It's been leaked that Wizards will be announcing a 4th edition of D&D this weekend. Here are a few random thoughts on the matter.
1)Speculation on the contents of the new edition are entirely futile at this point. Yet see me speculate in some points below.
2) I will almost certainly buy this new edition, and play it at least a couple times.
3) There are some, not many, but some 3.5 products that I still plan on buying.
4) I worry that they will make the new edition even more complicated, rather than slimming it down like Star Wars Saga Edition. Because a more complicated edition that they can support online will drive Digital Initiative subscriptions.
5) If I'm right about point 4, I'll probably be happier with an earlier edition or Hackmaster, rather than 4e.
6) All those time Wizards people denied an upcoming 4th edition, when they said major announcements would only be made at the D&D Experience (f.k.a. Winter Fantasy), and when they noted that they had no room for a 4e on the product schedule? Lies, damnable lies.
7) Ryan Dancey is still a dick. That's not entirely related to the matter at hand, though.
Mince Pie Fest 2024: Waitrose (Un-Numbered)
-
The pastry has a bit of a salty taste, and I'm not a fan of salt, but
otherwise it has a decent flavour and a good, firm, texture. The filling is
beautiful...
.jpg)
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
One more thought: Here's another edition for the grumpy gusses on Dragonsfoot to hate!
ReplyDeleteDidja hear the rumor about 4.5?
ReplyDeleteIt's being released 15 months after 4.0
I can't wait till the 3E guys start getting called "Old skool" and "Grognards".
1) Yeah :)
ReplyDelete2) I'll definitely both play it and DM it at some point. As far as I'm concerned, the one thing WotC purchased when they got the D&D trademark is the power to make me try whatever game they glue that tradmark onto, from both sides of the screen at least two or three times.
It's not unlike George Lucas' power to make me go see any film branded "Star Wars" at least once, in hopes.
3) Not me, unless you count some Green Ronin stuff.
4) I have no specific concerns about complicated versus streamlined, but rather design philosophy. If the trends of the existing WotC game bearing the D&D trademark continue, I won't be getting on board for more than those trial games ... But I have hopes that those trends might reverse to some extent. Hopes based on nothing except my tendency to be hopeful, I might add - I have heard no scuttlebutt; I'm not in those loops.
5) As far as AD&D editions go, I'm personally not too happy with any of them these days ... Neither 3.0 nor 3.5 are satisfying to me (mainly because they pretend to be tactical games but don't pass even my most remedial test of fun tactical play, but also because they may as well be Forge games the way they work to undermine the DM); my response to AD&D2 ... was to play more CoC and Car Wars, and I can't see picking up AD&D1 again without spending a solid week or two codifying house rules to patch it into ship-shape. :( When I run D&D nowadays it's a no-options version of Mentzer's 3rd Revised Edition of Basic/Expert.
6) Yes, but simplistic and obviously transparent ones, so they don't count since nobody really believed them. It's kind of like that bit in the Maltese Falcon. :)
7) I've heard that, but fortunately I never had to deal with him; my only real contact at WotC was the Dragon (and then SWG) editor Dave Gross, when he emailed me asking nicely if I'd write him something. He was a great guy, honestly, and made the whole experience worthwhile.
I can't wait till the 3E guys start getting called "Old skool" and "Grognards".
ReplyDeleteThey absolutely will, if they insist on sticking with the earlier edition and giving the new one a pass.
Anyone who doesn't rush out lemming-like to fall off the cliff of the Very Latest Thing at the game-shop is, in some circles, labeled a "nostalgic," complete with a long series of instant character-judgments attached :)
So yes, we "nostalgics" will welcome the 3.5 enthusiasts into our ranks; we've already been hooking up cable and phone to the rooms for the 3.0 guys.
S. John,
ReplyDeleteI agree that 3e/3.5 seems to work hard to make DMing a pain. I hadn't connected it to the Forge approach that the designer can be trusted more than the person behind the screen.
What would be your most remedial test of fun tactical play?
What would be your most remedial test of fun tactical play?
ReplyDeleteI take two utterly-ordinary, cheap-rates castle guards, your basic guy in chainmail, shield, and sword, power-rated to the most mundane "regular guard" level the game allows.
Put the miniatures on the table. Have 'em fight in an empty stone room with no special terrain or furniture.
