| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
 Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 18:30:01
|
by Monte Cook
Uniting the Editions, Part 1 (January 30th)
Uniting the Editions, Part 2 (February 6th)
Uniting the Editions, Part 3 (February 13th)
Uniting the Editions, Part 3 Addendum (February 14th)
EDIT: Posted link to third article addendum.
|
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
Edited by - Hawkins on 22 Feb 2012 16:12:25
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 18:40:18
|
| Thanks for the links, Hawkins. I made sure to vote. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
 |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 07 Feb 2012 : 20:59:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Thanks for the links, Hawkins. I made sure to vote.
Ditto
EDIT: Just tried to comment, and realized that commenting is reserved for 'paying customers'. I just ran into my very first 5e dislike.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Feb 2012 06:44:13 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 00:54:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Thanks for the links, Hawkins. I made sure to vote.
Ditto
EDIT: Just tried to comment, and realized that comment is reserved for 'paying customers'. I just ran into my very first 5e dislike.
You can vote Mark - I just have, not sure how much influence the comments have, I suspect most of the 'public weight' will be down to the poll results?
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 06:23:15
|
And who mostly hangs out over at the WotC site these days?
4e fans.
So if they use the polls (and don't let 'outsiders' comment), what we will get is just 4e 2.0
I know the article was about rules and not FR, but I'm starting to 'read between the lines', and 5e is already beginning to lose its luster for me.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 08 Feb 2012 06:45:29 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 11:03:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And who mostly hangs out over at the WotC site these days?
4e fans.
So if they use the polls (and don't let 'outsiders' comment), what we will get is just 4e 2.0
I know the article was about rules and not FR, but I'm starting to 'read between the lines', and 5e is already beginning to lose its luster for me.
WoTC are asking for input so let them have it. There is nothing stopping anyone voting in the polls and indicating their preferences. I can't see how this means that D&D Next is v2 of 4E unless only 4E fans vote. Everyone has a chance to say what they think, but to not bother and then say 'only 4E fans will be heard so why bother to vote' is disingenuous to WoTC. It has the potential to becomes a self fulling prophecy if no one else but 4E fans vote.
Cheers
Damain |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 11:22:45
|
I voted, but then realised that I don't seem to speak the same language as the authors of the poll.
Story-based appears to be understood by them as being something you contrast with... I don't know, maybe a miniatures battle?
As such, it is perhaps no surprise that it scored high. If people want cool action, spells and swords or if they want tactical puzzles; there are computer games that do that better than any miniatures game.
The thing is, though, I interpreted 'story-based' as being naturally opposed to 'free-form'. You either have a story that the GM is telling, with the players in the role of audience and occasionally able to select between branches of the story, or you have the player characters set down in a world where there is no pre-arranged narrative, but only one that emerges from their actions. As such, 'story-based' is the furthest thing from how I want games to be.
But I don't see how the rule system has anything to do with it, either way.
When I found that I answered 5 in all of the later poll, I realised that there must be some fundamental disconnect going on. Apparently some of these were meant to be either/or things. How, I can't imagine.
Of course, you play the game your way. I'd like to see them try to stop you.
Of course professional game designers are supposed to present rules that work the best way they can arrange. That's what they're jolly well paid for. Not paid well, of course, but you wouldn't pay them at all if you meant to do all the work yourself. It helps if the designers have a coherent vision of the rules and a firm grounding in a shared mental model, so it's easy to modify them if you so desire. This is why I prefer rule systems to use reality as a benchmark and have deviations from it clearly marked.
'Unless otherwise noted, stuff behaves the way it would in reality. Yes, I know bloody reality doesn't have fireballs and dragons, but dragons and fireballs will work the way they would work if they suddenly appeared in reality with only enough changes to physical laws to allow them to exist'. No shared mental model like reality. This is, incidentally, why I use GURPS.
By the same token, of course the GM decides what character creations options are or are not available. In what bizarro world would he not? This is one of his core tasks. He decides what the world is like and the PCs, not existing in a vaccuum, have to fit the world.
On the other hand, this does not mean that player input in character creation is any less. They come up with the concept, play the concept, etc. Of course that's important.
This poll felt sort of like asking me to rate the importance of food, drink and oxygen to survival. If any are missing, you won't survive. Oh, sure, the rate at which it kills you (or campaigns) is different, but none of these can be said to be anything less than vital. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 16:20:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And who mostly hangs out over at the WotC site these days?
