Where did it all go so wrong?

[shadzar]

So thinking about things for quite a few years, and then reading a thread on ENWorld about 21st century gaming vs 20th century gaming, caused me to come to a concussion. (The conclusion came after...)

Somehow it went all wrong, and innovation in gaming was lost.

Innovation in game design was hidden or lost as well.

Perhaps it was the Atari, Commodore, and NES that caused the initial problem.

Looking at that discussion about D&D and the different centuries made me wonder how it went so wrong?

Well the centuries are broken up very nicely if you looka t them.

2nd edition ended as did the 20th century. (using 0 as a value, not excluding it as a year because year 0 does exist) 3rd edition came in with the 21th century.

Now this isnt TSR vs WotC because the end of the 20th WotC was still producing some TSR editions of D&D.

We know for a fact that computer games have taken over, they weren't the fads your parents (or grandparents) thought they would be. We know for a fact that computers require defined parameters and you cannot go outside of them.

21st century D&D follows this hard-coded design as it was noted. Now for the sake of board games and such we wont be discussing them much, because so few had the "what if" moment as they were always inside the box. But games of creativity always had them because you were never in the box before. The nature of RPGs outside of the computerized construct allowed for thought.

What happened with 3rd edition is the more codified rules, which was mentioned as complication or complexity or something...But the fact it what you have is a limitaion to options, but within those many limitations, you still have to pick and choose so many things.

So with 3rd you move away from here is a few lists of things to choose from and apply them when needed and disregard a bunch of things you arent in favor of, to here is a whole bunch of of tiny lists to pick form, and you must pick something and you cant really leave anything un picked.

The game has gone from being free-form design where the games are an empty lot upon which to build, to here is the house, now just live in it.

Is this what is really wanted? Is this promoting creativity in the games, with trying to pigeonhole all the concepts and ideas, such as with 4th edition? Is 3rd edition really a TTCRPG?

Now I could ask why this change was made, but many would agree for good or ill it was to get away from TSR versions of D&D, such as each new edition strove to break away from the creators of the previous. 4th jsut does it in a very heavy handed manner.

So where did RPGs really all go wrong at? Was it the players wanted to do less work creating things and just playing more? Is this present in all 21st century RPGs, or just in D&D?

My signature has what I feel the best advice to any player, and that which I have given many years to help people not trivialize over things that may confuse them, coming from me who likes a game where the DM controls factors that I don't need a direct choice on and really don't do anything with except maybe subtract or add to such as hit points: Play the game, not the rules.

Is this what people really wanted all along? The end of "what-if"s. Is it perhaps, people just ran out of time for them in today's world? Did D&D players just get lazy or D&D attracted more lazy people?

20th century D&D was mentioned to be simple and less complicated, because it didn't require system mastery. You dont need to know how THAC0 works at the base level to use it, just how to do the math, or the DM can do it for you. You don't need to know how BAB is works either.

Saves didn't matter how they worked, just the fact they did and use them.

You could easily, and were supposed to, change parts of 20th century D&D to amke it work for your group so that everyone could enjoy it.

Houserules en masse were quoted as a boon and a bane to 20th century D&D. Some mention how you had to to make it work, so that was bad, while others mention how the ability to convert the game gave it its strength.

21st century D&D really does feel like "one true wayism". These are the rule,s this is the game, play it exactly this way. That is even seen from many players. Percentages unknown due to communication growth of the internet in recent years compared to 20th century. But it was clearly present in the edition, as well even 4th edition says 3rd edition was wrong and shouldnt be played....

Which is another aspect. Everyone knows D&D has planned obsolescence, but it wasnt forced obsolescence.

Maybe it is the "whats mine is mine, and whats yours is mine" attitude of today in game design. Everyone should be playing the say way or not playing...Maybe it is economy driven. I just think something was lost that was greater than what was gained.

Will the rest of the 21st century that has D&D still have this present, or has history taught a lesson?

Is there a way to get out of the house that WotC (21sy century) built, and back to a game that lets you build your own house, without your neighbors bitching about your color choices, or design style? OMG you put an English Tudor house in with a bunch of Ranch style houses! LE GASP!

Do you prefer, yup another question for people to answer and build discussion from, the house to be built for you, or the ability to decide where the rooms and how many bathrooms you have? If you prefer the concrete rules and had a problem with guidelines of the 20th century, and played during it, why did you play still during 20th century? Did your game have more concrete rules, that applied to all games played with that edition/game, or did they change, do they still change, from group to group?

