Goodman Games

Why I didn't think of this when I bought C&C, LoL.

Boy there are a lot of points I'd like to discuss in your post, but this one most of all firstest.

So the impression is that DDI is required?

I read/heard a couple of things straight from the Wizards' mouth that makes clear to me (brainless, remember?) that it is entirely optional. Even the Dragon/Dungeon content that appears online was mentioned as having some kind of paper life thereafter.

Or is there some other aspect that's murdering memories?

What I really don't understand, since the first announcement, is the reaction from many people that somehow Wizards is taking something away from you. Nobody showed up to confiscate my AD&D books or lovely, vintage box set with the dragon on the treasure when 3.x came along. And there wasn't any dangerous brain alteration either, other than increasing age. I don't expect anything like that next June, either.

So what is being stolen/murdered/evaporated/spindled/mutilated? I would honestly like some help on this.

Are we talking about folks getting their monthly $30 hardcover fix and fear that the taste won't work for us come June 2008 and beyond?

Or -- forgive me -- are we a bunch of old farts that would rather rail against the generation up-and-coming, than adapt or ignore as applicable?

I really would like to understand this reaction, since I've been baffled about it for months now. <looks for the sincerity smilie>

yeah, we are a bunch of old farts. We can finally say, " yeah, I remember back when you had a dagger, three hit points, and a sleep spell."
I'm not saying that fourth edition is going to be a bad game, I'm just saying that I just don't like how they are monkeying with the game for the sake of a cash grab. They are changing game elements so it will play smoother online ,dudes. Do we have to play it online? no. But what was the first stinkin' think they mentioned? It was online play. They want World of Warcraft money and they've come up with a really lame idea to get it.

Yeah, its nothign but a big power up for powergamers and munchkins. The "per encounter" powers alone prove this pretty darn strongly.

The fighter who can heal himself as he fights is another one, or might be able to do damage even when he misses is another.

Plenty of evidence to me.

You know, the more I read about all these changes the more I get upset. This is not Dungeons and Dragons. This is everybody gets to win. Where is the risk? Fighters shouldn't be able to heal. And if you miss, you miss. thats it. Yeah, I think the teen crowd will love this kind of thing. Not me, man there doesn't seem like there's any challenge left.

So no murder, then? That's cool. I'm not sure I'd call it a cash grab, though. I like cash. When folks come in my store, I take cash and let them carry something off with them. I change things up in hopes of keeping getting cash. If you think the changes are all corporate driven, well, that probably would be bad. But I get the impression the folks that wrote and produced d20/3.x are the source of the changes, so if you liked what they did between 1999 and 2007, isn't there any hope for 4e?



I would likely have played spellcasters for the majority of the last thirty years, except I've been too often frustrated by "Oh, yeah, I know that spell, but I didn't memorize it..." Per encounter abiliies sound like they have potential. As for fighters healing themselves, I haven't seen that pitch. But my general conjecture is that class abilities won't be fixed by level, but will be chosen from a class list so you can customize your character to some degree, so maybe you can take a healing ability, but it may not be automatic.

I have a fighter now who can heal himself -- he's not competing with the party healer by any means, but he's got a little healing in his back pocket.

Did what you saw say a fighter can heal himself at will back up to full hp as often as he wants? Or, if it suggested fighters would have some healing, but didn't say how much, isn't there room for waitng to see how that actually takes form? If it is the difference between a fighter drinking a healing potion or taking an action to heal, I'm not sure there's any difference in the encounter. It just makes a difference in where resources come from. (Personally I hate shopping in game; better the quick heal in your 'will' than a quick heal you had to shop for.... Or that the DM had to plant in the treasure coz he knew you needed it anyway [takes the pressure off the DM to track your hp]).

As for 'does damage when misses', again haven't seen that, but I have one word: Houserule.

(Okay, more than oneword, parenthetically: again, it could be some sort of special optional ability with limited application.)



Hmmm. Thought experiment: Wizards decides to stop publishing 3.5. No more new D&D except for what third-party publishers put out. A year leter they put out a new game with the d20 system, similar to 3e D&D but not directly convertable, and its called Tunnels & Crusades, or Castles & Trolls, or Runesearch, or anything.... Would we get upset about this new game?

Hmm, maybe I should ask 'how upset?"....

