Where did it all go so wrong?

[fectin]

@shadzar
I'm trying to follow your arguement, but it seems backwards. Could you give some examples?

[shadzar]

the force that game writers write new editions because they hate the God Damned guts of the bastard who wrote the previous edition. (No really, if you don't hate the guts of the previous guy the odds are you developed the sub edition.)

But do other games do this outside of D&D and its constant struggle to reinvent the wheel?

Each new person comes along and didnt like something about the game or didnt like it, and decides to make a name of themselves and say they are of equal caliber of the previous person by having their name on D&D. So it all went wrong because nobody is designing D&D to be played, but to capture those bigger market than the previous writer did, and to put their name down in history?

So then it is not the players fault, but the people making the game trying to one-up the previous person and at the same time go down in history.

That coupled with the inability to copyright game rules only their presentation....

Which leads back to the one true wayism...and especially today where older editions are trying to be hid as though WotC was the only one to ever make D&D even as much as creating a Red Box with the exact same graphics of the original 80's version, but completely different from it.

This I will blame on HASBRO...they are well known for stealing things (see the Quakers game Monopoly), and acting like they created it and are the only ones ever to have been able to come up with something like it.

Likewise as was mentioned about video games prior someone new sees a need to license out the game, so the rules become more hard-coded for easy of computer programming. That way those people that dont play D&D but are to make a video game out of it, can understand it better to make a D&D game.

So does everything in this computer age require ease of turning into a computer game? Is that a difference in 21st vs 20th century gaming? Again board games were really never that hard because they always had a strict set of rules. The thing about a TTRPG is that it was the free form game so you didnt have to memorize BS about everything that has a rule, but can play using your imagination with rules where needed.

Quick question for anyone: Did 3rd edition improvised weapon have the first rules known to people here about swinging/throwing a table as a weapon?

[fectin]

That's a little backwards. Video games did much better under AD&D than under 3E+. Sure Neverwinter Nights was big, but it was basically built around a 2E set of assumptions (quick example: Baldurs Gate 2 was touting importing your character to NN in their load screens). And really, would you hold DDO or NN up against the gold box series, or BG, or (especially) PS:T?
Making DnD fit video games better is an interesting arguement, but it doesn't seem to hold up empirically.

And no, obviously you could improvise weapons before too. It's a lot easier and more reapeatable in 3E though.

[tzor]

But do other games do this outside of D&D and its constant struggle to reinvent the wheel?

First and foremost, the companies that owned D&D had more turnaround in upper management than most other companies. The initial ownership troubles that led to the ouster of Gygax led to the failure of the Wicked Witch, the purchase by WotC and the eventually purchase of them by Hasbro.

Most other games of this type aren't as fortunate ... THEY DIE. On the other hand, they don't have the massive base that makes them attractive for takeover purposes. Games that are large enough to be able to attract a comeback include WoD, which did have the same gygration that D&D did. Sure it's only on it's first regeneration, but NWoD ain't OWoD.

But let's look at one example: Traveller

• Traveller or Classic Traveller (1977, GDW)
• MegaTraveller (1987, GDW and DGP)
  The game system used revised versions of the Classic Traveller mechanics with ideas first developed in the Traveller's Digest (and later also adapted to Traveller: 2300).
• Traveller: The New Era (1993, GDW)
  The game mechanics were changed to GDW's house rules system, derived from Twilight: 2000, 2nd ed.
• Marc Miller's Traveller (1996, Imperium Games)
  It returned to a heavily modified version of the original rules and was set in the early days of the Third Imperium (Milieu 0). It is often referred to as T4. This edition is currently available on Marc Miller's website. Miller has stated that T4 was "plagued by rush," explaining that the books were released without enough editing.
• GURPS Traveller (1998, SJG)
  he game uses the GURPS (Third Edition) system and takes place in an alternate timeline in which no Rebellion occurred and the Virus was never released.
• Traveller 20 (2002, QLI/RPGRealms)
  Traveller 20 (2002–present) was published by QLI/RPGRealms Publishing. The D20 system version is set at the time of the Solomani Rim War around year Imperial year 990, about a century before the era depicted in the original game.
• Traveller Hero
  Traveller Hero is a port of the Traveller setting to the Hero System, produced under license by Comstar Games.
• Mongoose Traveller (2008, Mongoose Publishing)
  Mongoose Publishing produced a major revision of the original Classic Traveller game, offering it both in a traditional format and as an open-source SRD around which other games may be built.
• Traveller5 (Beta, FFE)
  Traveller5 or "T5" is the fifth edition of Traveller. The playtest release was made available in February 2009, and revisions incorporating playtested errata are made available to playtesters on a chapter by chapter basis.[21] T5 draws from previous versions (including CT, MT, TNE, and T4) to produce a complete and coherent whole. The system consists of a Core Rules Set, with chapters arranged in sections reminiscent of the original three Traveller rules booklets (Characters and Combat, Starships, Worlds and Adventures), and separate, supporting materials.

