| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 18:04:55
Which is not the entirety of the content of this blog post on Kobold Press, but definitely has merit. |
| 23 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Matt James |
Posted - 26 May 2013 : 17:59:42
Rules set the tone. They're important for the story in that aspect. Playing in the Forgotten Realms with DARPG rules, versus AD&D 2e, is a completely different experience.
Then there's the business side. They have to sell books, accessories, and everything between. It's a nice notion that these organizations should provide as much as they can to the public for free (OGL), but the truth is that they'll need to divorce themselves from it at some point. Even Pathfinder has their own amended license that is not as free and open as the original OGL. In the coming couple of years, don't be surprised if a new(er) version of Pathfinder gets released. Paizo was genius in seeing that the market wasn't dry yet for 3.x content. They recognized it and took advantage of it (in a good way, mind you).
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 25 May 2013 : 07:07:20
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Currently the wizard has cantrips that are usable At-Will and the damaging spells scale with character level. A ray of frost deals 5d8 damage with a failed Dexterity saving throw at 20th level. Some people like me enjoy this because it changed the fundamental idea behind what a cantrip is (for me, they're not 'minor magics' but a staple-point in wizardry. They're the backbone and starting point for wizards that will hone these skills and spells to become their go-to attacks when the situation isn't in need of powerful magic). Others, however, hate this idea that cantrips become more than just 'minor spells'. They want cantrips to only be useful out of combat and some people want them to have spell slots too. Hopefully a Wizard tradition is created that allows wizards to choose between different casting styles so that people get the feel they want.
Just thought I'd butt my nose here on this one, because of my interest. Personally, I'd like to see a book of "optional" wizard types. Sure, they can have the "standard" wizard being this kind that does magic missile or whatever everytime they fight. However, I'd like to also see the wizard who CAN'T draw on that much magic. Maybe they're just not that attuned to it. Both should still memorize spells, etc... with similar mechanics. However, the non "cantrip" using one should have weapon "feats" to make up for their lack of having infinite magic to hurl. They should be better in combat, maybe even more hit points. Maybe they can even wear certain special armors. Both can fit in quite well in the same world, and in fact in some worlds, maybe the one who uses weapons is more common. Note, this isn't a "battlemage" because this other type of wizard might be just as versatile as the other wizard (carrying utility, combat, and defensive spells), just their usual form of combat is say a crossbow or a bow and they might wield a short sword instead of a staff at close range.
Then they could turn around for the same add-on book and create certain special "wizards" like they also did (i.e. warmages, dread necromancers, beguilers, wu jen, elementalists, spellthieves, etc..)
First, I agree that options are the best thing they can roll out with. However, keep in mind that even spells memorized at low-levels (such as Magic Missle) have their place and are often better than cantrips a good portion of the time. For example we just finished another evening of playtest and I was playing an Eladrin (Moon Elf) Wizard of the Evocation school. I had Ray of Frost and dealt 3d8 with it so long as the target failed it's Dexterity saving throw. As such I was looking at approx 13 damage per-round with this cantrip (and nothing if it saves). Magic Missile memorized at 1st level still deals 3d4 + 6 damage (can be broken up into three 1d4 + 2 darts), auto-hits, and by-passes most elemental resistances. And because the character is an evoker, any rolls that are 1's are treated as 2's (i'd prefer re-rolling the damage roll but whatever) so that really ups the damage of Magic Missiles average.
I hope they provide a plethora of sub-options for certin classes to get the sort of playstyle people enjoy. A good compromise, IMO, is to remove at-will cantrips and add in a scaling Attack Bonus that Wizards use with weapons, like the Warmage you mentioned. If I can wade into battle with staff and sword and not have to rely on my at-will cantrips then that would be awesome too. I just don't care to play for wizards that do not contribute on a round-by-round basis. It seems boring. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 21:28:45
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Currently the wizard has cantrips that are usable At-Will and the damaging spells scale with character level. A ray of frost deals 5d8 damage with a failed Dexterity saving throw at 20th level. Some people like me enjoy this because it changed the fundamental idea behind what a cantrip is (for me, they're not 'minor magics' but a staple-point in wizardry. They're the backbone and starting point for wizards that will hone these skills and spells to become their go-to attacks when the situation isn't in need of powerful magic). Others, however, hate this idea that cantrips become more than just 'minor spells'. They want cantrips to only be useful out of combat and some people want them to have spell slots too. Hopefully a Wizard tradition is created that allows wizards to choose between different casting styles so that people get the feel they want.
