D&D5e is coming.

[Grunker]

Both, I reckon.

 

[msxyz]

Even if the 2nd edition had issues and was certainly perfectible, it WAS D&D for me.

Evolution is not always a good thing. Instead of new concepts and ideas we got the old ones raped dry and turned into something completely different just to cash onto their name. Kind of what happens with Marvel Comics for the past 50 years...

 

[Grunker]

4th edition is no 3.5 but it is miles better than the mechanical piece of shit that was 2nd and 1st ed. I don't know why the fuck we should care about your nostalgia?

And yes, I've played all systems extensively and I love me some 2nd ed., but I realise it is only nostalgia. It is a bad system with little choice and not a lot of sense.

4e is an OK system, but it is decidedly a step back in comparison to 3.5.

 

[commie]

I dunno, I love GoldBox warts and all, not much needed to really be tweaked with 2e. It's all about utilising the ruleset in the best way, with encounters that play to the strengths of the ruleset rather than adding ever more junk that no-one implements properly(if at all) anyway.

To take a modern non AD&D example, it's a bit like the combat options in DA:O; they are actually pretty good, varied, give the potential of tactical choice YET for the most part it doesn't matter as combat encounters are so shit that everything degenerates into a 'click the talents in order' combat, that get worse the more overlapping and overpowered talents you get.

For a computer game the 2e rules with a few tweaks would have sufficed as long as the combat encounters were designed to complement the rules.

So STFU Grunker, play your WOW combat clickfests and leave the proper RPG experience for the rest of us.

Having said that, the 3e+ rules were going in the right direction though the limited nature of 2e certainly helped in focusing the actual gameplay in the GoldBox games. Sometimes too much choice doesn't translate into good gameplay or is mostly redundant. Take a look at Drakensang The Dark Eye. When you fire up the character making screen it looks like you're in heavan with all the choice, yet in game 90% of the stuff has marginal or no effect in game.

 

[Jaesun]

I dunno, I love GoldBox warts and all, not much needed to really be tweaked with 2e. It's all about utilising the ruleset in the best way, with encounters that play to the strengths of the ruleset rather than adding ever more junk that no-one implements properly(if at all) anyway.

To take a modern non AD&D example, it's a bit like the combat options in DA:O; they are actually pretty good, varied, give the potential of tactical choice YET for the most part it doesn't matter as combat encounters are so shit that everything degenerates into a 'click the talents in order' combat, that get worse the more overlapping and overpowered talents you get.

For a computer game the 2e rules with a few tweaks would have sufficed as long as the combat encounters were designed to complement the rules.

 

[Xor]

I went back and actually played a game of 2E recently and I gotta say, it's actually pretty boring as a tabletop game.

 

[Grunker]

@Jaesun and Commie: You actually want to go back to LESS character customization? You actually like RPG systems where leveling up is pressing a button and rolling for hit points, such as AD&D? Why, why, why, why would you ever want to go back to a system with so much automization and so little customization?

 

[commie]

@Jaesun and Commie: You actually want to go back to LESS character customization? You actually like RPG systems where leveling up is pressing a button and rolling for hit points, such as AD&D? Why, why, why, why would you ever want to go back to a system with so much automization and so little customization?

As I've said, it's not about wanting less. Rather it's about getting the most out of what is available. GoldBox did it as well as any computer game implementation of table top rules ever did because so little of it was redundant. There was not much choice; shit POR had hardly anything to choose from; YET it's regarded as one of the best GoldBox games because of the way everything was built around utilising the limited options in such a way that almost everything was useful in the right situation.

Just giving a million options might seem good on paper and playing PnP it gives a lot of creative leeway, but in a computer game where everything is fixed and has to be limited in scope by definition of the medium, then we get a situation where we have a million options but only a few are anything else than fluff.

Another example is the old Twilight 2000 game. It has a phenomenal amount of stats and skills yet in the actual game almost nothing is useful. It even states in the manual that most of the skills and things you can give your character are for making a PnP character! If that isn't a FAIL when you are making a COMPUTER RPG then I don't know what is.

Take TOEE. Fantastic combat system, but almost no game to go with it.

