Bland covers. Why?
- Thread starter BenTOGS
- Start date
Vile said:
Just take a look at the oWoD-nWoD-Civil War on some boards - over
here the publisher even had to close down the official board because
of the flame war. I sometimes wondered when the RPG-UN would fi-
nally send in some neutral peacekeeping forces, perhaps from Call
of Cthulhu ... :shock:
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
In some ways that sounds like "Firefly", except some of their 'jobs' didn't involve a 'patron', they were done solely on their own.EDG said:
Amazingly, the show has a huge fanbase (with only 14 episodes and a Major Motion Picture) and the RPG for it (Serenity) does quite well...
Wish someone had thought of that kind of set up sooner.
Oh they did... Traveller, and it's much more than needing a patron. My campaign was a military one, they were members of an Imperial Marines Special Ops unit used for those really tough missions... the players loved it.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Ok, as someone who has been running D&D 4th since March (yes I worked for WotC, Three lovely years until last week when they shut down the program I was part of), and who spent much of Gencon 2007 in the WotC booth learning about and answering questions on 4th ed, I have a little to say on the subject.
- It still is combat oriented... still no real options for RP rewards (unless you count "Skill-based encounters" RolePlaying.
- Everything is more balanced between the classes and at all levels... But I really haven't seen people bother with rituals, they take too long to cast in combat and so they just aren't bothering.
- It IS an MMORPG based RPG... WotC said that at the Gencon briefing. Doesn't mean you can't RP, but the focus is still combat.
- The feel is NOT D&D... changes to the ages old core races as to what is a core race, dropping the Druid and Bard at least until PHB2 inserting the Warlord and Warlock.
- It now has built into it a definite endpoint for every character. It's called Level 30. Maybe you get a few "game months" after the end of the big "Epic Quest" that caps Level 30, but after that you rise into immortality/demigodhood.
- Magic items approach what the old-school calls "Monty Haul". Now GMs are to ask for a "wish list" of 4 or 5 magic items from each player, varying from two to five levels above what the character is currently at. This lets the GM know what the player is wanting for their character, increasing the satisfaction from what treasure is found.
- The Cosmology has been overhauled... to the better as it makes more sense and makes adventuring say, on the elemental plane, easier.
Is it true to 30-something year legacy of D&D? for me no.
Does it do what WotC stated they set out to do? Hell Yes.
- It still is combat oriented... still no real options for RP rewards (unless you count "Skill-based encounters" RolePlaying.
- Everything is more balanced between the classes and at all levels... But I really haven't seen people bother with rituals, they take too long to cast in combat and so they just aren't bothering.
- It IS an MMORPG based RPG... WotC said that at the Gencon briefing. Doesn't mean you can't RP, but the focus is still combat.
- The feel is NOT D&D... changes to the ages old core races as to what is a core race, dropping the Druid and Bard at least until PHB2 inserting the Warlord and Warlock.
- It now has built into it a definite endpoint for every character. It's called Level 30. Maybe you get a few "game months" after the end of the big "Epic Quest" that caps Level 30, but after that you rise into immortality/demigodhood.
- Magic items approach what the old-school calls "Monty Haul". Now GMs are to ask for a "wish list" of 4 or 5 magic items from each player, varying from two to five levels above what the character is currently at. This lets the GM know what the player is wanting for their character, increasing the satisfaction from what treasure is found.
- The Cosmology has been overhauled... to the better as it makes more sense and makes adventuring say, on the elemental plane, easier.
Is it true to 30-something year legacy of D&D? for me no.
Does it do what WotC stated they set out to do? Hell Yes.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Um... as I pointed out already...EDG said:You can make anything sound dull if you set your mind to it. But it really sounds to me like you haven't played D&D (let alone 4e) at all. Sure, it's combat heavy but there's absolutely nothing forcing anyone to play like that.
