Is D&D 3e the best we'll ever have?

[Cyberzombie]

D&D is at least better than AD&D by far.

I wouldn't say by far. There's a lot in AD&D that I liked. Sure, mechanically it was more or less crap, but they did a lot of things right.

AD&D had the best magical items, mainly because later editions had the magic item xmas tree. AD&D had items doing cool stuff instead of just handing out a collection of small bonuses you tried to stack.

AD&D also did monsters the best. They could be condensed into a small statblock that fit in a paragraph and yet were still as interesting as they had to be with only a handful of abilities. Later editions just had a lot of clutter in monster stat blocks.

AD&D also got the cleric and druid right. They're supposed to be support classes. 3E turned them into super powered engines of destruction.

[K]

I think the problem in RPGs right now is that there isn't anyone really ambitious.

3e DnD was clearly an ambitious project. It attempted to unify decades of unique snowflake mechanics, give mechanics for things that had been considered the sole domain of the "the DM makes it up willy-nilly", and make individual choices into balanced and meaningful things. That's more than any game has ever tried.

So there has been some people trying new things, but they have been keeping the mechanics simple and for things that traditionally have been done many times before (combat mechanics, for example). You can't really knock it out of the park if you aren't swinging for the fences.

[Krakatoa]

There are plenty of ambitious RPGs in development or already released. Apocalypse World/Dungeon World, 13th Age, hell even D&D Next: it has lofty ambitions, to unite a fractured fanbase. It's not doing a good job of that, but you'd be hard pressed to find a team that could. Hell, even Fourth Edition, for all the hatred it gets, was hugely ambitious: taking the game away from the vast power disparity of Godlike Casters and Meatshield Fighters that had defined it since the late 90s and retooling the combat system to be tactical and based in team-work.

If you don't like any of those games, fine, but don't go around saying that the entire gatdam industry lacks ambition because you personally prefer one particular version that happens to be thirteen years old.

[...You Lost Me]

Mask, it's possible for people to develop opinions from playing something that was good, but not have those opinions match exactly to whatever they were playing.

Krakatoa, you're as bad as silva pls stop.

[Cyberzombie]

I think the problem in RPGs right now is that there isn't anyone really ambitious.

3e DnD was clearly an ambitious project. It attempted to unify decades of unique snowflake mechanics, give mechanics for things that had been considered the sole domain of the "the DM makes it up willy-nilly", and make individual choices into balanced and meaningful things. That's more than any game has ever tried.

4E was very ambitious, since it involved completely rebuilding D&D from scratch, something that hadn't been done in all of D&D's history. It just didn't work out all that well.

[Korgan0]

Who cares?

There are other things to play, 3.X/3.Tome still rocks the house and there are enough people who cry about the same goddamned thing with other editions (outside of 4e) that this sentiment is both myopic and pointless.

e: You also lose in the court of public opinion thanks to Pathfinder being a thing that is "better than 3.5" in the view of people who aren't us. So no. Nothing will ever be better than 3.X because it's the game you latched onto like a leech.

Nah suck a dick. It's not the best product because of some emotional attachment I have to it it's the best product because it is obviously the best product by any rational set of metrics. Even the competing products people are mentioning are just house rule sets of 3.E. That's fucking all Tome and Pathfinder are. If the best products in the world are just your product with stickers and flames painted on then you've clearly made something incredible.

3.E is the best thing there is and it's nearing 2 decades in age and that's something of an embarrassment. I think it's a call to action to people like us to get off our fucking asses and do something about it because I think most of us are just expecting the cavalry to arrive and make us a great game we've been waiting to play for 2 decades. I think the time has come to become aware that that will absolutely not happen anymore and we are legitimately some of the best hopes for that future. We here, a group of genuine [EDITED] on a tiny niche board full of fantasy fappery are seriously the Obi-wan kenobi's of the roleplaying world at the moment. I'm not saying that because I want it to be true I'm saying that because despite my desperate desire for it not to be it is clearly depressingly true.

I genuinely think if anything moves the TTRPG world forwards it will genuinely be because Koumei or someone took a risk, took time off, and published something.

https://twitter.com/grognardsTXT/status ... 1550582784

You hit the big leagues, buddy.

[JonSetanta]

I think the problem in RPGs right now is that there isn't anyone really ambitious.

There is a new barebones RPG built entirely with d6 and d20 rolls sitting on a notepad on my table.
It's so rough I wouldn't dare share it online (yet) but ambition is probably what I'm currently lacking, along with playtesters lined up on a regular basis.

