• 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.

tweaker

Retired User
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 :)
Yeah, run two lines. Just keep the "easy" line cheap, so players don't feel ripped off when they move up to the full version. Of course, some may never make the leap.
 

drunkenmonk

Drunken Monk
  • Spell components were fun. A pain to keep track of, but always gave it the feel of real magic. Keeping bat guano moist or a cricket alive was quite an ordeal.
  • The feel of magic being special would be nice to bring back. When someone cast a spell, it used to be a big freaking deal. Monsters would freak out, people would be in awe. Now spells can be cast at will, it just seems to take the coolness out of magic.
  • Most importantly, I sure would like combat to speed back up. :D
  • Random tables are fun.
  • Dice that come with crayons (just for fun)
  • Greyhawk.

The following can be easily fixed in home campaigns, but would just be nice to see in some of the new adventures:
  • More puzzles.
  • Less monsters that are more powerful.
  • A reason for equipment. (Rope, 10ft pole, Backpack)
  • Getting rid of some balance would be fun. It's boring when everything is exactly tough enough for the PC's.
 

reitschule

New member
Banned
What does the abstract nature of powers have to do with collaborative world-building or story-crafting? :confused:
The group collectively decides what the abstract powers represent.

cf. some guy's post in the middle of the "4e won't let me roleplay" thread about how 4e finally clicked for him when he and his group imagined what was going on as like a Final Fantasy game.
 

Blue Jacket

Retired User
  • Spell components were fun. A pain to keep track of, but always gave it the feel of real magic. Keeping bat guano moist or a cricket alive was quite an ordeal.
  • The feel of magic being special would be nice to bring back. When someone cast a spell, it used to be a big freaking deal. Monsters would freak out, people would be in awe. Now spells can be cast at will, it just seems to take the coolness out of magic.
  • Most importantly, I sure would like combat to speed back up. :D
  • Random tables are fun.
  • Dice that come with crayons (just for fun)
  • Greyhawk.

The following can be easily fixed in home campaigns, but would just be nice to see in some of the new adventures:
  • More puzzles.
  • Less monsters that are more powerful.
  • A reason for equipment. (Rope, 10ft pole, Backpack)
  • Getting rid of some balance would be fun. It's boring when everything is exactly tough enough for the PC's.
Dude you hit the nail on the head with a +2 Warhammer.

Speaking of which, I liked when Clerics were restricted to Blunt Weapons. Sure you can house rule it in, but back then it was the real deal, not artificial flavor that we can add today.
 

reitschule

New member
Banned
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 :)
I kinda think they should publish the OD&D kitbash Mearls is using right now for his actual home game.

But that's asking for far too much honesty from a corporate game designer.
 

Peregrin

Bwahaha!
The group collectively decides what the abstract powers represent.
Has nothing to do with collaborative world-building or story-gaming. 4e doesn't play like Sorcerer, it doesn't have World-Burning like Burning Empires, let alone playing like any FATE game.

Not to mention, 4e does not explicitly encourage collaborating with the group to justify what the gameplay abstractions mean in world-terms. You can just as well play without ever justifying it beyond "it's just a game." Or, each player could come up with their own explanation and not bother to talk about it.

Some people may try to justify powers in game-world/"realism" terms to make up for the fact that they don't like the system, but the truth is they're there for the sake of gameplay, nothing more, nothing less. It's like trying to justify why a monster suddenly loses infravision in OD&D when he's recruited by the party, or why dungeon doors magically try to shut. It's just there to make the game interesting, and it's pretty pointless to try to justify everything in game-world terms.

I mean, if you want hard-line sim play with very little meta-game, there's always RuneQuest. It's a good game, and the mechanics are tied to the world far more than in any edition of D&D.
 

TRM

Infrequent Poster
Validated User
I want to make this perfectly clear: This is only my opinion. This is not an attack on your fun. Your fun is your business.

Of the editions I have direct experience with:
RC D&D was passible (but I wouldn't want to play it long term)
AD&D 1&2 were garbage
D&D3 was badly flawed (I would not play it again baring extraordinary circumstances)
D&D4 is the first edition I play without reservation.

If making 4E more like AD&D happens that is where I stop buying.

I honestly don't see anything of merit in the early adventures and settings of D&D that requires the old rulesets. The good parts of Tomb of Horrors have nothing to do with pits where the chance of falling in is X% modified by Y% per point of dexterity between 10-13 and by Z% per point of dexterity between 14-16, and so on.
 

drunkenmonk

Drunken Monk
If making 4E more like AD&D happens that is where I stop buying.
I don't know if it would be a competing product with the current rules.

As many people that play the older versions, I think they could sell a ton of books if they created a line of books called. "D&D Classic". Where it's kinda like the essentials line, but instead of directed at newer players, directed at the old school and roleplay focused gamers.

  • There are many people out there that like the older versions and would buy books if they came out with something that had an older feel.
  • As small as the RPG market is, it just seems silly to not market a product to those potential customers.
  • You could bring over some gamers from other systems (gasp. that don't play D&D) and won't touch 4e for being too combat focused.
  • Core books WAY out sell expansions and class/race specific books, so it would be more profitable to focus on.

Basically I'm talking about a 4e version of a retro clone. Where, they:
  • Make it compatible with 4e, but take back some of the OD&D concepts. (Hell, they still own the rights)
  • Tweak some classes to make casting magic a big deal.
  • Create that "feel" of magic and mystery.
  • Create a few D&D "classic" adventures with reasons for equipment and tons of puzzles, allow for more roleplay, and have a few encounters the PCs would need to run away from, avoid, talk their way out of, or roleplay to find a weakness that evens the field.
 
Last edited:

reitschule

New member
Banned
Has nothing to do with collaborative world-building or story-gaming. 4e doesn't play like Sorcerer, it doesn't have World-Burning like Burning Empires, let alone playing like any FATE game.

Not to mention, 4e does not explicitly encourage collaborating with the group to justify what the gameplay abstractions mean in world-terms. You can just as well play without ever justifying it beyond "it's just a game." Or, each player could come up with their own explanation and not bother to talk about it.

Some people may try to justify powers in game-world/"realism" terms to make up for the fact that they don't like the system, but the truth is they're there for the sake of gameplay, nothing more, nothing less. It's like trying to justify why a monster suddenly loses infravision in OD&D when he's recruited by the party, or why dungeon doors magically try to shut. It's just there to make the game interesting, and it's pretty pointless to try to justify everything in game-world terms.

I mean, if you want hard-line sim play with very little meta-game, there's always RuneQuest. It's a good game, and the mechanics are tied to the world far more than in any edition of D&D.
No, it's not a narrativist game, i.e. where the point of play is to make a statement with the explicit world-building and storycrafting.

Abstract powers are lazy genre emulation. They're calculated to be bland and generic so as to minimize the chance of offending anyone, and assume that anybody who cares to justify them more concretely will put forth the effort to do that.

Which people do, faithfully. And pat themselves on the back because they think they're playing narrativist.
 

Lars Dangly

Registered User
Validated User
AD&D 1&2 were garbage
.
Wow. Next time you look at one of these, just remember that literally millions of people enjoyed these versions of the game for close to 20 years. There is something in there that is worth knowing about.
 
Top Bottom