Last question, for this post, i promise: Where do you think D&D went wrong, and why?

[sabs]

See, I found that many of the changes in 3rd Edition were for the better.

To hit:
2nd Edition:
Look up THACO in chart, add modifiers for actual AC, roll that number or higher on a d20.
3rd Edition:
Roll D20 add modifiers compare to AC > = Hit < = Miss

Saving throw:
2nd Edition:
Look up your saving throw vs X, roll lower than that number on a d20
3rd Edition:
D20+modifier vs DC, roll higher than DC.

Both of those are much simpler and really require you to know 'less' than the 2nd edition version of those mechanics.

It makes multi classing easier, you just add the various bonuses together.
Skill points add a level of creativity to the character generation that wasn't there before. High Skill vs High Powers characters play differently, have different play styles. I loved playing Thieves in 3rd, because of all the possible skills they could pick up and play with, especially high Int thieves.

Both of those mechanics are better. The Multiclass mechanic in 3rd is.. probably more fair. It elimintes the I'm 5th,a nd he's 4/4 but we have the same level of xp and he's WAY more powerful than I am. Now, You're 5th and he's 3/2.

The spell progression tables are basically the same.

I don't know that I agree that 3rd edition took away 'options.'
I think that the break is between 3rd and 4th. Where 3rd is still a roleplaying game, where as 4th feels like a paper MMORPG.

[Doom]

For innovation, also look at how much boardgames have 'improved' in the 21st century.

Plastic/tactile pieces are now standard, rules-liight no longer means for ages 5 and under, games like Memoir '44 and Risk 2210 have shown how adding cards to games can be far more strategic than the randomness of Monopoly, and have no equivalent in the 20th century.

[Josh_Kablack]

As far as long-term commercial successful board / card games The 20th century gave us:

• Monopoly
• Lowe's Bingo
• Scrabble
• Magic the Gathering
• Dungeons and Dragons (and this probably doesn't count as a success by itself, but it's spawn is huge. Arenson shoulda patented Hit Points)

I'm not aware of any 21st century boardgames that have yet achieved that kind of success, but the marketplace has shifted, a few clicks on Wikipedia turns up stats that Angry Birds has had 50 million downloads since 2009, compared to the 15 million copies of Die Siedler von Cataan and it's spin-offs since 1995.

Also worthy of note that the route to financial success for 20th century hit games was exclusively, self-publish until you are bought out by someone who will shortly thereafter be bought by Hasbro.

[Darth Rabbitt]

3rd edition got rid of racial level limits and ability score requirements for both races and classes, race requirements for classes, and XP penalties for changing alignments.

Are you really saying that getting rid of those actually reduced the number of things people could play?

[JigokuBosatsu]

But think how easy it is to grab Angry Birds for free and play on your phone in a spare minute or two. It doesn't even require literacy- my 2-year-old daughter has the basics of it down.

Then look at a eurogame- even if it's cheap, you still have to buy a box of stuff, figure out the rules, get people to play, teach them... it attracts people who like to learn the rules as part of the play experience. D&D up to 3.5E is this type of experience... 4E aims to be more like the video game experience.

[MfA]

What happened with 3rd edition is the more codified rules, which was mentioned as complication or complexity or something...But the fact it what you have is a limitaion to options

There is both freedom and restriction in codified rules, freedom of the god DM.

[fbmf]

Houserules en masse were quoted as a boon and a bane to 20th century D&D. Some mention how you had to to make it work, so that was bad, while others mention how the ability to convert the game gave it its strength.

As mentioned several times before, house rules are the best thing for a given game and the worst thing for gaming as a whole.

When it comes down to it, houseruling is just a way to codify things in your particular game, especially things that the official game didn;t handle well and/or at all. While it works, it also leads to no official fix, which is important if you want to take your character out of one game to another, or do a guest DMing spot for your cousin's game while you're visiting him. In either of those scenarios, characters have to be re-tooled before they can be played.

Please understand that 3E required houseruling, but 2E was "hard coded to have no hard coding", which made character portability nigh impossible.

Game On,
fbmf

[K]

But think how easy it is to grab Angry Birds for free and play on your phone in a spare minute or two. It doesn't even require literacy- my 2-year-old daughter has the basics of it down.

Then look at a eurogame- even if it's cheap, you still have to buy a box of stuff, figure out the rules, get people to play, teach them... it attracts people who like to learn the rules as part of the play experience. D&D up to 3.5E is this type of experience... 4E aims to be more like the video game experience.