4e fans.
"4E fans" aren't comprised of a group of people who, strictly speaking, only like 4E D&D. You can enjoy 4E D&D and still have a gaming background, you know.
Each poll is open to everyone. A poll isn't locked down until around the time as a new one it put up.
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
By the same token, of course the GM decides what character creations options are or are not available. In what bizarro world would he not?
That's the thing. If a player sees something printed, they think it's official and they want to use it.
Much of the product line for the past two editions was pointed at players, not Dungeon Masters.
I'm sure Diffan's going to disagree with me here, but I think in a lot of ways the last two editions of D&D have de-powered the Dungeon Master. So a lot of what you or I would take for granted as Dungeon Masters isn't the same for other games.
I get the impression that 5E is working towards putting power back into the DMs hands. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 08 Feb 2012 16:55:19 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 16:54:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I'm sure Diffan's going to disagree with me here, but I think in a lot of ways the last two editions of D&D have de-powered the Dungeon Master. So a lot of what you or I would take for granted as Dungeon Masters isn't the same for other games.
I get the impression that 5E is working towards putting power back into the DMs hands.
Nay I say, NAY!!!! 
I agree that the past two editions were specifically designed to give players more options. Hells, we've seen this in the tail end of AD&D/2E with Player Options books released. Additionally, the game has for the past decade and a half put more vocal power in Players hands due to a mutual understanding that they're just as invested in the campaign and game as the DM is. And in prior editions I think the default word for DMs was "No" because primarily DMs specifically went out to KILL the PCs so it became a battle between the two (game-play wise) and any change or addition to player options was an attempt to gain strengh over what a DM could do.
Now, it's more focued on an encouraging story and advancement. If I DM'ed a group and they went from 1st level to 10th then I'd be pretty proud of that instead of being proud of the number of character deaths I've delivered. For some DMs, they enjoy throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the PCs, which often results in Character death. What it created was PCs that consistantly search check every shadow, door, and box. Attack any sound or object that moves, and carry around 10' poles to by-pass traps the DM put in their way to kill them. Personally, I don't see how thats a lot of fun. And with limited character options, an "old-school" DM has a better chance of reacting to their choices based on what they can do. In late 2E, 3E, and 4E it's been more about balance and character depth/scope than DM ways to kill them.
And while I agree with Icelander that all options are for DM approval, DMs need to learn to say "Yes" more often. If they can't and don't have good reasons why players can't be what they want (within reason) then what's the point of playing? You soon learn that your players start to dwindle as their options shrink more and more. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 17:34:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And who mostly hangs out over at the WotC site these days?
4e fans.
"4E fans" aren't comprised of a group of people who, strictly speaking, only like 4E D&D. You can enjoy 4E D&D and still have a gaming background, you know.
Each poll is open to everyone. A poll isn't locked down until around the time as a new one it put up.
It's human nature to do that.
And it's also a safe assumption that the majority of people still checking the WotC site regularly are those who like the current edition. Most people that don't have migrated to Paizo and/or otherwise abandoned the WotC site.
It is, therefore, a safe assumption that any poll on the WotC site will be responded to by a larger percentage of people that like 4E, and thus any results will not necessarily be reflective of the gaming community as a whole -- just like any poll conducted here.
Just because someone says something about 4E fans, it's not necessarily negative. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 17:51:00
|
Also, I don't think WotC would use these polls in any way except for fun. Really, they're not going to create a whole new system based off of a few thousand poll votes. Well, unless they want to fail and negatively affect the Brand name further that is.
No, I think they have a very focued and intended goal at this point and several rules already in place (hence DDXP), but they need more imput and more aspects to get players and DMs what they want. More refinement and fine-tuning is needed before anything even gets set in stone let alone makes it to the printers. And of course when the open playtests hits (and it'll probably be open with no NDAs like Paizo) we'll get a better understanding of how much of each edition they kept and see if this modularity thing works. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 08 Feb 2012 : 18:23:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And it's also a safe assumption that the majority of people still checking the WotC site regularly are those who like the current edition. Most people that don't have migrated to Paizo and/or otherwise abandoned the WotC site.
If you don’t frequent the WotC forums, you can be forgiven for making a pair of assumptions like these.
But that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily safe to make.