Just thought I'd butt my nose here on this one, because of my interest. Personally, I'd like to see a book of "optional" wizard types. Sure, they can have the "standard" wizard being this kind that does magic missile or whatever everytime they fight. However, I'd like to also see the wizard who CAN'T draw on that much magic. Maybe they're just not that attuned to it. Both should still memorize spells, etc... with similar mechanics. However, the non "cantrip" using one should have weapon "feats" to make up for their lack of having infinite magic to hurl. They should be better in combat, maybe even more hit points. Maybe they can even wear certain special armors. Both can fit in quite well in the same world, and in fact in some worlds, maybe the one who uses weapons is more common. Note, this isn't a "battlemage" because this other type of wizard might be just as versatile as the other wizard (carrying utility, combat, and defensive spells), just their usual form of combat is say a crossbow or a bow and they might wield a short sword instead of a staff at close range.
Then they could turn around for the same add-on book and create certain special "wizards" like they also did (i.e. warmages, dread necromancers, beguilers, wu jen, elementalists, spellthieves, etc..) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 21:06:18
the author seems to me to be an asshat trying to put on airs about how cool he is. I grew up in rural Louisiana too. It doesn't mean when I'm told I have to buy crap that I should shovel it down and ask for more. I'll continue to buy stuff that truly expands the game and makes it better. I've got to say, they were on a good trend from 1st ed, to 2nd ed, then 3rd ed, then 3.5.... each new edition made me worried, but I was ultimately pleased with the end product. I should also say that a good bit of what I've seen of "non-spotlight" lore put out by freelancers for FR in 4th edition, I've liked..... now what they did with the rest of the world, yeah, those people were just mad that some people knew the world better than them and they figured the best way to make it different was to basically kill it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 19:16:48
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So, the only way to sell a new (popular) edition of a game is to create a feeling of dissatisfaction with the previous version. One could do this by releasing tons of 'patches' (we call them splats), until the thing is an unplayable, Frankensteined mess. Then we yearn for a simpler, faster system (which we get when the first 3 books come out for the new edition... before the never-ending series of game-breaking splats). Rinse and repeat.
One thing that D&D needs to learn is to pace themselves. I said this even before 4E launched and it was to slow down the number of splats being produced so that the system could be easily learned by the fanbase and that they can fine-comb any mistakes the splats produce to cut down on errata. Well none of that happened and it really hurt 4E in my opinion. There isn't a books or supplement that doesn't have at least alittle bit of errata that changes how the mechanics work and I, for one, don't think that's a good thing. I understand balance is an issue but there comes a point where your ruining the integrity of the game when you have to go back and fix things all the time, espically for stuff that isn't "truely" broken (like the Flaming sword for example).
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Because Paizo and so many other companies didn't get onboard with the new edition, and instead 'fixed' the old version, the plan didn't work (so good), and they tried other methods. I think most of us remember them bad-mouthing previous editions. Unfortunately for them, that backfired, and was a PR nightmare. This business model only works when all companies involved are on the same page (so basically, Paizo was the company that refused to put more air in their lightbulbs).
The problem, 100% of it, was the GSL and the abandonment of the OGL. Lisa (from Paizo) basically stated that because WotC did not want to work well with 3rd Party Publishers and the GSL was in such bad shape that they decided to continue with their own, re-vamped version of the OGL. Had 4E been created with a similiar OGL like 3E we wouldn't even be talking about D&D:Next right now but probably the latest 4E splat-book. Paizo would've been on board with 4E along with a variety of other compaines helping promote and produce quality material for that edition. Instead, WotC dropped the ball big time and made them all super-competitors rather than supporters.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So to continue this analogy, what WotC needs to do is go with something completely new, like those LED bulbs. It will probably be slow going at first (much like 4e), but in the long run I think it will pan-out. People have to eventually get tired of 3e/OGL, because its human nature to want something 'new and improved'. The problem is, it has to feel like something we are already comfortable with, like how the new LED bulbs screw into the old, standard sockets.
Thats going to be a neat trick to pull off with a game system - I wish them the best of luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
But they promised 4th Edition was so flexible that there would never be another Edition. Something along the concept of rules revisions I suspect was the talking point.