Not like it would blow D&D out of the water but it's an attempt to take everything I liked of D&D and scrap the "unfair" parts.

[OgreBattle]

The quality of execution is open to criticism, but D&D4e was definitely ambitious, and D&DN's very conservative presentation is a direct reaction to 4e's failure. I'd say the basic ideas behind 4e are good though, with your level/2 providing most bonuses and skills being proficiencies instead of points to assign.

[K]

The quality of execution is open to criticism, but D&D4e was definitely ambitious, and D&DN's very conservative presentation is a direct reaction to 4e's failure. I'd say the basic ideas behind 4e are good though, with your level/2 providing most bonuses and skills being proficiencies instead of points to assign.

4e was just a grossly simplified version of 3e. There was no ambition there.

Don't confuse hubris with ambition. Thinking that your simplified design that attempts 10% of what the previous edition was doing might be a step forward is hubris. You don't solve design problems by simply not including them in your personal edition.

Actually attempting more than the previous edition is ambition. 3e tried to come up with a better social minigame than 2e had. It tried for a better combat system with maneuvers. It tried for a better spell system with unified mechanics. It tried for better multiclassing.

4e, on the other hand, just tried less. It made combat into a collection of damage powers and like six effects. It reduced non-combat powers to almost nil. It reduce monsters and treasure to abstractions. It reduced multiclassing into a flavor mechanic. In all ways, there is just less game there to play.

Experiments like AW aren't even games. At best, the ambition they are showing is "can we get suckers to buy flavor text and call it a game."

[Dean]

You hit the big leagues, buddy.

I am amped so hard.

[Aryxbez]

https://twitter.com/grognardsTXT/status ... 1550582784

You hit the big leagues, buddy.

I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean, nor how that makes him a Grognard. The notions he brought about 3rd edition, and how people with the talent to changes things should go and do so, is a valid one. With the major RPG companies, they have shown to not be up to the task of making good RPG's. Catalyst/Paizo/FantasyFlight/White-Wolf/Wizards of the Coast/Monte's-Numenera-crap, are all regressing ideas and design, not moving anything forward, they're continuing RPG's perpetual stagnation. He had referred to "we", as in the Gaming Den as a whole, or basically those most applicable to Design as a whole (hence Koumei as his prior example).

I strongly agree, and disagreeing with the notion without prior evidence to show other good RPG designers that exist is foolish vapid accusations on your parts.

I think the problem in RPGs right now is that there isn't anyone really ambitious.

That actually makes sense, even Fantasy Flights "Edge of the Empire", is basically a similar concept of rules-lite vapid resolution (Worlds and other Rules lite do this after all). Though even with ambition, the people don't seem to have a strong understanding of good modern designs. Thus aren't up to the task in creating a good game.

I can agree to AD&D having some good things (Magic Items, Monsters??), and even cool ideas of stabbing gods. Though 3rd edition is also awesome conceptually, notions of various power ranges, improvements over AD&D, but like both, fell flat in execution and are outdated. We need a more up to date Heroic Fantasy game, with more fair magic systems, better warrior types (Power sources included), and god-stabbing to be had by all.

I genuinely think if anything moves the TTRPG world forwards it will genuinely be because Koumei or someone took a risk, took time off, and published something.

I'm thinking one of few ways we'd get someone like the above, or anyone else nominated, is to perhaps as a community, toss in some donation to help fund their incentive/ability to do this? I think Koumei has said for double-digit amount of cash, she'd make some personal project supplement for someone, just think what a whole community paying out could accomplish?

[DSMatticus]

and how people with the talent to changes things should go and do so, is a valid one.

I wouldn't wish the thankless, painful, and not at all rewarding task of "designing a large product that doesn't suck as a business venture" on any of the talented people around here. I like most of them too much for that.

[Concise Locket]

I wouldn't wish the thankless, painful, and not at all rewarding task of "designing a large product that doesn't suck as a business venture" on any of the talented people around here. I like most of them too much for that.

This.

Is it possible to separate game design ambition with aggressive marketing and business? Burning Wheel is technical as hell for a non-tactical TTRPG focused on relationship building. That's ambitious. But it's also part of a line of vanity projects for a design group that makes its money through non-RPG contract work.

I wouldn't hold my breath for D&D or its clones to get better. Ever. The gamer base is pretty risk-averse and would rather hold to a brand or a nostalgic form of play.

If you want to invest time into creating something, do it. The world needs more artists and will be better for it. But don't expect it to be more than a great art piece that's appreciated by a small group of devoted followers.

