Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

D&D Fourth Edition Books To Be Released in June

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the now-we're-getting-somewhere dept.

Role Playing (Games) 59

Bill Slavicsek, R&D director on Dungeons and Dragons at Wizards of the Coast, has announced via his personal column that the three core books for Fourth Edition will all be coming out in the same month. When the new game version was announced at Gen Con this year, the initial idea was that the books would be staggered over a three month period. "After conferring with our various trade partners, the Sales Team here at Wizards came back with word that they'd rather have the three core rulebooks release in the same month than over three consecutive months. As that's how we originally wanted to release them, Brand and R&D got together with our Production Team to see if we could accommodate the request. The answer is YES! The new release schedule looks like this: May: H1: Keep on the Shadowfell 4th Edition D&D adventure with Quick-Start Rules. June 6: 4th Edition Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual." As a note, the article is trapped behind an inane login for the Dungeons and Dragons Insider site. Hey WotC? It's really hard to talk up your new toys when you make it hard to read your content. Why not loosen up a bit?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Buy our printed material! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21048783)

D&D 1st and 2nd edition were both on the market for decades. Then Wizards of the Coast purchases D&D and all of a sudden a new edition is coming out every few years. They are just trying to make people buy tons of their printed material, which is exactly what their business model was with Magic the Gathering.

Yay for printed material that becomes obsolete every few years. Can't wait for D&D 5th Edition, coming next Christmas.

Re:Buy our printed material! (1)

pluther (647209) | about 7 years ago | (#21049077)

D&D 1st and 2nd edition were both on the market for decades. Then Wizards of the Coast purchases D&D and all of a sudden a new edition is coming out every few years. They are just trying to make people buy tons of their printed material

You don't remember all the crap that TSR published to expand, change rules, add additional material, etc., for 2nd edition?

At least the material for 3 and 3.5 was mostly of decent quality, and not just geared towards making your character more powerful with each new splat book.

That said, from what I've seen, I won't be "upgrading" from 3.5 any time soon. I hardly even use miniatures, so don't need a "simplified" system built around them.

Re:Buy our printed material! (2, Informative)

Earered (856958) | about 7 years ago | (#21049117)

Well, 3E improved things, and that's from Wizards of the Coast. In some countries (France, Sweden) D&D wasn't the dominant RPG anymore before 3E (Good settings, and pretty rulebooks had room to develop).

3.5 (point release for books?!?) and 4E are from a Wizards of the Coast owned and directed by Hasbro, a completely different beast.

Re:Buy our printed material! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21052453)

Well, 3E improved things, and that's from Wizards of the Coast. In some countries (France, Sweden) D&D wasn't the dominant RPG anymore before 3E (Good settings, and pretty rulebooks had room to develop).

Sure 3E was an improvement, unless you consider backward compatibility important.

Re:Buy our printed material! (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21053831)

Sure 3E was an improvement, unless you consider backward compatibility important.


Being backwards compatible with "broken" shouldn't be important.

Unleaded gas isn't backwards compatible...

Re:Buy our printed material! (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#21049259)

D&D 1st and 2nd edition were both on the market for decades.


In the case of AD&D 2nd edition, 1.1 decades (1989-2000), with a substantial revision (though it didn't get an official new version like 3.5) of the core books in 1995.

And 1st Edition AD&D was 1977-1988, also 1.1 decades,

Really, 3rd Edition lasting from 2000-2008 with a revision in 2003 isn't all that much shorter than either of the previous editions.

They are just trying to make people buy tons of their printed material, which is exactly what their business model was with Magic the Gathering.


Yes, their business model is to make people want to buy the products they are producing.

That's pretty much every business model.

Re:Buy our printed material! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21108917)

Yes, their business model is to make people want to buy the products they are producing.
That's pretty much every business model.
Except SCO which makes people want to buy the products they are not producing

Re:Buy our printed material! (1, Informative)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 7 years ago | (#21049375)

As much as I've railed against it in the past, this is pretty much necessary for Wizards to keep D&D as a going concern. Wizards is a small branch of Hasbro. D&D is little more than pimple on Hasbro's ass. If it starts to be a problem (revivification of the old Satanic Panic, or simply not turning enough of a profit), Hasbro will pop it without a second thought. Wizards is Pokemon, as far as Hasbro's concerned.

The best way to make a promise of profits look good, in this (and I hate to use the word) industry is to promise the brass a new edition. New systems demand new expansions, and new realm books are easy enough to justify as well. Sure, the old stuff is obsoleted (that's rather the point), and sure there's a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of gamers, but few people do anything beyond that. You might lose a few of the old school players, but you stand to gain a lot more newbies.