While it's clear that 4e was designed go be portable to a video game, it was probably for the chance for sweet sweet licensing fees when people made MMO versions.

It couldn't have been for ease of play or learnability. I mean, just having the conversation about why you can't pick up enemy swords is a game-stopper that WILL come up in tabletop and won't come up in a video game.

[shadzar]

See, I found that many of the changes in 3rd Edition were for the better.


I don't know that I agree that 3rd edition took away 'options.'
I think that the break is between 3rd and 4th. Where 3rd is still a roleplaying game, where as 4th feels like a paper MMORPG.

The things you list are no different than 1st edition where you could jsut look it up on a chart or "attack matrix" or "saving throw matrix". They are in no way different or innovative. You jsut move things aorund on the table a little is all.

By options, I mean design, wherein there are RULES not jsut guidelines...

Please understand that 3E required houseruling, but 2E was "hard coded to have no hard coding", which made character portability nigh impossible.

Game On,
fbmf

Replying out of order cause they are directly connected...

The thing is earlier editions are very easy to create a character. Not everyone will be able to port their character over in 3rd or 4th....Only where games observe the RULES AS RULES, will that be possible. Weapon X (not Logan....) may not be allowed in a new game, so any time a character may be stripped of things to fit the world it is oging into.

This isn't LFR where everyone should be playing the same stuff, and even there a game where everyone had the best treasures could offset the game, or likewise players whose characters didnt take any of the treasures that could help proceeding. It assumed that people had the treasure from previous sessions was divided out and is present in the enxt session. Changing players, even just a few for store games, could change the dynamics of the group with those pre-defined treasure troves that the entire party should have...So even with that structure in attempt to balance and hard-code things it failed to provide character portability, because each exact character didnt get the exact treasure as others did.

The same thing as moving from one game group to another. That character WILL change the game up. 4th tries to fix this in its strange whatever miniature gaming...but that isnt the point, except the attempt still fails as treasure parcels give a range of things, and you can end up with the PC group outside of that range either above or below...

so why try to unify the system so all are playing the same way, if it still fails that character portability?

3rd edition got rid of racial level limits and ability score requirements for both races and classes, race requirements for classes, and XP penalties for changing alignments.

Are you really saying that getting rid of those actually reduced the number of things people could play?

3rd started upon the concept of a rule for everything, and everything has a rule....this wont work in an arena where thought outweighs coding abilities.

Computers MUST have such limits due to RAM, CPU, bandwidth, etc...

Face to face you can climb any tree even if the tree doesnt have hooks in the coding to display a climbing animation.

You are thinking solely of "character builds" which is one of the problems with 21st century, and rules mastery gaming.

Lets look at the characters.... 4th edition noted a problem with 3rd. That problem was feats and their pre-requisites. You would look ahead to something later to find what you wanted then, and had something less pleasing now. So 4th lets you change out feats/skills/powers etc as you level, so you are constantly building your character mechanics.

3rd had you always have to build the character as you went as well.

This really does limit play options in 3rd since you have to give up something early on that you could use in order to get something later.

20th century, you "built" your character, and then you played. You only "built" on a character again if it was a new one because the old one died.

You aren't confined to the rules when you play. Once your character is made, the work is done, and now it is time for play. In 21st century, you stop playing all the time to do more work.

You are confined to those hard-coded things, no matter the amount of house-rules you have, because they must fit in the holes. You can only put the round peg in the round hole. 20th century you could shave the edges of the square peg and put it in the round hole.

This isnt to say 3rd edition totally fucked up...It is just to say that a change was started there with the rules over guidelines, in a move to D&D becoming the "one true wayism" game. It is no longer a guideline down a wide curvy hallway that you can follow the contour of the hall, or walk down the center in a straight line, but a narrow blind hallway that you can only follow the line painted on the floor, else risking getting stuck in the hallway.

[shadzar]

What happened with 3rd edition is the more codified rules, which was mentioned as complication or complexity or something...But the fact it what you have is a limitaion to options

There is both freedom and restriction in codified rules, freedom of the god DM.

Yet no freedom from the rules lawyers who want to play the rules not the game.

Your problem is not one with the game, but your players or DM, no edition can help with that, just stop playing with morons.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

There is no innovation because any time someone does something new, they are generally ostracized and die penniless. People who take an existing product and add something that cooks eggs does well.