I can appreciate the concern that a 4E friendly forum might make for a largely one-sided set of feedback.
However, I personally know a lot of people on the WotC forums who don’t play 4E. I also know a lot of people who didn’t actually care enough about the edition changeover that they abandoned (such a strong word, that!) one set of forums for another.
Unlike what Markus’ first post suggests, my experience on the WotC forums has been that people who like 4E don’t always champion it first and foremost. This is because many users have experience with other game systems besides D&D and experience with multiple editions of D&D.
What’s more, many users cut their teeth on the edition wars at the dawn of 4E and so have a lot of knowledge about how the D&D game works.
I’m just trying to point out that the WotC community is more diverse than Markus gives it credit for. It’s comprised of users who frequent many forums and not just one, who have strong, differing opinions over what the D&D game should be.
I also want to point out that the D&D community is growing, as the numerous January and February accounts created by users interested in joining the discussion about the future of D&D shows. The more voices, the better.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Just because someone says something about 4E fans, it's not necessarily negative.
You're right, of course. I apologize.
|
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 08 Feb 2012 19:09:28 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 09 Feb 2012 : 10:56:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
And in prior editions I think the default word for DMs was "No" because primarily DMs specifically went out to KILL the PCs so it became a battle between the two (game-play wise) and any change or addition to player options was an attempt to gain strengh over what a DM could do.
Now, it's more focued on an encouraging story and advancement. If I DM'ed a group and they went from 1st level to 10th then I'd be pretty proud of that instead of being proud of the number of character deaths I've delivered. For some DMs, they enjoy throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the PCs, which often results in Character death. What it created was PCs that consistantly search check every shadow, door, and box. Attack any sound or object that moves, and carry around 10' poles to by-pass traps the DM put in their way to kill them. Personally, I don't see how thats a lot of fun. And with limited character options, an "old-school" DM has a better chance of reacting to their choices based on what they can do. In late 2E, 3E, and 4E it's been more about balance and character depth/scope than DM ways to kill them.
Crikey looks like I have been running the wrong game for the last 30 odd years then. I must brush up on my ability to TPK and not bother with all the roleplaying we do where we sit around for 6-8 hours whilst the players plan and plot and resolve their business interests and build their community and speak the NPC's in the game (probably thousands of NPC's over the years) have a great time and not roll a single dice all night (roll for sense motive? ermm no, lets talk it through and see if the players can figure out if the merchant is a lying, back-stabbing Zhent agent or not). Of course we do have sessions of fighting and bashing and killing and looting as well (all for the good of Cormyr of course!!  ).
Of course a player describing how they are searching for a trap, prodding it with a 10' pole and discussing/describing how best to disarm it to the DM sounds like ROLE-playing to me, however simply rolling dice and saying I made my DC 35 find trap/disable trap check sounds like ROLL-playing to me. And I hear that 3E/4E is more story orientated, I suppose resolving player actions with a dice roll might be considered more story orientated.
I have played 3.X for quite a while (and ran it for 3 years) and have seen plenty of character death in that time, mainly from critical hits which ramp up the damage and make the game 'exciting'. Of course as a PC you will face the chance of criticals more often as you face more foes, which is one of the reasons the group went for 'soft' criticals by reducing threat ranges and/or damage multipliers. Do characters die more often in 3.x compared to 1E? that's a great question. I would say that 3.x with its inflated stat bonuses, extra spells/prayers and spontaneous casting sucked many players into believing they were harder to kill and so they became less cautious in exploring the 'scenario' compared to 1E. I have no doubt from what I have seen and experienced that the playing style certainly changed in 3.x compared to earlier editions as players rely more on their character stats and abilites and skills and prestige classes etc and less on their own skill and judgement to find their way through the perils and pitfalls (i.e. adventure!) that the DM sets them.
Is the old style better than the new style of playing or vice-versa? Most definitely not, we all play games differently and we prefer to play in a certain way. That is why I can't quite see how D&D Next will be able to unite all 'factions of D&D players' (I despise the notion of factions within the gaming community, we are all playing a fantasy RPG, so lets just get on and enjoy it!). I much prefer to tell/hear whether the merchant is a Zhent agent by roleplaying the situation, rather than simply rolling a dice and saying I made my DC 50 sense motive check (roll-playing) and therefore my character knows everything about him.