Yes, that's a game that makes the D&D saga look pale. It literally jumps from one system to another over the course of the various editions.

[shadzar]

@shadzar
I'm trying to follow your arguement, but it seems backwards. Could you give some examples?

Well how do you see it as backwards?

The argument is there is a difference in 20th and 21st century D&D, as well other gaming probably be it board, video, RPG, etc....

I am focusing heavily on what I know and would discus, which is D&D. I don't care to discus Catan really, cause if I could I would just play it, Ticket to Ride, etc... I don't really think about board games when playing them except the fact that I like it so continue to play, and if the other people are worth playing with again...

using 2 close editions:

2nd had THAC0 as was mentioned before and it could be changed around or left alone, however.

3rd edition has that BAB and if you messed with it you broke the design of "bigger is better"

That entire "bigger is better" is a confusing part of the one true wayism. It states if you are not rolling for a number higher than something, you are playing games wrong. Its basically a mind fuck about math, and creating fear of math worse than those that couldnt get subtracting a negative number with THAC0.

Like Tzor said, some things are left in for no reason from previous editions. 3rd and 4th have no need for dice. They left the arena where those upper and lower dice values had meaning. The dice are really the modifiers to all the rest of the things on the character sheet.

Why not just have a spinner or any other randomization method that lets you hit numbers as high and awkward as you want them rather than being confined to a platonic solid?

The computer can randomize, with a bit of error, any number not limited to the grandfathering of number of faces on a platonic solid into the programming. You only have 7 things, you don't need to make up and 8th one so you can roll 1d8 or 2d4 to get a result on that table.

Look also at Saves for this. Not going into the nature of them, Breath Weapons vs Fortitude, but the fact that it became a part of the to-hit system.

They don't need to be. This is in part a bit of discussion for the unified system thread, so don't want it to overshadow this one....

But everything doesn't have to be connected for it to work...like christmas tree lights. You have some strands that the entire strand goes out when one bulb doesn't work. This is how it worked for many a year, then someone made it where one bulb goes out and you still have the others.

Older D&D systems had individual bulbs that could burn out in this parallel circuit, while newer editions had a series circuit with thing so connected, that one bulb burns out, the rest don't work either.

Taking this into the computer programming aspect as just one example again...you have to get the code perfect for each subsystem in the series design, or else something will break. Take the recent board error about SQL connections we have seen. One little part broke and the forum choked and failed to display that page.

You can convert BAB back into THAC0 and return the armor class values in 3rd to the zero mid-point range and have negative and positive, with the lower AC being better, but it breaks the scheme of "bigger is better", even though the game will still function properly. The concept in gaming is flawed, when you try to think positive numbers are the only good ones.

Take some video games for example, and I think even one or more Final Fantasy games have it....Holy Water or Healing water or some such...

The player characters are healed buy this substance, so it gives them a positive affect, +xHP. While using it on undead causes them harm. Cure Serious Wounds on a zombie in D&D for example.

This right here is just hiding the negative numbers. Either this healing/holy thing can only give positive (+) aligned affect, or HPs aren't really a positive number, but an absolute value. The zombies has a -20 HP, but the game rules state that negative HP means they are dead, so HP is the absolute value, and you then have to have this holy/healing substance do negative (-) aligned affect to the zombies.

PC: 20 HP, healing/holy substance affects is +1d8 HP.
Zombie: -20HP, healing/holy substance affects is +1d8 HP.

Wherein zero is the place of HP range that death or destruction occurs. but all HP are represented as absolute values.....

PC: 20 HP, healing/holy substance affects is +1d8 HP.
Zombie: |-20|HP, healing/holy substance affects is -1d8 HP.

similar to taking THAC0 and making it THAC(10) and flipping the AC range to bigger number is better....or however it actually is done to create the BAB system.

This is but a few examples....but the "bigger is better" is one of the problems and restraints, especially when it is false a proven by the zombie example since you dont see the -20 HP for them ever, you are actually trying to make them lower HP, so lower for the "enemy is better", when in fact THAT enemy really does follow the "bigger is better" philosophy, rather than all the rest where lower is better since they have a positive AND absolute value of say 20 HP.

Some more could be about the codifying of things a fighter can do as "options", the improvised weapon rules to make everything always work one way....

Sure the DMG offers advice for adjusting DC, and skill challenges, but it is really trying to tell you to do it this way, so that everyone is playing the same way cause that will make everyone happy.