Where is the XP for Roleplaying? NO WHERE! Period... the abilities are way more focused for use in combat than non-combat. How are encounters built? Look at the level of the Party (read encounter), how many characters in the party, take the XP listed, then start spending the XP on traps and monsters and NPC enemies. If it's a skill-based encounter there is no roleplaying as much as a series of GM-describes_Players-Decide_do-skill-rolls_move-on.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
ParanoidGamer said:
My occasional D&D fix lies mainly with C&C these days - it lowers the blood pressure.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Back on topic:
Are the MGT core books 'bland'? I think they just aren't 'exploding with all kinds of different color' The stark bright Red or Yellow or Green on the black background does jump out.
Are they covered with all kinds of pictures or other things needed to catch the attention of someone with ADD or ADHD who need the "shiny objects" that splashy colorful picture provides...
Now here's the rub.
If you don't think the covers are good enough for you (bland or whatever you want to say), you don't have to buy the product.
If you don't like that it ain't GURPS or another MMORPG based RPG Mechanic, you don't have to buy the product.
If you don't like how the mechanics do (insert whatever here) then, you don't have to buy the product.
Does Mongoose want you to buy it? yep. Should you? I think so because it's a good game that honors the roots of the game Traveller. Should it be the focus of endless bitching of point after point after point just so (as some people give the impression that) you can fill a need to bitch about something that isn't GURPS or WotC or whatever? NO WAY.
Are the MGT core books 'bland'? I think they just aren't 'exploding with all kinds of different color' The stark bright Red or Yellow or Green on the black background does jump out.
Are they covered with all kinds of pictures or other things needed to catch the attention of someone with ADD or ADHD who need the "shiny objects" that splashy colorful picture provides...
Now here's the rub.
If you don't think the covers are good enough for you (bland or whatever you want to say), you don't have to buy the product.
If you don't like that it ain't GURPS or another MMORPG based RPG Mechanic, you don't have to buy the product.
If you don't like how the mechanics do (insert whatever here) then, you don't have to buy the product.
Does Mongoose want you to buy it? yep. Should you? I think so because it's a good game that honors the roots of the game Traveller. Should it be the focus of endless bitching of point after point after point just so (as some people give the impression that) you can fill a need to bitch about something that isn't GURPS or WotC or whatever? NO WAY.
ParanoidGamer said:
I don't think 3.5e made too big a deal out of that either. But bluntly, if a GM can't figure out for himself how many XP to award for dealing with something in a way that doesn't involve combat, he shouldn't be running any games at all.
Any RPG can be broken down like that though, if you set your mind to it.
Sorry, but I don't buy this "D&D doesn't encourage roleplaying" crap - like I said, I was just in a very long high level political D&D3.5e campaign (and that is similarly combat-centred, supposedly) and we managed to figure out XP from non-combat encounters and progress just fine. D&D is an RPG just like any other, and as such a GM with his head screwed on can do just as much with it as they can with any other RPG.
Like I said earlier, Traveller players keep going on about how in the "good old days" they could "make up rules on the fly" when they needed to and could "use their imaginations" better than those supposedly dull "kids of today" - well, I'm not seeing much of that in this discussion. If you've got a good imagination and a good grasp of the system then you can tweak a game any way you like.
ParanoidGamer said:
This is Traveller we're talking about here... it's always been the focus of endless bitching of point after point after point...
This maybe explains our massive difference of opinion, because frankly I don't give a rats arse about how "true" a game is to its legacy, be it Traveller or D&D or anything else. What I want is a good game in front of me, and that's all that matters. And I can, have, and will cheerfully discard any older editions if I like a new edition better. I like D&D4e - I liked D&D3.5 too, but I think 4e is more usable for me. I like MGT too, and though I don't think it's actually better than GT or TNE I'll still play it now if a game is offered to me.
I'm not married to any particular ruleset or company and I don't have some misplaced sense of loyalty to games or publishers just because I've used them for a while. If something better comes along, I'll happily use that.