There was also an employee at European Gencon - soon after 4e's release - who was asked (jokingly), "when will 5e be out?"
He actually responded honestly - he said something like, "Of course we are already thinking about 5e, but thats still years away."
And so it was.
They will be planning 6e they DAY 5e comes out, otherwise they are not doing their jobs. What is fun for us puts food on their table - thats why fans have a completely different mindset then those in charge.
Yeah, I really do believe that. Of course no one is forced into the new edition but it is nice to have a game that is currently being supported. I don't know how well 5E will be 3PP friendly (I'm assuming it will be like the current GSL) which means that 3PP will continue to promote their own mechanics based off of the OGL and still be competition using WotC own product. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 18:18:03
I pronounce it THWACK-O, but that's (probably) just me. 
Cheers |
| Markustay |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 14:38:01
I had a friend that worked in the lighting industry, and he told me a story. Years and years ago (I believe in the 50's, but somewhere around there) a bunch of executives from different companies got together and asked the question, "how do we sell more lightbulbs?" You see, back then lighbulbs lasted a LONG time. They hired a team of think-tankers to tackle the problem, and they came up with THIS SOLUTION: "Add more air to the lightbulb".
You see, lightbulb filaments need to be in a vacuum, and when in a perfect vacuum, they last a REALLY long time. By adding some air back into the mix, they greatly shortened the life of the bulbs (and thus were able to sell more bulbs). True story.
Then, years later they took some of that air back out and marketed them as 'long life bulbs'. Ohhh, the irony.
So, the only way to sell a new (popular) edition of a game is to create a feeling of dissatisfaction with the previous version. One could do this by releasing tons of 'patches' (we call them splats), until the thing is an unplayable, Frankensteined mess. Then we yearn for a simpler, faster system (which we get when the first 3 books come out for the new edition... before the never-ending series of game-breaking splats). Rinse and repeat.
Because Paizo and so many other companies didn't get onboard with the new edition, and instead 'fixed' the old version, the plan didn't work (so good), and they tried other methods. I think most of us remember them bad-mouthing previous editions. Unfortunately for them, that backfired, and was a PR nightmare. This business model only works when all companies involved are on the same page (so basically, Paizo was the company that refused to put more air in their lightbulbs).
So to continue this analogy, what WotC needs to do is go with something completely new, like those LED bulbs. It will probably be slow going at first (much like 4e), but in the long run I think it will pan-out. People have to eventually get tired of 3e/OGL, because its human nature to want something 'new and improved'. The problem is, it has to feel like something we are already comfortable with, like how the new LED bulbs screw into the old, standard sockets.
Thats going to be a neat trick to pull off with a game system - I wish them the best of luck.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
But they promised 4th Edition was so flexible that there would never be another Edition. Something along the concept of rules revisions I suspect was the talking point.
There was also an employee at European Gencon - soon after 4e's release - who was asked (jokingly), "when will 5e be out?"
He actually responded honestly - he said something like, "Of course we are already thinking about 5e, but thats still years away."
And so it was.
They will be planning 6e they DAY 5e comes out, otherwise they are not doing their jobs. What is fun for us puts food on their table - thats why fans have a completely different mindset then those in charge. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 May 2013 : 13:07:51
I think the article has some merit in that you can't recapture that good ol' feeling with mechanics unless you actually go and use those mechanics fully, but then it goes againstt he very design principals and 'promises' this new design team is reach for with D&D:Next. To be frank, this article is more about the vitriol posters at Wiz-bro and the constant bickering about every single element or feature that the developers roll out with. The thing is, 4E is different in a lot of ways (still captures that D&D 'Feeling' for me though) and now that the cat is out of the bag people want similiar elements from that game, just as other people want other elements from other games like level-by-level multiclassing as seen in 3E or limitied magical items and true vancian spellcasters of 2E. How does one create a system where Player #1 wants to be a True Vancian Wizard (cantrips have spell slots, when all out revert to X-bow or darts) he remembers from his older AD&D days while another player wants at-will cantrips (that scale with level) plus encounter and daily spells that he's porting over from his 4E game? Or about healing where some people hate Healing Surges/Martial Healing while others find it a breath of fresh air? Or if Player #1 has the rooted belief that wizards should start out weak and end extreamly power and vise-versa for the Fighter where Player #2 believes that they should be on-par for their careers.