One of the failings of this thinking is applying it to everyone wherein the original concept from Gary Gygax, was for RPGA/tournament play.

LFR was a good example, because it was the RPGA clusterfuck and tournament style play, that many people dont care for. When you play at a con, YES you need to have a unified system. This is why Magic the Gathering has thousands of pages of card and rules errata for tournament play. But they don't even supply rulebooks with cards anymore. When they did it gave you the "home version" such as Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy used to give to players. It isn't intended to play like the competition/tournament/etc version as people WILL change it.

That tournament stuff is good for those people, but applying it directly to make 3rd and 4th....21st century D&D.... as it is so it is designed in tournament mode, doesn't give the options of creativity, that many have talked about over the years.

It was always intended to be a loose framework, and at inception didn't have tournaments and such. Conventions created the tournaments and that mindset so that people could play the same game at the same time, but even LFR and the RPGA are now dead, because D&D itself took their stance. The game always thrived on those that did NOT play tournaments or such, but home games, where the rules were diesigned to work, and be able to be modified so that you could play in your game.

Add glitterboys and Garou to it if you want and can figure out how. I don't care for it, but you can. It won't be D&D to me when you do, but it is the function of D&D to allow that.

You can say 3rd edition did this better, but it wasnt part of the design, it was a flaw of the OGL that could have Naruto standing beside Drizzt. Probably one of the biggest components of creating 4th, is to reclaim D&D where it was given away too much.

AD&D attempted to make a unified set of rules that could more easily be found in one set of books rather than BECMI, and could be used for tournaments better. 2nd edition didnt really add to that part of the design, jsut cleaned up what was there. Both still acknowledged home games.

3rd then tried to design FOR the tournaments in mind because the growth of cons, gaming stores from CCGs and in-store playing, and the organized play aspect.

That is where the biggest problem probably lies. It needs to move back to the home game. Leave the organized play as the focused design goals.

Hope some of this shows what is meant by myself, and I think the original thread that gave me the understanding finally.

[shadzar]

That's a little backwards. Video games did much better under AD&D than under 3E+. Sure Neverwinter Nights was big, but it was basically built around a 2E set of assumptions (quick example: Baldurs Gate 2 was touting importing your character to NN in their load screens). And really, would you hold DDO or NN up against the gold box series, or BG, or (especially) PS:T?
Making DnD fit video games better is an interesting arguement, but it doesn't seem to hold up empirically.

And no, obviously you could improvise weapons before too. It's a lot easier and more reapeatable in 3E though.

The SSI games didn't exactly follow D&D to the letter either. It gave you the feel.

Interesting choice NWN, as that was originally made using the gold box SSI "engine" as the first real MMO on AOL.Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures went a bit further still than NWN to create closer to D&D play.

NWN1 was a mes, its stupid radial menu drove me away from the PW I was creating for it... a bad GUI can have that affect on programs. The thing to note was it was not turn based but real time. So while the newer games may have that failing, they have better rules association. The game are designed with tighter rules that make it easier to write video games for.The problem is trying to turn ANY D&D into a real-time MMO when D&D is a turn based game.

That is really a failing of 21st century video gaming and gamers, not exactly at fault of the D&D game. People just don't really like turn-based games and sitting and waiting behind a computer screen. Just because they could be converted over, from BG to NWN1 doesn't mean there wasnt a lot of change in the systems. I didn't play any D&D game beyond gold box except NWN1, so not really sure what was in them. But seeing them played I could tell it wasnt very good representation of the game, but loose usage. NWN really changed it to the 3rd edition system though and I could tell it from the start.

Gold box was made to represent D&D, you cant really think AD&D wa made to be able to be turned into a video game can you?

3rd edition on the other hand was well in the territory of video games are here to stay, so designing in part to be able to quickly get it into a video game was something they had to do since MMOs were coming. I would say 3.5 definitely since Everquest had been out 3 years prior to NWN1, and 3.5 came out just a year after NWN1....

WE can surely tell now with 4th they are not hiding that D&D is trying to compete with video games with the TTRPG.

Ryan Dancey even said it in regards to Warhammer has no competition in the Warhammer field. It is a tabletop miniatures game, so they don't compete with video games, or TTRPGS, as people playing video games and TTRPGs arent likely to play tabletop miniature wargames. So GW has no competition for Warhammer, aside form 40k.

D&D on the other hand isnt competing against WoD or GURPS anymore, but against Sony and EverQuest, Blizzard and WoW, etc.

This again could be a major problem. One that has crippled D&D in that it is trying to compete with a medium to try to capture ALL entertainment dollars, rather than trying to capture the most TTRPG entertainment dollars.