Society punishes new ideas and rewards people who add something to something that exists. It's pretty easy to see why no one innovates, most people aren't that stupid.

[TheFlatline]

I'm not aware of any 21st century boardgames that have yet achieved that kind of success, but the marketplace has shifted, a few clicks on Wikipedia turns up stats that Angry Birds has had 50 million downloads since 2009, compared to the 15 million copies of Die Siedler von Cataan and it's spin-offs since 1995.

To be fair, Angry Birds costs 99 cents to purchase. Settlers of Cataan is a significantly more expensive game.

15 million copies of Settlers at 30 bucks a pop is more money than Angry Birds has generated. Even when you take into account dev costs vs production costs for Settlers, I'll flatly state that Settlers has profited more overall from their 15 million copies sold.

However, I can cut right to the root of the problem: entertainment has become completely corporatized more or less. The more money poured into a project, the bigger a risk financially it is, and thus the less innovative or creative the product will end up being. It's why Call of Duty is the same game over and over and over again. When you're spending 100 million on a game, you want it to be something that you know will be profitable.

[sabs]

The rules were always guidelines, even in 3rd edition. And I hate to break it to you, but 2nd edition had enough rules issues that it 'coined' the term rules lawyer. Rules lawyer did not come out of 3rd edition, but 2nd. (Possibly even 1st). The Rules in 3rd were just as guideliney as 2nd edition. And if you include all the power books, etc, I'm not sure 2nd even gets to say it has less rules.

As you leveled up, you gained proficiencies, you got new spells. It's not like you made your character and then stopped updating him at all.

And really, pre-requisites for super-awesome feats is a bad thing?

[shadzar]

The rules were always guidelines, even in 3rd edition. And I hate to break it to you, but 2nd edition had enough rules issues that it 'coined' the term rules lawyer. Rules lawyer did not come out of 3rd edition, but 2nd. (Possibly even 1st). The Rules in 3rd were just as guideliney as 2nd edition. And if you include all the power books, etc, I'm not sure 2nd even gets to say it has less rules.

As you leveled up, you gained proficiencies, you got new spells. It's not like you made your character and then stopped updating him at all.

And really, pre-requisites for super-awesome feats is a bad thing?

AD&D 1st edition DMG Afterword

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU,

But with 3rd, there is undeniably a shift to spelling everything out in a precise rule.

[sabs]

Except that a very similar forward is in the 3rd Edition DMG.
I'm AFB right now, so I'll have to look it up.

[Murtak]

Shadzar, pretty much the entirety of your posts is blatant bullshit. 2E had fewer player options than 3E, with more rules required to get to that point. Characters in 3E are easier to create, as are monsters. The interaction between different abilities is handled infinitely better. Of course, in many places all of these still suck. But what came before it was way way worse. And if you don't like some of what 3E did you can still houserule it. Even if you do, that is still a net gain - in 2E pretty much every part of the game used it own special rule, it's own way of counting and it's own die system. Or even worse, depending on what book you consulted, gave you different answers. Seriously. I mean, weapon proficiencies, skill proficiencies, skill points, percentile rogue skills, exotic weapon proficiencies, stackable weapon proficiencies and weapon specialisation? 3E manages to give you all of that, and more, with just skills and feats.

3E still has tons of issues. But most of these are balance issues or weird corner cases. At least an average player can understand the rules. I still can't tell you how character kits, multi- and dual-classing and skills & powers interact. Or even if they can.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Is someone seriously trying to tell me that a fucking game where you do the 'roll 4d6 in order, these are your stats' dance and also having fucking stat prerequisites (either soft or hard) for classes and then making the most complicated decision for 1/2 of the classes being 'what weapon should I specialize in?' is supposed to be player-option friendly?

I stopped reading the 2E PHB at that point. The part about how they go on and on about how roleplaying a 4 in intelligence is a great opportunity but then making every fucking NPC in FR have multiple 16s made me want to hurl the book against the wall.

I think 4E D&D insults my intelligence, but 2E is a slap in the face and a kick in the balls.

[shadzar]

in 2E pretty much every part of the game used it own special rule, it's own way of counting and it's own die system.

Here is the thing about that and other 20th century D&D....it wasn't an attempt at trying to make a rule for everything and the "unified system".

The fact the system was adaptable to players. It was able to be played by anyone with some changes here and there is the crux of the entire argument, over the fact that 3rd edition tried to make everything work one way...bigger rolls is better.

the more the system became codependent on the same rules system, the more damage you could do to it, and had to follow its one tue wayism of the rules.