While the cycle of new editions is speeding up, it has nothing on Shadowrun or Call of Cthulhu. First Edition had about fifteen years, Second had roughly ten, and Third has between five and eight, depending on whether you consider 3.5 a new edition or not.

The big gamble here is their attempt to leverage the Internet. For-pay web extensions and 'virtual gaming tables' are a ballsy move, but probably conceived as much to make Marketing happy as anything else.

Re:Buy our printed material! (1)

conform (55925) | about 7 years ago | (#21050143)

Wizards hasn't had the Pokemon license for four years or so. Magic is their big property. It might also be Hasbro's biggest property, as well.

Sticking to the core 3 (3, Interesting)

newgalactic (840363) | about 7 years ago | (#21048847)

I used to play D&D, and loved it. However, over the years I was turned off by all the expansion books that were available for each race, class, worlds. If I was going to get back into D&D, I would restrict myself to the core three books, PM, DMG, and MM. D&D was always about the story telling ability of the DM anyhow, Min/Maxing just took from the game.

Choices (4, Insightful)

kingmundi (54911) | about 7 years ago | (#21048877)

I have been a long time player. But it is rare me and the old crew will get together and play. And when we do end up getting together, it is usually a one off thing where we only play the same characters for a short time. I always felt the core books did not really address casual gamers in a way that would enhance the fun factor.

The issue as I see it, relates to choices. I noticed that people like to play mages because there is a perception that magic can do neat an interesting things, and a beginning player can spend time thinking about various choices of spells they can get. Whereas, the other classes seem to be more focused on just increasing a stat such as to hit something, or do more damage in a particular situation.

Well, one of the benefits of role playing is adjusting the rules to suit a particular style. I just wish they incorporated more interesting choices for low levels, or even an optional playing style.

From the few comments and reviews I have read, it appears that they are spending more time incorporating ideas from MMORPG, such as having tanks that draw aggro, and talent points to customize each class. It will be interesting to see how these work to give a player more choices in making a character. I have my doubts. It is not as though MMORPG are a great bastion of role playing. Seems most people just want points, powers, and trinkets.

Re:Choices (3, Insightful)

crashfrog (126007) | about 7 years ago | (#21050155)

I just wish they incorporated more interesting choices for low levels, or even an optional playing style.

I think they're very much doing this. Late in the 3.5 product cycle they released "Book of the Nine Swords", which detailed an add-on system of "maneuvers" that provided the same kind of options that wizards and clerics had through spells. Apparently they're working from that to develop a system that provides more options for martial types in 4th edition.

I heard on a podcast one of the developers say that most 3e players came to feel that levels 7-13 or so were the most fun, in terms of having a lot of options and not feeling gimped but also not having so many different complicated effects that the game drags down. It's their hope in 4th to "expand" that balance of play through the whole range of levels. We'll see, I guess.

From the few comments and reviews I have read, it appears that they are spending more time incorporating ideas from MMORPG, such as having tanks that draw aggro, and talent points to customize each class.

They already have this stuff, don't you think? Aggro in MMO games is just a way to represent the monster's intelligence and ability to be goaded or bluffed into hitting the tough guys and leaving the softies alone. DMs do the same thing when they run monsters; they reward good player tactics and good roleplaying by having monsters hit those who are best prepared to take it. It wouldn't be realistic for every Ogre with an Int of 6 to realize that the guy with the staff and robes is a much bigger threat than the guy in the shining plate armor with the huge greatsword, right?

It'll be impossible, I assure you, for Wizards to somehow take the DM's intelligence out of the equation. Monsters at the tabletop aren't being run by computer algorithms, they're being run by a person taking on that role.

Talent points? Tell me, honestly, what's the difference between getting a feat or a class feature (or a choice of features) every level and getting a "talent point" every level to redeem for one of a couple choices? The concept is already in the game, it always has been. MMO's represent that game feature in one way; D&D 4th will surely represent it in some way, it's just a way of scaling advancement of characters.

Seems most people just want points, powers, and trinkets.

Well, it is Dungeons and Dragons. If 4th Edition turns out to be "Dungeon: The Dragoning" where nearly all rewards are story-based and not mechanic based, I'll be super-disappointed. If I wanted only role-playing, my friends and I could write a book together. The game you don't like is actually one that a lot of people do. Nothing against you, of course, but might I suggest that you either continue to do what you've been doing - adapting the rules to serve your needs - or investigate a different game altogether rather than hope that the game I've been enjoying as-is becomes something totally different?

Re:Choices (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 7 years ago | (#21057609)

If I wanted only role-playing, my friends and I could write a book together.

