| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 06:59:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The OGB was set in the 1350s DR. What would you say if the 5E Realms was indeed a re-boot of sorts? That is, having a jump-off point of 1320 or so DR ... Just musing is all ...
-- George Krashos
Yay, my third post of the year.
I love it and would most likely buy it, but as I said I would go a step further and do an "All Ed's" book. But I still think it would be prudent to do it as a experimental anniversary book of sorts, screwing over the 4ed. fans neither seems right nor wise in my opinion.
What I don't want is the make everyone happy idea. I have no interest in filling in lore between ideas I hate (and its not the 4ed. I am talking about here as I couldn't care less, its the 3ed. and what it did with the Realms I hate with the strongest feelings I can invest in a fictional world and a game)in the name of the fan community. That's why I never could stand the ideas of a "united Candlekeep" front or project. Others would love the challenge of doing something like this of course, but I think it is underestimated how different the so called canon is between editions; saying that the 1st edition Realms is the same as the end of the 3ed. (or even 4th) edition Realms is the same doesn't ring true to me personally. Of course you can add and adjust later elements, but if you decide to not do that you will end up with a vastly different setting from the current Realms. Trying to please everyone would just leave a mess that makes more people irritated than it pleases.
You know,just ignore the second half of this post, I am just blowing of steam. |
Edited by - Jorkens on 13 Jan 2012 07:00:16 |
 |
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 07:34:02
|
I've been lurking ever since my first post and I have been trying to avoid the grand debate. But seeing all the people who support a reboot made me want to respond. I personally feel that rebooting the Realms back to 1320, 1350, or whatever date before 1480 would be far far more destructive than any of the changes that 4E brought. Not only would you alienate those who came to the game during 4E, but it would be a big F U to all of those bought any novel or game product set after the said reboot date. In your quest to restore some sort of lost innocence you would essentially bring about the Realms final destruction.
It's time to accept the changes made to the product and move on. If you just can't live with those changes then just please move on to something else. There are still plenty of people who want to see things move forward. Or just jump back on the bandwagon and help make things better moving forward.
Sorry if this sounds rude but I had to get it off of my chest. |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 07:39:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
The OGB was set in the 1350s DR. What would you say if the 5E Realms was indeed a re-boot of sorts? That is, having a jump-off point of 1320 or so DR ... Just musing is all ...
-- George Krashos
Now that is a mighty interesting idea, not very likely at all I imagine, but that would intrigue me enough to buy the FR book on that hook alone regardless of what the 5e rulebooks were. I'm torn a bit here.
On one hand, I despised the 4e Realms, and still can find very little good from them, so the idea of scrapping them and starting back before that(preferably even before the string of RSE's but I'll take just the Spellplague gone) is a hard one to not push if Wizards asks for fan input on the setting. Also, I admit, it'd make a dark part of me chuckle to calmly point out to 4e fans who hate the revision that "WotC isn't stealing your 4e books, why complain about it?". However, having been on the side of watching my favorite(and only) regularly used setting for D&D be torn apart and smashed to bits I wouldn't wish that on anyone, even those who clamored for a different Realms enough that 4e FR was the result.
In the end I think that while nothing would please me more than an admission that the 4e Realms never happened and we're back in the 1370's(or 60's, 50's, or even 20's) I don't know if that would necessarily be the best solution for WotC as a whole, and they'd might be better off going with a compromise solution such as turning FR books into lore filled books that include information for any era of play. |
Edited by - idilippy on 13 Jan 2012 07:41:04 |
|
|
|
Gambit
Learned Scribe
110 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 08:14:44
|
| I really dont care what happens as long as they make Khelben and Halaster un-dead....not dead....alive, we'll just go with alive, again. |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 08:20:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
It's time to accept the changes made to the product and move on. If you just can't live with those changes then just please move on to something else. There are still plenty of people who want to see things move forward. Or just jump back on the bandwagon and help make things better moving forward.
Sorry if this sounds rude but I had to get it off of my chest.
Or accept it and keep doing what you have been doing all along. The "if you don't like it you can bugger off" attitude towards anyone preferring a specific era of the Realms or a edition irritates me. I have no plan to either jump on any bandwagon or to move along to something else; I have been a Realmsfan for nearly twenty years now and as long as I decide to name myself as that I will be just that. Whether I buy the latest product or not.