3E still has tons of issues. But most of these are balance issues or weird corner cases. At least an average player can understand the rules. I still can't tell you how character kits, multi- and dual-classing and skills & powers interact. Or even if they can.

I am guessing you are meaning 2nd edition kits, etc....

Skill and Powers and such was 2.5, not 2nd edition... It recreated the system for creating characters with its point buy system and was laughed at by most people I know, but then was carried over to 3rd edition.

If you don't understand what a kit is, or how to multi or dual class, then there is something wrong with you. It is very simple.

kits probably shouldnt be used with the point buy of S&P, since it if basically a build your own race/class system.

Other than that I cant explain it, cause i never cared for that trash of "Player's Options" series.

Except that a very similar forward is in the 3rd Edition DMG.
I'm AFB right now, so I'll have to look it up.

I know what 3rd and 3.5 says, except they are pretty much ignored by most players I have ever met.

That is the thing I am talking about...3.x is pretty much bastardized because the OGL anyway so it really doesnt matter much to me...the OGL made everything D&D and nothing D&D.

The point being, upon how the "rules" were made in the 2 centuries. One was made during the idea everyone will be playing their own game, and the other made where and during everyone will be playing the same game because everyone tweets, blogs, etc....and will want the exact same thing. the hard-coded rules and answers for everything. like calling customer support to find the answer to a ruling en masse, wherein les people wrote in to Dragon or could care les what they thought, and played the game to their own specifications and needs.

[Korwin]

Shadzar check out the Dark Eye. I think you will like it.
It has Basic rules,
it has Expert Rules,
it has optional rules,
you can mix those rules and depending which of those rules you use you will get an different game.

For skills checks you use 3d20 Roll under 3 (maybe) different ability stats.
If you Attack someone you only use 1d20 roll under your Attack score (but the enemy gets to roll 1d20 under his parade score (but only once per turn - there are abilities where he gets to block a second time...)

[fbmf]

The rules were always guidelines, even in 3rd edition. And I hate to break it to you, but 2nd edition had enough rules issues that it 'coined' the term rules lawyer. Rules lawyer did not come out of 3rd edition, but 2nd. (Possibly even 1st). The Rules in 3rd were just as guideliney as 2nd edition. And if you include all the power books, etc, I'm not sure 2nd even gets to say it has less rules.

As you leveled up, you gained proficiencies, you got new spells. It's not like you made your character and then stopped updating him at all.

And really, pre-requisites for super-awesome feats is a bad thing?

AD&D 1st edition DMG Afterword

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU,

But with 3rd, there is undeniably a shift to spelling everything out in a precise rule.

He claimed that 2E coined the term rules lawyer, and as far as I know he is right. The first time I remember seeing the term was the 2E Ravenloft Monstrous Compendium insert.

Game On,
fbmf

[Archmage]

If you accept the thread's premise as presented by shadzar ("something has gone wrong with D&D"), discussion about video games is a pointless diversion. Several posters have insisted that problems shadzar asserts are caused or worsened by 3.x existed in 2e and earlier (rules lawyers, etc). They aren't new, they're just different now.

Why? Video games didn't "ruin" shadzar's D&D. The internet did.

In the 80's and even the early 90's, you had, what, maybe a dozen other human beings you could talk to about D&D at the gaming store? You could read magazines like Dungeon and Dragon, but what you did not have was literally thousands of fellow gamers who could all communicate in real-time. People play games of D&D now with people who live across the planet using skype, IRC, or message boards.

Is there any surprise that the rules have become "more standardized" and that more standardization has been considered a goal when your potential gaming group isn't the regular wargamers at the local hobby shop but is instead literally every gamer with a PC and internet connection? And the fact is that people still heavily house-rule their games (COUGH TOME COUGH) and people still rely on their DMs to adjudicate crazy crap they do on the spur of the moment.

And is it any wonder that things like "exploitative" uses of "broken" spells, classes, or options are common knowledge now when anyone can google "dungeons and dragons necromancer guide" and get a pile of forum threads with extensive analysis by people who enjoy doing that sort of thing? There simply wasn't enough communication in place for "broken" tactics/builds/whatever to become widespread! The closest thing would be hearing stories at a con or something. Now people publish those stories on the internet while shooting the shit, and it takes five seconds and a search engine to find out the most powerful wizard spells. And the idea that people who played during the game's formative years wouldn't have done things like that if the resources were available to them is ludicrous, because the same people do them now.