4th definitely took that stance, and the game is being designed around that, rather than designing the best TTRPG, they are trying to design the best game of all gaming fields, and can only hope to fail in the best case scenario.

I just never clearly saw 2nd in BG, and would have to laugh at anyone trying to tell me it was designed to make video games from it, likewise 1st in regards to the gold box. 20th century jsut didn't intend to compete with video games but did a good job of it since it captured money from Centipede, Pac-Man, etc and those quarters weren't plopped into arcade games.

Even then that wasn't the goal to take those quarters, jsut a happy side-effect, while now a goal of design IS to take money away from video games. So it is hurting the design of the TTRPG.

It is kinda like the US in Vietnam. Fighting a war where you don't even belong and have no business being and it can only lead to tragedy. D&D is becoming Napoleon, Alexander, Genghis Khan, trying to take over everything, and in the end will fall as they did.

The game shouldnt be designed for use of making video games, nor competing with them such as 21st century D&D does.

The board games mentioned earlier, have made some innovations per say, but only in construction of them. The rules are still set. Options can be added, but you got to buy or make new pieces. Catan however doesn't compete with WoW. It knows its place, and attacks very well its competition as do other Eurogames. D&D is trying to fight the land war in Asia...even now trying to take it to board games since it failed to design strong enough to fight computer games....

D&D has pretty much forgot its place. It is a tabletop roleplaying game, without a default board, and is played in the imagination, not on a computer, not with a fixed board/map. By leaving its playing field it is losing its footing in its own arena. It is what LW did under TSR by trying to make everything under the sun for those stupid gamers that will buy anything (except her Buck Rogers game). WotC just has the backing of HASBRO now, so it hasn't fallen, but consider if it didn't WotC created/21st century D&D would have fallen much quicker as it has had 4 editions in the span of just 11 years..and 2nd edition under LW and her mismanagement of the entire company, lasted 11 years. 20th century D&D knew its place. It just got lucky with a few off-shoots, but still they damaged the whole core TTRPG.

[Archmage]

I have no idea what you're actually trying to demonstrate now, partly due to a huge aside about negative numbers.

WTF is your thesis statement and what bullet points support it?

[Username17]

Most other games of this type aren't as fortunate ... THEY DIE. On the other hand, they don't have the massive base that makes them attractive for takeover purposes. Games that are large enough to be able to attract a comeback include WoD, which did have the same gygration that D&D did. Sure it's only on it's first regeneration, but NWoD ain't OWoD.

This is basically true. Although I would say that they are on their third turnover. Rein*Hagen was out of the picture when the new people came in to do 2nd edition, and most of the revised edition people were out by the time nWoD came in. Then a few years into that, the company actually went bankrupt and was bought by Icelanders. And while things won't really get better unless and until Justin Achilli gets actually fired, he was merely one of the writing monkeys for Revised, he was project manager for nWoD, and his position in the company at this point is... unclear.

-Username17

[shadzar]

I have no idea what you're actually trying to demonstrate now, partly due to a huge aside about negative numbers.

WTF is your thesis statement and what bullet points support it?

The original idea came about that 20th century and 21sy centruy D&D were different in many ways... my take from that thought proces was that those different takes is where D&D went wrong.

Now a group of people liking 3rd edition, might not see it as such, but if you looka t the big picture, one thing is that the game design has been changed and movite is no longer to make a TTRPG, but to be able to make the name apply to many thiings and designing the TTRPG so that it can be ported over to compete with board and video games and still look very similar.

While 0th century had video and board games as well, the game itself was not designed in order to facilitate those video and board games with it, nor was 20th century in any way an attempt to directly compete with them.

So 21st century has left its playing field and is failing in making itself a TTRPG by trying to compete with too many other areas, and it is making the TTRPG weaker. By design, concept, support, interest, etc...it is spread thin and becoming weaker.

Example of this Pathfinder nearly equally D&D sales recently-ish, and gaining a stronger footing in the TTRPG arena that D&D is loosing, by leaving the arena and allowing others to gain ground by spreading itself thin and not focusing on the arena it held and created as its prime focus.

Hell the D&D design/etc team was even cut into two. One for the RPG, and another for board games/etc.

D&D no longer knows its place. A table top role playing game.

[fectin]

I think Archmage is right; you've lost the ball.

On videogames and restrictiveness:
You asserted that a better defined ruleset was more restrictive, and more conducive to turning RPG titles into videogames. This inherently asserts that more restricted RPGs translate to videogames better. You assert that 3E actions have more well-defined resolutions, which is restrictive. You also have several times stated your preference for "playing the game, not the rules."
I respond by accepting your premise that more restrictive RPGs translate to videogames better, and by pointing out that early editions of DnD translate better to videogames. NWN being a wierd edge case which was designed around earlier rules, then ported to later rules.
Logically, that appears to leave us with one of two choices: either restrictive RPGs translate less well to videogames (unlikely), or that at least for the purposes of this discussion, older edition rulesets are actually more restrictive.