And I am sorry for singling out this post, as I suspect that was not your point here Caolin, but it is a sentiment I have seen too many times (from all sides) here at Candlekeep and this seemed like the right time to comment on it. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 08:22:45
|
I would love a 225 DR starting point! |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Thauranil
Master of Realmslore
India
1591 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 09:47:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I've been lurking ever since my first post and I have been trying to avoid the grand debate. But seeing all the people who support a reboot made me want to respond. I personally feel that rebooting the Realms back to 1320, 1350, or whatever date before 1480 would be far far more destructive than any of the changes that 4E brought. Not only would you alienate those who came to the game during 4E, but it would be a big F U to all of those bought any novel or game product set after the said reboot date. In your quest to restore some sort of lost innocence you would essentially bring about the Realms final destruction.
It's time to accept the changes made to the product and move on. If you just can't live with those changes then just please move on to something else. There are still plenty of people who want to see things move forward. Or just jump back on the bandwagon and help make things better moving forward.
Sorry if this sounds rude but I had to get it off of my chest.
I kind of have to agree with you on this one. I dont think rebooting is a legitimate option at all. Yes 4e has its faults, yes its much more dark than we are used to from the realms but perhaps this is just a reflection of the times. The original cadderly fighting a vampire type of storylinbe is not going to appeal to the new geneartion that has grown up in the war on terror. They instinctively dislike anything thats black and white. In order to appeal to them the realms needs more shades of grey. |
|
|
|
Brimstone
Great Reader
USA
3290 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 10:07:50
|
| Drizzt and Elminster. |
"These things also I have observed: that knowledge of our world is
to be nurtured like a precious flower, for it is the most precious
thing we have. Wherefore guard the word written and heed
words unwritten and set them down ere they fade . . . Learn
then, well, the arts of reading, writing, and listening true, and they
will lead you to the greatest art of all: understanding."
Alaundo of Candlekeep |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 14:35:56
|
A few quick searches turned up dozens of "My Realms vs 4E Realms" scrolls within Candlekeep and other libraries.
It seems like they all summarize 4E grievances quite comprehensively, and in most cases they also provide alternatives or adaptations which mitigate the "unacceptable" - a few of these are even far more plausible than the lore they displace. It also seems like the 4E expectorations primarily and repeatedly keep choking on the same handful of critical major details, surrounded by innumerable bits of phlegm and bile of lesser consequence being ejected for little purpose other than to express to anger and defiance. Many anti-4E rants and rampages lash out destructively at anyone and anything within proximity, these are generally too incoherent and poorly considered to offer constructive input. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:10:35
|
To defend why I would reboot D&D to 2nd edition:
1) the game needs to be simpler AND distinctive. Not some attempt to put an MMO on paper, since it will never be able to compete with that.
2) going back has the potential to bring back many former gamers from both a nostalgia standpoint and a stability standpoint and increases the potential to sell the huge back catalog that was incompatible with the drastic changes that came with 3E+
3) new gamers (D&D) simply will not know the difference and thus ALL will play 2nd (just like all new gamers now play 4E).
4) development costs are 0 and thus Hasbro can greatly increase its margins and lessen the potential of another failed edition (bringing us closer to the shelving of the IP)
**I personally love 1st edition, but it doesn't work as the books are poorly organized and are written in High Gygaxian. |
|
|
|
Tyrant
Senior Scribe
USA
586 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:13:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
To defend why I would reboot D&D to 2nd edition:
1) the game needs to be simpler AND distinctive. Not some attempt to put an MMO on paper, since it will never be able to compete with that.
2) going back has the potential to bring back many former gamers from both a nostalgia standpoint and a stability standpoint and increases the potential to sell the huge back catalog that was incompatible with the drastic changes that came with 3E+
3) new gamers (D&D) simply will not know the difference and thus ALL will play 2nd (just like all new gamers now play 4E).
4) development costs are 0 and thus Hasbro can greatly increase its margins and lessen the potential of another failed edition (bringing us closer to the shelving of the IP)
**I personally love 1st edition, but it doesn't work as the books are poorly organized and are written in High Gygaxian.
If development costs are 0 then you are shelving the IP and turning it into a used book seller. Nothing new is coming out. It's a dead end. |
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
-The Sith Code
Teenage Sith zombies, Tulkh thought-how in the moons of Bogden had it all started? Every so often, the universe must just get bored and decide to really cut loose. -Star Wars: Red Harvest |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:19:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tyrant
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
To defend why I would reboot D&D to 2nd edition:
1) the game needs to be simpler AND distinctive. Not some attempt to put an MMO on paper, since it will never be able to compete with that.
2) going back has the potential to bring back many former gamers from both a nostalgia standpoint and a stability standpoint and increases the potential to sell the huge back catalog that was incompatible with the drastic changes that came with 3E+
3) new gamers (D&D) simply will not know the difference and thus ALL will play 2nd (just like all new gamers now play 4E).