Using the merchant scenario above as an example I can't quite see how two players who play opposite ways to each other to find out the same info can sit at the same table at the same time and not have one or both getting bored/frustrated by the unfolding action as player one want to talk it through and player two has already made their DC roll. What is a DM to do role-play or roll-play?
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian |
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 03:34:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Crikey looks like I have been running the wrong game for the last 30 odd years then. I must brush up on my ability to TPK and not bother with all the roleplaying we do where we sit around for 6-8 hours whilst the players plan and plot and resolve their business interests and build their community and speak the NPC's in the game (probably thousands of NPC's over the years) have a great time and not roll a single dice all night (roll for sense motive? ermm no, lets talk it through and see if the players can figure out if the merchant is a lying, back-stabbing Zhent agent or not). Of course we do have sessions of fighting and bashing and killing and looting as well (all for the good of Cormyr of course!! ).
Well I'm glad to have set you on the straight and narrow. And to think, you might have been playing that way for the rest of your life. But really, I think your taking what I said out of context. In older editions when players were being run through dungeons, it felt very much like Me and the group vs what the DM could dish out. Sometimes he threw in loads of mini-battle to soften us up or one battle where we had no buisness being in and had to flee. This is neither good or bad, just a way of playing. I do this occasionally but I tend to enjoy balanced battles for the most part and use terrain and other features to make it more difficult or challenging. Personal tastes and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Of course a player describing how they are searching for a trap, prodding it with a 10' pole and discussing/describing how best to disarm it to the DM sounds like ROLE-playing to me, however simply rolling dice and saying I made my DC 35 find trap/disable trap check sounds like ROLL-playing to me. And I hear that 3E/4E is more story orientated, I suppose resolving player actions with a dice roll might be considered more story orientated.
The dice roll is to keep things fair and on a level playing field. Some people love avidly describing how they disable a trap and a DM might consider it the best way and *poof* it's done with no roll because he winged it perfectly etc.... Another player might not know one thing about disabling floor traps (in Real Life) or to even go about describing how to overcome it and so he rolls to disable it. Both are sound ways to achieving the same goal, just with different methods. But I do tend to think one promotes real-world knowledge and savvy talking that some people just don't have.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
I have played 3.X for quite a while (and ran it for 3 years) and have seen plenty of character death in that time, mainly from critical hits which ramp up the damage and make the game 'exciting'. Of course as a PC you will face the chance of criticals more often as you face more foes, which is one of the reasons the group went for 'soft' criticals by reducing threat ranges and/or damage multipliers. Do characters die more often in 3.x compared to 1E? that's a great question. I would say that 3.x with its inflated stat bonuses, extra spells/prayers and spontaneous casting sucked many players into believing they were harder to kill and so they became less cautious in exploring the 'scenario' compared to 1E. I have no doubt from what I have seen and experienced that the playing style certainly changed in 3.x compared to earlier editions as players rely more on their character stats and abilites and skills and prestige classes etc and less on their own skill and judgement to find their way through the perils and pitfalls (i.e. adventure!) that the DM sets them.
To relate to what I said above, should the game promote real-world knowledge and out-of-box thinking that the Player would know, but his Intelligence 9 Half-Orc barbarian wouldn't? To some that's creative and encouraged, while to others it comes of a bit meta-gamey. Of course people are going to rely on their character sheets, it's what signifies what they can and can't do with their abilities. But if real-world Fred is a survivalist or reads heavily detailed books about wilderness survival, should that knowledge be accepted into the game for his Cleric of Amaunator who's spent his entire life in Waterdeep? I'd like to think that a little can be brought in, but over-doing it can complicate things and make it seem that one is playing themselves instead of Dareth, Cleric of Amaunator.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Is the old style better than the new style of playing or vice-versa? Most definitely not, we all play games differently and we prefer to play in a certain way. That is why I can't quite see how D&D Next will be able to unite all 'factions of D&D players' (I despise the notion of factions within the gaming community, we are all playing a fantasy RPG, so lets just get on and enjoy it!). I much prefer to tell/hear whether the merchant is a Zhent agent by roleplaying the situation, rather than simply rolling a dice and saying I made my DC 50 sense motive check (roll-playing) and therefore my character knows everything about him.
Using the merchant scenario above as an example I can't quite see how two players who play opposite ways to each other to find out the same info can sit at the same table at the same time and not have one or both getting bored/frustrated by the unfolding action as player one want to talk it through and player two has already made their DC roll. What is a DM to do role-play or roll-play?
