Knights & Knaves Alehouse

T. Foster wrote:If WotC intended their re-release of 1E to interest me in 5E it has totally backfired - since the news of that release my interest in all things 5E has been absolutely zero. There's only one thing I want from them - to make the limited edition re-release of the 1E rulebooks into a non-limited edition evergreen release. If they do that, whatever they do with 5E will be of no interest to me, because I'll have gotten what I wanted. And if they don't do that, whatever they do with 5E will still be of no interest to me, because I'll know that they could give me what I want and have deliberately chosen not to.

Well said, Trent!

There's only one thing I want from them - to make the limited edition re-release of the 1E rulebooks into a non-limited edition evergreen release. If they do that, whatever they do with 5E will be of no interest to me, because I'll have gotten what I wanted. And if they don't do that, whatever they do with 5E will still be of no interest to me, because I'll know that they could give me what I want and have deliberately chosen not to.

But that means you're not a customer. You already have those books, and they might get say, one single sale from you, if you decide your old books are falling apart. Speaking from a purely business perspective, I can't see them choosing to re-release an older version of the game as an "evergreen" if they are still tweaking the game brand. Consider how hostile many of the disenfranchised are right now--they don't need the industry, the books are too expensive--would anything they do be worthwhile? Part of being a business is figuring out if there is a market. I'm sure they've looked at this. There's a minimum amount of capital needed to release product.

It seems people are arguing more that they want their older version of D&D to either give to their kids or the like. But that's kind of a foolish business model. Unless there is proof that a re-released 1e will sell well, be competitive in this harder marketplace (the 70s and 80s are different than today, with both countless tabletop and computer RPGs), I simply can't see them doing this, unless this collectors edition works for them.

I think the key thing to see is if this collectors release sells. I guess I'm more of the opinion that most of the big 1e fans--assuming it's 1e and not Basic D&D--just gave it up like people give up high school and college hobbies. We'll see if this is the case.

And just to clarify my position.

I actually do think we should have some of the older works in print--at least for the historical types who like to read the stuff. I would like to see many of the classic modules and books available, for collectors and people who want to explore the game's history. And I think, in part, Wizards is doing this, at least I can hope they will keep this up.

But in terms of how the D&D brand is managed, there's a level of fiscal responsibility involved, and what the fan base wants. For instance, how do you support 1e? Ideally, you would update the rules with eratta, modern art and layout. But even that simple thing is controversial among the fans. Your goal is to sell it to today's audience, so you have to take that into account. And anybody who decides to tinker with the rules is going to be judged, for instance. I honestly believe that the 3e was probably a very good way of adapting the original D&D rules to a more modern framework--It was very successful. I think D&D is meant to constantly change. I agree it shouldn't be a huge paradigm shift between editions, but I think it's unrealistic to think it is perfect either.

Can you spin off the brand into editions and realistically support all the editions? And are we a majority or a minority? These are very hard questions to deal with, and it's hard for us to overcome our own confirmation biases.

So I'm reading this transcription of the WotC guys talking about class design on Matt's blog:

http://swordsandwizardry.blogspot.com/2 ... asses.html

And man, they almost get it, but there's one key point they don't understand - they have very little to add to the game. The game went for what, 15+ years before 2nd edition? The thing was incredibly well play-tested. You, WotC employees, do not have much to offer to this game. It's good. It's very good. Stop monkeying with it.

Is somebody going and fixing checkers? No, of course not. Monopoly? No, it's classic, even though it's clearly not for everybody.

They have figured out all these key things that the early editions did so well... and then they insist on glomming on crap that makes it worse. Feats? How can you have Mr. Many-Feats-and-Complexity join the game and not slow the thing down to a crawl? The answer is you can't. With respect to Mr. Conley's more positive reports, low-level play doesn't show up those kinds of issues.

It's frustrating watching them almost get it. They see a lot of what makes early editions tick. But they want to keep changing it. You can feel the enthusiasm, but what they need isn't enthusiasm for monkeying around, they need some understanding that it was pretty much spot on fantastic in 1980.

There are tiny improvements I can imagine being made, but really, they're on the 9th iteration of the fighter for your playtests? What on earth are they doing to the poor class?

Gahhhhh... now I'm all consumed with nerd rage...