Do the fight three or four times, noting the thrills, noting the variety, noting how much I look forward to the next replay. Compare this to the paperwork it took to prep the two combatants.
There is, of course, no objective way to keep score. This is just my personal way of feeling out the robustness of the purely tactical options in an FRPG (and has basically nothing to do with a game's overall quality; I enjoy games both with and without tactical jazz).
Every version of both D&D and AD&D have, historically, fared poorly at this test, because D&D tactics are mainly played out excitingly at the whole-party level rather than the indvidiaul-combatant level. But previous editions of D&D/AD&D weren't design-focused on tactical play, and that's a big difference since that design focus affects other parts of the design to its detriment, as far as my tastes are concerned. And that last bit about measuring the thrills against the paperwork does the game no favors.
I agree that 3e/3.5 seems to work hard to make DMing a pain. I hadn't connected it to the Forge approach that the designer can be trusted more than the person behind the screen.
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell, that's pretty much exactly how I equate them.
I don't know that the design _intentions_ come from the same place, but I have seen enough 3e/3.5 fans online praise the game for (essentially) protecting them from the whims of their Dungeon Master that I think the appeal really does target the same place: that many gamers have had crummy experiences with rotten GMs, and the belief that these experiences are best addressed at the game design level.
I've experienced crummy GMing too, of course. But I don't feel that crummy GMs are ever the fault of the rules and thus I don't feel that crummy GMs can be repaired or neutralized by the rules. I think any such efforts are misplaced.
Plus, games that put "safety restraints" into themselves (aimed at players OR GMs) restrict both ways; they create hurdles for crumminess but they also create hurdles for excellence. In both cases, the hurdles can be cleared, but in any case I'd rather not bother ... I'm a good, fair and considerate GM and I game with other good, fair and considerate GMs, so we roll best with RPGs that _assume_ we're good, not those that assume we need some kind of leash or a smack on the hand.
Mileages vary, to be sure, but that's why I don't run 3e/3.5 and it's why I don't hang at the Forge, and it's why I consider 3e/3.5 to, in some ways, be the world's most successful indie RPG :)
Mileages vary, to be sure, but that's why I don't run 3e/3.5 and it's why I don't hang at the Forge, and it's why I consider 3e/3.5 to, in some ways, be the world's most successful indie RPG :)
ReplyDeleteI had never thought about it in that sense, but I agree with this statement (and its precedent argument) completely.
peace... RHM
And just to disclaim: I'm not one'a them d20 haters you've heard about; I'm totally not. I just tend to enjoy the corners of the d20-verse further away from what WotC themselves do with it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, even if the d20 thing gave us only Green Ronin, that alone would be totally worth it, because those guys make me all smiley. [And to disclaim atop the disclaimer: I'm not associated with them in any way and don't suppose I ever will be, except as an admirer]
Oh, and I do dig the WotC Star Wars games, though I don't have the new one yet and probably won't 'til I find it on the used rack.
ReplyDeleteNot a hater! Frequently described as one, but utterly not. Critic, perhaps.
As an unregenerate grognard (still with flowers in my hair) I am amazed that those guys get away with putting out more and more to make more and more. Planned obscellesence in the gaming world is pretty sad thing to contemplate. And to then follow that with lying in the face of their 'fans' - knowing they'd get away with it no doubt.
ReplyDeleteI still maintain that the best concept in d20 was Monte Cook's "Best of d20 200x" idea -- I just wish we'd had that at the start, and it had continued as a concept to the end of 3.5.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping someone remembers it when 4e starts up. Yes, the most innovative things about D&D 3.x are things that Wizards had nothing to do with. But there was so much stuff coming out that a lot of good ideas from small guys got lost in the shuffle.
Case in point: my two favorite d20 products are "Character Customization" and "Elements of Magic". The first one was never updated to 3.5, and the second wasn't noticed enough to cause a stir (I prefer it to True Sorcery).
And the children of 3.x, such as OSRIC, BasicFantasy, and True20, are the most interesting developments. 4E is a necessity for Wizards, as it had almost lost control of the evolution of the ruleset. Even now, if those three follow don't along the 4E path in some fashion, they represent the fact that the horses left the barn a long time ago.
What's wrong with Ryan Dancey?
ReplyDeleteI have read his blog a few times, but have no opinion about him at all. What am I missing?
Doug M.