Did I miss something?

[Finkin]

Most other games of this type aren't as fortunate ... THEY DIE. On the other hand, they don't have the massive base that makes them attractive for takeover purposes. Games that are large enough to be able to attract a comeback include WoD, which did have the same gygration that D&D did. Sure it's only on it's first regeneration, but NWoD ain't OWoD.

This is basically true. Although I would say that they are on their third turnover. Rein*Hagen was out of the picture when the new people came in to do 2nd edition, and most of the revised edition people were out by the time nWoD came in. Then a few years into that, the company actually went bankrupt and was bought by Icelanders. And while things won't really get better unless and until Justin Achilli gets actually fired, he was merely one of the writing monkeys for Revised, he was project manager for nWoD, and his position in the company at this point is... unclear.

-Username17

I thought Achilli quit, or more aptly put, took a gigantic-ego-fueled sabbatical so that he could write a few fiction novels or somesuch idiocy?

[tzor]

The original idea came about that 20th century and 21sy centruy D&D were different in many ways... my take from that thought proces was that those different takes is where D&D went wrong.

Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. It's not a 20th century vs 21st century thing. Every single major edition had significant changes in emphasis and they went back and forth. A good example is the notion of minis. First Edition, for example was war game mini based. With the full combat rules that included facing rules it would have been impossible to play the game without knowing which hexes were covered by the shield, and so forth. Second edition was generally considered to not need minis. Third edition technically required markers (facing is no longer important) with the various attacks of opportunity. Fourth edition requires them even more for all the rules that allow you to move other figures around the board as a part of your actions.

This is a good example where there is no divide between 20th and 21st centuries.

First edition, for example, was extreemely human centric. So much so that Gygax actually states this much in the DMG and gives the reason that in a world of fantasy you need one foundation that you can easily grasp. Non humans were limited in what classes they could take and what levels they could obtain and even in terms of their stats. This got reduced in 2E with allowing more races to do more things (level limits were dropped). It got even more liberal as 3E got addressed and amost inverted as humans were seen as boring. Again, this is not a century effect, but something that evolved over the various editions.

[Username17]

I thought Achilli quit, or more aptly put, took a gigantic-ego-fueled sabbatical so that he could write a few fiction novels or somesuch idiocy?

I wish. Justin Achilli has quit twice to go pursue other projects. But he keeps coming back.

Now he is in some sort of advisory role for the video game. I have no idea how ceremonial that is. I'm hoping it is extremely ceremonial.

-Username17

[shadzar]

The original idea came about that 20th century and 21st century D&D were different in many ways... my take from that thought process was that those different takes is where D&D went wrong.

Here is where I have to completely disagree with you. It's not a 20th century vs 21st century thing. Every single major edition had significant changes in emphasis and they went back and forth.

Your minis example is pretty moot, since it doesnt really work for or against the concept of design and rules codifying.

As mentioned most board games have set rules, and likewise movement of minis is similar to counting squares moving around a Monopoly board.

Also a race present or not, gnome a PC or not, really has little to do with the concept either.

It doesnt disprove that design is moving towards heavier codification, in part for the adaptation to areas outside of the TTRPG field such as D&D being designed for easier use in making board games or video games from it.

[Leress]

It doesnt disprove that design is moving towards heavier codification, in part for the adaptation to areas outside of the TTRPG field such as D&D being designed for easier use in making board games or video games from it.

And how exactly is this a bad thing? Having everyone on the same page is a good thing.

[shadzar]

It doesnt disprove that design is moving towards heavier codification, in part for the adaptation to areas outside of the TTRPG field such as D&D being designed for easier use in making board games or video games from it.

And how exactly is this a bad thing? Having everyone on the same page is a good thing.

Take dopey bitch...Lorraine Williams, and how the name was spread thin acros many things, that actually cost her money. The les she made form those unsold products, etc.

This wasnt done by designing the game to suit those thing, jsut slapping the name on things. She went too far.

You can make games using D&D, without making D&D for video games and board games.

Take Monopoly. Everything there is on one simple concept, gaining money and collecting properties to do so. That is all Monopoly is in all its incarnations now and has lost what it was. Thought stil a strict rules system in the original board game, you must move forward around the board, etc...

D&D however wasn't about being such, it wa about a loose system so that anyone, ANYONE could play and make the game their own.

But designing for computers, you have really lost the TTRPG that was.