4) development costs are 0 and thus Hasbro can greatly increase its margins and lessen the potential of another failed edition (bringing us closer to the shelving of the IP)
**I personally love 1st edition, but it doesn't work as the books are poorly organized and are written in High Gygaxian.
If development costs are 0 then you are shelving the IP and turning it into a used book seller. Nothing new is coming out. It's a dead end.
Actually, as I said in another post, I would keep the novels coming (although focused ideally on fleshing out the pre-spellplague and even pre-OGB era). And no, the IP isn't shelved if you are still making a product available. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4487 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:40:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
To defend why I would reboot D&D to 2nd edition:
1) the game needs to be simpler AND distinctive. Not some attempt to put an MMO on paper, since it will never be able to compete with that.
2) going back has the potential to bring back many former gamers from both a nostalgia standpoint and a stability standpoint and increases the potential to sell the huge back catalog that was incompatible with the drastic changes that came with 3E+
3) new gamers (D&D) simply will not know the difference and thus ALL will play 2nd (just like all new gamers now play 4E).
4) development costs are 0 and thus Hasbro can greatly increase its margins and lessen the potential of another failed edition (bringing us closer to the shelving of the IP)
**I personally love 1st edition, but it doesn't work as the books are poorly organized and are written in High Gygaxian.
Back to Thac0, back to weapon speeds, back to 5 different saves and percentage rolls for steath/pick pocketing, and a host of other really hard to swallow ruls? No thanks. Hell, I'd pay for a re-printed core v3.5 Player's Handbook than go back to that. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:43:19
|
A 3E reboot would alienate 4E fans, a 2E reboot would also alienate 3E fans, etc.
I don't think "reboot" is a useful term here ... perhaps "reconstruction" or "restoration" would be better. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 15:57:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
A 3E reboot would alienate 4E fans, a 2E reboot would also alienate 3E fans, etc.
I don't think "reboot" is a useful term here ... perhaps "reconstruction" or "restoration" would be better.
Except it isn't about the "fans". It is about the new gamers. First, I would bet that the existing fans balance each other out. For every 4E gamers you "lose", you would gain a former 2E one (at least in terms of purchases). Second, as I stated above, 2E (and a static/stable ruleset) is far more conducive to new gamers than anything since. |
|
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:11:02
|
Not to sound disagreeable, but . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
A 3E reboot would alienate 4E fans, a 2E reboot would also alienate 3E fans, etc.
I don't think "reboot" is a useful term here ... perhaps "reconstruction" or "restoration" would be better.
Except it isn't about the "fans". It is about the new gamers. First, I would bet that the existing fans balance each other out. For every 4E gamers you "lose", you would gain a former 2E one (at least in terms of purchases). Second, as I stated above, 2E (and a static/stable ruleset) is far more conducive to new gamers than anything since.
This sounds like exactly the same attitude that led to the development of 4e FR in the first place. Who cares if we lose our loyal fans, if we're gaining new gamers? (And what guarantee is there that a new gamer will come? I personally STRONGLY disagree that 2e is the best format for new gamers--2e is in many respects even more complicated and hard to understand than 3e.)
My solution of edition-neutral source material tries to appeal to all the old fans (regardless of edition) AND bring in new gamers. I don't give a damn what edition of the game you want to play (though 5e is there if you want to try it), but I want you to be able to use the source material. That's what I think makes the best business sense: grow and expand the fanbase, rather than cut it apart and hope that you gain more than you lose.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:20:15
|
Well, yes the basic rule is that each gamer can only play one game (or edition ruleset) and in an ideal world Wizbro would want every D&D gamer to depend (in terms of purchases) exclusively on their 5E game.
I know many gamers will collect and mix preferred material from multiple editions (I'm one of them), but that's somewhat outside the mainstream and (in terms of purchases) therefore somewhat irrelevant.
I think we're not just talking about "all the gamers" basically being all the people who haven't yet bought/played any D&D products. We're talking about those people who clearly prefer other editions, such as 2E and 3E, and who (in terms of purchases) are still buying the game - except they're buying it from Paizo and other sources instead of Wizbro. So what can Wizbro 5E do to attract fans away from the competitions' offerings? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:24:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
This sounds like exactly the same attitude that led to the development of 4e FR in the first place. Who cares if we lose our loyal fans, if we're gaining new gamers? (And what guarantee is there that a new gamer will come? I personally STRONGLY disagree that 2e is the best format for new gamers--2e is in many respects even more complicated and hard to understand than 3e.)