Isn't the point of a P&P RPG in the end to simply act as a ruleset everyone agrees upon to make sure everyone's prepared for what can and will happen? So noone goes "neener-neener, I have plate armor!" when it pleases them?

Re:Choices (1)

crashfrog (126007) | about 7 years ago | (#21060475)

Isn't the point of a P&P RPG in the end to simply act as a ruleset everyone agrees upon to make sure everyone's prepared for what can and will happen?

I was under the impression that the point was to have a good time. But, you know, whatever.

Surely if my friends and I decided to write a book we could pretty easily come up with some kind of system by which no protagonist suddenly sprouts impervious plate armor. Writers were avoiding the deus ex machina, somehow, long before anybody thought of rolling dice to do it.

Re:Choices (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | about 7 years ago | (#21061037)

It's just easier to grab an off-the-shelf ruleset that was tested by loads of people and is known to work than to make up your own. It's not like you need some expensive software or anything to design an RPG system yet many people still buy standard rulesets (and sometimes complain that the rules aren't exactly what they want...).

Re:Choices (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21053847)

I have been a long time player. But it is rare me and the old crew will get together and play. And when we do end up getting together, it is usually a one off thing where we only play the same characters for a short time. I always felt the core books did not really address casual gamers in a way that would enhance the fun factor.
Casual gamers? This is starting to sound like a video games discussion...

The issue as I see it, relates to choices. I noticed that people like to play mages because there is a perception that magic can do neat an interesting things, and a beginning player can spend time thinking about various choices of spells they can get.
Actually in 3.5 I always wanted to play a Human fighter because I got three feats at first level, or an elf cleric because people always think the guy in studded leather with a shield and longsword is a fighter... Or any sort of rogue, because of how much trouble you can cause... For most people I think the "WOOO SPARKLIES" of playing a mage wears off, unless your DM isn't letting people do the things they should with non-magic users...

Well, one of the benefits of role playing is adjusting the rules to suit a particular style. I just wish they incorporated more interesting choices for low levels, or even an optional playing style.
There's several books that offer alternate rules. Also there's rules for creating higher level characters if your players already know how the game works. I usually start my players off at level 7+ unless there's a story reason to be level 1...

From the few comments and reviews I have read, it appears that they are spending more time incorporating ideas from MMORPG, such as having tanks that draw aggro, and talent points to customize each class. It will be interesting to see how these work to give a player more choices in making a character. I have my doubts. It is not as though MMORPG are a great bastion of role playing. Seems most people just want points, powers, and trinkets.
Roleplaying in an MMO is just silly, most of the time. But having the ability to build a powerful character in a pen and paper game doesn't rule out real roleplaying going on, either. Points/powers/trinkets give you a tangible measure of accomplishment, if nothing less.

Re:Choices (1)

h4rm0ny (722443) | about 7 years ago | (#21059227)

Well, one of the benefits of role playing is adjusting the rules to suit a particular style. I just wish they incorporated more interesting choices for low levels, or even an optional playing style.

There's several books that offer alternate rules. Also there's rules for creating higher level characters if your players already know how the game works. I usually start my players off at level 7+ unless there's a story reason to be level 1...

There's also Iron Heroes [wikipedia.org] which is an alternative players handbook with different character classes and rules tweaks to provide much greater variability at low levels. It's a very, very good system and broadly compatible with general D&D. Very much worth a look and available as a cheap PDF.

bUT MY FRIST POST... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21048883)

...is releasing now!

Ahem (1)

Rydia (556444) | about 7 years ago | (#21049079)

Read: "We realized that plan was completely insane."

Re:Ahem (1)

Caste11an (898046) | about 7 years ago | (#21049161)

They staggered the release for 3rd Edition, so why not for 4th? My hope is that the materials are high-quality and don't end up feeling rushed because of this change.

I know, I should give up... (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#21049139)

...but, Slashdot editors! Hello?! "D&D Fourth Edition Books All Releasing in June"? No.
No.
No.

"D&D Fourth Edition Books To Be Released in June"? Yes.

Re:I know, I should give up... (1)

michaelmuffin (1149499) | about 7 years ago | (#21052105)

"D&D Fourth Edition Books All Releasing in June" is perfectly good english; the form of `to be' that would be in front of `releasing' is implied. A similar construction: "she [is] going to the doctor to-morrow". Leaving out the form of `to be' doesn't sound nearly as good in that sentence, but I'm sure you can think of plenty of examples where it would.

Second, you made it passive. "To Be Released". Not that there's anything wrong with the passive voice; the information that is in the active sentence is all still in the passive one. But it doesn't really fix anything.

Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_tense [wikipedia.org]

Re:I know, I should give up... (2, Informative)

jjohnson (62583) | about 7 years ago | (#21053035)

"D&D books releasing" implies, grammatically, that the books themselves are the thing doing the releasing. It's a semantic error, not grammatical, but a decent writer would still have said that the books are being released.

Re:I know, I should give up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21053647)

WotC to Release D&D 4th Edition Core Books in June

Re:I know, I should give up... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21053867)

The other commentators are correct - books do not release themselves. You know just enough to be wrong.

Re:I know, I should give up... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 7 years ago | (#21073875)

"D&D Fourth Edition Books All Releasing in June" is perfectly good english; the form of `to be' that would be in front of `releasing' is implied.


There is no form of "to be" that would make sense in front of "releasing". "Release", in English, does not have an intransitive sense of the form "X releases" that is equivalent to the transitive form with an unspecified subject where and the subject of the intransitive form as the object, i.e., " releases X".

It does have some slang intransitive (in appearance) uses, in which the (usually inappropriate for polite company) object is omitted from the transitive form, but implied. But I would assume that was not the sense intended.

Second, you made it passive.


Yes, I made it passive because its the most economical way to express the intended information in English. The subject of the verb "release" is the actor that is releasing something, the object is the thing released. To express a known thing being released by an unspecified actor, you use the passive voice; usually its better to use the active voice and specify who is releasing it, but I wasn't intending to add information, just present the information the headline presented more properly.

Registration? What registration? (3, Informative)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 7 years ago | (#21049329)

Most Amusing. (1)

HarryCaul (25943) | about 7 years ago | (#21052045)

Heh.

Re:Most Amusing. (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | about 7 years ago | (#21053123)

Gotta love the high security you get by demanding that authentic is true. ;)

Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | about 7 years ago | (#21049415)

I think most of my future roleplaying will be with the Mythic system from Word Mill Games, rather than D20 or D&D4th. The "Game Master Emulator" can provide for some interesting adventures, whether playing with a GM or without (yes... multi player roleplaying without a GM! It actually works.)

D&D has too much focus on tactical combat and encourages dice-festing. Maybe Mike Mearls can turn it around - I liked some of his work in Iron Heroes - but if a player has to have an intricate knowledge of the rules AND spend an hour making a first level character to play 4th edition, then I can't see myself spending money on it. Last game I ran, involving 5 players, 3 had no knowledge of the rules, and it took us 3 hours to make characters.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (4, Insightful)

Kazrath (822492) | about 7 years ago | (#21049817)

Making characters in pretty much any textbook RPG takes hours of research to figure out what really fits what you want to do. The solution is a case or two of beer and a BBQ. Right now every other saturday we play for about 8 hours. Half that time is just BS'ing, drinking beer, and eating some steaks. What I am getting at is that our whole focus which keeps these games fun is the camaraderie between players during the time we spend together playing.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

stummies (868371) | about 7 years ago | (#21049825)

I couldn't agree more. I haven't done any tabletop gaming in years, but I'm still familiar with the rules via pc rpgs (icewind dale, nwn, etc.) and I occasionally sit in the bookstore and read through the new guides for old times sake. it seems like they're more interested in micro-managing than actual roleplaying. I'm guessing that it takes some of the imagination out of the experience as well. I can't imagine having to DM via these new rules; the system is far too complex.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 years ago | (#21050343)

There are storytelling RPGs and tactical simulaion RPGs. D&D came from a company called "Tactical Simulation Rules" IIRC. If you don't like tactical simulation, there are plenty of storytelling RPGs around. Not that D&D has ever been remotely "hard core" in this regard, as it only takes intricate knowledge of the rules and an hour to make a first-level character.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

MaineCoon (12585) | about 7 years ago | (#21051043)

I used to play D&D with the original blue-and-white box in the mid 80s, then during the late 80s went to the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal box versions, and switched to AD&D 2nd edition around 1990.

D&D was not, during those versions, a tactical game. In my opinion, the feats, skill points, and tactical combat in 3rd edition have slowed down the game and made it feel more like a CRPG brought to pen and paper.

I could always go back to 2nd edition, but despite the things 3rd edition added that I dont like, it did improve on the system as a whole. Unfortunately, Feats and Skills are something that balance out the classes, so it is hard to house-rule around them.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

lgw (121541) | about 7 years ago | (#21051941)

D&D has never been a *good* tactical game, but nevertheless it's always been that genre. Chainmail was a fantasy minatures game. The original D&D published in 1974 (often called "the white books" or "Greyhawk") was probably the first RPG, and a transition away from the tactical focus, since the RPG aspect was such a cool idea.