Much speculation exists if D&D will still be a TTRPG in future incarnations. It could just be a series of videos games, connected to board and card games.

This is what is wrong. the loss of the TTRPG of D&D as it is heading.

EverQuest needed no such TTRPG rule system designed for it that was playable in order to make the video game, nor has the Final Fantasy franchise. But both emulate the D&D style fairly well, as does...WoW.

So while trying to bind all with one set of rules, doesn't make them all useful as may be seen. You will not be able to play the TTRPG game with the board games, with the video games, even if they all use the same rule system. Why would you even try? Something will not be as good as it should be when the system is trying to facilitate multiple platforms.

You can play a Pac Man board game, but it will not give the same that the arcade game gave, now did the TV shows.

Take for example the D&D cartoon: It used the D&D system, though many cannot see it, because there was no dice, no mentioned levels, etc. But the artifact that were the weapons were there. The system wasnt designed to make the cartoon, and the cartoon could have been much better. But it could easily be many a game that was used as the cartoon looks like the entire genre, likewise many other movies and such could be considered D&D, save for the "sacred cows" that make up a specific edition.

It is really hard to compare movies and such, since they can be anything and are always different than play of a TTRPG due to length and getting butts in seats takes different approach, but none the les, the original game did NOT get designed for a cartoon or the SSI series of games to be made from it.

Where will the RPG be in years to come at that rate? When computer games are the only thing left, because the TTRPG was forgotten by the people that make it.

Retro clones are aptly named as the term retro shows how those of a new generation may want to experience things of older generations. However D&D doesn't offer than and is only looking forward, never back to where it came from, or where it could build upon again. It is burying they city it built in garbage and then paving over the garbage to build a new city on top, and forgetting what existed below or even that there is usable material there.

If spin-offs such as board or video games are wanted, they can be designed around the TTRPG rules, rather than make the TTRPG for the spin-offs. As spin-offs, never strive to be faithful to the original, jsut take a part of it and...spin it off, such as video and board games do for many things.

[Murtak]

Oh please. 4E may emulate Everquest or World of Warcraft or whatever, but 3E doesn't, and 2E doesn't. This isn't some road to doom, there is no slippery slope where rules unification leads to losing everything but combat powers. It's a single blip on the radar, and hopefully one that will simply die out in a couple of years. And if it doesn't, drop DnD and pick up a game that did not rip out it's own heart in trying to emulate a fundamentally different game.

[tzor]

Take dopey bitch...Lorraine Williams, and how the name was spread thin acros many things, that actually cost her money.

I can go on an on about the wicked witch of T$R, but she didn't give a damn about the D&D product she owned, so it's hard to lay any blame for 2E direction on her.

I can also go on an on about the original Gygax edition; having played it in college, (a slightly more educated bunch of folks from your typical high school students and consisting of a lot of ROTC students used to double blind with referees based war games that the military used at the time for training), and the "joys" of lots of non integrated rules.

Non weapon combat? Never used it.
Psionics (with turns in "segments" inside of the combat rounds)? Never used it.
To hit weapon modifications against specific armor types? Never used it.

And so on and so forth.

Ironically the only major problem with AD&D and computers initially were illusion spells.

Take for example the D&D cartoon:

Please don't. That cartoon was crap, of the campiest kind. The whole premise "let's take a bunch of those stupid kid nerds who play that stupid game and throw them into that stupid world they live in." That's not D&D.

It would be like suddenly moving a bunch of Harry Potter fans into Hogwarts, only without any of the actual frame of references of the Hary Potter "campaign" world, and calling it Harry Potter.

You really have a better immersion in the Forgotten Realms novel series. It was only the method of novel book sales that left a company with a massive potential liability if the books didn't sell that was the problem with the novel line.

Computer games didn't kill D&D, fat assed lazy designers killed D&D. Computer games didn't infect D&D. fat assed designers borrowed from them because they borrowed from everything (being unable to come up with ideas of their own). You literally have the problem backwards.

[shadzar]

there is no slippery slope where rules unification

I am talking about codification, not exactly unification. Codification FOR the unification of other areas, that are NOT TTRPG. You don't build a car in the real world, so you can make a Hot Wheels or Monopoly piece from it. Design for the single purpose. Other things can be adapted from it.

[shadzar]

Computer games didn't kill D&D, fat assed lazy designers killed D&D.

This is what I am saying... the design is being made for the computer games rather than a TTRPG. Those lazy asses like Mearls who don't want to do work twice, one set of rules to make the best damn TTRPG they can, and another set of lose rules on that to make the board games or video games.

Illusions spells, just goes to show WHY the rules are changing in order to better adhere to what a computer is capable of doing with them.