I'd rather have a low level (max 8) epic adventure in the POR mold with a challenge in most encounters because of the need to use limited resources, spells, abilities, stats in the best possible way, than have a ton of spells and talents on hand to sweep past armies of fodder buffed only to provide an artificial challenge.

 

[Zardoz]

Meh I'll stick to pathfinder since they have great writers and didn't just reprint the earlier edition. I fooled around a bit with 4e and it seemed too limited as far as build options go. The apparent lack of non combat powers also turned me off seems like you can't do jack without swinging at something.

 

[Dire Roach]

The 5th edition will eschew the concept of core books and use instead a system of CCG-like booster packs which contain accessories such as elf ears, foam weapons, and magic cloaks. It will revolutionize the RPG industry.

 

[Mastermind]

@Jaesun and Commie: You actually want to go back to LESS character customization? You actually like RPG systems where leveling up is pressing a button and rolling for hit points, such as AD&D? Why, why, why, why would you ever want to go back to a system with so much automization and so little customization?

Take your popamole character customization out of here. RPGs are about the story, everyone knows that.

 

[Grunker]

@Commie: Bullshit. KotC does so perfectly fine and it's an indie-game wihout a budget. ToEE's lack of game was a problem of production, not principle.

The very notion that a complex rules system makes the "game" part of the game suffer by default is ridicoulous.

What is really just an unrelated fact (in the old day we had 2nd ed and plenty RPGs, these days we have 3.5 ed. and no rpgs) is interpreted by you as being directly deriven from that fact. I.e. we have bad RPGs today because we have good systems! It's preprostrous. We have bad RPGs today because the genre has been watered down to shit.

If they have had better systems back in the day GoldBox RPGs would also have been better. My evidence? Wizardry 8 expands HUGELY on AD&D, giving you tons of shit to customize, and it's better for it.

Unless you actually got some stronger arguments than "hurr RPGs were better back when systems were shit" to back your correlation up with, then I think you should stop thinking those thoughts.

 

[Mrowak]

Take TOEE. Fantastic combat system, but almost no game to go with it.

That's because it was badly implemented in the vanilla. Co8 modpack adresses lots of issues and makes it fantastic - at least for the first 12 levels.

I'd rather have a low level (max 8) epic adventure in the POR mold with a challenge in most encounters because of the need to use limited resources, spells, abilities, stats in the best possible way, than have a ton of spells and talents on hand to sweep past armies of fodder buffed only to provide an artificial challenge.

Yes, but that stems not from flaws of the system, but game designer's inability to implement it correctly. As crazy as it sounds the closest we were to having correct D&D spell-system was BG2, where you had tons of useful spells, and interesting, varied encounters that forced you to experiment with them. In the course of whole game you had to do your utmost to survive many encounters, where you didn't fight derp-spawn mobs, but interesting enemies. Stupid Vampires and Wolfweres required from you more tactical thinking than 80% of RPGs these days (including TW2 ).

 

[Mrowak]

@Commie: Bullshit. KotC does so perfectly fine and it's an indie-game wihout a budget. ToEE's lack of game was a problem of production, not principle.

This.

Also, anyone that D&D 3.0 is shit, has certanly lost his marbles. In comparison to what, I ask? D&D 1st, 2nd editions? You know what the fuck you are talking about?

 

[Grunker]

Fucking amen, Mrowak. Better systems and better system implementation = better RPGs.

 

[electrolux]

We'll prob try 5ed and then get bored of it within a couple of months because we're all too old for this shit.

4ed was a helluva lot of fun to play...

...and hell to run. That's why it bombed, everyone loved playing it but no-one wanted to run it. I really loved playing it until the GM quit. I had a go and managed 4 sessions. I started wiping my arse on the books (doesn't work well, paper too glossy, gave up before I finished the Monster Manual to my shame).

It doesn't matter whether the players like it, they can't be arsed to do the work anyway; they'll play whatever you put in front of them assuming you know what you are doing.

So maybe 80% of people loved 4ed, but the 20% that counts couldn't stand it.

 

[J1M]

3.5 certainly has more multiclassing freedom and power creep than 4E, but I haven't seen many legitimate criticisms against 4E that were not merely hearsay and plainly false.