I haven't seen the rules yet. I think people's upsetedness is - perhaps - at how WotC has been pitching the new game, not at the game itself. So they suck as pitchmen, perhaps.

So, I have a salt shaker handy if anyone needs a pinch....

I'm fine with house ruling, but thats also why I am not going to switch to 4E. I'll house rule what I like about 4E into my game system, but I am not going to invest in a new system, unless I like the system as a whole better than what I am using now.

So far 4E has a few good ideas I'll likely steal, but nothing is making me think I am going to like the whole system better than what I use now.

The thing is that a lot of people hate change. Gamers fall into two groups. The first group will play any game, and they love to try new things and experiment. The second likes they tried and true approach; They've invested a lot of time in a game and they like the comfort zone that it provides. I'm just not one of those guys who is complaining for no reason. I actually got on line and bought the Star Wars Saga edition. I liked the changes to the D20 system. It really fit the Star Wars game well. If they want to update the rules its fine by me. But There are elements of this thing that are a blatant cash grab. The whole charging for stuff online is a big part of it. Do I have to buy into that part of the game? Nope. But it does make me a little testy anout the tactics used. Like I said, I'm getting to be an old fart and it seems like everytime I leave the house someone wants to charge me 25 bucks. I really hate being apart of a consumer culture. Just put out a good product that ignites my imagination and I'll buy it. Don't try to pee on me and tell me its raining and don't try to convince me that your dumb, half baked ideas are the greatest thing ever.

No way, Treebore!

Well, I like trying out different things, as long as the difference is significant, and waht I think I will like.

4E is not doing that for me. The "money grab" stuff you cite are also turn offs for me.

All around D&D is becoming a game and experience I don't want to experience.

Heck, the only reason I am even giving it as much of a look as I am going to is simply because its D&D and has been a big part of my life and happy memories. Even more so now that I played it with my wife and kids. You can't buy memories like these.

I have plenty of fun games on my book shelves, L5R, Mutants and Masterminds, Shadowrun 2E to 4E, Traveller, HARP, RuneQuest, Pendragon, True 20, Chivalry and Sorcery, Star Frontiers, RIFTS, PAladium Fantasy, TRi Stat Mecha, and others.

I guess I have just come to a time in my life where I can say no to a new D&D. Especially since it will now be two steps removed from any semblence to the D&D I fell in love with.

People can't understand that, and thats fine. I don't expect strangers or even friends to understand my mind. Like you said though, this 4E is not D&D. Its a new game with an old name.

Its now a game that I don't believe I can like anymore. Simple as that.

Beleive me, as simple as it is I still have a very saddened spot in my heart. Its still very much like saying good bye to a old friend, for good. You just know its time to part ways. Its still .

Treebore, I know what you mean.

I too have dropped D&D for Castles & Crusades. However I still refer to my RPG get together as AD&D or D&D days. To me it seems WotC has done what was done to the actor who played the Lone Ranger. He was the spirit of the role, but the company forbad him to wear the mask. C&C is the spirit of the game, but it is forbidden to wear the name.

3.X drifted far from its origins. Many enjoyed this drifting. I didn't. Small companies like Goodman Games and Necromancer continued to evoke the spirit of old AD&D with thier modules. Sadly, it seems the 4th edition will completely break from the games roots. How a company will be able to breath the "Sword and Sorcery" feel into this new rules system that draws little or nothing from the old school of myths, fables, and early fantasy writers will be interesting to watch. However, it is only an academic interest for me. I'll not be spending my time and money re-learning how to play a game I've played since '81 in my sparse spare time.

A few points were mentions... the direction taken with Star Wars was brought up... and I feel I should add a few points to consider.

Just because it seems a lot of the long-time players are jumping ship has nothing to do with rigidity and unwillingness to try new things. I, and many others like myself who cut their teeth on older editions of the game, embraced 3.x when it came out. However, the company's change of focus on how they chose to support the game bothered many. Endless supplements and endless rules variants or expansions was not the sole issue for some people. The rules crunch got to some people too. In fact, that's also what led me to discover C&C -- I simply had enough. I could have just as easily shifted to True20 which had enough of a rules shift to get away from a few things I grew to despise. This had nothing to do with me not giving the game a chance... a quarter of my gaming collection is d20.