The Blue-and-White box was a simplified introduction published to raise cash. The rules then forked into "Basic" D&D (the sets you mention) which was still fairly simple, and AD&D books which were much better. Of course, none of these were all that tactical, unless you were adding your own minatures rules on top of the systems.

My own crowd moved away from D&D to other systems to rules we wrote ourselves long, long ago, since we really like the tactical aspect.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21053797)

D&D was not, during those versions, a tactical game. In my opinion, the feats, skill points, and tactical combat in 3rd edition have slowed down the game and made it feel more like a CRPG brought to pen and paper.


There's probably some truth to that, but they've also added something SORELY lacking from second edition: BALANCE. Consistency is also a plus, if you learn how one thing works in the system you pretty much know how everything works in the system (the different table for EACH stat in the AD&D 2nd PHB is my favorite example of why this is a good thing). Third edition allowed character customization and freedom in how a character would progress in a way that never occurred to anyone developing AD&D. All in all, I think it's been a good thing. It's really much harder for a 3rd edition character to become either imbalancing or irrelevant in a game.

Plus proficiency slots were awful. I mean, REALLY REALLY awful. And multiclassing/dual classing was completely broken.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

mchale (104743) | about 7 years ago | (#21072285)

If you think it's hard to make an imbalancing character, go check out the Character Optimization forum on the Wizard's forums. (I used to be a regular there; I can't dig up a link for you here because I'm at work, but it's easy to find.)

It's less the case with the material from the core books, but there are some pretty ridiculous things you can do to make absurdly overpowered characters with stuff from the expansion books.

Re:Giving up on D20... went to Mythic (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21074071)

I didn't say "hard", I said "much harder". ;) Yes, of course it's possible to make a broken character. One of my players was playing a minotaur paladin. That was a big mistake...

What I meant was that in third edition at least SOME thought was given to balance and how the power curve works. There's actual math behind the things going on in those (core) books. One of my older players likes to claim that in AD&D 2nd "Balance was a golden crack pipe" or something like that... Second edition characters just seemed to become naturally imbalanced very quickly.

I like bits from them all... (1)

Rycochet (1006897) | about 7 years ago | (#21050011)

...and am hoping that they finally get the balance right.

I'm currently using the 3.5 rules as a basis for a LARP system (started last month, and running a one-day event once every month) in London, UK. It's somewhat strange taking the complexity of D&D and trying to make it work in the simplicity of LARP... Or at least the way I'm trying to keep the LARP system simple ;-)

For anyone who doesn't know - LARP = Live Action Role-Play. We go out and hit each other with latex weapons and do everything that tabletop gamers do, just in person... And with less explosions...

Robin

Backwards compatible? (2, Interesting)

psykocrime (61037) | about 7 years ago | (#21050427)

I more or less quit playing AD&D around 1997 or so, and didn't play any sort of D&D until about 2 years ago. By then AD&D was gone and v3.5 was out. So in the past 2 years I've spent around $600 or $700 on v3.5 (and a little bit of v3.0) books and stuff. So my question is: Is v4.0 so different that it totally obsoletes v3.5 materials? If so, I damn sure won't be "upgrading" anytime soon. If this is the case, they've actually cost themselves business from me, as I would happily keep buying new v3.5 supplements, but no way am I replacing several hundred dollars worth of existing materials...

Re:Backwards compatible? (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | about 7 years ago | (#21051351)

There's conversion rules to go from Star Wars to the Saga Edition. Star Wars Saga Edition has beasically the same rules as D&D 4th, and the old Star Wars was fairly similar to D&D 3.5 but with some rules that were in the Unearthed Arcana alternate rules. So, I am sure there will be similar conversion rules to 4th ed.

Re:Backwards compatible? (3, Informative)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | about 7 years ago | (#21052351)

Besides, you could always use the 4th Ed SRD. In case you don't know about the System Rules Description (SRD), it's the core of the 3.x d20 system. In particular, the parts that are accessible to third party RPG developers under the Open Gaming License without being a violation of WotC's copyright.

Therefore, it's available for free on the internet, and it basically consists of all the rules from the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual. There's no art, it's plain text, and all references to WotC specific characters have been removed (eg Mordenkainen's Lucubration renamed to Mage's Lucubration, no stats a handful of monsters like beholders and illithids) and doesn't cover any of the expansions. But, it's more than enough to run a pretty good game.

WotC have said that OGL is continuing for 4th Ed, so hey, there ought to be a 4th Ed SRD as well! With that and your 3.x library, you shouldn't *need* to buy any 4th ed books if you're willing to do conversion yourself. If you want the official conversions, of course, maybe WotC has a product for you after all.

Anyway, here's a link to a nicely HTML-ified copy of the 3.x SRD [d20srd.org] .