ParanoidGamer said:
No more problem with that. :lol:
Use Google, type in "informations on" and start the search. I think I am in
good company with my "informations", from the European Union over Har-
vard research papers to official documents of various nations.
You may call it Global English, if you like.
The modern version. :wink:
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
EDG said:
D&D 3rd and 3.5 editions were 'combat focussed' in the same way that RuneQuest is (for example). That is, the emphasis was on combat encounters but there was enough flexibility to customise characters in non-combat ways. The Rogue class for example, had all sorts of skills to choose from - and these were the emphasis of that class. What skills you chose tended to dictate what character you were. Same thing with the Wizard - a whole variety of spells meant that, if you wanted to, you needen't pick anything to do with combat situations.
What 4th Edition has done is essentially gear every Class to a combat role - all the powers that can be selectable are strictly to do with combat situations. A Wizard now has a few options about how to blast his opponents, and any non-combat spell is relegated to a list of Rituals that take time to cast. The Rogue has less skills to chose from, and instead is also asked to focus on choosing combat powers.
The entire game is run on a battlemap, with rules that define what your minature can do on that map.
3rd edition was designed by a group led by Jonathon Tweet, whose influences were games like RuneQuest as well as his own Ars Magica, and others. It was designed to remove restricting stipulations from the previous editions, and modernise the game to things like skills and feats, and non complicated multiclassing, whilst still retaining the tropes that made it definably D&D (Classes, Levels, HP, AC, etc). It was designed to say "anything you can do in your favourite game, you can do it with D20 too".
4th edition, on the other hand is designed to emulate online games. It says, "Hey, if you enjoy online games, then you'll enjoy it on the tabletop too".
Oh, and the covers are garish....unless you are into power-fantasy explosiveness. I'm not - I'm into simple, elegant pleasures that don't try to blind me with flash, but thrill me with substance. I guess that's why I like the Traveller design.
All that removing the restrictions did in 3rd edition was to allow players to gimp their characters so that they were completely useless in combat encounters, and the vast majority of D&D campaigns include a good amount of combat, even those that also include a lot of roleplaying.
One of the things that 4th edition seems to do well is to prevent this. You can still create a character that's not as powerful as another character, but you can't really create a character that's completely useless.
That said, 4th edition doesn't encourage roleplaying. The thing is, it doesn't discourage it either. You can have your well implemented tactical combat system with or without roleplaying, it's your choice.
Back on the original topic, from someone who has been involved in both graphic design and retail marketing, the plain black covers are simply awesome. They stand out on a shelf crowded with full color covers all clamoring for your attention. The fact that they evoke a level of nostalgia in those of us who owned the LBBs is simply a bonus.
Mongoose should continue using that format for the core books up to the point where it becomes difficult to differentiate new releases from existing product. That is the downside to such a plain look: when a shopper doesn't notice a new release because it looks too similar to a release that has been on the shelf for months. Mind you, this can be a problem with full color covers as well. The new 4th edition adventure modules do little to differentiate themselves from 3rd edition product, despite having full color artwork on the cover.
Fortunately, it should take a while before this becomes a problem, and there are ways to help forestall it. For example, putting matching color bars on the top and bottom of some books ala LBB adventures and supplements, something that probably should have been done on the 760 Patrons supplement.
One of the things that 4th edition seems to do well is to prevent this. You can still create a character that's not as powerful as another character, but you can't really create a character that's completely useless.
That said, 4th edition doesn't encourage roleplaying. The thing is, it doesn't discourage it either. You can have your well implemented tactical combat system with or without roleplaying, it's your choice.
Back on the original topic, from someone who has been involved in both graphic design and retail marketing, the plain black covers are simply awesome. They stand out on a shelf crowded with full color covers all clamoring for your attention. The fact that they evoke a level of nostalgia in those of us who owned the LBBs is simply a bonus.