The direction they were taking Star Wars with the SAGA edition had me excited at first. Once again, I was most familiar with WEG's Star Wars system (a d6 system) which proved to be a system that was both faster and simpler than AD&D. I couldn't even look at d20 Star Wars... the notion and feel of the game was butchered. SAGA changed that... and things got really toned down in terms of complexity. For that, I was quite happy but there are still a couple of things, mechanically speaking, which don't quite work for me regarding combat. However, when I saw SAGA, I thought that some of the improvements made in here may translate into the new edition of D&D.

This *was* the reason why I was partially excited about the new edition. A skill system simplified by a notch or two is a big thing for me. Unfortunately some of the other things do make this a game that steps aways from the philosophy of all the previous incarnations of the game that happened to bear its name.

Will it flop? Of course not! Will older gamers at least take a look at it? Of course we will; we love our games and we love to game, whether it be old or new. Will I personally buy 4th ed? Yes... I do believe I will but I won't be buying more that the core set, and even then, I may only pick up the PHB. Will I run a 4th ed game? Absolutely not! If I have a friend who is insistent on running a game, I may give it a try as a player.

I'll get 4th ed to implement material and concepts in a 3.x game. In the end, we all have to face one inescapable thing: 4th Edition is akin to the big pink elephant in your living room and it'll be kind of hard to ignore!

Moriarty the Red

I guess I just have a different perspective on all this, and can't wrap my head around the vehemence against a game that no one has seen yet. Disinterest, I could get, but what generally sounds like hatred, I just can't grok. When characters advancing to 20 levels was introduced and weapons got different dice of damage, did it turn off a whole crowd of fans, too?

I just see the game as a constant evolution, and can't think of a single game published for any length of time that didn't go through revisions great and small.

I appreciate posters taking the time to spell out their thoughts. Makes it more interesting to discuss, for sure.

I don't know if I'll like 4e yet, there just isn't enough on the table so far. But I've liked some of what I've heard about it, so I'll be interested to really see it next year.

hehehe... most of the vehemence you may be perceiving is towards the company and not 4e itself. As for a game evolving over time, I agree that this is simply natural. However, creating a mechanic that divorces itself from previous ones, is creating a new type of game the same way that AD&D did when it was first created. With the new edition, I'm more dismayed with how they are proceeding. They already plan on releasing a second set of core books (the PHB II, DMG II, and MM II) about one year after they release the first set. Expect the 'standard' races that got dropped to re-appear in those books. To me, that's not right and has more to do with the company than the system they are putting out.

But I digress... at least taking a look at what the final product has to offer (or the SRD for it when it's available) is the least that some of us could do.

M

You know that may be a point with me too. I have liked a lot of edition changes by other companies too. I've like the L5R change to 3R, I've liked the changes from Shadowrun 1E to 4E.

I liked the D&D changes from OD&D to 2E. I thought I liked 3E. Enough to play and DM it for nearly 5 years. Enough to buy LOTS of books and modules.

Then I realized I didn't like 3E as much as I thought. Running games for this past D&D day cemented it for me again. It cemented it for my daughter who just played.

I think it may simply be that it is not nearly as recognizable as the old game as it could be. There are a lot of similarities, but it certainly doesn't play the same.

Well, whatever the reasons, I'm glad I found C&C. I'm glad that Moriarty and Jedi have too. Not only does it allow me to play a good solid game that is simple, its made my whole RPG collection a resource once again.

I'm glad people like 3E and seem to be excited about 4E. I'm glad they like the complexity and the options. I'm glad they can't knock GURPS anymore.

With the annual release of a new PH, DMG, and MM my bank account is going to be glad I don't like 4E.

You know that may be a point with me too. I have liked a lot of edition changes by other companies too. I've like the L5R change to 3R, I've liked the changes from Shadowrun 1E to 4E.

I liked the D&D changes from OD&D to 2E. I thought I liked 3E. Enough to play and DM it for nearly 5 years. Enough to buy LOTS of books and modules.

Then I realized I didn't like 3E as much as I thought. Running games for this past D&D day cemented it for me again. It cemented it for my daughter who just played.

I think it may simply be that it is not nearly as recognizable as the old game as it could be. There are a lot of similarities, but it certainly doesn't play the same.

Well, whatever the reasons, I'm glad I found C&C. I'm glad that Moriarty and Jedi have too. Not only does it allow me to play a good solid game that is simple, its made my whole RPG collection a resource once again.