The fact is that every edition of D&D has been full of badly-designed bullshit, but that there's still enough material there to play a workable game. The difference between 1974 and 2011 is that now people have the ability to talk about it in open forums with hundreds or thousands of other people, and that means that when people find bullshit, they're actually able to tell the whole gaming world about it instead of the five friends they game with weekly.

[shadzar]

The rules were always guidelines, even in 3rd edition. And I hate to break it to you, but 2nd edition had enough rules issues that it 'coined' the term rules lawyer. Rules lawyer did not come out of 3rd edition, but 2nd. (Possibly even 1st). The Rules in 3rd were just as guideliney as 2nd edition. And if you include all the power books, etc, I'm not sure 2nd even gets to say it has less rules.

As you leveled up, you gained proficiencies, you got new spells. It's not like you made your character and then stopped updating him at all.

And really, pre-requisites for super-awesome feats is a bad thing?

AD&D 1st edition DMG Afterword

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU,

But with 3rd, there is undeniably a shift to spelling everything out in a precise rule.

He claimed that 2E coined the term rules lawyer, and as far as I know he is right. The first time I remember seeing the term was the 2E Ravenloft Monstrous Compendium insert.

Game On,
fbmf

Could have sworn i saw it in Dragon prior to 2nd...and the roots are there. Don't think i have that MC...didn't need that many undead so can't say one way or the other on that...

I judt know for sure it came about prior to 3rd. MY point was the concept came before 2nd, and probably went back to the wargames that spurred D&D to begin with.

Got to check my dragon magazine archive, cause now i am curious.

[shadzar]

The difference between 1974 and 2011 is that now people have the ability to talk about it in open forums with hundreds or thousands of other people, and that means that when people find bullshit, they're actually able to tell the whole gaming world about it instead of the five friends they game with weekly.

But, adn you present the problem very well....What you may find as bullshit, or otherwise found on here by the den members, doesn't mean everyone else must agree.

That person in indonesia and the others in texas playing with one person over skype or whatever, don't have to agree with everyone else, because...and here if the kicker...everyone else isnt sitting at that table.

Likewise TSR wasnt sitting at people's tables, and they didnt' try to to dictate playstyles, etc...

WotC in a way is doing that, with its codifying of everything. 3.5 came about how quickly?

Now you can say it was needed by many, but not all. How quickly would it have lasted prior?

I could say the game is being made for the unwashed masses.

Do I care who plays, no, but how it plays is the crux....

it seems like the attempt to please all of the people some of the time now. you get to a point where you cant even please half of them...

skill challenges with 4th game the oppurtunity for rules for removal of DM fiat, so that socially inept players could do well outside of combat. How's that working for 4th edition?

What did essentials really do?

just because more people can talk to each other, doesn't mean the game should be made based on those passing conversations like the one on ENWorld. Nor does it mean that the everyone want to play the same game.

It isnt the amount of people playing, or how they communicate, jsut the attempt to spell out all the rules.

It is leading D&D to those board games where someone has wood for sheep, or for rules that dont allow thinking outside the box. Rules over creativity.

the video/board games discussion isnt hindering mine or the thread at all....its all part of the different centuries. part of those are new materials, but the main thing is design concepts that have changed...like Catan and its random board, or Zombies!!! and its random board.

Maybe they are showing the thing much more, that board games are adapting to 20th century RPG design where you werent stagnated by hard rules, while D&D is going the 20th century way of board games with its finite rules, and rules for everything....

[tzor]

Don't blame anyone; don't blame any thing. The fault lies not in the stars; it lies in everyone. The whole history of game design has been through two opposing forces; the force of understanding and simplifying gaming concepts and 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.) This hatred leads to equal arrogance. This arrogance leads to error. All editions have within them the arrgoance necessary to produce the "FAIL" mark to the casual observer. Every edition has their own good features; every edition has crap.

Yes you do see ideas incorporated in some games moved into later editions. Slot armor notions first used in IOK and later in KOD show up in 3+ editions of magic items. The virtual imposibility of early computer games to handle 1E illusion spells works it way through the later editions to the point where these spells are nerfed to non existance. (As was the Wish spell that required a degree in law to prevent being totally corrupted.) But these are minor effects when compared to the major changes brougt upon by the notion that the previous guy was an idiot and the current guy is the great sage of how a same should operate.