Re:Backwards compatible? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21053811)

I prefer the formatting at this site [systemrefe...uments.org] a lot more, myself. Put it up on buddy's big screen while gaming for quick reference. Really helpful.

Re:Backwards compatible? (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | about 7 years ago | (#21053815)

I'm sure they'll offer "conversion" rules, but what I've seen of these new rules they're so unlike everything that's come before in D&D I'm not sure you'll want to bother with them.

Hell, we still play AD&D 2nd from time to time, so don't think that because your books will be out of print they'll suddenly be worthless...

Re:Backwards compatible? (1)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | about 7 years ago | (#21055341)

I keep hearing that - yet people buy new computers/PS3s/XBoxes/Nintendo whatevers. For something that gives such great joy $600 is nothing.

Re:Backwards compatible? (1)

valathax (916966) | about 7 years ago | (#21078707)

In terms of a value D&D is still pretty cheap, even if they come out with new version every 4 years. I know I got lots of hours out of my old books and I look forward to what they are doing with the new edition.

The prime goal of D&D (1)

HBI (604924) | about 7 years ago | (#21051025)

Attract more buyers of the books (if not more players).

It's probably painful to you who enjoyed 2nd and 3rd edition rules, but they are not comparable to 1ed rules, or even to the original paperback books of the 1970s. Back then, and if you read early issues of the Dragon you can feel this, there was intense interest in applying human imagination to the gameplay. The GM was encouraged by the rules to make up expedients to arbitrate particular situations, and to write their own adventures. The concept of a 'module' was invented largely as a cash flow device by the management of TSR.

2ed and 3ed are a lot of hand holding and substituting hard and fast rules for what used to be the domain of the GM/DM to decide. Associated with this is an increase in game complexity (which produces more books!). The game suffered, frankly, and it's no wonder that it attracts fewer rather than more players as time goes on.

This 4ed release (explain to me who exactly is 'excited' about this, according to TFA?) unquestionably will hasten the process with inclusion of crappy MMORPG concepts, if the other posters here are right. Aggro? Please.

Find some circa 1ed material, GM it as the rulebooks will suggest (they are small by today's standards) and see if it isn't a better game when reduced to its basics.

Re:The prime goal of D&D (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | about 7 years ago | (#21051389)

The best part of the new 4th edition rules are pretty close to simulating a typical action movie. Action movies aren't bad story vehicles and so I'm happy with most of the changes.

The primary goal of your rant (3, Informative)

EightBits (61345) | about 7 years ago | (#21052671)

I've been playing DnD since '81. I think 1st Ed. sucks. Basic was fun when I was still learning simple math and my brother handled all that for me. I really liked 2nd Ed. I played it for years. I am playing in a 1st edition game right now and I can say after playing in this game for a few years, I see that 1st Ed and 2nd Ed are almost the same damn rules by the core books. That said, I think 1st Ed sucks because we play it very differently than we played 2nd Ed. back in the day. Of course, seeing the similarities in the books, I now see the differences are really between the house rules in each. I've been running a 3.5 game for a few years and as much as 3rd Ed./3.5 rules get to be a pain in the butt, I like it a hell of a lot better than 1st. And of course, I have just as many house rules as we do in the 1st Ed. game in which I play.

You bitch about DnD attracting fewer people over the years and base that complaint on how 2nd/3rd editions have become more complex and have more books, and blah blah blah. I can tell you, my biggest turn off to the game is rants like the one you've posted. I have as much fun playing 3.5 as I ever have Basic, 1st, 2nd, and 3.0. I have never played the 1974 rules so I have no opinion on them. But, when I look at a game to see if I want to play, if the game is using 1st Ed. rules, I am far less likely to play in it than if it were running any of the other rule sets.

You also complain about DM decisions being replaced by hard and fast rules. This is not the case. As mentioned above, I house rule just as much in my 3.5 game as my buddy does in his 1st Ed. game. No matter how you look at it, it's a game and it's meant to be fun. You are always free to and encouraged to house rule things for the fun factor/realism/whatever floats your boat, regardless of edition. This will hold true in 4th edition as well.

GM the game as the 1st Ed. rules suggest? It will be more fun?! Are you high? A combat round lasts one minute? A trained and experienced fighter (15th level for instance) gets two chances in an entire minute of combat to hit someone with a sword?! Of course, while this is going on, the 1st level magic-user gets 3 chances in the same time period to hit someone with save-or-die poisoned darts?! That's pure stupidity! The rules in 1st Ed are just as wonky and in need of changing as the rules in other editions. I don't care about the strategy wargaming history behind the development of 1st Ed. rules. This is not a strategy mini wargame. This is one-on-one combat and the rules translations are incomplete in 1st and 2nd Ed.