PatW wrote:So I'm reading this transcription of the WotC guys talking about class design on Matt's blog:

http://swordsandwizardry.blogspot.com/2 ... asses.html

And man, they almost get it, but there's one key point they don't understand - they have very little to add to the game. The game went for what, 15+ years before 2nd edition? The thing was incredibly well play-tested. You, WotC employees, do not have much to offer to this game. It's good. It's very good. Stop monkeying with it.

Is somebody going and fixing checkers? No, of course not. Monopoly? No, it's classic, even though it's clearly not for everybody.

They have figured out all these key things that the early editions did so well... and then they insist on glomming on crap that makes it worse. Feats? How can you have Mr. Many-Feats-and-Complexity join the game and not slow the thing down to a crawl? The answer is you can't. With respect to Mr. Conley's more positive reports, low-level play doesn't show up those kinds of issues.

It's frustrating watching them almost get it. They see a lot of what makes early editions tick. But they want to keep changing it. You can feel the enthusiasm, but what they need isn't enthusiasm for monkeying around, they need some understanding that it was pretty much spot on fantastic in 1980.

There are tiny improvements I can imagine being made, but really, they're on the 9th iteration of the fighter for your playtests? What on earth are they doing to the poor class?

Gahhhhh... now I'm all consumed with nerd rage...

Yeah, for all that people here were unnerved by it, the first seminar didn't really throw me. They talk the talk. Now that some specifics are coming out, they soooo almost walk the walk ... but it's got some comments in there that just don't quite work. Unless, and perhaps this is the case, the stuff that sounds wrong is all in the more complex "modules" that you add on, not in the core of the game. Although clearly there will be these "warlock" and "warlord" classes.

The illusionist looks like he's coming back.

On the other hand, looks like magic-users are going to be able to toss around weak magic missiles each round, just to make them wizardy.

I think the idea is that the 1st edition fighters ability to kill a number of 1hd creatures equal to his level is a "feat" and his 17 thac0 at 4th level is a "feat" and at 9th level automatic followers are a "feat" and wotc is going to make that the iconic and phb fighter 80% combat 0% exploration 20% social and then players of 4e can swap a "drag enemy 5'' ability for the 4th level +3 BAB/thac0, and can swap out the followers for some other feat etc, but the ad&d fighter is the "default".

If feats are presented this way--rangers level 1 feat is 2x hit points, level 8 feat is minor spell use, level 10 feat is animal/fantastic followers etc, then it seems doable. I'm fairly certain that the default character builds will be ad&d iconic characters. I hope so at least.

On the other hand, looks like magic-users are going to be able to toss around weak magic missiles each round, just to make them wizardy.

Yeah that would bug me a lot.

Like I said earlier, the point of the old school communities is to play the actual editions not something like this. I don't expect many here, if any, to switch to 5e as their primary edition. No more than anybody deciding that Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy, etc is now their primary edition. But it looking good that wizards will be selling material useful for old school gaming. And more importantly getting people used to how older editions ared played and are refereed.

I can say that the reporters are accurate in their reports that the playtest feels like older D&D, and I add it is not some type of 4e trick. Although there will be plenty of items that I have no doubt that many of you will pick on. And it not negative as the playtest simply not AD&D reborn which the point of this particular community.

If they'd stop catering to people who don't like D&D in the first place, they might actually manage to make a game I'd play.

JRT wrote:But that means you're not a customer. You already have those books, and they might get say, one single sale from you, if you decide your old books are falling apart.…
It seems people are arguing more that they want their older version of D&D to either give to their kids or the like. But that's kind of a foolish business model.

It seems to work for board games.

geezerdm wrote:If they'd stop catering to people who don't like D&D in the first place, they might actually manage to make a game I'd play.

This might actually be the most insightful statement I've read yet, and really, it is central to what WotC is claiming to be doing. Or rather, what they've been claiming to have been doing for the last 12 years.

3e was "back to the dungeon", claiming a return to what made D&D, well "D&D". But it brought in skills and feats with all that entails (character builds), over-defined a bunch of the terminology around the game, took some roleplay aspects and reduced them to a die roll (bluff and sense motive, I'm looking at you), and brought in a fairly defined grid-based miniatures combat system.

4e was supposed to be "less complex" and like the original game. But it shot several sacred cows in the head, wotc told us prior to 4e we were having bad-wrong fun, and amped the power curve up quite a bit (and that's just what I'm aware of from the outside looking in.)