I mean, these are fundamental elements that are often diametrically opposed to one another. And these opposing views are pretty much rampant over on the messageboards, both crowds screaming (as it were) loud enough in the vain attempt that their view or playstyle or opinion will be viewed by the designers and put into the "default" game, thus apparently making them the "winner" or perceived "corret way to play".
I have no illusion that D&D:Next will have features or elements that I will outright throw away and/or change at the onset of any campaign I run (if I even play that edition at all) or advocate their removal/change if I'm a player. But Mr. Mearls has pretty much said that this is what he wants anyways. THe question is will there be offical support for different things when I throw something away? Examples;
• I'm not a fan of the basic HP system. D&D:Next assumes that everyone is using HP as the base and when you drop to 0 HP, you start to die. To me, this is boring. So "been there, done that" that I want something new. Luckily I have the SRD and their Wound/Vitality system. But I'm also hoping that we can get a similiar Healing Surge system thrown in that changes the basics of healing and spells too.
• Currently the wizard has cantrips that are usable At-Will and the damaging spells scale with character level. A ray of frost deals 5d8 damage with a failed Dexterity saving throw at 20th level. Some people like me enjoy this because it changed the fundamental idea behind what a cantrip is (for me, they're not 'minor magics' but a staple-point in wizardry. They're the backbone and starting point for wizards that will hone these skills and spells to become their go-to attacks when the situation isn't in need of powerful magic). Others, however, hate this idea that cantrips become more than just 'minor spells'. They want cantrips to only be useful out of combat and some people want them to have spell slots too. Hopefully a Wizard tradition is created that allows wizards to choose between different casting styles so that people get the feel they want.
• Alignment. Oh boy, the amount threads that have been blocked due to differences of this topic is pretty crazy. This one word and it's impact on the game is extreamly strong for some people that it's inclusion or removal as "Default" often means they're not playing the edition at all. From arguments about it's usage in class requirements to tags on spells to magical weapons to how many variants of alignment should there be are the main focal points of animosity and anger by posters. But there is a silent middle crowed, those who use alignment loosly (myself included) that doesn't really want to see it go but also doesn't want it to have a significant impact on the game. Currently it's a sort of Use or Don't use situation with no help or guidelines to DMs who just want to use it lightly.
To tie this back all into the article, with SO many voices being raised and the styles of editions changing or being so opposed in their core concept, it's important for the designers to not lose focus on what their original goals were admist the clamoring of views. The designers need to ignore those who shout "If that's in the game, I'm not buying it!" because people who deal in absolutes (like the Sith) shouldn't be pandered to at all. Just because Edition X has Such-and-such mechanic or whatever doesn't mean that D&D:Next is going to have it by default. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 21:58:28
But they promised 4th Edition was so flexible that there would never be another Edition. Something along the concept of rules revisions I suspect was the talking point.
It should be noted that rules revisions or even expansions very often were considered a new Edition like difference between 3.0 and 3.5.
Clearly the company needs to sell product, if not with new Editions clearly with support material (expansions). Oh a gaming company could sell modules (one reason I believe TSR had "problems with the printers") and game support items like dice and minis. These however are not enough to maintain employment level is my best estimate. Oh yes the novels do appear to help the bottom line as well. *wink* |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 21:20:02
I believe "the game needs to move forward" because businesses need to move product, and the sales of any given edition decline over time. Thus, even if D&D Next turns out to be all things to all gamers and the Platonic ideal of a rules set, look for Sixth Edition to come along by and by. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 May 2013 : 17:54:30
I call it Thacko.. but only because I think its Wacko. 
Hated running 2nd edition because of it, but whatever - water under the bridge. I also loved 3rd edition, and I don't recall nearly as many people shouting "this isn't D&D!" about that edition as they did about 4th, which takes a lot of merit out of that article. Something can be VERY different and still capture the essence of D&D. I don't believe 4e did that, but I also realize not everyone feels the same way (and there are as many 'degrees' within that scope as there are people).
I understand where the author is coming from, and I also feel the game needs to 'move forward', if for no other reason then that kids today expect very different things from an (MO)RPG experience. They want to kill things, they want 'phat lewtz', and they want to level. Thats pretty-much it. However, they still expect a very good story behind it all*, and thats where we can capture their imaginations. No frontal assault will work on the little buggers - we need to do a rogue-style 'backstab' when they are not looking. That means the game mechanics has to live up to their expectations... and then its up to us to do the rest. No set of mechanics will ever capture their imaginations - thats OUR jobs.