My solution of edition-neutral source material tries to appeal to all the old fans (regardless of edition) AND bring in new gamers. I don't give a damn what edition of the game you want to play (though 5e is there if you want to try it), but I want you to be able to use the source material. That's what I think makes the best business sense: grow and expand the fanbase, rather than cut it apart and hope that you gain more than you lose.
Wouldn't a 4E Realms, cut totally loose from canon and unsupported in future, be -exactly- what the 4E enthusiasts asked for? They'd be left with just enough plot hooks (from novels and DDI) to get them started, but nothing more to interfere with their creativity.
What would be more simple and "pared down" than having 4E Realms as a totally separate, bare-bones setting all by itself? Even if 4E Realms is totally dissociated from canon, and might never have happened, the fans of it get exactly what they asked for.
They don't have to worry about any designer/author influence on their Realms, there isn't "too much lore" to get in the way, they get to keep their post-apocalyptic feel, they get everything they want, and they are cut loose for total freedom to go in any direction they wish.
And at the same time, we would get what we want, a reboot (perhaps as far back as the OGB). I think it's totally win-win, everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it too.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:32:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
Not to sound disagreeable, but . . .
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
A 3E reboot would alienate 4E fans, a 2E reboot would also alienate 3E fans, etc.
I don't think "reboot" is a useful term here ... perhaps "reconstruction" or "restoration" would be better.
Except it isn't about the "fans". It is about the new gamers. First, I would bet that the existing fans balance each other out. For every 4E gamers you "lose", you would gain a former 2E one (at least in terms of purchases). Second, as I stated above, 2E (and a static/stable ruleset) is far more conducive to new gamers than anything since.
This sounds like exactly the same attitude that led to the development of 4e FR in the first place. Who cares if we lose our loyal fans, if we're gaining new gamers? (And what guarantee is there that a new gamer will come? I personally STRONGLY disagree that 2e is the best format for new gamers--2e is in many respects even more complicated and hard to understand than 3e.)
My solution of edition-neutral source material tries to appeal to all the old fans (regardless of edition) AND bring in new gamers. I don't give a damn what edition of the game you want to play (though 5e is there if you want to try it), but I want you to be able to use the source material. That's what I think makes the best business sense: grow and expand the fanbase, rather than cut it apart and hope that you gain more than you lose.
Cheers
Well, I am going to bet that D&D is a declining business in general. And the increased speed of new editions is likely a testament to that (3.5 game out fairly soon after 3, 4th even faster, and now fifth less than 4 years later, whereas 1st lasted 11 years and 2nd about the same and if you want to combine 3 and 3.5, then you really need to combine 1st and 2nd). I think what got you 4E (and 3E before that) was WoTC and their reliance on "developers" like they have for magic. D&D was never magic and development (ie publishing ones own houserules) was never a good idea for a game that had stayed relatively stable for 20+ years.
And while edition neutral FR material might sound like a good idea, I don't see how it works in practice since you by default need to have a base year where the bulk of the info would be set AND you would almost have to completely remove crunch (which WoTC seems reluctant to do). For instance, I would have to see a supplement written that was something like 70% set in the 1350s-early60s and without the various race/class changes that occurred in 3E+ for me to consider buying it (and I bet there are many more like me out there, just change the era).
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4487 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:32:51
|
I don't mind nods to previous editions of the game. But WotC needs to come out with something that we don't already have. Why pay X amount of dollars for a reprint of 2E materials if you already have those materials? Same goes for 3E, if WotC were to create 5E (or the "next iteraton of D&D") that serves as mostly 3.75 material, what would be the point? I already got 50+ v3.5 books and Pathfinder, no need for WotC. And obviously people aren't interested in 4E or it would have sold better. NO, they need something more modular that can apply to a TON of people across the span, making compromises as it were.
Appealing to the pre-4E crowd means a return to "true" vancian spellcasting, but also a nod that some players DON'T want their wizards resorting to crossbows and mundane weapons when they're out of spells.
It means that Fighters don't have "Crazy" fantastic powers that appear magical but still giving them a specific role and something that differentiates them from other classes. I say go with the "Stances" aspect, granted thim unique abilities while in certain stances and even some boosts while weilding certain weapons.
Druids, 3E made them broken and 4E dulled them considerably. The best way is to keep the spells and wild shape different (like in 3E), but limit what you can Wild Shape into, so no flight until later in the character progression. Also, no requiremnt of knowing all the monster's stats that you Wild Shape into, and keep it simple.
Alignment Restictions, keep the as far away from D&D as possible.
Varying charts that say how a Charcter can hit (ie. BAB/Thac0). It causes a mess, it has YET to prove that the math is balanced without the requirment for feats to make it so, and some classes just get hosed (Rogue and Monk for starters).
