They do and it's called DDO.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Is WotC D&D Really D&D?
- Thread starter JamesDixon
- Start date
They do and it's called DDO.
RangerBoo
Arcane
I'm sorry but who is this suppose to appeal too? Oh, that's right! Mentally ill degenerates who are in a state of arrested development. No wonder that the Dragonlance creators want to bail on this woke shit fest. Part of me hopes that those rumors of Tencent wanting to buy D&D are true because the Chinese will dump this woke shit in a blink of an eye and the autistic screeching from all the fur fags and fragile gender blobs on Twitter bitching that their OC Mary Sue creator is now ruined will be worth it.
Hickman and Weiss want to bail on D&D? I'm surprised by that since they were really liberal back in the day.
It's hilarious on the list because combat was always optional before WotC got ahold of it. In fact, it was oftentimes better to go the diplomatic route over the killing route as you had a good chance of wiping. Experience was based upon your actions and gold gained, especially in AD&D 2E. You got very little experience from combat alone.
Last edited:
They were getting cancelled because gully dwarves are problematic, etc. They've actually been developing (Kickstarting?) their own RPG system/setting that's independent from D&D. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed on here somewhere and can be tracked down with some quick Google.
Anyway, WOTC has done it! They've successfully announced a D&D game I have no interest in checking out! Kudos to them.
EDIT: I forgot to mention, there was also a legal dispute about bringing out Dragonlance publications and contracts due to the aforementioned problematic content.
Oh I see.
They have their own system and it's called Kotex... err Cortex.
I have no interest in WotC abominations either. LOL
RangerBoo
Arcane
Oh yeah. WoTC is demanding that they make changes to Dragonlance to make it be for a more "modern audience" as well as less "problematic" and more "inclusive". I.e adding woke gender and race shit to appease Twitter faggots. Hickman and Weiss told WoTC to pound sand and are now in a legal dispute with WoTC over their works. I hope they win as anything that hurts WoTC is a gain in my book.
Well WotC owns Dragonlance as the entire world was created as a work for hire when they were with TSR. I'm proud of Hickman and Weiss though for standing up to the bullshit.
I don't think that's quite right. They had gotten into a dispute over WotC requiring repeated revisions of whatever H&W were working on and ultimately cancelling it, apparently breaching their contract. It appears that that action was later dismissed and they're now working on something to fulfill the contract while they're also trying to start their own thing.
https://www.polygon.com/2021/1/25/2...es-trilogy-weis-hickman-wizards-coast-lawsuit
5E setting to be Kickstarted, Skyraiders of Abarax. https://www.dicebreaker.com/games/s...s/skyraiders-abarax-rpg-campaign-announcement
Thanks for the information. Crimson Skies Not-D&D doesn't sound great to me.
RangerBoo
Arcane
Can you imagine having to constantly change what you are working on because some mentally ill faggots on Twitter who constantly changes their gender identity every hour of the day demand that you add more and more "representation" and "inclusivity" until what you are working on is both a shadow of what you intended and is more or less a Frankenstein abomination? I would go mad.
That's why Frank and I aren't going to with Malignost and our rule set. Fuck those people since they don't buy shit anyway.
It's not D&D though. The authors of that abomination admitted to it. It may be branded as D&D, but it's not D&D. D&D died with AD&D 2E.
Alex
Arcane
They want to make the spells... even simpler? How? Are all spells going to be straight damage?
3/3.5E is a lot of fun, especially in CRPG adaptations, but it doesn't feel like D&D, no matter what it says on the tin. BECMI, 1E and 2E all feel similar and have similar concepts, a number of which 3E specifically did away with when they went after the "sacred cows" of D&D.
Some of the 3E design decisions were pretty good in terms of streamlining and consistency, but it still resulted in a product that felt very distinct from what came before.
I don't doubt that, but it's not the kind of fun I'm used to. I've regaled you with tales of my playing in AD&D 2E. What I did was flat out impossible under 3E and I was told that repeatedly by the DMs.
The entire THAC0 being too hard as subtraction is more difficult was a lazy way of saying we didn't like the mechanic and did it our own way. Now you've got characters with AC in the 60s+ and equally ridicules BABs. THAC0 capped at 2 and AC was at -10.
THAC0 was ingenious since it allowed the players to know how good they rolled based upon the generic 0 AC on 1d20. The players never knew what the AC of the monster was and that built tension in adventuring since you didn't know how strong they were. It's actually pretty simple in practice. Roll 1d20 and subtract it from the THAC0. Thus, if you rolled a 16 as a 1st level fighter that had a THAC0 of 20 you hit AC 4.
