• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Mearls and first edition D&D.

jacobkosh

Registered User
Validated User
I'm talking about the traditional end-game. Leading armies, managing kingdoms, etc.

The perpetual vagabond is kind of an odd thing, IMO.
I'm hoping that this sort of thing - optional add-on subsystems for domain management or large-scale battles or whatever - will be how 4E expands from here on out. We've already gotten whiffs of it in the arena fighting rules from Dragon and Dark Sun and I'd like to see the 4E team take on the challenge of reinterpreting those classic D&D tropes in a new, modern way.
 

tanaka84

Registered User
Validated User
So people have been talking about the interview with Mearls over at The Escapist.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_271/8109-Red-Box-Renaissance

On the second page there is this:
It's clear there is more to Essentials than merely attracting new players. The tone that Mearls uses when discussing his current campaign, which uses first edition D&D rules, belies a reverence to the "old school." We asked him if he was trying to bring 4E back in line with classic D&D.

Emphasis mine. That being said, what are your thoughts that he is using the old rules as his current campaign? What kind of things do you hope to see in the following months with new 4e designs? I don't want this to turn into some sort of war or heated discussion about what people hate about 4e, but more of what old school things or elements you might be excited to get meshed in to 4e. Let's think positive!
Well, the dude did say on his blog that his last 2 games before the OSRIC/AD&D one were 4E. :D

As for your question... this is going to sound stupid, I can´t even write without feeling silly, but I loved how Old-School classes had the craziest requirements and "abilities".

The druid having to defeat another one of higher level to level up, the warrior attracting X number of mercenaries and building a stronghold, it was silly, broken and bad design in overall, but for me it was F U N!, it made every class unique to my eyes and full of flavor, I would like that kind of thing to see its way back into 4E in a more balanced manner.

Modularity too, one of the strength of Old-School to me is that you could house-rule away without the fear of breaking something, giving us more tools to make house rules would be freaking awesome (and in that same token, tools to build our own classes would be fine :p)
 

Asmodai

Warrior Kobold
RPGnet Member
Validated User
I'm talking about the traditional end-game. Leading armies, managing kingdoms, etc.
That's always seemed mid-game to me. My Expert set gives progression for Fighters up to 36th level, but at level 9 they become a Lord and can work on establishing a Barony. Likewise, in AD&D a Fighter started attracting followers at level 9 out of 20.

It's possible that my definition of 'end-game' is influenced by video games, but to me it seems more a mid-game phenomenon.

All that said, I too would like more support for those game options. Reading the castle rules in my Expert rulebook does make me want to establish my own barony. ;) Player's Handbook: Champions of the Heroic Tier introduces non-combat professions and the like, and to me that sort of thing would seem perfect for a hypothetical Champions of the Paragon Tier supplement. (Though probably not till 2012.)
 

Blue Jacket

Retired User
The druid having to defeat another one of higher level to level up, the warrior attracting X number of mercenaries and building a stronghold, it was silly, broken and bad design in overall, but for me it was F U N!, it made every class unique to my eyes and full of flavor, I would like that kind of thing to see its way back into 4E in a more balanced manner.

Modularity too, one of the strength of Old-School to me is that you could house-rule away without the fear of breaking something, giving us more tools to make house rules would be freaking awesome (and in that same token, tools to build our own classes would be fine :p)
These don't sound stupid at all. I agree with both of them. They brought fun to your game so they can't be stupid!
 

Abacus Ape

Registered User
Validated User
I had no idea who Mike Mearls was, I take it he's a big-shot for the latest D&D. I went to his blog, and not only does he play 1E but he uses OSRIC to do so!?! That's pretty damn cool.
 

reitschule

New member
Banned
"But Mearls doesn't believe that most D&D players want to play that way. "I almost think narrative games are a different hobby, where it really is group world building or literal group storytelling. In a more traditional roleplaying game like D&D, you build it as you go and it's almost like a game of football or some sport where the action arises as you go.""

This is great. It's too bad it's all hot air for the moment.

This article tells me that there's some good, practical vocabulary out there to express a distinction between two different types of D&D.

The next step is to stop trying to square the circle and bring back two separate D&D lines, like Rolemaster Classic and Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying.

Why the hell don't they do that, anyway? Edition wars can't be good for business. A new gamer doesn't want to check out what the internet has to say about their hobby and find all this infighting and negativity.
 

VaticanT

Self-Abusive GM
"But Mearls doesn't believe that most D&D players want to play that way. "I almost think narrative games are a different hobby, where it really is group world building or literal group storytelling. In a more traditional roleplaying game like D&D, you build it as you go and it's almost like a game of football or some sport where the action arises as you go.""

This is great. It's too bad it's all hot air for the moment.

This article tells me that there's some good, practical vocabulary out there to express a distinction between two different types of D&D.

The next step is to stop trying to square the circle and bring back two separate D&D lines, like Rolemaster Classic and Rolemaster Fantasy Roleplaying.

Why the hell don't they do that, anyway? Edition wars can't be good for business. A new gamer doesn't want to check out what the internet has to say about their hobby and find all this infighting and negativity.
I think stopping internet negativity is beyond even the mighty powers of WotC. I remember internet negativity is 2007, so I don't think 4E is the source of it...
 

Blue Jacket

Retired User
That's what I'm thinking.
Do you guys mean bring back Classic D&D (or another retro edition) and run two lines? Might not be a bad idea. Two sets of rules, and to be honest, one set won't have a ton of crunch being released anyway, and all the setting/splat books go mostly flavor and story with dual stats now that stat blocks seem to be getting easier to work with. Granted it sounds good to US but Wizards probably wouldn't make enough money to keep that boat afloat. Still cool though :)
 
Top Bottom