I actually think thats precisely what 4e had in mind. Perhaps it was just 'too much, too soon'. Would the backlash have been nearly as bad if we had no Spellplague - if the Realms remained The Realms (we knew)? I just don't know...
On the other hand, if I am a player in a game, I want it 'old school', with snacks, and arguments (about rules), and lots of dice rolling (and fudging) and just a plain, ol' good time had by all. So I totally get the nostalgia thing as well. I'm not sure which is more important - if I was a company looking to the future (and future generations), I would ignore the past. At least half the people that started playing 'at the beginning' are dead now, and within the next decade or so at least another 25% will join them. I'm not sure if Nostalgia is going to 'pay the bills', as it were. And since many of those 'old schoolers' are now firmly in Paizo's pocket, maybe it is time to 'mix it up a little'.
Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to go ahead and release 5e... and then its too late to re-think it. I am actually hoping to fall in love again. I'm not expecting it... but I am hoping.
*Re-reading this last sentence-and-a-half, I realize something - thats precisely what I wanted to do when I was 16! I guess nothing has really changed at all.  |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 07:57:21
The article author did the farthest thing from "telling it like it is". The author made the mistake of equating progress with the newest edition. New rules does not mean better rules, just different rules.
Rules do matter in the tone of the game at least if they differ as much as older editions and 3E or 4E. Rules matter in the style of game/storytelling. The author completely missed the point of people who prefer older rules and seemed to just get caught up in his own emotions against a few people who rubbed him the wrong way.
The article has limited application to the Old/New Realms discussion. Changes to rules is different from changes to a setting. Neither is inherently good or bad. They are judged on their own merits taking into consideration the context of the whole.
People who feel strongly about the Realms before are still vocal about any and every era of the Realms today. |
| vorpalanvil |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 05:57:08
I suspect that you pronounce it "thayco" because that of course is the proper pronunciation. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 01:20:00
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I do not think many to want a return to THAC0 or best possible AC is -10, however with the quicker turn over of Editions I certainly can understand some push back.
Yeah, as much as I liked 2E, I wasn't sorry to see THAC0 or the wonky AC scale go... I remember someone telling me, back in the days of 2E, that there was some simple formula for calculating exactly what you needs to roll to hit... But the formula he gave me wasn't any easier!
On a related note, I still pronounce it "thay-co". I understand most folks say it "thack-o". |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 00:36:45
I do not think many to want a return to THAC0 or best possible AC is -10, however with the quicker turn over of Editions I certainly can understand some push back.
G.G. clearly did have the view of house rules clearly an option to the DM, that however be also believed too many house rules the game would no longer be D&D, *shrugs* |
| idilippy |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 00:16:26
PM sent, ninja'd by Kentinal here so feel free to disregard. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 00:15:46
Oops was not PM, however clearly appears free content. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 00:14:53
Copy and pasted
quote:
Penny Dreadfuls: Against the Nostalgia Fetish in Fantasy Roleplaying
May 20, 2013 / Neal Hebert
Penny Dreadfuls: Adapted from the Spring Heeled Jack Penny DreadfulEver since the announcement of “D&D Next”—or, to translate marketing-speak into actual English, Dungeons & Dragons: 5th Edition—more than a year ago, Wizards of the Coast’s efforts to unite the disparate tribes of fantasy roleplaying enthusiasts under one system of roleplaying has been contentious at best. Fans of disparate—and mutually exclusive, in some cases—styles of roleplaying have been contesting and debating the merits of each edition to assess whether elements of that edition should be included in the Frankenstein’s monster that is Next.
The results have been ugly, retrograde, and entirely predictable. Wizards of the Coast’s promises of modularity and freedom of choice have all been silenced by the advent of the unelected “But that’s not D&D!” committee that lurks on every forum. Its members revel in speaking out against progressive design, clutch tightly to every mechanical cow in the event that someone, somewhere might believe it sacred despite its age or dissociation from the remainder of its herd, and rejoice in purging the unclean from the hobby because of their conviction that there is only one ideologically acceptable way to pretend to be an elf.