Just my thoughts
Cheers
Damian
Basically the two play-styles are going to have to be mitigated by the DM. He might have to say "this is how we're running it with X, Y, and Z. If you bring something outside this, it'll be disqualified." OR he could say that both styles are fine as long as people are ok with Fred's smooth talking about jungle survival even though he's playing a Dwarven Fighter who's never been to a jungle and don't complain about Jenn's easy-peasy rolling for locating/disarming traps. |
|
|
|
ZeshinX
Learned Scribe
Canada
210 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 04:46:44
|
I've always found it goes both ways when it comes to the DM-Players relationship. I started playing at the transition of 1e/2e and began DM'ing in earnest towards the later years of 2e (around when the Player's Option books hit). I tended to follow the example of my first DM...craft a story/plot for the players to adventure in (the level of detail being discretionary based on the DM's knowledge of the player's likes/dislikes), but get the players input before starting as to what type of game they'd like to play.
It's how I approach running games now. I'll sit down with my players and ask what type of game-style they'd like to play (heavy action, intrigue & politics, dungeon crawling, high or low magic, etc). It falls in the middle in almost every case (the middle being a mix of many styles). From there I let the players know what I'm allowing/not allowing as far as what options are available, and if I exclude something a player wants, they can make a case why it should be allowed, with ultimate say being mine (I've only ever enforced an exclusion once, and that was for the 3.5E Tome of Battle). In every other instance, I've always managed to meet the players at a point where we're both happy with things.
Once we start playing, I try not to say 'No' very often and try to offer as many options as possible to what they'd like to do, ranging from a simple Skill/Ability check, allowing it based on the general competence of a character indicated by their stats (whatever stats are relevant to whatever they are trying to do), or generally just letting them roleplay the scenario and ignore the character sheet altogether. I will discourage some behaviours (like splitting the party or party in-fighting), but even those can sometimes be enjoyable (albeit rarely).
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I've never really viewed the relationship as The DM vs. The Players. I've always viewed it more like an equation:
Campaign(DM + Players) = Let's have some fun! |
"...because despite the best advice of those who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things."
-Galen, technomage |
Edited by - ZeshinX on 11 Feb 2012 04:48:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 11 Feb 2012 : 16:09:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
To relate to what I said above, should the game promote real-world knowledge and out-of-box thinking that the Player would know, but his Intelligence 9 Half-Orc barbarian wouldn't? To some that's creative and encouraged, while to others it comes of a bit meta-gamey. Of course people are going to rely on their character sheets, it's what signifies what they can and can't do with their abilities. But if real-world Fred is a survivalist or reads heavily detailed books about wilderness survival, should that knowledge be accepted into the game for his Cleric of Amaunator who's spent his entire life in Waterdeep? I'd like to think that a little can be brought in, but over-doing it can complicate things and make it seem that one is playing themselves instead of Dareth, Cleric of Amaunator.
I, personally, have gone out of my way to avoid letting real-life knowledge influence my characters. One character I played, I several times asked the DM if my character would know something I knew. He'd ask me to make a case for it. If I convinced him, my character knew. If I didn't, my character didn't know.
I went a slightly different route with my minotaur (also in 2E). My minotaur once reached into a gelatinous cube to try to rescue a colleague. I knew it was a bad idea, but my character didn't know that. And since my minotaur had an intelligence of 9, I would frequently make an intelligence check to see if he might come up with the same idea I just came up with. If the check failed, he didn't have the idea, and tried something else.
It was a self-imposed limitation, but in my mind, it was in keeping with the spirit of the game and the flavor of the character. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Feb 2012 : 04:32:52
|
Diffan, it has nothing to do with editions and everything to do with the DM.
I've run OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, Merps, Gurps, etc, in the Fantasy genre, and Space Opera, Traveller, Villains & Vigalantes, Aftermath, Gangster, etc, etc... in other genres.
And I can tell you, all my games played the same, no matter what rules I used, and no matter what genre I was in, and even when I didn't use any rules (which we used to do as well). Its all about the story - there might be a few small encounters, and then one 'grand finale', but the rest was pure RP.