I'm glad people like 3E and seem to be excited about 4E. I'm glad they like the complexity and the options. I'm glad they can't knock GURPS anymore.

With the annual release of a new PH, DMG, and MM my bank account is going to be glad I don't like 4E.

No kidding! MrsCharlie was so happy I'm not going to convert (she wasn't taken with C&C until I compared PHB price to her).

I discovered C&C this summer when I was looking for an old edition variant for some friends of mine that havent' done RPGs. I looked at HackMaster and it was too much to take in. Then I found C&C which I was really impressed with. I liked the philosophy of the design which is basically the more bells and whistles you add to a game the slower it gets. Skills and feats slowed down 3e along with a slew of other non sense like five foot steps, attacks or oppurtunity, etc. . They-WOTC-- took a step forward with a unified core mechanic but took three steps back with all the other manure they threw on top of it.

A friend of mine was running a game that had a player with a mid-level monk that was getting so many attacks a round that he had to throw a handful of d20's that practically knocked over every miniature on the table. And my friend had to take three hours to design an encounter to give the group a challenge. It was crazy. C&C makes it where you can eye-ball a stat-block straight from any edition's monster manual and run an encounter on the fly. C&C is just the coolest.

Boy that is a subject to get me into trouble......

Personally I am disenfranchised with WOTC and 4ed..
I do play online but am not much of a MMorpg player. I have played but it is not my choice of games.

That being said D&D is no longer my choice of roleplaying game. I know I am not alone in making that judgement. I prefer Savage Worlds or True 20 as they seem to promote roleplay.

Now will 4ed fail? probably not, as long as enough people convert over to the new system you will always be able to find a game.

The genius in WOTC 3.0 was the OGL which allowed others to move thier campaign to this ruleset... It is a matter of opinion, whether you like the rules or not. I don't think they are the best (More miniature lite) rule set than actual roleplaying rules, but you can always find someone playing a game of it somewhere. (That's the genius part) They have thier own in house promotions/marketing with the rpga. Facilitating a sense of need for each supplement as they are written.(Genius)

However, for those that didn't notice the ogl changed midstream with no warning and caught several publishers with printed materials that they could no longer release because of the change. Publishers started pulling away. GRP developed true20 as a defense against whatever changes WOTC were going to make to D&D. Several others followed suit.. Taking with them a small but passionate following.

Now the genius of Goodman games... is they create games within the ogl that people want to play. There is enough memories of D&D 1st ed in thier matierial.. How it is published and played. Without the need for referenceing any ruleset at all.. Infact I play all DDC games as either True20 and as of late Savage Worlds.. Even my X crawl games are like that.. I converted Battlelords 23rd century to SW and haven't looked back..

It all depends on what you want to play.
Did WOTC drive away players.. no doubt..are those player bitter. in some cases yes. Does this in any way mean wotc will fail in thier new incarnation...no. Do I think Wotc is giving players what they want? Not really. Do i see Wotc combining thier miniature line and rpg into one synergy that influences the other.. You bet.

Would I like to see another roleplaying association beside wotc. In which I could share common events with both as a player and DM. Yes.

Obviously these are questions I have asked and answered myself. Each gamer will have to evaluate the games they play by whatever criteria they deem important. The most important aspect though is can I find a game of this somewhere.

Okay, maybe I'm getting too far afield to ask this in this thread, but I'm really curious...

What types of rules encourage roleplay, and which discourage roleplay?

I've played my fair share of systems over the years and it just seems to me that, boiled down, it is the GM's storytelling style that determines roleplay opportunities, or lack thereof. I see roleplay as more or less separate from "the rules". But perhaps I need to point out that "roleplay" to me means bringing a character made of game statistics 'to life' in some way, not 'role' as in party role/function...

If WotC has killed roleplay with 3.x, howso? Hasn't anyone reading this thread seen anything that suggests that 4e could open up classes to more interpretation, perhaps encouraging roleplay....?

How has wotc killed roleplay?

Hmm.. It not a difficult to see the d20 is a results driven game. i.e. Die results... If I need to negotiate a new deal with the king .. I don't have to be creative and come up with a reason.. I just have to roll a die and see. I am not saying all dms play it this way but it is definitely the way it is presented in the rules.