Theirs.
People who’ve talked with me know I have never been on board with D&D Next—its design philosophy’s attempt to unite the tribes struck me as remarkably tone deaf, naïve, and harmful to the state of play we have been gifted with since the hobby’s inception in E. Gary Gygax’s basement four decades ago. While some view crowdsourcing as a viable way forward, I predicted that Wizards of the Coast’s tactics to engage fans in the design of the next edition of the game would reignite the most-recent edition warfare that’s infected gaming discussions since the launch of D&D 4E and the release of Pathfinder RPG. Rather than encouraging gamers to have an honest discussion about the role nostalgia should play on mechanical design, the openness of the process has caused numerous players—most frequently those who prefer older editions of the game—to come forward and out themselves as members of the “That’s Not D&D” committee.
I suspect part of the reason I find the views of the “That’s Not D&D” committee so bizarre and unhelpful for the hobby is that I don’t particularly value nostalgia. As I get older, I’ve come to accept that the ways I played roleplaying games in the past—particularly my start in the hobby with AD&D—had little to do with mechanics and more to do with where I was at in my life. I’m from rural Louisiana, and when my friends and I discovered a game where we could pretend to be heroes, we used the rules to make stuff up that we thought would be fun. Our creativity and happiness to play together was part and parcel of being young kids happy to hang out with each other, and we didn’t really let the mechanics of the game get in our way.
I know game designers can’t recapture the esprit de corps of my early forays into gaming, no matter how hard they try; the mechanical design of the games I loved had very little to do with the fun those games facilitated. We didn’t think deeply about concepts like simulation, if it was necessary for D&D to have draconic kobolds or doglike kobolds, or whether warlords could “shout wounds closed.” Our games were laissez faire and au courant. Now that I’m older and have done a bit of game design, the idea that any game designer would try to recreate the games of my youth strikes me as quixotic and impossible—nostalgia is not empirical, and it cannot be mechanically modeled.
May Garl Glittergold go with those who try.
But to the members of the “That’s Not D&D!” committee plaguing RPG forums, the type of fun roleplaying games facilitated should be subordinated to nostalgic purity (in general) and their particular nostalgia (in specific). Did you like 4E? Tough luck. Were warlords the class you were looking for way back when you were playing 2E and wanted to create a fantastic version of Alexander the Great or Zhuge Liang? Sorry, that’s not D&D because the game is and must be Eurocentric. Are you interested in non-Vancian magic options? Too bad. That’s not D&D even if 2E psionics provided just such a system (and even if it were awesome!). Did you play 13th Age and decide that (what they call) narrative mechanics might be interesting in your fantasy game? Leper. Outcast. Unclean. Forge-ite. Swine.
The problem with the “That’s Not D&D!” committee is not the fact that they are attempting to use the Internet to silence and shame those who want D&D to continue moving forward. The issue is these men and women do not understand the extent to which they are fetishizing the past—and in so doing, contributing to the culture that’s making it harder and harder to introduce new players to the hobby. Nostalgia and fantasy roleplaying’s history have their place in this hobby—but to the loudest subset of message board denizens, that place is decidedly not as a reference to where the hobby’s been. History and nostalgia have become Gygax ex cathedra, rigidly constraining our understanding of the hobby’s past and constricting the mechanical designs that will define our hobby’s future.
But what do I know? Nostalgia über alles. After all, that’s not D&D (and it shouldn’t be to you or anybody else)!
I am not sure what he is seeking to convey myself, however have not spent a lot of time on the article. |
| Sightless |
Posted - 22 May 2013 : 00:07:27
I don't suppose anybody could copy and paste the article into a PM for me? I know it's asking alot, but the folks I'd normally ask are out on their anaversery. |
| idilippy |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 22:48:01
I got a similar feeling as Wooly, the article's author seemed to be putting everyone who has the opinion that an older edition's mechanics or feel could be used in 5e instead of something completely new and never used before in the box of being a "But that's not D&D" shouter. Just because something is a new innovation doesn't mean it's superior and just because something is old doesn't mean it's valueless outside of "nostalgia".
I also think Herbert's point, or rather a counterpoint to Herbert, can apply to the Realms too. There is a place for "interesting though that is, it's not D&D anymore" and I feel the same thing applies to the Forgotten Realms. Change is neither good nor bad, but enough change and you start to deviate far enough from the original offering that they start to be something entirely different.