Btw, wishing you could still play a cleric and be better than the fighter and wizard at their jobs too is not a legitimate concern.

 

[commie]

Yes, but that stems not from flaws of the system, but game designer's inability to implement it correctly. As crazy as it sounds the closest we were to having correct D&D spell-system was BG2, where you had tons of useful spells, and interesting, varied encounters that forced you to experiment with them. In the course of whole game you had to do your utmost to survive many encounters, where you didn't fight derp-spawn mobs, but interesting enemies. Stupid Vampires and Wolfweres required from you more tactical thinking than 80% of RPGs these days (including TW2 ).

Bullshit. You got a RTS where everything became a melee clusterfuck. As for all the options and spells, most were pointless because of the way combat degenerated and as for character creation, having a dozen different mage types to choose from was barely noticeable for the most part except to give a bonus to particular spell schools. POR may have had a barebones system, but you noticed immediately the difference when picking an extra fighter rather than an extra mage for your group and trying to make do with a handful of spells.

Oh and if the rules were badly implemented in TOEE then my point about devs concentrating to make the most out of limited rulesets rather than trying to implement ever more complicated rulesets is correct. Thanks for proving my point.

Oh and 3e is great! I mean all 4 games made with it were RTS classics, right? I see the light now!

@ Grunker

You're full of shit. Just because KotC did combat encounters well doesn't negate the fact that most of the time the complexity of rules does not translate into a complex game. My TOEE analogy stands. The reasoning as to why the devs didn't implement it correctly is redundant. The effect is that in Vanilla TOEE, the combat system was woefully underutilised as has been the AD&D 3e system with only a few pausable RTS games coming out of it.

What is also redundant is the 'hurr, durr there's no RPG's anymore so your point is invalid' bit you're peddling. There have been RPG's using 'superior' rulesets to 2e for 20 years, yet for the most part, the implementation has been lacking(this holds true in the golden era as it does now). It's not lack of RPG's that makes the rule implementations poor, but the inability of devs to implement them correctly.

As for using Wiz 8 as an example of a superior game, well that's debatable to say the least considering all the faults it has. I'd rather fight a room full of Kobolds in 2e than play those uberslow respawning and scaled encounters of Wiz 8. So Wiz 8 might have a superior system to 2e in theory, yet it proves my point that the devs didn't know how to implement the rules to make memorable combat encounters which is the problem here. If you can't make decent gameplay out of a complicated ruleset then you've no business trying to make a game using such a ruleset.

"Better systems and better system implementation= better RPG's" I won't argue with as if you could comprehend at a 2nd grader level, you'd see that I wrote EXACTLY THAT! Not my fault that you and Mrowak cannot into comprehension. My point was that it's the IMPLEMENTATION of more complex rules that has almost always been a problem in RPG's and that it would make more sense for developers to learn to implement simple rules well rather than dumping ever more useless choice and options into a game that essentially make no difference to the game.

I see you also conveniently ignored all the examples of bad implementation of extensive rules that I gave. Didn't fit your point eh?

 

[Zomg]

Make it so every element of the game resembles an MMORPG as little as possible. There should be a guy whose entire job is to read it and question the lead(s) every time he can make a case that something might be MMORPGish in any way, and make him justify or remove it.

 

[catfood]

I understand why some people would play 2e over 3e or 4e in PnP format. Some people really aren't into the whole tweaking business. There's a plethora (prestige) classes, feats (oh Lord the feats!!), combat pretty much requires visual representation and can sometimes take too long especially if the players are new. I would never play a feat-fest like 3e, PF or 4e without a character builder of sorts.

But those above complains are pretty much invalid when it comes to the electronic format. The PC pretty much calculates everything for you and, hell, you can just press the auto-level up button if you're too lazy to read a few lines.

My biggest problem with the 4e feats is the fact that a lot of them are so boring. "until the end of your next turn add +1 to attack rolls the first time you become bloodied during an encounter", "until the end of your next turn get +1 to all of your defences the first time you reach 0 hitpoints during an encounter". These are garbage. You can't even remember to state the effect when the time comes. No, not all of them are like that but most are, and honestly the best ones I found those that allowed you to learn another skill or language. I seem to remember there were a lot of these shitty feats in the 3.5 video games as well.