Eh, I actually think that the attack bonus progression over THAC0 is an improvement. I hated it when I first saw it, but in practice, it's a better system.
The thing that bugs me more is the change to saving throws where PPD is now under Fortitude while Spells could be Fortitude, Reflex, or Will, as could RSW. Even more so, the different classes had far different progressions in saving throws with warrior classes having the worst saving throws overall at low levels, but generally the best saving throws at high levels. This is counter to their general usefulness of the classes where warriors tending to be most useful at low levels and the least useful at high levels, so there was a trade off. In 3E+, everything has a linear progression between Fort/Ref/Will of good, moderate, or bad progression for each category with each class's saves being more or less balanced against eachother individually.
In practice I find the opposite as I use it to control the tension in the game. You not knowing the AC of a monster or even the rest of their abilities introduces the unknown. Plus, the caps are there to ensure that it's fair. The entire reason why THAC0 doesn't go beyond 2 is that 1 is an automatic failure for combat rolls. That's even with Warriors getting a THAC0 of 1 at level 20. The ACs are capped at -10 for the same balance reasons. That's the thing about 3.x and later abominations is that there is no such thing as balance as there is this massive power creep through the rules.
The point you're missing is that D&D and AD&D were never meant to be balanced. Balanced is unfun and imparts major restrictions on the DM and the players. Not every class was equal to the other since the game is not meant for solo play. It's built around the synergy of the four archetypes working together to achieve their goals. That's where 3.x and later abominations lost the plot. They tried to balance everything and in the process they turned a 5 course gourmet meal into a bland McDonalds Happy Meal. I'll take the gourmet meal which is why I can remember all those wonderful adventures under AD&D 1E and 2E while not remembering anything of the 3.x abominations.
Have you had any memorable games that equal to my blade bard dying at level 1 due to a bad roll or my fifth level Knight of Solamnia being turned into goo by a Black Dragon in the first round?
1 is still an automatic failure and 20 is still an automatic success in 3E and later. 20 is still the level cap and even if you had a fighter at level 20, the difference between an attack bonus of 20 vs. 19 is literally 1 point on a d20. These are equivalent to THAC0 1 and 2.
Despite AC being capped at -10, I never played at a table that actually used that rule and IIRC the Gold box CRPGs didn't use these caps either, so YMMV.
You just contradicted yourself, you just went from saying that 3.x was an abomination because there is no balance to saying the great thing about earlier editions is that they weren't meant to be balanced. You really have to pick a side to come down on for this. Regardless, both systems have a sort of balance. Like I say, there is a sense of balance in warriors having a better saving throw progression table over other classes (even though rogues get screwed), but it still won't necessarily help against the level 20 wizard who is flying 50' overhead and raining meteors down on you and then plane shifts when you figure out how to hit him with your sword.
Memorable games don't have much to do with rulesets, although a good ruleset can assist in having them. For instance, I remember very well the first time I had a level 1 character explode from getting hit for 50 hp damage (orc's greataxe crit in 3E). 1d12 + strength and other bonuses x3 is nothing to sneeze at when your hp caps out at around 14 for a fighter or 16 for a barbarian.
I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps they did try, but 3.x is nowhere near as "balanced" as, say, 5e is. There are massive differences between the classes and usually still a time most of them to shine.
The truly horrible abomination for balance is actually 4E (let us never speak of it again). 5E is actually an improvement over 4E's bullshit MMO boardgame mechanics.
1. Yes, but 3.x is not D&D and has no basis in the original. It's a different rule system altogether.
2. No, I called 3.x an abomination since it tries to be balanced and ignores the fact that D&D/AD&D is not balanced. It ignores the roots of the system and still ends up unbalanced. How it's unbalanced is how it removed the ability from the DM to adjudicate the game. In D&D/AD&D the DM was always the final authority on the rules and players playing smart. That's where the actual balance is.
3. In my 40 odd years of playing, yes, yes they do. Rules are the jacket that forms as the spine of the game play. Great rules lead to great moments in game. Terrible rules lead to terrible games. When your DM says, "you can't do something because the rules say x, y, z reason." that's a terrible rules set. When the DM says , "You can try and here's what you need to do." that's good rules set.
They did try with the entire Challenge Rating system and telling DM's that they had to adhere to the rules or else. The system removed the ability for the DM to make rulings on what they thought was best.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.