Bland covers. Why?

[Fulminata]

Stick numbers on the side - make them collectable.

And, as a Roleplayer Extrordinairre - I like playing functionless characters!

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.

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'.

I see where you're coming from, but I still have to disagree with the idea that 3rd was flexible to different playstyles. It did indeed try to be, but failed pretty miserably because the core of the game was still centered around power progression.

It's like I could take a wrench and hammer a nail with it, but it's not very effective at it.

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.

Are they not doing this?

They do in the catalog, but the mockups don't actually show it printed on the book. Maybe the printed product does, but I haven't seen a copy of Mercenary yet to know for sure. I also haven't seen a copy of 760 Patrons, but it looks like it does have a supplement number on the cover, so that's good.

 

[EDG]

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.

This ain't rocket science though. I can't think of a single game I've run exactly as described straight from the book without having to make up something to fill in a blank. So D&D certainly isn't alone in this.

And as I said, if a GM isn't capable of figuring this sort of thing out on his own, then he shouldn't be trying to run games - this is really basic stuff.

 

[-Daniel-]

This ain't rocket science though. I can't think of a single game I've run exactly as described straight from the book without having to make up something to fill in a blank. So D&D certainly isn't alone in this.

And as I said, if a GM isn't capable of figuring this sort of thing out on his own, then he shouldn't be trying to run games - this is really basic stuff.

And I have to say I do not want a game that assumes I am a mindless idiot unable to have any input into the mix.

My players are not dumb, they come up with creative situations all the time and I reward them when they do. The books (I have GM various different systems) can not and do not cover everything they do. I like to think I have handled each situation and come up with game appropriate rewards for the players and their characters.

Daniel

 

[TrippyHippy]

I see where you're coming from, but I still have to disagree with the idea that 3rd was flexible to different playstyles. It did indeed try to be, but failed pretty miserably because the core of the game was still centered around power progression.

It's like I could take a wrench and hammer a nail with it, but it's not very effective at it.

The qualitative assessment about how good the system was at achieving it's aims is up to you, really. I was never part of the 'my hat of D02' crowd, but then again I never really got into d20 much either. Regardless, the fact that d20 (based upon D&D) was trying to integrate all different groups of rpgers into something approaching a global brand, was an appreciably different aim to the one they are employing with 4th Edition.

 

[Allensh]

How did we get to discussing the cover art, or lack thereof, of Traveller to bitching about D&D?

This isn't topic drift...this is a full-on topic misjump!

Allen

 

[GamerDude]

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.

This ain't rocket science though. I can't think of a single game I've run exactly as described straight from the book without having to make up something to fill in a blank. So D&D certainly isn't alone in this.

And as I said, if a GM isn't capable of figuring this sort of thing out on his own, then he shouldn't be trying to run games - this is really basic stuff.

Never said it wasn't rocket science or some such, just that it isn't the focus of the mechanics and it ain't in the books. Saying, implying, etc. otherwise is at least misleading and down right incorrect.

 

[-Daniel-]

This isn't topic drift...this is a full-on topic misjump!

Did we survive the jump? :lol:

Daniel

 

[Jeff Hopper]

How did we get to discussing the cover art, or lack thereof, of Traveller to bitching about D&D?

This isn't topic drift...this is a full-on topic misjump!

Allen

Which can be pretty accurately said to have started by trying to jump into an empty hex...

 

[EDG]

Never said it wasn't rocket science or some such, just that it isn't the focus of the mechanics and it ain't in the books. Saying, implying, etc. otherwise is at least misleading and down right incorrect.

Well it's a good thing I'm not implying otherwise then, isn't it .

My point is just that it doesn't matter if the rules are there or not, or if a game is made for something or not. Isn't there a clump of people trying to bash out a fantasy version of Traveller? Traveller's a scifi game, not fantasy - yet there's nothing stopping them from converting it into one, is there? Nobody should be limited by what's written in the book, or what the book's goal is.

That's why it's a specious argument when people say "oh, you can't do roleplaying with D&D4e", or "D&D4e is all about combat" (which is a nonsensical claim in itself. I just read the book again and it's no more about combat than 3.5 was. Heck, I even commented to my friends with me about how small the Combat chapter was compared to the rest of the players handbook). And you sure can roleplay with it, I saw no obstacles to that at all in the book.

 

[tneva82]

Hm. I guess the three year high level political D&D campaign I just played must have been some kind of hallucination then...

Looking how D&D4 hasn't been OUT for three years yup. Must be hallucinations.

D&D 4 has been built from the core to dungeon crawling tactical skirmish game. That is pretty damn obvious for anybody. Is it fine skirmish wargame? Yes. But there's not any roleplaying content there whatsoever. If you want to play RPG might just as well use different rule system since you have to create role playing elements from scratch anyway with D&D4.

Have you btw noticed how wizards changed? No more versatile fellows who could be used for non-combat roles easily. Now they are de facto artirelly bombardment unit. Lemme see. Count how many daily/encounter/utility power they have that isn't based on disabling enemies. Shoot 'em'up!

 

[tneva82]

but I was just suggesting that had Mongoose decided to go all the way and deliberately aim it at the MMO-type market then they might sell even more copies.

Or not since they would be alienating old traveler customers who are biggest market segment for traveller rules.

 

[tneva82]

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.

Yeah. Where's encounters where you might actually have to...you know...TALK your way out of them? Or sneak around? Or bribe? Or ANYTHING but go there and kill them? Heck why bother with talking anyway. Doesn't give XP's anyway. KILL THEM!!!