[Cyberzombie]

I wouldn't hold my breath for D&D or its clones to get better. Ever. The gamer base is pretty risk-averse and would rather hold to a brand or a nostalgic form of play.

Yeah given that 4E bombed and the #1 argument was that it "didn't feel like D&D", you can expect that we aren't going to see the designers take any chances anymore.

At this point, the sacred cows have been set in stone. Despite being outdated and inefficient, we'll never see the 6 ability scores replaced or codified with anything. We'll never see vancian casting replaced with something more multiclass friendly. We will also never see hit points replaced with a toughness roll or some kind of static health system. I doubt we will see the end of +X weapons either.

The contributions of 3E will be the last major innovation that will happen in the continuing D&D line. From here, it's going to be mostly Pathfinder style changes. You may see different poison mechanics, or different ways of handling ability damage and you'll see spells with changed effects, but the core of the game isn't changing.

[Mask_De_H]

https://twitter.com/grognardsTXT/status ... 1550582784

You hit the big leagues, buddy.

lolGoons.

If only they misattributed him as Frank it'd be perfect. Just remember dean, I made you famous :V

But yeah, the lack of ambition in TTRPGs comes from the ambitious working in indie video games or web serials or other, more lucrative and broader markets. Making TTRPGs is a fuckaround thing for even the best of us, and only the crap of the crop make a career out of it.

Besides, most RPG players want the same old shit with a veneer of novelty. That puts a crimp on creativity and ambition, since your audience won't understand or appreciate it.

[Koumei]

I assume the bolding of my name is to trigger my ego. But it sounds like we need actual ambition, not ego, so we basically need the Cao Cao of RPG design.

"My ambition can NOT be stopped!"

So basically, who here is a bad enough dude to betray 3.X, declare clanwide extermination on it, conquer the roleplaying world and such? I may be taking the metaphor too far.

See also the bit about [dWo] where you actually need an expensive advertising campaign, including regular television, so get the word out there, and to really shake the gaming world up, complete with Kevin Nash walking into the middle of a presentation by Mearls, interrupting him and spraying the logo of your product over a 5E book.

[codeGlaze]

Yeah given that 4E bombed and the #1 argument was that it "didn't feel like D&D", you can expect that we aren't going to see the designers take any chances anymore.

Right. That's almost the first thing out of people's mouths.

Clearly everyone has different specifics. But over-all, it doesn't feel like DnD.

I think part of that has to do with the fact that you can't convert a 3.X character to 4e.
From 2 to 3, you could make a leap and come up with a character that looked close enough. From 3 to 4? Not even close.

I honestly think that's sort of like 'checking your work'.
If you have a pre-existing line and want to make a new edition to bring that line forward... make sure you create a new product with logical advancement.

Want to take out the 6 stats? Awesome, create a new system that allows you to convert your 6 stats over in a logical way.
If your goal is to eventually end up with a statless system? Cool. Do that. In 2 editions. Or 3. However long it takes to progress your product in a logical manner.

If you want to throw your product line out the window and create something TOTALLY NEWZ AND MOAR!?
Then don't associate it with the old line. Or associate it loosely.
Don't make your unrecognizable product the "offushal new proeductz!". That doesn't give you room to retreat.
Creating a new line that is radically different at least lets you save face and just say "lawlz! it was just a testzor!"
-and-
"Oh well, it didn't work. Back to more 3.5e splat books so we can cook up a 3.75."

I assume the bolding of my name is to trigger my ego. But it sounds like we need actual ambition, not ego, so we basically need the Cao Cao of RPG design.

"My ambition can NOT be stopped!"

So basically, who here is a bad enough dude to betray 3.X, declare clanwide extermination on it, conquer the roleplaying world and such? I may be taking the metaphor too far.

See also the bit about [dWo] where you actually need an expensive advertising campaign, including regular television, so get the word out there, and to really shake the gaming world up, complete with Kevin Nash walking into the middle of a presentation by Mearls, interrupting him and spraying the logo of your product over a 5E book.

That was some of the most beautiful RPG prose I've ever read. *tear*

Especially that last marketing tactic with Mearls and 5e.

[Lago PARANOIA]

2. Barring a major shakeup in management and corporate philosophy, Hasbro is flat out never going to sell the IP. When Next flops, they'll sit on it for a few years and then try taking it in new directions - likely integrating the brand more with their traditional board and card games.

They're idiots, then. They're sitting on a piece of IP that, like the vast majority of IP that recently underwent a huge failure, is going to rapidly depreciate. While there are still buyers.