By the same token, I could have used any of those systems (or none) and ran a combat-heavy game, if I so desired. The rules don't determine the tempo (although they might interfere with it), the DM does that. He (or she) sets the tone. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 15:13:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Diffan, it has nothing to do with editions and everything to do with the DM.
I've run OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, Merps, Gurps, etc, in the Fantasy genre, and Space Opera, Traveller, Villains & Vigalantes, Aftermath, Gangster, etc, etc... in other genres.
And I can tell you, all my games played the same, no matter what rules I used, and no matter what genre I was in, and even when I didn't use any rules (which we used to do as well). Its all about the story - there might be a few small encounters, and then one 'grand finale', but the rest was pure RP.
By the same token, I could have used any of those systems (or none) and ran a combat-heavy game, if I so desired. The rules don't determine the tempo (although they might interfere with it), the DM does that. He (or she) sets the tone.
I agree with you about the tempo and how it's always the DM's way of making the game run and NOT the game itself, however the rules certainly help with specific aspects that your trying to achieve. Codified rules (such extensive ones found in v3.5+ for example) also put expectations on the DM from player's who know those rules. Not saying that DMs can't or shouldn't deviate from these as they're really just guidelines, but there is a penchant for players to hope and think the DM is being "fair" (ie. following the rules).
This is espically true when DMs might disagree with what players do or say. In earlier editions (prior to 3E) it was mostly given up to DM fiat because there were no rules governing many aspects. As rules expand and players see more of them, it gets tougher to just throw out DM fiat and not be called a cheater (or whatever). I'd like to think that this is situation happes more often at Living Campaigns, Cons, and the like where you don't really know the people your gaming with and not your usual Monday night group at a friends house.
@ Wooly: That's actually pretty cool. Sometimes it's hard for me do determine what my Character would know vs. what I prsonally know (about the game stuff) and the line of communication between the PC and DM is a very important one. But what about things like finding and disarming traps? I mean, technically they're rules for it which include rolling dice and all that. Should describing what you do specifically to find or disarm the trap enhance or decrease the modifier of your roll or even circumvent a roll at all?
I think that's what crazedventures was hinting at, that players instantly go for the dice in situations that could also be overcome with RP'ing. But therein, IMO, lies the arbitrary decisions of the DM. If the player attempts to just roleplay through the trap, describing what they do in detail, I feel it slows the game down and shines an unsually long amount of spotlight on one player. It also puts pressure on a DM to use critical thinking about the dynamics of the trap and how to bypass it without mechanics. And if the player describes wrong (or at least, not how the DM perceives how it can be disarmed) and it goes off.....good luck getting players to RP out of situations a simple die roll can fix. |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 15:41:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Should describing what you do specifically to find or disarm the trap enhance or decrease the modifier of your roll or even circumvent a roll at all?
Aye it certainly does, its the 'reward' for playing the thief in character!
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
I think that's what crazedventures was hinting at, that players instantly go for the dice in situations that could also be overcome with RP'ing. But therein, IMO, lies the arbitrary decisions of the DM. If the player attempts to just roleplay through the trap, describing what they do in detail, I feel it slows the game down and shines an unsually long amount of spotlight on one player. It also puts pressure on a DM to use critical thinking about the dynamics of the trap and how to bypass it without mechanics. And if the player describes wrong (or at least, not how the DM perceives how it can be disarmed) and it goes off.....good luck getting players to RP out of situations a simple die roll can fix.
A good DM ensures that each players 'shines' at various points during the ongoing campaign, letting the thief have a few minutes at the table whilst they describe searching for the 'obvious' trap and describing how they will disable it, is no different to the wizard spending several minutes trying the use comprehend languages on the inscription inscribed on the tomb of an unknown warrior. Or the fact the fighter hogs the limelight when they are toe-to-toe with a bad guy fighting on very narrow bridge over a chasm full of lava etc
Pressure on the DM to resolve the trap? nah, I just make it up, like I just make up most situations that don't need a die roll and can be explained via role-playing and description. And yes sometimes the players 'don't win' and the trap blows up, or the spiked ceiling starts to descend, or gas issues out of the dragon statues mouth etc and then the players have to really think on their feet and make critical decisions quickly to get out of the situation they are in and then it means something to them, as their decisions directly affect their cherished character not just an arbitrary dice roll that just happened to fail.