It sounds like you're on a very common rant which is really all about not liking change or maybe more about liking the 'original'. Original in this case is the first version you played, not the true 'original'. While it's OK to dislike change and voice your opinion about it, stop disguising it and just call it what it is. You've got a hard on for retro DnD. That's cool. I have the same for computing as seen by reading my handle. But give it a rest already. Let people have their fun without someone like you trying to troll them.

D&D/gaming paraphanalia inverse relativity the (2, Interesting)

Magdalene (263144) | about 7 years ago | (#21051411)

I used to be into gaming, I was right there at stage 1, complete with the puny little dice you had to colour in with the crayons that came in the first box. I graduated to AD&D and bought all the books printed by TSR and the *exalted* Gary Gygax. Complete with the the first edition 'No we didn't ask for permission, why are you suing us?' version of Deities and Demigods. I even have a box of painted lead guys I have to keep on a top shelf so my son won't get at them and eat them. (funny how they ban toys for having a bit of lead paint now but they used to *sell* us whole little lead guys to play with)...I remember being bored and twirling dice... Painstakingly setting up almost a hundred little separately bought lead guys for a battle and having the cat jump on the table and wreak havok.. *SAVE VS GIANT CAT!! MINUS 12 DAMAGES AIEEEE!!* oh yes, our DM was merciless.. if the cat reached up and knocked your little lead guy off the table you were done for. You sometimes had to hire an npc to run around the dungeon with 50 ft of rope just to keep it off your party's tail.

I was considered a weirdo, being a GIRL, they even made me roll vs pregnancy in the first few games I played, like my character could catch it from walking around in dungeons, but what did they know, they were adolescent boys.

We grew tired of the system mechanics TSR employed and adopted our own percentile system loosely based on twilight 2000 early on in the 'old school' days, and based our own worlds on it.

We had brief spells of Shadowrun, more book buying, more dissatisfaction with the limitations of the system, more making up our own rules loosely based on the best of the different hand picked ones we had grabbed from different books,. Then TSR fumbled and the guys at Wizards of the Coast picked up the ball, and the D20 system lured us back. More book buying, more dissatisfaction on learning the limitations of the system.... are we seeing the trend here? I am assuming a lot more people had the same experiences, and put a lot of money into the coffers of TSR/wizards/etc. trying to find their 'ideal' gaming system.

But enough about me, on to the theory:

My Gaming friends and I came up with this inverse theory of relativity:

The percentage of gaming books you own is inversely relative to the amount of dates you go out on. regardless of gender.

I still game occasionally, but I make do with the rules we have tuned over the years knowing now that they are going to be better than any the guys on the corporate side are shelling for 50 bux a pop.

Re:D&D/gaming paraphanalia inverse relativity (1)

mshurpik (198339) | about 7 years ago | (#21060629)

>The percentage of gaming books you own is inversely relative to the amount of dates you go out on.

Interesting story, I met a girl playing Diplomacy (board game) at a gaming conference. She wanted to come over and show me the RPG Vampires.

We didn't even open the book.

Then she moved (lol).

But anyway, RPGer meets RPGer and no RPGs were played.

Shadowrun was college...all dudes. AD&D in middle school, well, we worshipped it and made a complete mess of it at the same time.

Re:D&D/gaming paraphanalia inverse relativity (1)

Magdalene (263144) | more than 6 years ago | (#21165957)

You ever go to a Con and play a tournament roleplaying game? I challenge anyone of either sex to stand up at the end of one of those rooms and pick a single person in the room and say "hey, now *there's* a hot catch I'd like to spend the evening and a warm can of cocoa butter with!" without any alcohol.... ;)

I rest my case. *grin*

m&m

Forget D$D (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21052041)

Forget D$D, if you like FRP, play Exalted.

It has to be D$D, because T$R is no more.

1st Ed AD&D Old School (1)

owlman17 (871857) | about 7 years ago | (#21052339)

The 1st Ed AD&D still has a place in my heart. I haven't played a real table-top game in decades but if I ever do, I'll just use my 1st Ed books. I have a hunch I'm not the only one who feels like this. If you don't have the old rulebooks anymore, you can buy them from Paizo [paizo.com] or download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation, a project aiming to provide a copyright-free version of early editions of Dungeons and Dragons). [knights-n-knaves.com] I still might get 4E at any rate, just for the heck of it and see how the game has evolved.

You aways remember your first... (4, Informative)

Cheetahfeathers (93473) | about 7 years ago | (#21055157)

I started in on D&D when I was 13. The game was clumsy, the rules were aggravating, and the stories were never about anything I was interested in. And yet there was something there... something wonderful and fun. Unfortunately it always seemed just out of reach. It was like listening to great music with the volume turned down so you can barely hear it; nice music, but elusive and frustrating as well.