Now, they might pull a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars and revive it several years or even decades hence. But those are long-shot odds. For every Star Trek 11/12 there are two Battleships and Red Dawns. And the longer they wait, the less people will want to buy and the higher they have to climb uphill to make the property catch on fire again.

[Dean]

Right. That's almost the first thing out of people's mouths.

Clearly everyone has different specifics. But over-all, it doesn't feel like DnD.

I think the "doesn't feel" argument is a thing idiots say who don't actually understand the issue. It's not that it feels one way or another it's that 4e sucked from about a thousand standpoints and that eventually makes people "feel" like it's a shitty game.

It's like when everyone knew the prequels were terrible and the tagline became "Jar jar ruined it" but when you watch the genius 90 minute Red Letter Media review that points out how utterly flawed the film is on even the most basic levels it becomes clear that "Jar jar" was just a thing people grabbed onto because they couldn't understand or explain the complex issues at hand making them hate something.

It was never a matter of feeling or not feeling. If you gave people a good mechanical with good genre emulation they will like it and they will explain why to themselves later.

[codeGlaze]

It was never a matter of feeling or not feeling. If you gave people a good mechanical with good genre emulation they will like it and they will explain why to themselves later.

I think, in this particular instance, the 'feeling' was the most obvious facet of what was wrong with 4e.

The Feel was sort of the wrapping on the box-of-shit that 4e turned out to be.
The overall approach that they took to 4e seeped into every facet of the game and essentially produced a completely different feeling to the game. It was almost tangible.

When I first inspected 4e a few things stood out at me almost immediately.
The most blatant was that it was such a huge departure from the previous edition(s) that I wouldn't be able to port any of my existing characters and campaigns over to it with out massive bullshit occurring.

To a normal gamer not really concerned with the game theory behind it? That's a big deal-breaker.

Everything else after that was shit-icing on the shit-cake.

[erik]

When I first inspected 4e a few things stood out at me almost immediately.
The most blatant was that it was such a huge departure from the previous edition(s) that I wouldn't be able to port any of my existing characters and campaigns over to it with out massive bullshit occurring.

Say, that does inspire some hilarity. I presume there are official 4e versions of Elminster and other mofos. That castration of sacred Mary Sues would be worth a laugh.

[Chamomile]

Technically the "feel" of the game is the only thing that matters, ever. If a game is overcomplicated, doesn't produce results that are consistent with the fluff, doesn't allow the GM to meaningfully craft a world for the PCs to interact with or allow the PCs to interact with it, and doesn't have a consistent theme or tone, but still somehow feels like a good game, then it is. Because it's a game, and feeling good is its only function. So when people say that 4e is bad because it didn't feel the way they wanted to, they are being tautological.

[hogarth]

AD&D had the best magical items, mainly because later editions had the magic item xmas tree. AD&D had items doing cool stuff instead of just handing out a collection of small bonuses you tried to stack.

Bwuh? Have you ever played AD&D? It's the original "you can't hurt this monster unless you have a +2 sword" game. And I'd be hard pressed to think of a single "small bonus" item in the 3E DMG that wasn't ported over from the 1E DMG.

[Cyberzombie]

AD&D had the best magical items, mainly because later editions had the magic item xmas tree. AD&D had items doing cool stuff instead of just handing out a collection of small bonuses you tried to stack.

Bwuh? Have you ever played AD&D? It's the original "you can't hurt this monster unless you have a +2 sword" game. And I'd be hard pressed to think of a single "small bonus" item in the 3E DMG that wasn't ported over from the 1E DMG.

Well 3E has stat booster items for every stat, three scaling AC booster items and a save booster item. Plus a bunch of other miscellaneous stuff that boosts caster level, gives skill boosts and so on.

3E/4E magic items were about constantly upgrading your belt of strength, or your ring of protection or your amulet of natural armor. In my opinion, it felt too Diable-esqe was a step back from AD&D, where finding something like a girdle of giant strength was a big milestone in your character's life. 3E/4E items were just too small and measured for my tastes and characters had way too many of them. The magic item xmas tree was something I tolerated because most of 3E was an improvement, but I'd like to see it die in a fire.

[OgreBattle]

After Sundown is already a playable game
The Tomes is more work put into D&D3.5 than Pathfinder.

4 stat same is a solid frame for a system
Warp Cult is a playable though unfinished skirmish game.
Assymetric Threat is sorta being worked on

TGD has created a few games already, and any design topic can be debated with folks that often have good insights. If you want to create the next D&D, then just go do it and post it on TGD