There needs to be more skills, yet broken up into 3 aspects (combat, background, and Social) and classes get so many choices of each column.
And lastly, Rituals for everyone. No, that doesn't mean they all do it for free, as certain classes get access to them for free where others don't. But don't supress the Fighter who loves crafting arms and armor to just mundane weapons. All him to forge a magical weapon.
You find a good balance with these elements and I think you've got a great game. |
Diffan's NPG Generator: FR NPC Generator
E6 Options: Epic 6 Campaign |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:35:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
This sounds like exactly the same attitude that led to the development of 4e FR in the first place. Who cares if we lose our loyal fans, if we're gaining new gamers? (And what guarantee is there that a new gamer will come? I personally STRONGLY disagree that 2e is the best format for new gamers--2e is in many respects even more complicated and hard to understand than 3e.)
My solution of edition-neutral source material tries to appeal to all the old fans (regardless of edition) AND bring in new gamers. I don't give a damn what edition of the game you want to play (though 5e is there if you want to try it), but I want you to be able to use the source material. That's what I think makes the best business sense: grow and expand the fanbase, rather than cut it apart and hope that you gain more than you lose.
Wouldn't a 4E Realms, cut totally loose from canon and unsupported in future, be -exactly- what the 4E enthusiasts asked for? They'd be left with just enough plot hooks (from novels and DDI) to get them started, but nothing more to interfere with their creativity.
What would be more simple and "pared down" than having 4E Realms as a totally separate, bare-bones setting all by itself? Even if 4E Realms is totally dissociated from canon, and might never have happened, the fans of it get exactly what they asked for.
They don't have to worry about any designer/author influence on their Realms, there isn't "too much lore" to get in the way, they get to keep their post-apocalyptic feel, they get everything they want, and they are cut loose for total freedom to go in any direction they wish.
And at the same time, we would get what we want, a reboot (perhaps as far back as the OGB). I think it's totally win-win, everyone gets their cake and gets to eat it too.
Exactly! And if you went back to the OGB (and kept the timeline advancement slow), you wouldn't even have to worry about dealing with the spellplague again for like 20 years of real time so you wouldn't even have to make a decision on canon. There are plenty of stories for authors to tell about the Realms from 1357-Spellplague that weren't because the timeline advanced so fast. And there is always the idea of writing about events in recent Realms history (say from 1250+ that would interest all true Realms fans. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 16:37:31
|
2e was my favorite fluff era, but I despise the 2e rules passionately.
Back to THACO? Pathfinder, here I come. {I need a vomiting smiley}
On the other hand, there were a lot of great ideas in 2e, like kits. Most were just poorly implemented (for instance, THACO morphed into the D20 system, which was great), or the 5 different sets of Fatigue rules (I love the concept of Fatigue, but not THAT much!) Kits were broken, but so were many Prestige classes.
As for rules, I would love to see a race-based leveling system (harkening back to OD&D), and just eliminate classes altogether. Everyone should be able to learn whatever they want, which is much more realistic (in most modern fantasy, Wizards carry swords - just look at Elminster and Gandalf). An Aptitude system (Martial, Magic, Stealth, & mechanical, for starters) could easily replace classes, and people should be able to put points where they want. That would allow people to do power-builds (focusing on one path will build a really potent character), and still allow others with interesting character concepts to do what they want. Oh, and 'Divine' isn't an aptitude... its a calling. Handle that the way they did in the old Stormbringer game (anyone can curry 'the favor of the gods'). You have to earn their grace - it isn't just given to you because you picked a class out of a hat. priest and Paladin players were some of the most obnoxious I have encountered. A system of 'Divine Grace' points would curtail those abuses. Rules aren't hard to build - its foreseeing all the possible future problems that is hard. Figure out what those will be, and crush them from the start.
DMs need to have their own tools to control those situations. According to that article someone linked, WotC wants to give power back to the DMs (because that IS D&D folks), so run with that - give us the tools. Its easy - for every situation, give us a stat to role against - its the DM who creates the modifiers.
With today's technology, it is entirely possible to create a very complicated system using lots of stats, and still have it easy to use. The game-table is the key - get that working (and make it look amazing), and you can create whatever system you want. The complexity doesn't matter if its all transparent.
For the people who still get together and play on real tabletops, those are usually the same people that enjoy a greater level of detail (usually). They are the folks that haul 50 sourcebooks to every gaming session.