Mongoose should continue using that format for the core books up to the point where it becomes difficult to differentiate new releases from existing product. That is the downside to such a plain look: when a shopper doesn't notice a new release because it looks too similar to a release that has been on the shelf for months. Mind you, this can be a problem with full color covers as well. The new 4th edition adventure modules do little to differentiate themselves from 3rd edition product, despite having full color artwork on the cover.
Fortunately, it should take a while before this becomes a problem, and there are ways to help forestall it. For example, putting matching color bars on the top and bottom of some books ala LBB adventures and supplements, something that probably should have been done on the 760 Patrons supplement.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
Stick numbers on the side - make them collectable.
And, as a Roleplayer Extrordinairre - I like playing functionless characters!
And, as a Roleplayer Extrordinairre - I like playing functionless characters!
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Buy it or not... read what you just said "we managed to figure out XP from non-combat encounters"... It's not there and you had to come up with something. Glad you did, maybe you're group can share that info. Trust me in my campaigns I put in many opportunities for role playing and reward them if they actually try (not everyone is good at doing it, but its the effort that counts).EDG said:
1st ed (coming from D&D and the Chainmail miniature rules) had diagrams in the DMG showing flanking and such when on a square grid, both facing a flat edge of the square and facing the corner of it. but minis weren't required. 3rd ed went into the miniatures whole hog.. using the round coin like tokens in the 3rd ed book, and then actual D&D minis in the 3.5 books. But miniatures really weren't needed (one group I was in the GM just created rings of the right radius and if the center of the mini was inside the ring was affected.TrippyHippy said:
NOW yes, the way the mechanics work, if you don't use minis and some kind of square grid, you are hosed. Everything is designed around square areas of effect and such, whereas 3rd tried to emulate area's of effect being circular.
and I agree with you on it. The artist they used most frequently for Eberron, and who has done quite a bit of work in 4th ed (and in the MTG sets Lorwyn/Morningtide) is very talented but too dark with kind of a cartoonish/anime look. I hate it.TrippyHippy said:
Of course, let me add that for the Traveller core rulebook, whoever did the artwork that is on the pages for the different careers is horrid. Most of it is very good to great, but I hate that part.
TrippyHippy said:
The problem is that in a system that requires all archetypes to be present and useful, which D&D has been throughout its history, being unable to fulfill your role gimps the entire party. Most groups I've been familiar with would eventually ask you to leave if you persisted in playing functionless characters, just as they would if you persisted in playing any character that made the game less fun for the rest of the group.
I realize that there are groups out there that are an exception to this, but honestly, if you're in one of those groups there are games out there that are far better suited to your style of play than any edition of D&D.
As for numbering the books, it actually wouldn't have been a bad idea to use the old "Book 1, Book 2, etc." system from the LBBs. At a certain point it can become difficult to differentiate between names, but you know that Book 8 came out after Book 7.
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
TrippyHippy said:
Ironic, really. D&D started as a skirmish/wargame - and just a suppliment to one, at that.
TrippyHippy
Emperor Mongoose
Fulminata said:
Oh, I totally recognise this, which is why I'm not that bothered about D&D4th - I usually play other games that are less power orientated. The point is that in D&D 3rd edition you could play functionless characters - in a combat sense - but still have a character that was fun to play in other contexts. It was more flexible to different playstyles. D&D4th literally says - 'this game is about battlemat combat - you have to comply- the fun of the game is defined by powers and combat'.
Are they not doing this?
captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
To sort of bring it back on topic.....
Our group has played all the editions in one campaign over the last 13 years*. Yes, we started with the D&D LBB (little brown books) went to ADD (for a bit...most of us didn't like it), jumped to 2, dove into 3.0, transferred to 3.5 pretty seamlessly (one player was only peripherally aware of the change ); And therein, when we all took a very serious look at 4.0 was the rub. It's a great ruleset, fast easy, and exciting -and only about half of us do MMOG at all; much easier to play and etc, certainly less of a transition from 2 to 3....and heck, we have always been a bring out the battlemat bunch of players when combat looms (in fact, the changes to the combat system are one of the things we all agreed were useful and adoptable)....but. With the exception of Nar the Big Fi-Ter character player **, there didn't seem any way to port our old characters over, and thus continue the campaign at a personal level .