So all in all I can understand why for some people these extras seem like useless bloat.

 

[Mister Arkham]

As far as I'm concerned, the only properly good thing to come out of 4E was the revitalization it gave to Dark Sun. Otherwise, I liked a couple of the ideas that the designers threw around, but found them all to be very poorly implemented. It's just a bland and boring system.

 

[Menckenstein]

I stopped playing right after 3rd came out, what were the main changes from 3rd to 4th?

 

[CappenVarra]

Hm. Wait and see, I guess, perhaps a miracle will happen and something interesting will come out of it - but no breath will be held...

It's a bit funny to see this topic while I'm currently reading this document of historical value.

This is the first report of the D&D campaign along the Ryth, published as a public service by the Yggrdasill papermill, and compiled by John Van De Graaf from the recent archives of Rythlondar. Please report any omissions or inaccuracies to your friendly referee so that he can feed you to a ravenous purple worm, thereby cleansing his records.

...

Another party of 9 entered the northern end of the Weir and went down to the third level. In this group were theurgist Fazzlefart, ranger-guide Athelfrar, seer Kodiak, dwarf warrioress Ervandra, and others. They met and killed a hydra and some zombies, but almost met their doom in a room filled with gargoyles. Athelfrar found a manual of pilfering, and Fazzle charmed a superhero with a neutral sword of wishes. A shifting block confused their travels when they were chased by a fire-breathing hydra. Treasure was 2310 GP, four died.

 

[Grunker]

You're full of shit. Just because KotC did combat encounters well doesn't negate the fact that most of the time the complexity of rules does not translate into a complex game. My TOEE analogy stands. The reasoning as to why the devs didn't implement it correctly is redundant. The effect is that in Vanilla TOEE, the combat system was woefully underutilised as has been the AD&D 3e system with only a few pausable RTS games coming out of it.

"AD&D 3e system"? Jesus christ dude do you even know what the fuck you're babbling about?

And what the fuck does this

Just because KotC did combat encounters well doesn't negate the fact that most of the time the complexity of rules does not translate into a complex game

mean? KotC utilized almost everything implemented. Even if its monsters didn't, the important thing is that the choices all feel useful to the player, and the fucking well did. Same goes for the complex spell systems in games like Might & Magic, or yes, Baldur's Gate II. Just because it was a real time clusterfuck in your words (which is a fucking subjective truth if I ever saw one) doesn't mean a variety of spells weren't useful, which they were. I used to have the same opinion you did until I started playing around with all the spells in BG2, and holy shit a lot of the spells are useful. Other great games that utilize a system more complex than that of AD&D are Wizardry 8 and Football Manager, to give examples of vastly different games that use good systems. Football Manager is pretty good at utilizing all parts of a very, very complex system. Hell, even Bloodlines has more customization than AD&D allows for.

A lot of strategy games have utilized complex systems very well too. JA2 comes to mind. Europa Universalis.

What is also redundant is the 'hurr, durr there's no RPG's anymore so your point is invalid' bit you're peddling. There have been RPG's using 'superior' rulesets to 2e for 20 years, yet for the most part, the implementation has been lacking(this holds true in the golden era as it does now). It's not lack of RPG's that makes the rule implementations poor, but the inability of devs to implement them correctly.

Please name all the RPGs, spawned over 20 years, that have utilized superior systems and which are lacking compared to GoldBox? Right now it's just a pretend argument.

And don't mention 50 indie underground games with low budgets as if that proves something in comparison to the GoldBox games.

play those uberslow respawning and scaled encounters of Wiz 8

The fact that they are uberslow, respawning and scaling has fuck-all to do with the system.

the devs didn't know how to implement the rules to make memorable combat encounters which is the problem here

Bullshit. You're tearing holes in flaws that are not related to the system.

"Better systems and better system implementation= better RPG's" I won't argue with as if you could comprehend at a 2nd grader level, you'd see that I wrote EXACTLY THAT! Not my fault that you and Mrowak cannot into comprehension. My point was that it's the IMPLEMENTATION of more complex rules that has almost always been a problem in RPG's and that it would make more sense for developers to learn to implement simple rules well rather than dumping ever more useless choice and options into a game that essentially make no difference to the game.

