The Gaming Den

Midnight_v wrote:Mearls...
I don't think he has many correct moves he can make right now.

There is a move he could make, but I'm not going to elucidate it because I'm trying to make it first.

echo

Josh_Kablack wrote: Dungeons and Dragons: Super Turbo Championship Edition Hyper Fighting Alpha

EX Plus XX #Reload. On Ice.

Koumei wrote:

Josh_Kablack wrote: Dungeons and Dragons: Super Turbo Championship Edition Hyper Fighting Alpha

EX Plus XX #Reload. On Ice.

don't forget to add "super sexxxy" in there somewhere.

Koumei wrote:

Josh_Kablack wrote: Dungeons and Dragons: Super Turbo Championship Edition Hyper Fighting Alpha

EX Plus XX #Reload. On Ice.

Dungeons and Dragons: Super Hyper Enhanced Championship Edition Alpha Diamond DX Plus Alpha FES HD – Premium Enhanced Game of the Year Collector’s Edition (without Avatars!): Cherry Red Version

New Coke.

4e is new coke. 5e had better be coke classic or else that line is done for

Leress wrote:

Koumei wrote:

Josh_Kablack wrote: Dungeons and Dragons: Super Turbo Championship Edition Hyper Fighting Alpha

EX Plus XX #Reload. On Ice.

Dungeons and Dragons: Super Hyper Enhanced Championship Edition Alpha Diamond DX Plus Alpha FES HD – Premium Enhanced Game of the Year Collector’s Edition (without Avatars!): Cherry Red Version

Happiness is mandatory Citizen! Failure to be happy is insubordination and potential treason!

Dungeons and Dragons: [MESSAGE REDACTED] Edition

Knowledge of the rules is treason

echo

Psychic Robot wrote:4e is new coke. 5e had better be coke classic or else that line is done for

Fine.

Super New Coke.

Psychic Robot wrote:4e is new coke. 5e had better be coke classic or else that line is done for

5E is CocaCola Zero.

Psychic Robot wrote:4e is new coke. 5e had better be coke classic or else that line is done for

This is it exactly. 3E D&D took the "Advanced" off the title because 2nd edition had shat on itself with wheel spinning non-improvements like "Revised" and "Skills & Powers". Declaring the line to be the third edition of OD&D instead of the third edition of AD&D allowed them to signal to the populace that they were making a fresh start and looking back to previous editions and seeing where they had gone wrong. But it also did so in a way that was subtle and did not directly attack the previous edition.

In 2011, D&D has shat all over itself with 4th edition and Essentials, and they need a way to signal a fresh start without directly apologizing for anything. And that's why they need to resurrect the AD&D line with a 3rd edition.

Back in the 80s, D&D and AD&D existed side by side, with different writing staff and different design philosophies. By resurrecting the AD&D line, you can tell 4rries with a completely straight face that D&D Essentials isn't going anywhere and they don't have to worry about being thrown under the bus. This is not really true, but it has enough historical precadent that you can defuse most of the sky is falling rhetoric that will otherwise fill the blogosphere before your product launches. You'll have gray bearded edition warriors responding to the "I won't switch!" posts with measured statements of "You don't have to, it's a separate parallel game, like the board games." Putting that spin on it would defuse a lot of the new edition angst.

4e D&D and nWoD proved that if you go up to people with a long running and popular game and tell them "convert or die!" that you will raise hackles and get people super pissed. On the other hand, if you bring out a new set of rules that is much tighter than the previous editions and let that speak for itself, like 3e D&D or SR4, you'll get a lot of converts and get a lot of disaffected players from previous editions coming back to the game. AD&D3 is a good way to position the company for the second. I mean, you have to actually deliver a good game, but that goes without saying.

The other thing to remember is that the largest section of the gaming community - by a substantial margin - are players of "3rd edition". The vast majority of Pathfinder players play it merely because that is a way to get more 3rd edition books. Do not underestimate the power and pull of putting a giant number 3 on a D&D edition.

Putting the word "Advanced" before "Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition" really is the way to write "Coke Classic" on a D&D edition. And after the "New Coke" fiasco of 4th edition, that is the only way forward. Any edition name that signals "Even Newer Coke!" to the public is DOA. That is why "Essentials" went absolutely nowhere. And it's why they can't get anywhere putting a big number 5 on a set of core books either.

-Username17

Today's Legends & Lore is truly painful to read. And makes me sad.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110726

malak wrote:Today's Legends & Lore is truly painful to read. And makes me sad.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... l/20110726

It's hard to follow. But apparently his answer to the twin problems of the level treadmill being disempowering to players and the evaluation of the power of different options and strategies being difficult is... to give people a bewilderingly complex power point tally based on all the crazy crap they can do and basing the level treadmill on that.

Because it will be so much less disempowering when every little choice you make to improve your character in any way is instantly responded to with additional opposition. Also, it was hard to keep power levels constantly within giant power ranges of discreet levels, so it should be easier to keep power levels constant within incredibly minute power point totals.

The entire segment is simply to look at the basic problems of a level based system and assumed power levels and then suggesting choices that will demonstrably and obviously make all of those problems much much worse. Under his proposal, players would leave rings of protection on the ground because the actual benefit in game of wearing them was not worth the extra goblins that show up for having a higher power total. Under his proposal, min/maxing would still exist, it would just be about selecting abilities that synergized in such a way that your ability to face challenges was disproportionate to the power point tally that you racked up for having those abilities.

What the fuck? It's like someone decided to marry off all the worst parts of 4e and GURPS in order to make a system of leveling that was simultaneously fiddly and deprotagonizing.