Now were being told we're going to get the essence of D&D in the core rules, with more complex add-ons if we want them and we'll be happy at one big round table.

Perhaps, from a branding perspective, this is what they should have been doing all along. But when I read about feats, and swapping out character abilities for more complex sets of "stuff" as the character advances, I can't really help but feel that they are, in fact, catering to the people who don't like the very essence of what D&D was in in it's heyday.

OD&D was a pony car. AD&D was a muscle car. 5e sounds like it going to be minivan, which you can put a nitrous kit in, cheap ground effects, and an under chassie glow light, if you want.

francisca wrote:Perhaps, from a branding perspective, this is what they should have been doing all along. But when I read about feats, and swapping out character abilities for more complex sets of "stuff" as the character advances, I can't really help but feel that they are, in fact, catering to the people who don't like the very essence of what D&D was in in it's heyday.

Indeed.

What's funny, of course, is that there are quite a few folks who will chime in with the claim changing the game is a hallowed tradition of the hobby, going all the way back to its earliest days. That's absolutely true. The difference is, back in 1978, if you dropped scaling hit points, added skills, and gave everyone access to magic, you didn't claim you were playing "D&D"; you were playing RuneQuest. It's a fool's errand to try and find the "essence" of D&D while changing its very nature. But that's the kind of thing that happens when "the brand" becomes more important than the thing it represents.

If I understand all of this correctly then Next will be:

The PHB will cover:

• Core 1e characters (races & classes) + almost everything since.
  Both Vancian and non-Vancian spell casters
  Powers, Feats, etc which are useable or not.

So, theoretically, you could do with Next what OSRIC does with the SRD. Just use the core races/characters, Vancian magic and none or few powers, and you might be close to 1e. Then, Wizards can publish one module, not one for each version, and (again) theoretically, no matter what level of crap your group is using, this one module fits all. The 1e crowd just ignores all of the DC and whatever crap.

Do I have this right?

The difference is, back in 1978, if you dropped scaling hit points, added skills, and gave everyone access to magic, you didn't claim you were playing "D&D"; you were playing RuneQuest.

I agree, RQ, T&T, aruduin, et al they are all house rules of gary and daves d&d. I don't think anyone begrudges someone taking d&d and house ruling it to hell, what I'm hoping is wotc's plan is to re-present and represent d&d but encourage people to make harn/arduin/RQ with the same set of rules. . If the default character classes in thr PHB look like and play like ad&d, who cares if some other dude plays a dragonborn psion? Dave had balrog characters in his campaigns, strategic review and dragon are full of odd classes that never made it into the original PHB.

I'm no wotc fanboy (don't care much for 3e, never played 4e). Wotc seems interested in supporting peoples home campaigns and no longer pushing an official version (I've read the will be supporting forgotten realms before tieflings, dragonborns and spell plagues for example as well as supporting players who want all that). Isn't that the best? Instead of trying to pull a TSR and say "this is the offical way to play the game" they seem to be saying "here is the basics of d&d and here are options for DM's and players for their home game.

As long as they get the basics right, It would be like one guy using elderitch wizardry, some other dude using blackmoor, some other guy using a rule he found in dragon mag. All d&d, just flavored to their home campaigns like it should be.

I play od&d, so 5e has quite a hurdle to overcome as my version already has rules for masscombat, nauticle adventures, air combat, hex crawling, barony building, hirelings and henchmen, underground exploration etc, so they might not sell me anything--they'd just need to reprint all the adventure modules. Maybe someone at wotc will write a good exploation module? Mayby I'd buy it.

TRP wrote:So, theoretically, you could do with Next what OSRIC does with the SRD. Just use the core races/characters, Vancian magic and none or few powers, and you might be close to 1e.

If you consider the 3e Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard "close to 1e" then I suppose the answer is yes. But it is sounding like baseline characters will have 3e-like skills, 3e-like feats and 4e-like class abilities at the very least and the main difference between "basic" and "advanced" will be whether you choose to use the baseline skill/feat/ability package or mix-n-match from the more complex options.

That doesn't sound "close to 1e" to me.

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:That doesn't sound "close to 1e" to me.

I expect that any "close to 1e" or "old school feel" claims will be based almost entirely on flavor rather than substance. I expect 5e to be very much in line with the 3e/4e game design but will feature a bit more "chrome" that draws on the past of the game rather than jettisoning it as 4e seemed to do.