Yeah, I got that, and I'm accusing you of treading water. Maybe it's you who fails at comprehension? Customization is one of the great things about RPGs. You're accusing it of ruining tactical combat, yet if properly implemented, the more viable strategies there are the better the tactical combat is. Why give up then, why not criticize poor implementation instead of saying it is - by definition - impossible to do properly (something we know not to be the case). Would you have the industry reproduce the GoldBox games ad infinitum? Though I guess we're having a hypothetical discussion to an extreme degree here since right now I would be fucking keen on the idea that one of us actually got just a bit of what we're hoping for instead of the current situation... Hell the idea of endless reproductions of the GoldBox games sounds pretty sweet come to think of it.

As for examples, you gave Twillight 2000 and ToEE. I haven't played the first one. The second had so many production problems that you're a twat if you honestly thing you can look away from those and point at the system to be the sinner. The quests being shit was also a function of the system?

By the way, to ditch the Codex lingo for a spell and get real, I do think you raise some interesting points and you're on my BRO-list if for nothing else then the fact that we seem to agree in principle but not in practice. I think you're way too lenient on the game-devs. The fact that implementation often lacks behind is bad developing, nothing else.

3.5 certainly has more multiclassing freedom and power creep than 4E, but I haven't seen many legitimate criticisms against 4E that were not merely hearsay and plainly false.

I like 4ed., and I've played quite a bit of it, but it isn't nearly as good as 3.5. The reason for this is that it's a step back to the old times in terms of customization (which makes it all the more funny to see nostalgiafags rage about it, hell, they should be happy). Joking aside, I say this because there's less of it (customization). Once you've picked a class you feel very locked in compared to 3.5, to the extend that two wizards in a party no matter how you build them feels the same. Hell, this is even true for the same roles (Controller, Striker, Defender, and so on). The difference between a Ranger and an Avenger in 4ed. fades before the difference between two single-classed wizard's build differently in 3.5.

Also, battles take a gazillion years because of HP inflation and lower damage. This is very good at very low levels and very high levels, which was a bastard in 3.5, but it sucks ALOT from levels 7 to about 21.

That's just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. One thing I'll grant 4ed. is that it is haevan for a DM who plans his own campaigns and encounters. It also nailed "balance" in a way the D&D-franchise has never done before. The way that nothing scales out of control is impressive, but it's also one of the reason level 25 plays like level 10 sometimes - less variety equals less balance unless you design after some very strict methods like GURPS.

Btw, wishing you could still play a cleric and be better than the fighter and wizard at their jobs too is not a legitimate concern.

Heeeeeell naw it isn't! That's why I love Tome of Battle - Book of Nine Fucking Swords. Iz awesome. What 4e did right was to say "hey, what if we made all classes able to, you know, do stuff?" What it did horribly wrong was that it faild to achieve this and still differentiate the classes enough.

 

[SkyrimSucks]

The 5th edition will eschew the concept of core books and use instead a system of CCG-like booster packs which contain accessories such as elf ears, foam weapons, and magic cloaks. It will revolutionize the RPG industry.

Actually, it is _strongly_ suspected that WOTC will eschew printed books and instead go with a pay to play online model, like their current D&D Insider service. So basically, the books will be kept online on a server, along with tools like a character builder and monster builder etc, and you can only access them as long as you pay a monthly fee. You will not be able to download a pdf of the books or anything. This is WOTC's answer to preventing loss of sales due to piracy. (In fact, you may not even be able to print the books onto your printer. )

If this happens, expect brick and mortar gaming stores to completely move towards selling comics only if they want to stay afloat.

Pathfinder OTOH is here to stay, and they will likely keep publishing print versions and pdfs of their products. Ofcourse, there will still be other pnp RPG publishers.

What is really interesting though, is that Cook is appealing directly to grognards and players of Pathfinder, or so it appears. It seems that WOTC want to recapture the splintered fan base that became that way when 4e was released. So, the next game could very well contain elements of 3e.

I personally would love something like WOTC did with the Star Wars Saga edition. That was a great system and had the best elements of all editions. You don't even need minis to play, unlike 4e.