Way too many game books, a couple system shifts into FASA, White Wolf and other game companies, and nearly a couple decades later I finally found that something I had always been missing in games. I've been having a blast playing since. The volume's been cranked way up.

I'm not really interested in tactics and cool powers and advancing in skills and such. What I am interested in is cool stories. I like to get together with people and put together a collaborative story. So now I buy games that help me do that.

Most of these games are single book games. One book, and that's it. No unending stream of supplements, just a good game that's fun to play. These games aren't ones that you have to tweak the rules for constantly either, with everyone playing the rules a different way. These games haven't just been thrown together. They're play tested hard, and they do what they're supposed to do. The rules work. These games are usually very accessible to casual gamers as well as outsiders to RPGs.

The latest game I picked up like this is Dirty Secrets. It's a game of the hardboiled detective genre. You play an investigator and solve crimes. The location? Your home town. The time? Last week. And there's crime and murder in the air. It's a one shot story game, taking approximately 3-9 hours, depending on the type of game you pick (short story, novella, novel). Much more fun than Monopoly or Risk that many might play instead. High replay value too, since of course every story would be different.

Sorcerer is another one I like. I've been running this game weekly for the past year. We're almost done with the first campaign, and it's been a blast. Arrogant mortals taming the dark powers and creatures from beyond our reality and forcing them to their will? Faustian deals gone awry? If you ever wanted to play a character like John Constatine, this is the game for it.

Dogs in the Vineyard makes a great old west game. Personally I don't care for the setting, but the game system is fantastic. It works well in certain other settings as well, so that is what I use it for. For the old west style standoff, I've yet to see a better system.

Love great TV, and always wanted to do a series? This game structures your stories as if they are TV episodes in a series. SF, fantasy, western, crime drama, spy drama... all are possible. The game system does really well at modeling what's important to a TV series, and resolving the problems that result for the conflicts you introduce. Shows like Firefly, Buffy, Gilmore Girls, Heroes, and the new Battlestar Gallactica are all good examples of the type of shows this game models well.

If you want a Tolkien-esque FRPG, and like a good bit of rules crunch in your games, I would suggest you try out Burning Wheel instead of D&D. It has a great story based character creation, not just number crunching with maybe adding on some story as a side note.

If you instead want a game focusing on combat tactics and advancement of powers, and where story control is in the hands of one player while the other players are along for the ride (if there is even a story there at all), then this new D&D might be for you. It's not a bad game, it's just not suitable for all types of gamers.

Re:You aways remember your first... (1)

mchale (104743) | about 7 years ago | (#21072425)

That sounds like the lineup at The Forge's booth at GenCon. :)

I picked up a copy of Sorcerer and The Mountain Witch (I think) last year, and still haven't had a chance to play them because the people I game with in my hometown are dyed-in-the-wool D&D players. They seem like really good games, though. Novel, rules-light systems that focus more on the human aspect of RPGs than the rules interactions.

don't worry guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#21055483)

ze game will remain ze same. ze game will remain ze same!

What they need is to change focus (1)

Targon (17348) | about 7 years ago | (#21077557)

When 3rd edition came out, a huge change went in that made D&D more like a video game than a roleplaying system. The idea of boosting stats and such, or picking up a level of some other class when you are ready to advance really feels too much like something from a very weak console game where the players have such a short attention span that they MUST get obvious "power-ups" regularly and often.

A big part of the problem is letting players see their stats. Honestly, let the player decide what class he/she wants, and let the DM create the character based on the rules. Let it be random, but make the player really be clueless about their exact stats. If there will be a system to increase stats, or level up in another class, or pick up non-class skills, make the player say it in advance, and make it obvious that the character is now being judged by their actions toward the desired increase. Or make the different class abilities be skill based, and make it so the system is a skill-based system where people need to use a skill to advance in that skill(training will take care of a lot of this).

If a player doesn't know what the character stats are, then all that matters is the fun of playing through whatever stories the DM runs them through. Letting the player know roughly how much health the character has means more than saying just how many hit points the character has as well. If someone plays an arcane caster and charges in to fight in melee, and then dies because the character only has six hit points, that just isn't playing the character properly, so why encourage playing the game system rather than playing the game?

I found out why D&D is so boaring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21221901)

I got invited to one group to play. Done over the internet, with skype, and about 2 hours ago I gave up on keeping the map, the stupid phone call has been going on for 8 hours, we have done 10 minutes of play the rest has been mapping the stupid dungon, I am looking forward to my character's death.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?