Yeah, we could copy the stats and futz around with the skills and spell lists, use the same names and histories, but the actual flavor of play and opportunities for roleplaying were entirely different; not neccessarily lacking, just different . Much of who our characters were, it seems, was due to the environment of the rules (how unlike real life.. ). And, that, we discovered, is what we didn't want to bail on.
We'll probably play some 4.0, but as a different campaign with different characters, but we really discovered that starting over and leveling up with a new bunch of characters meant throwing away all that history and backstory. And that was a big investment, particulalry since lifspan estimates suggest that most of us don't have time for too many more 12 year campaigns left in us.....so, were we less roleplayers (a realization which surprised most of us) the conversion would be easier.
How is this back on topic ? Well, MGT has not made the same change as 4.0 did -and to some extent, I think the 4.0 revision is creating much the same issue as TNE did -making the characters and backstories and "look and feel" that the the players developed over years of play in their own campaigns unportable. One could argue that it too was perceived as being pitched at a new audience, possibly at the expense of the original audience, also exacerbated the problem.
So, bravo MGT - in producing such a "look and feel" compatable edition (with just about all of CT, MT and T4) you really, really missed a bullet, it seems to humble little know it all me.....
* it started as an experiment anticipating 3.0. It turned into a lifestyle. Go figure.
** and he was tired of playing Gonad the Wagnerian in any case. He just felt that it could port over unchanged.
Our group has played all the editions in one campaign over the last 13 years*. Yes, we started with the D&D LBB (little brown books) went to ADD (for a bit...most of us didn't like it), jumped to 2, dove into 3.0, transferred to 3.5 pretty seamlessly (one player was only peripherally aware of the change ); And therein, when we all took a very serious look at 4.0 was the rub. It's a great ruleset, fast easy, and exciting -and only about half of us do MMOG at all; much easier to play and etc, certainly less of a transition from 2 to 3....and heck, we have always been a bring out the battlemat bunch of players when combat looms (in fact, the changes to the combat system are one of the things we all agreed were useful and adoptable)....but. With the exception of Nar the Big Fi-Ter character player **, there didn't seem any way to port our old characters over, and thus continue the campaign at a personal level .
Yeah, we could copy the stats and futz around with the skills and spell lists, use the same names and histories, but the actual flavor of play and opportunities for roleplaying were entirely different; not neccessarily lacking, just different . Much of who our characters were, it seems, was due to the environment of the rules (how unlike real life..
). And, that, we discovered, is what we didn't want to bail on. We'll probably play some 4.0, but as a different campaign with different characters, but we really discovered that starting over and leveling up with a new bunch of characters meant throwing away all that history and backstory. And that was a big investment, particulalry since lifspan estimates suggest that most of us don't have time for too many more 12 year campaigns left in us.....so, were we less roleplayers (a realization which surprised most of us) the conversion would be easier.
How is this back on topic ? Well, MGT has not made the same change as 4.0 did -and to some extent, I think the 4.0 revision is creating much the same issue as TNE did -making the characters and backstories and "look and feel" that the the players developed over years of play in their own campaigns unportable. One could argue that it too was perceived as being pitched at a new audience, possibly at the expense of the original audience, also exacerbated the problem.
So, bravo MGT - in producing such a "look and feel" compatable edition (with just about all of CT, MT and T4) you really, really missed a bullet, it seems to humble little know it all me.....
* it started as an experiment anticipating 3.0. It turned into a lifestyle. Go figure.
** and he was tired of playing Gonad the Wagnerian in any case. He just felt that it could port over unchanged.