Computer games, can never, and should never try to perfectly emulate TTRPG play or the rules, because it has limits that the TTRPG does not. The imagination of the multitude of TTRPG players is greater than the limited scope of the TTRPG designers, and even video game designers.

That is the connection I am making and asserting. Not that the designers weren't a bunch of old lazy fat-asses like Mearls, Slavesik, and the rest of the bald crew that always escapes the lay-offs.

Just these people have their nuts firmly shut up in their wives purses, and have none balls left to tell HASBRO that this wont make a good TTRPG, and that a good TTRPG CAN be used to make other things without directly building the rules for the TTRPG so that it can be used for CMGs, board games, video games, CCGs, etc.

The different mediums NEED different designs for those mediums. You dont sculpt a canvas, or just paint a block of marble or clay. All you will end up with is tattered canvas rags, and a technicolor dreambrick.

[tzor]

This is what I am saying... the design is being made for the computer games rather than a TTRPG. Those lazy asses like Mearls who don't want to do work twice, one set of rules to make the best damn TTRPG they can, and another set of lose rules on that to make the board games or video games.

But what I am saying is that you have it backwards. They didn't design it for computer games (in fact they can't do a real good computer game to save their lives) they in fact stole crap they saw (note this is not the same as actually looking at the code and looking at the rules that run the games in the first place) and just wrote down as rules what they saw.

Different platforms have different sets of problems and advantages. But that has never really been the problem. The problem is designing a system that appeals to an ever changing demographic. They fail at that miserably, but that is the fundamental problem. The notion you can keep TTRPG "pure" is also bullshit. The real difference between a TTRPG and the MMORPG is something called the MC (or DM or ST or whathaveyou).

[shadzar]

This is what I am saying... the design is being made for the computer games rather than a TTRPG. Those lazy asses like Mearls who don't want to do work twice, one set of rules to make the best damn TTRPG they can, and another set of lose rules on that to make the board games or video games.

But what I am saying is that you have it backwards. They didn't design it for computer games (in fact they can't do a real good computer game to save their lives) they in fact stole crap they saw (note this is not the same as actually looking at the code and looking at the rules that run the games in the first place) and just wrote down as rules what they saw.

Different platforms have different sets of problems and advantages. But that has never really been the problem. The problem is designing a system that appeals to an ever changing demographic. They fail at that miserably, but that is the fundamental problem. The notion you can keep TTRPG "pure" is also bullshit. The real difference between a TTRPG and the MMORPG is something called the MC (or DM or ST or whathaveyou).

That is what has been taken away from though, because the bitching people have about Magic Tea Party, or DM fiat, etc....

You cant say they are lazy because they stole form video games, their design goal was to try to capture them and their audience and in part the ability to make a game like them so that they could make a video game and then say "Hey look you can play beyond the game code here with the TTRPG" was part of that design.

The gamers don't want a DM, look at Frank for example who despises the DM and REAL inter-person play, but would prefer a system where rolling dice will solve things without having to rely on a DM telling you if you succeed or fail based on the world the DM designed, but solely prefer the game to dictate to the DM what can succeed or fail as a PC.

Frank is not alone in RPGers that don't want DMs, but, BUT D&D was designed for there to be a DM. This is something else that is causing a loss of D&D, and pointing harder towards the video game design where the DM is removed (from view).

Players don't want to be at the mercy of someone they know and have in person, but somehow prefer the person they never met to have that power of decision, in part but not limited to, being able to agree on everything as having it all up front, such as board and video games don't just change a ruling from playing today to playing tomorrow.

I could ask again as I always do and NEVER have gotten an answer so left with my own abilities to formulate the answer as being so they could feel like they were part of the "in crowd"; If you didn't like D&D, why did you play it?

But this doesn't solve the problem, as nobody has the balls to answer that question. Nobody is willing to admit they played a game they didnt like so they could feel part of the group and not feel lonely.

That aside....The DM is a part of the game, and each heavier codification that would allow for a video game removes the DM more and more with each step.

Video games don't have a DM, and the role in a board game isnt given much wieght.

Zargon/Morcar could design maps, places furniture and monsters at various places, but the spells worked only the way they were written. Passing through wall was hard-coded where when and how long you could use it. You couldn't create your own spells, not could the DM, without approval of all, you couldnt give new weapons to monsters without being able to give them to players and vice versa, since to get a weapon most times it had to be found on a monster, or added to the weapon store. So Hero Quest was pretty much just a dice roller and map creator role, with a loose story between the maps of the board as to why you kept going deeper, or higher in the dungeon.

D&D however is meant to give the power to the DM to create those things not specified, as it at the same time gives the power to the players to do the same thing. BUT in D&D the difference is that only tangible items can be used by the players after a DM uses, then while many other creations cannot, and ALL creations of the players can be used by the DM.