 

[tneva82]

I have played D&D 4th edition, and it does feel like a skirmish/minatures game. Longterm players of D&D that I have spoken to in clubs tend to express the view that the game is fun.....but not D&D as they see it.

Ironic, really. D&D started as a skirmish/wargame - and just a suppliment to one, at that.

How's so? It started as skirmish wargame and obviously WOTC wants to KEEP it as skirmish wargame. Afterall that boost sales of their miniatures which means more $$$ for them.

 

[tneva82]

My point is just that it doesn't matter if the rules are there or not, or if a game is made for something or not.

But why use rules not designed for roleplaying for roleplaying when you have to create everything needed from scratch to begin with when there's better alternatives in place?

You want roleplaying in D&D4, you scratch whole rules since they contain 0% useful material for roleplaying. Might just as well not use them then.

 

[EDG]

Looking how D&D4 hasn't been OUT for three years yup. Must be hallucinations.

3.5e was pretty heavily centred around combat too. I don't see any reason to prevent us from doing the same thing that we did with the previous edition with 4e instead. The combat would work differently, sure, but everything in between would be exactly the same.

D&D 4 has been built from the core to dungeon crawling tactical skirmish game.

Like I said, I've reread the book today and while I'll certainly agree the combat is very MMOish now, I saw no evidence that this was the only thing it could do, and no evidence to support the contention that you can't do roleplaying in it.

Have you btw noticed how wizards changed? No more versatile fellows who could be used for non-combat roles easily. Now they are de facto artirelly bombardment unit. Lemme see. Count how many daily/encounter/utility power they have that isn't based on disabling enemies. Shoot 'em'up!

I think you've really missed the point of Rituals - those are where a lot of those non-combat spells that you're claiming have disappeared live. And I count plenty of disabling and non-combat spells in the daily/encounter/at-will lists for Wizards - Sleep, Color Spray, Web, Wall of Fog...

 

[EDG]

You want roleplaying in D&D4, you scratch whole rules since they contain 0% useful material for roleplaying. Might just as well not use them then.

"You want to make your own setting in Traveller? You'd need to come up with everything for that, because the Traveller corebook doesn't tell you how to make it yourself. Might as well not use it then."

It's the same logic. And just as specious.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

This isn't topic drift...this is a full-on topic misjump!

Did we survive the jump? :lol:

Daniel

Dunno but under the old CT misjump rule, we threw a 6 on the first 1d6 throw for the number of d6s, then rolled 6 sixes for the distance i.e. a 36 hex/parsec misjump.

Epik phail!

Iz can haz long wayz home advenchur?!! kthxbai!

 

[AKAramis]

D&D 4 has been built from the core to dungeon crawling tactical skirmish game. That is pretty damn obvious for anybody. Is it fine skirmish wargame? Yes. But there's not any roleplaying content there whatsoever. If you want to play RPG might just as well use different rule system since you have to create role playing elements from scratch anyway with D&D4.

Look here... EDG, Myself, and several others have been around long enough to know that D&D 1st ed lacked and real explanation of Role-playing. It, too, was a skirmish game with some non-tactical rules (like healing, supplies, and hiring on local joes to help you haul loot).

Hell, 1st ed D&D had only 3 classes: Fighting Man, Wizard and Cleric! It didn't include a combat system; you had to buy that separately: Chainmail. (Later printings included the one that became normative in AD&D 1E and D&D 2e. By some accounts, that's sufficient enough a change to be a separate edition!) All the magic was combat oriented... in the core three little books.

It was literally just a system for linking battles together. No "outdoor adventures" material; AH's Outdoor Survival was suggested as an add-on for that. It was dungeon raids, and not much else.

The supplements added quite a bit, too. Thieves, Paladins, Monks, Assassins, Druids....

D&D 4 is very much, to the OLD guard, a return to what D&D was at first: a tactical game.

 

[Jeff Hopper]

This isn't topic drift...this is a full-on topic misjump!

Did we survive the jump? :lol:

Daniel

Dunno but under the old CT misjump rule, we threw a 6 on the first 1d6 throw for the number of d6s, then rolled 6 sixes for the distance i.e. a 36 hex/parsec misjump.

Epik phail!

Iz can haz long wayz home advenchur?!! kthxbai!

And youz gets a lolcats chezburgher azz well!!

 

[TrippyHippy]

Look here... EDG, Myself, and several others have been around long enough to know that D&D 1st ed lacked and real explanation of Role-playing. It, too, was a skirmish game with some non-tactical rules (like healing, supplies, and hiring on local joes to help you haul loot).

Hell, 1st ed D&D had only 3 classes: Fighting Man, Wizard and Cleric! It didn't include a combat system; you had to buy that separately: Chainmail. (Later printings included the one that became normative in AD&D 1E and D&D 2e. By some accounts, that's sufficient enough a change to be a separate edition!) All the magic was combat oriented... in the core three little books.

It was literally just a system for linking battles together. No "outdoor adventures" material; AH's Outdoor Survival was suggested as an add-on for that. It was dungeon raids, and not much else.

The supplements added quite a bit, too. Thieves, Paladins, Monks, Assassins, Druids....

D&D 4 is very much, to the OLD guard, a return to what D&D was at first: a tactical game.

Well, there is old guard and old guard. I mean D&D, from 3rd edition onwards, was a new editon of AD&D in effect - with all the Class variations and developments that implies. The OD&D you are talking about in that sense, was pre-AD&D - in it's formative stage if you like.