And on that thought - create a virtual library that can be accessed from anywhere, where each volume has been paid for. I'm not talking downloads - I'm talking about just being to access the books remotely (this could even be an add-on charge for people who have purchased the digital books - going "to the cloud" for stuff is the future). If people can see everything on their kindle, then there will be no more out-of-shape gamers with back problems. If you charge just $1 (or even a $1.99) per book available, people wouldn't stoop to piracy. Why risk getting a virus for a buck? And its better to have 20 million people give you a buck, then 10,000 give you $20. Also, make the DDi modular - divide it into a crunch section for 5e rules, and then separate setting sections for each setting. Make it inexpensive like $4.99 for each section - and you will open up the DDi to more people. Not sure what to do with Dungeon and Dragon - maybe combine them into one source for DM/PC inspiration? They always worked well as a mix of fluff & crunch.
Is it possible to completely re-vamp the rules, and still make it feel like old D&D? I think so; if you separate the crunch from the lore in separate books, I think you might be able to please all gamers. Make the crunch moduler, so that the fluffy bits (in the setting books) can reference it, without reprinting it. Remember, many folks don't play - they just want to keep up with their favorite settings.
For instance, if you create a PrC in a fluff book, DON'T tell us what the abilities do mechanically - just list them. Tell me a Paladin of Tyr has a warhorse for an animal companion, and then I can go look up the stats for a Warhorse in another book (probably the DMG), and look up the 'Companion Template' in another tome (a multi-use template that can also be applied to Druid & Ranger pets, and familiars). That may seem rough having to reference 3 different books, but you will either be using the Virtual Gaming Table, or writing everything on your Character Sheets, so you only have to do that at PC creation (which is how it always works anyway). I only want to see fluffy bits in the setting books - thats the only way to keep them edition-neutral. Not only will this be best for everyone, but it will also allow for far greater flexibility.
Use the Volo's Guides as a guide - they are nearly crunch-free. By keeping all crunch out of the sourcebooks, you actually have more options for customizing characters. You don't need to give these kind of choice to NPCs (unless the DM chooses to) - I am warming up to the old-school stat blocks for NPCs (once again, not a fan, but it does keep the game flowing more smoothly). I think this might be something 4e got right. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 13 Jan 2012 22:27:39 |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 17:26:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Back to Thac0, back to weapon speeds, back to 5 different saves and percentage rolls for steath/pick pocketing, and a host of other really hard to swallow ruls? No thanks. Hell, I'd pay for a re-printed core v3.5 Player's Handbook than go back to that.
As someone used to those 'hard to swallow' rules, I agree. I'm a fervent 2e fan too. It's not like 2e couldn't use some improvements, because since it was dropped, that's all we 2e fans have done is improve it in the ways we thought it should be, and should have been.
Even if WotC decided to revert back to a previous edition like 2e, and then make substantial improvements to the game in different ways, it's too late for me. I've already done most of anything they may do. I have a 12-13 year head start! So as far as I'm concerned, they can keep 5e using d20, and I'll keep making my version of 2e as good as I possibly can, because despite all its warts, it's the edition I find does what I want it to do the best. Perhaps it is due to those warts, and the fact that I can change things that won't have such a dire impact on other areas of the game.
About the only system I could see myself leaving my homebrew 2e system for would be a D&D system sans classes, one where the skills and NWPs (for lack of a better term...see? lol) dictate character growth. In other words, character leveling in skills. Let the players play whatever they want, unrestricted by class pigeonholes and traditional D&D tropes. You want your character to learn swimming, herbalism, the long sword, chainmail, dancing, politics, myconology, blacksmithing and etiquette? Heh. Okay, this is how you start....
Give me THAT, and you'll have me at hello. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
Edited by - Varl on 13 Jan 2012 17:29:53 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 17:27:53
|
quote:
Apex
Well, I am going to bet that D&D is a declining business in general. And the increased speed of new editions is likely a testament to that (3.5 game out fairly soon after 3, 4th even faster, and now fifth less than 4 years later, whereas 1st lasted 11 years and 2nd about the same and if you want to combine 3 and 3.5, then you really need to combine 1st and 2nd). I think what got you 4E (and 3E before that) was WoTC and their reliance on "developers" like they have for magic. D&D was never magic and development (ie publishing ones own houserules) was never a good idea for a game that had stayed relatively stable for 20+ years.
I see what you're trying to say. But D&D is forced to change at an accelerated pace just to keep up with the changing needs and demands of players.
