. While earlier systems were made BY wargamers FOR wargamers, more modern roleplayers are looking for more theatrical and cinematic systems. D&D has not delivered on either point with it's clunky and somewhat overgrown combat, unrealistic rules blasting apart the hope of "believability", and all wrapped up with a brand name that is increasingly lacking in style or substance.
This is one of the biggest problems, IMO. Not so much the unrealistic rules, since very few RPGs have terribly realistic rules for just about anything outside of things like economies and maybe crafting, but the rest.