-Username17

Please tell me Mearls is just trolling us.

PR, are you just Mearls in disguise, and this is one of your trolling exercises?

Koumei wrote:Please tell me Mearls is just trolling us.

It would be comforting to believe that, but I think he is serious. It fits the pattern of deepities that hallmark Mearls' style. Talk about generally acknowledged problem. Announce that you're "going to" fix it. Type some crap up really fast that is sufficiently complex that it won't be obvious to many people that you haven't fixed the problem. Walk the fuck away and do it again.

That sort of drive-by design strategy is pretty much all he does. All he has ever done. So the fact that this particular idea is really obviously a shit idea is different from his normal methodology only in that he put the complexity at the wrong end of the equation.

-Username17

So, in conclusion, to the surprise of no one:

Well, Mike Mearls got promoted. Any hope for 5e?

No.

FrankTrollman wrote: Do not underestimate the power and pull of putting a giant number 3 on a D&D edition.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Calling 4E "Third Edition, Mark 3" would not have made it more popular than it was.

hogarth wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Do not underestimate the power and pull of putting a giant number 3 on a D&D edition.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Calling 4E "Third Edition, Mark 3" would not have made it more popular than it was.

This fragment alone makes not a lot of sense. The reasoning in the post however is sound. AD&D3 does sound a lot better than 5e.

FrankTrollman wrote:This is it exactly. 3E D&D took the "Advanced" off the title because 2nd edition had shat on itself with wheel spinning non-improvements like "Revised" and "Skills & Powers".

3E took the "Advanced" off of the title because AD&D had become, for all practical purposes D&D. There was no "advanced" in it; it had become the baseline for the game. Attempts at revising the original game had generally falled flat in the 2E era. (Remember 2E was really an attempt at removing Gygax's name from the product.) It made sense in Gygax's edition; it sort of made sense in David Cook's edition, but not in Monte Cook, Tweet and William's edition. (Just looking at the front pages for the three editions is fascinating, no wonder 3E sucked; just look at the committee, they can't even have a single person up on top. It takes up almost the entire page. On 2E it is like less than a 1/4 page in regular type. 1E had large type but only four names and they were just Gygax and the illustrators.)

Actually why not start with a real BASIC D&D, an easy to use box set; limited classes; limited levels; relatively cheep; something for the toys r us; suitable for children of all ages. Then have the "ADVANCED" D&D with all the bells and fancy rules.

tzor wrote:Actually why not start with a real BASIC D&D, an easy to use box set; limited classes; limited levels; relatively cheep; something for the toys r us; suitable for children of all ages. Then have the "ADVANCED" D&D with all the bells and fancy rules.

I totally agree, but that's a discussion for a different thread. And I think that what's more important is to have rules transparency with Advanced D&D such that people can play alongside their younger siblings or if a 'buy and try' person really likes it they don't have to scrap the whole project to play the Advanced line.

malak wrote:

hogarth wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote: Do not underestimate the power and pull of putting a giant number 3 on a D&D edition.

This is the dumbest thing I've heard recently. Calling 4E "Third Edition, Mark 3" would not have made it more popular than it was.

This fragment alone makes not a lot of sense. The reasoning in the post however is sound. AD&D3 does sound a lot better than 5e.

People are stupid. They won't buy "AD&D3" as it's not clear to them that it's the edition after 4e. D&D5 is the name to go.

I have to agree with Fucks here. Only grognards and fanboys could appreciate the subtle layers of AD&D3E in the first place. It comes off as too confusing to people who aren't in the know, which by my reckoning is the vast majority of gamers. And after all of the stink we (I) raised over 4E D&D deciding not to call their revision 4.5E and sticking to the Newspeak term of 'Essentials' I'd rather not roll with that.

I mean, really, this whole marketing gambit assumes that:

1) The customer is more than dimly aware of a product line called AD&D.
2) The customer is aware that AD&D is not technically the same as D&D so this isn't a throwback or revival of an old edition but is totally a new thing.
3) That people actually say AD&D as a good thing and something to bring back rather than a failed spinoff line.
4) That people won't see this as a favoritism move towards an older version.
5) That the people who this is supposed to appeal to won't feel patronized by the marketspeak.

And I think that's too much for anyone to swallow. If you don't want to call it 5E, which I can agree with, just call it something else. I still unironically propose Super Dungeons and Dragons.

tzor wrote: Actually why not start with a real BASIC D&D, an easy to use box set; limited classes; limited levels; relatively cheep; something for the toys r us; suitable for children of all ages.

Because more "basic" versions of D&D have never sold as well as more "advanced" versions of D&D, I imagine.

No one likes to think of themselves as playing the "basic" version of something. "Basic" implies you're not smart enough to figure out the "regular" version, much less the "advanced" version.

Maybe if you called them things that aren't obviously hierarchical, like the way Navy submarines have "Blue" and "Gold" crews rather than "Crew #1" and "Crew #2", it might work, but you also run the risk of confusing people.

You don't need or care if people can put the whole chronology together in their heads and realize that AD&D3 is the 5th (or arguably 6th) flagship product for D&D. As you say, people are stupid.

People will get that the game is *new* not because they know the publishing history of 4E but because of the newness itself. Seriously, when new D&D books with a radically different color scheme and art style turn up and game stores put up some displays to promote them, people will notice. At that point, people will walk into the store who were never really into D&D and they will notice two things:

--There are a bunch of shiny new books with slick cover art and a big "3".
--Hey, didn't I hear D&D3 was supposed to be good or something?