(Year introduced - Chainmail 1971 - OD&D 1974 - AD&D 1977-1979 - AD&D 2E 1989-1991 and "2.5E" ~1995-1996 - D&D 3E 2000 and 3.5E 2003 - D&D 4E 2008-2010)
2E was originally meant to serve as a "cleanup" effort, a step beyond another 1E reprinting, an attempt to reorganize the unwieldy stack of 5-10 books now needed to play AD&D (haha, this notion = fail). The awkward new concept of new game edition had to be invented and 2E was initially just 1E in disguise with a handful of better rules, the complete set of cook 2E rulebooks were released independently over the course of a few years, just as they were for 1E. Too bad 2E invented the entire Mystra-blew-up-the-world methodology which has been faithfully reproduced and magnified, although I suppose the fault is as much in the 3E and 4E teams being uncreative instead of fabricating an entirely new approach when consolidating rules lore within their settings.quote:
Matt James
I wouldn't expect 5e until at least 2013. There's no way it's coming out this year at all. It may even take until 2014--which will mark the 40th anniversary of the game.
I realize this is not an official statement, and Matt publicly claims to be as uninformed as we are ... but I think 2014 is going to be right on the money, plus it "fits" the same scheduling curve evolved from 2E onwards. Expect 6E in 2018 and 7E in 2020, if Wizbro isn't hoarding a dead D&D brand by then. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 13 Jan 2012 17:32:54 |
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 17:49:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
It's time to accept the changes made to the product and move on. If you just can't live with those changes then just please move on to something else. There are still plenty of people who want to see things move forward. Or just jump back on the bandwagon and help make things better moving forward.
Sorry if this sounds rude but I had to get it off of my chest.
Or accept it and keep doing what you have been doing all along. The "if you don't like it you can bugger off" attitude towards anyone preferring a specific era of the Realms or a edition irritates me. I have no plan to either jump on any bandwagon or to move along to something else; I have been a Realmsfan for nearly twenty years now and as long as I decide to name myself as that I will be just that. Whether I buy the latest product or not.
And I am sorry for singling out this post, as I suspect that was not your point here Caolin, but it is a sentiment I have seen too many times (from all sides) here at Candlekeep and this seemed like the right time to comment on it.
I'm not trying to single out anyone who prefers one particular era. I'm trying to single out those who want to destroy 10-20 years of work by dedicated authors and designers by demanding a reboot to some mythical simpler time in FR. I'm all for opening up the time line to development, I encourage it actually. But a reboot is just plain stupid and destructive. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 17:49:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Apex
Well, I am going to bet that D&D is a declining business in general. And the increased speed of new editions is likely a testament to that (3.5 game out fairly soon after 3, 4th even faster, and now fifth less than 4 years later, whereas 1st lasted 11 years and 2nd about the same and if you want to combine 3 and 3.5, then you really need to combine 1st and 2nd). I think what got you 4E (and 3E before that) was WoTC and their reliance on "developers" like they have for magic. D&D was never magic and development (ie publishing ones own houserules) was never a good idea for a game that had stayed relatively stable for 20+ years.
I see what you're trying to say. But D&D is forced to change at an accelerated pace just to keep up with the changing needs and demands of players.
(Year introduced - Chainmail 1971 - OD&D 1974 - AD&D 1977-1979 - AD&D 2E 1989-1991 and "2.5E" ~1995-1996 - D&D 3E 2000 and 3.5E 2003 - D&D 4E 2008-2010)
2E was originally meant to serve as a "cleanup" effort, a step beyond another 1E reprinting, an attempt to reorganize the unwieldy stack of 5-10 books now needed to play AD&D (haha, this notion = fail). The awkward new concept of new game edition had to be invented and 2E was initially just 1E in disguise with a handful of better rules, the complete set of cook 2E rulebooks were released independently over the course of a few years, just as they were for 1E. Too bad 2E invented the entire Mystra-blew-up-the-world methodology which has been faithfully reproduced and magnified, although I suppose the fault is as much in the 3E and 4E teams being uncreative instead of fabricating an entirely new approach when consolidating rules lore within their settings.quote:
Matt James
I wouldn't expect 5e until at least 2013. There's no way it's coming out this year at all. It may even take until 2014--which will mark the 40th anniversary of the game.
I realize this is not an official statement, and Matt publicly claims to be as uninformed as we are ... but I think 2014 is going to be right on the money, plus it "fits" the same scheduling curve evolved from 2E onwards. Expect 6E in 2018 and 7E in 2020, if Wizbro isn't hoarding a dead D&D brand by then.