Random dice rolling for every action takes away player empowerment in my opinion as whatever they want to do is controlled by a force they can't control, player empowerment comes from players direct control of their character and resolving 'issues' first and foremost by roll-playing with dice a secondary check if required. What is required is that players and DM's realise that it is a shared game and that they trust each other to play to the best of their ability at all times and make it fun for all.
Cheers
Damain
|
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1073 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2012 : 15:57:50
|
I think the following explains more succinctly and clearer than I can about the playing style of 'old school players' compared to 'new school players' and why uniting the editions is a very tricky proposition for D&D Next.
Disclaimer
This is from the Swords and Wizardry rule-set written by Matt Finch (Mythmere Games) and published by Frog God Games, all copyrights pertain to them and no challenge to their IP is intended. I am simply posting a few paragraphs to better illustrate my thoughts.
Cheers
Damian
ps Mods if this violates the C.O.C. feel free to delete
**************************************
Foreword By Tim Kask, founding editor of The Dragon Magazine
For thirty-five years, I have been telling role-playing gamers to ignore rules that they do not like. The essence of RPGing is in the story, not the accomplishment of arbitrary goals and benchmarks. We all take part in creating the story; the GM writes an outline, tots up a list of “plot elements,” and then sets the players loose to fill in the details. This has never changed.
What you hold in your hand are guidelines; this is one set of “rules” that has an internal integrity that makes it work. Is it the only way to play? Certainly not; from the very beginning of role-playing GMs have been encouraged to extrapolate and interpret, to make the game their own. If a given rule does not seem “right” to you, then ignore it! Or, better still, change it! Make your game or campaign your own. All GMs need to worry about is keeping a “logical reality” active in their campaigns; the players rely on that logic to find their way through the perils and puzzles of the adventure.
The truest test of whether or not you are doing it right has always been two-fold: are you having fun, and do your players keep showing up every session? If you can answer yes to either, you’re on the right path. If you can answer in the affirmative to both, you have the “right” of it. From the very conception of RPGing, the whole idea was to have fun. We showed the world a new way to do it, but we never said there was only one way.
Have fun adventuring.
Tim Kask
July 10, 2010
Or as Matt writes later in the book
The three most important things to know about running a game of Swords & Wizardry are these:
The rules are just guidelines
There is not a rule for everything.
When in doubt, make a ruling.
|
So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005 |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 06:16:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And who mostly hangs out over at the WotC site these days?
4e fans.
So if they use the polls (and don't let 'outsiders' comment), what we will get is just 4e 2.0
I know the article was about rules and not FR, but I'm starting to 'read between the lines', and 5e is already beginning to lose its luster for me.
WoTC are asking for input so let them have it. There is nothing stopping anyone voting in the polls and indicating their preferences. I can't see how this means that D&D Next is v2 of 4E unless only 4E fans vote. Everyone has a chance to say what they think, but to not bother and then say 'only 4E fans will be heard so why bother to vote' is disingenuous to WoTC. It has the potential to becomes a self fulling prophecy if no one else but 4E fans vote.
Cheers
Damain
I wasn't going to comment on this scroll (some of the initial commentary was a bit depressing), but I have to agree with Damian. The simple fact that we're seeing an open preview announcement of "5e" this early after 4e was developed in absolute secrecy (and equally absolute denial) should be a good sign in itself, and something tells me that the change in process means that WotC doesn't want "5e" to be a rehash of 4e, to the extent that if the polls tell them it should be, they will ignore the polls as being skewed. I, for one, completely agree with this response, and it's not because I don't like most of what 4e had to offer. If you're going to make it nearly the same as what came before, why bother? In this respect, I think 2e was something of a "non-edition"; it raised non-human level limits (a good first step toward 3e removing them altogether) and put damage caps on magic (also a step, but not a good one, IMO; the whole "balance" mantra was my biggest complaint about 4e core, and I've ranted loudly about it over the lifetime of the edition within these halls, so I won't bore you with more; see my sig for how I feel about magic and balance). 3e was really the first change significant enough to justify the label of a new edition, but "2.5" made changes that were significant enough to redeem the edition number. Despite this criticism, I still loved 2e; most of my favourite characters were created and played through their entire careers in this system, and this is the big reason why I think that having some means of conversion between the editions is a valuable tool for regaining and retaining long-term fans of the game.  |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 19 Feb 2012 06:18:44 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 19 Feb 2012 : 06:50:05
|
I am sure they had the best of intentions when they were creating 4e.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
I just love quoting stuff... is sooo... strawman. 