It breaks it for many people since the board game Hero Quest has even distribution across the board, and D&D the DM can use things the players cannot.

But it is a design aspect that sets D&D apart from everything else. That is where it went wrong. and again the TTRPG is becoming worse, by trying to coddle all these other types of gaming players, and losing itself in the process. People that didnt have money for bats, gloves and a playing field, played stickball instead of base ball, and still do today. The rules are similar, but baseball rules are NOT changed so that those without the money or interest in building a field and such can play, the people wanting something else, but similar (like video games and board games based off D&D) can still have those things.

So people do not REQUIRE the original to be designed for all types of use, and in fact the vast majority of things are NOT done that way, but D&D is and hurting for it.

Again I am reminded that Pathfinder was recently matching sales of D&D...and the only sales of D&D being made now are 4th edition.....

So it shows that the buying public agrees that something was lost and went wrong.

I care for neither of the 21st century designs of D&D, but am glad someone is kicking the teeth in of those lazy ass designers that forget how to make a TTRPG, and are trying to much to do other things that are and have been causing the game of D&D to weaken, STARING WITH 3rd edition. ....Well with 2.5 as the heavy emphasis on "point-buy" is what CRPGs use wherein there is no dice to roll, but you just choose your stuff on some "budget". But i ignore 2.5 as any serious form of D&D such as I did most things in Dragon no matter what "official" stamp is on it. And for the fact that the people making 2.5 were the precursors of 21st century and only created it to attempt to milk money out of people under LW....I consider it a part of the 21st century design philosophy.

[tzor]

You cant say they are lazy because they stole form video games, their design goal was to try to capture them and their audience and in part the ability to make a game like them so that they could make a video game and then say "Hey look you can play beyond the game code here with the TTRPG" was part of that design.

I don't think this is really the case. I was at the Gen Con where they laid out their broad design goals. (Having heard the initial sales pitch I still remain convinced that intelligent people could have given us a real good edition if they just delivered what they were promising.) It wasn't WoW they wanted to imitate; it was literally Jack Sparrow. A lot of their goals was to recreate the feel of the "cinamatic" feel where terrain was constantly moving out from under you and everything. Perhaps they might have been thinking of Donkey Kong, but definitely not WoW.

The gamers don't want a DM, look at Frank for example who despises the DM and REAL inter-person play, but would prefer a system where rolling dice will solve things without having to rely on a DM telling you if you succeed or fail based on the world the DM designed, but solely prefer the game to dictate to the DM what can succeed or fail as a PC.

I think you have misunderstood Frank. (Then again, it could be me.) It is not that Frank doesn't want DMs, but that Frank doesn't want DMs making up rules as they go along, because in the first case it is inconsistent and in the second case it is arbitrary. He wants to be able to have enough grasp of a rule set that he can determine a logical course of action of the character without having to ask "mother may I" for every move.

This doesn't mean that there should be no DM, but that the DM has a way to consistantly base his decisions on. There still needs to be interpertation and judgement calls, but it's not out of the blue on the part of the DM. In addition, the DM also has a real intelligence to ad lib changes to the strategy of the players.

One can actually point to a problem where most of 4E actually has become magical tea party. Even if the non combat system worked (which it does not) it would still take a DM fiat to figure out what type of skill chalenge to apply to a given non combat situation. There are no real rules for out of combat actions.

This is important, I think it was safe to say that back in 1E out of combat actions was 75% of the entire adventure. Searching, avoiding traps, not getting lost, and so forth. All of these were potential sources of injury and death. While 1E wasn't perfect in this area it did have far more options than 4E.

One of the key elements in 1E was that Gygax actually ran his own long term campaign, back from his original D&D days. I don't think this is the case in the 4E days; thier playing habbits seems more convention like than long term campaign like. Seriously, 4E is a lot like the RPGA convention edition; suitable only for Gen Con and not for the regular long term campaign trail.

[Archmage]

The gamers don't want a DM, look at Frank for example who despises the DM and REAL inter-person play, but would prefer a system where rolling dice will solve things without having to rely on a DM telling you if you succeed or fail based on the world the DM designed, but solely prefer the game to dictate to the DM what can succeed or fail as a PC.

This is the crux of the "rules versus improvisation" argument.

If the DM "tells you whether you succeed or fail based on the world the DM designed," why are you rolling dice at all?

[Koumei]

Does anyone else read the title of this thread and start thinking of the second verse of "Insect Nation" by Bill Bailey?

Where did it all go wrong?
The insects used to be our brothers!
Along came pesticide, and on that day our friendship died,
And pouring boiling water down ants nests couldn't have helped...