I like the analogy on Baseball used by Justin Alexander, though I see it in less of an extreme way than WotC making soccer instead of baseball. I've played Baseball, and then I've played beer league softball where 2 strikes are an out and 3 balls are a walk, the strike zone is a completely different size and much more arbitrary, there are no stolen bases, fouls count as full strikes, no changing pitchers mid-inning, 5-7 instead of 9 inning games (or a team up by 5 runs), the number of outs an inning vary from league to league (some even have everyone get a chance at bat in an inning, or conversely have the inning end regardless of outs when X number of players have gone up to bat), you have 1 extra infield and 1 extra outfield player on the field, and home runs are ground rule doubles instead.
Each of those "innovations" were designed to make the game more accessible, but is the game still "baseball" at this point? I'd make an argument that it's not the same game at that point, since other than the more bare-bones skeleton it's completely different. To me saying D&D means "killing things and taking their stuff, heroes fighting monsters in a fantasy setting, and so on", to quote the article's author, is like saying baseball means "swinging a bat at a ball", there should be more to make D&D distinct from the other fantasy offerings around it or the name "D&D" has no common meaning.
At some point the new result is such a change from the base game that it's an entirely new thing, which is one reason I think fans of the Realms are occasionally passionate (overly so sometimes) about changes to the setting. There are dozens, hundreds of Fantasy RPG settings out there, but the Forgotten Realms should be distinctly their own place. If the Realms change so extremely that they are barely recognizable as the same place, what distinguishes it from any of the other settings? I'm not saying that's the case, either with D&D or the Forgotten Realms setting, but I am saying that valuing continuity among a brand doesn't mean, and shouldn't be dismissed as "blind nostalgia" or a "reactionary attitude". |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 21:42:43
Very refreshing to read someone telling it like it is on the forums.
I think Herbert's point about people steadfastly defending what they think D&D is and isn't applies to the Realms too. Lots of people have strong opinions about the Realms and--to this day--aren't afraid to throw in a negative word about an era of the Realms if it suits them.
I don't agree with Herbert's claim that the 5E designers are going about it all wrong. He's right in that you can't bottle nostalgia (read: create game mechanics to recreate a nostalgic feeling), but I think he's wrong to assume that mechanics aren't necessary to help facilitate storytelling.
That is, perhaps the mechanics themselves can't facilitate storytelling but the content of the core rulebooks (particularly what's in the 5E DMG) can, even if they go so far as to tell DMs it's OK to try ignoring half the rules in the rulebook every now and the.
I think it's possible, at any rate. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 20:40:21
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
Which is not the entirety of the content of this blog post on Kobold Press, but definitely has merit.
It comes across to me as saying "if you don't like the new edition, tough, deal with it." While I do understand the attitude of "stop whining about the past!", I think it's dismissive to say that those who preferred aspects of prior editions are simply being nostalgic or "fetishizing the past".
A person can avoid the latest thing for a lot of reasons, and rejecting it because it's new is just one of those many reasons.
I liked PBJs when I was little. I still like PBJs. It's not because I have some love for my long-gone childhood, it's because I still enjoy the taste.
I'll give 5E a chance. I've no reason not to... But it's going to take something really good to sway me from my 3.X/Pathfinder allegiance. I grew up in 2E and still think in terms of that ruleset, but I really liked 3.x, as well. And Paizo is a company I really like, for a lot of reasons... 5E has its work cut out for it, in my particular case, but it will get a chance. |
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 21 May 2013 : 18:16:52
Indeed an interesting article, thanks for the link. Personally I don't care about newer editions than AD&D but that's mostly because I can't be bothered to learn another system, and it works fine enough for me (also feats don't tickle me). What does make me wax nostalgic, however, is "classic" D&D *art*. One big turnoff for me with newer editions has always been the artwork which didn't make me day(dream), though the layout design was improved I couldn't get behind the new art style.
I love the often atmospheric and adventurous art of yore, like, say, the cover art of books like "FR Adventures", "The Magister", "The Savage Frontier", the Eye of the Beholder covers with their undead warriors, the first edition Ad&D PHB and DMG. Covers like these enticed me to buy, even before I knew what an RPG was I had the DMG (don't know how long it took before I realized there was a PHB and an MM to go with it). |
|
|