I don't think they have to change. Just like with many board games, the rules can easily stay the same and be successful. It isn't a computer game (which I think is how some of the "developers" see it). Second, there never was a 2.5 AD&D. OPTIONAL rules were produced in the mid-90's, but the core rules stayed the same and virtually every supplement I can think of relied on the core, not the optional stuff. Third, TSR supported OD&D at least through 1991 (with the rules cyclopedia) and believe even after that. Which goes to show that WoTC could easily offer a AD&D Classic line of the 1st or 2nd reprints if they wanted to. |
|
|
|
Apex
Learned Scribe
USA
229 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 17:55:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I'm not trying to single out anyone who prefers one particular era. I'm trying to single out those who want to destroy 10-20 years of work by dedicated authors and designers by demanding a reboot to some mythical simpler time in FR. I'm all for opening up the time line to development, I encourage it actually. But a reboot is just plain stupid and destructive.
But it doesn't have to be destructive (I will ignore your stupid comment, since that is just your opinion). Going back to the OGB as default doesn't invalidate anything. As the timeline moves forward, those events can happen again (or not if WoTC reevaluates them), but what it does do is return the Realms to Ed's original (and spectacular) vision while also capping the RSE's (since we laready "know" the future). It gives authors a chance to fill in the many stories in the Realms that never happened because the timeline moved too fast (I would slow it down this time a ton (ideally 1 year of Earth = at most 6 months of Toril). And by not invalidating anything in the future, you would leave all those era's as applicable to be played in. |
|
|
|
Brix
Learned Scribe
147 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 18:00:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
if you separate the crunch from the lore in separate books,...
Yes! WoTC could also offer Pathfinder rules for the fluff, since it's OGL.
Or they could even give a licence to Paizo, retro-clones, or others to publish their own crunch for WotC's fluff. Although that might be a little far fetched. But who knows. It's an idea! |
|
|
|
|
Caolin
Senior Scribe
769 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 18:19:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Apex
quote:
Originally posted by Caolin
I'm not trying to single out anyone who prefers one particular era. I'm trying to single out those who want to destroy 10-20 years of work by dedicated authors and designers by demanding a reboot to some mythical simpler time in FR. I'm all for opening up the time line to development, I encourage it actually. But a reboot is just plain stupid and destructive.
But it doesn't have to be destructive (I will ignore your stupid comment, since that is just your opinion). Going back to the OGB as default doesn't invalidate anything. As the timeline moves forward, those events can happen again (or not if WoTC reevaluates them), but what it does do is return the Realms to Ed's original (and spectacular) vision while also capping the RSE's (since we laready "know" the future). It gives authors a chance to fill in the many stories in the Realms that never happened because the timeline moved too fast (I would slow it down this time a ton (ideally 1 year of Earth = at most 6 months of Toril). And by not invalidating anything in the future, you would leave all those era's as applicable to be played in.
Everything you suggested is possible by opening up the timeline to authors and developers. There is absolutely no need to set the timeline back to the Old Grey Box era. I just don't understand why, in terms of the game, it matters what the current time period is. There is 30+ years of lore out there for any DM to use in their own campaign and create whatever Realms they like. Why is it so crucial for WoTC to align with your vision of the Realms? That is what DnD is about! You make your own worlds. You are the DM and you can do anything you want.
So that leads me to where I think the real division lies. I think that those who want a reboot haven't read a Realms novel in a long time. It's just a hunch so maybe some of you can confirm it. But I for one have read just about every Realms novel released. I don't play the game so my only contact to the Realms is through the novels and whatever video games are released. So for me, to reboot back to the OGB would mean destroying the narrative that I have followed for the past 30 years.
Sure I would love to see more stories set in the 1300's. Hell I want to see stories set in all of the time periods. But to just stop the narrative at 1479 and reboot back to 1350 just so people won't have to deal with any RSEs is not fair to those who are invested in the running narrative. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
8030 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2012 : 18:30:54
|
You'll note I labelled those as the years introduced, and that I followed the "AD&D" path instead of the junior path which ultimately leads to "Essentials". Of course 2.5E was never an official version designation, but it is a common and widely-accepted one I think deserving of the mention (within "quotes") I provided.
But even if my list of D&D editions or the dates they appeared is not complete or accurate ... the argument remains the same. The gamers of the world have different expectations, and game publishers must be savvy to those expectations if they want to keep selling games. You and I might treasure an antiquated AD&D Gygax product far more than a shiny new 4E one - but most of Wizbro's potential audience won't have any clue or any preference so they'll automatically reach for the latest-and-greatest, and if it looks like it's full of enough cool artwork and kickass stuff they just might buy it.
Or Hasbro is still going to insist on bulling their way through the (now failed) "family entertainment" gaming strategy, trying to create afternoons and evenings full of smiling milktoast families all sitting around a table playing boardgames. If they're hoping the parents will buy the latest-generation D&D products for their kids they'll be sorely disappointed ... because those parents who support and encourage D&D will already have access to mountains of lore their kids can use. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
WotC is asking for input, so...
Topic Locked