And no, I don't think there was some sort of 'evil plot' (at least not amongst the majority of designers - the ones who liked and played in FR), and I do not think so now. I think they think they are doing everything within their power to 'make things right'.
What I worry about are those things 'outside their power', and also those things they haven't considered (like the already-slanted polls being taken, although I am sure their intentions were pure there). And what I worry most about is that they are making the same mistakes all over again, and don't even realize it.
I just hope I'm wrong. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 04:47:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And no, I don't think there was some sort of 'evil plot' (at least not amongst the majority of designers - the ones who liked and played in FR), and I do not think so now. I think they think they are doing everything within their power to 'make things right'.
Meaning that you think that a reboot is something the designers have been told (by someone higher up) is not an option?
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
What I worry about are those things 'outside their power', and also those things they haven't considered (like the already-slanted polls being taken, although I am sure their intentions were pure there). And what I worry most about is that they are making the same mistakes all over again, and don't even realize it.
I just hope I'm wrong.
I hope you're wrong too... but in other ways, I really don't care any more. If 5e is a good system, I'll buy it and use it. If not, I have Pathfinder. I hope that with the open timeline I'll get the occasional FR product I can use. If not, I have Golarion. This is entirely Wizbro's game to lose now, and I use the hybrid name there deliberately; Hasbro needs to leave WotC alone to build this edition, or they will only have themselves to blame if it fails. Of course, they want to be able to take the credit if it does well, so you can bet they'll keep as many fingers in the pie as possible. But I hope someone with clout in the company reads these posts without delusions of a job well done last time around, and makes the necessary changes in process to make the new edition something better than its predecessor.
And if they do make the same mistakes again, D&D may very well die as a brand, and if that happens, Mark, your former sig line at the Wizards message boards may very well come back to haunt anyone there who remembers it. And yes, I remember it very well; a pun that good doesn't get forgotten by me. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3738 Posts |
Posted - 20 Feb 2012 : 04:59:17
|
-Ah, reading this thread some things never change.
quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers
Foreword By Tim Kask, founding editor of The Dragon Magazine
For thirty-five years, I have been telling role-playing gamers to ignore rules that they do not like. The essence of RPGing is in the story, not the accomplishment of arbitrary goals and benchmarks. We all take part in creating the story; the GM writes an outline, tots up a list of “plot elements,” and then sets the players loose to fill in the details. This has never changed.
-How does the saying go? Something about a lie that is always told to prevent people from taking things into their own hands?
-I have to admit, I do laugh when I see 4e authors, Pathfinder authors, 5e authors now, talking about how their new game is revolutionary in that it will do X, Y, or Z to the rules or setting (make them fewer/more plentiful, make it more/less streamlines, make it more/less in depth, whatever). As if, in 1e/2e/3e/4e/Pathfinder/whatever other rules/worlds, you weren't able to do that? |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Jakk
Great Reader
Canada
2165 Posts |
Posted - 21 Feb 2012 : 22:26:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Ah, reading this thread some things never change.
-How does the saying go? Something about a lie that is always told to prevent people from taking things into their own hands?
-I have to admit, I do laugh when I see 4e authors, Pathfinder authors, 5e authors now, talking about how their new game is revolutionary in that it will do X, Y, or Z to the rules or setting (make them fewer/more plentiful, make it more/less streamlines, make it more/less in depth, whatever). As if, in 1e/2e/3e/4e/Pathfinder/whatever other rules/worlds, you weren't able to do that?
Excellent points, LK. It reminds me of my favourite Gygax quote (which is in the signature of one of our scribes here):
quote:
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.
Gary Gygax
But I would amend it to state:
quote:
The secret the publishers should never let us [gamers as a group] know is that we don't need any rules.
Gary spilled the beans and most of us didn't even realize it. We don't need rules changes, we need setting and story ideas and plot hooks... and 1E and 2E FR gave these to us in glorious quantity. And then the novels started gobbling them up... imho. |
Playing in the Realms since the Old Grey Box (1987)... and *still* having fun with material published before 2008, despite the NDA'd lore.
If it's comparable in power with non-magical abilities, it's not magic. |
Edited by - Jakk on 21 Feb 2012 22:29:11 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Legends & Lore: Uniting the Editions