To gain experience points. You gain X for defeating monsters Y and Z
but if they are semi intelligent and you negotiate your way around. You might get the same amount of XP depending on your DM. (Not in RPGA mods though)

D&D from the old day has progressed to a very clean crisp rule set for everything.. One of the greatest first edition modules (Tomb of horrors)would create havoc with 3.0 version of D&D. By clouding the waters as to award how much for this etc..

My opinion is there are too many rules.. and the focus is on moving little miniatures around the board to kill some things..

I found it interesting that they present 4th ed as guys sitting around the table playing first and third edition. In first edition, everything was relay by the DM.. But in third edition 90% of the rules are miniature based.
I am not saying it is neccessary to play in this fashion.. I am saying it is presented in this fashion.

Character builds are results oriented. Certain Pclasses are feat specific..
I can't carve out my own niche in society it already has rules....

In Dumas The Three Musketeers, D'Artangan needed to prove he was deserving of membership. In 3 edition he takes x, y, and z feat and voila he's in.

Also it is not up to the DM (Style or ability) to roleplay... The DM paints the picture the players roleplay. Of course the fun for the DM is that he gets to play along as well...

I love the phrase you see roleplaying as something separate from the rules? Is like saying I roleplay in monopoly. "I am the ultimate robber baron.. Give me my money.."

Your 4th edition question about open it up classes to more interpretation. Who's interpretation is the question I would be asking. Hopefully the DM's. I am not holding my breath.

Try Savage Worlds, or True 20, heck even try first edition.. and see roleplaying in action.

Well, when I think how many games bogged down in rules arguments in 2nd Edition days, compared the same group of guys playing 3.x, I have noticed a dramatic difference. A reduction, that is.

Things are better delineated, so we can generally agree (or quickly come to an agreement) how to call things in 3.x. I can remember sessions in 2nd that would stop for 30-40 mins while one or two players argued with the GM on how a spell or item should work. Those were arguments in the civilized-exchange-of-perspectives-and-use-of-concrete-examples sense, not the yelling-and-screaming sense.

As for everything coming down to die rolls, I don't believe in it, as such. If I were a total n00b at the game, I'd be glad to have it. Were I introducing someone new to the game, I'd gladly let them use that approach as a crutch, while they learned their way around. Is that the final word on how to do things...? It is if you let it.

We've regularly had encounters and, at times, nearly whole sessions, where we didn't draw out a map for any encounters that happened and just talked our way through the scene(s), or played character interaction PC-on-PC and PCs-on-NPCs for extended periods. The GM made the call on if we were within x or y range for a bow shot, if they belived our bluff or not, etc. etc. As far as I'm concerned, we we're playing D&D 3.x.

As for my comment about 'roleplay separate from the rules' - it really sounds that weird?

I've played a significant amount of D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, 3.x D&D, Champions/Hero System, Call of Cthulhu, and Shadowrun 2nd Edition. There are other games I've played to a lesser degree, as well. If I'm roleplaying, the 'rules' don't affect that. The setting will affect it; the GM will create opportunites for it (or not). Like I said, roleplaying to me involves adding backstory, motivation and details to a personality that I attach to the statistics on the character sheet. I'm not dressing up, and imagining I'm 'Zukor of the Mountain Tribe'. But to some degree, as opportunities present themselves I'll embellish the character. This to me is the core of roleplaying. And I'm aware that for some folks, 'roleplay' strictly means fulfilling a party role, and I'm all for that, and yes, that has to do with the rules, but that's a small portion of how I define the word.

I can't be the only one that sees it that way, can I?

BTW, if I was roleplaying in Monopoly: One, I'd be crazy, and B, I'd be the racecar. vroom vroom!

Basically, I liked how 3.x gave us rules that were clearer and more consistant than what had come before. Do I like everything? No. But overall I felt it was an improvement to the experience of sitting at a table with my friends and coming up with hair-brained plans, bad jokes, and bad jokes based on hair-brained plans based on bad jokes.

Now, according to what I've seen in previews (and haven't seen it all), I feel like the 'anything can happen' aspect may be coming back....

Interestingly enough, I have found the opposite. I think part of it may be the type of people one games with or, maybe even the caliber of the person who runs the game.

However, to try and answer your previous question, I don't think rules will alter how much or how little roleplaying will go on in a game. It comes down to the people once again. That being said, a more systematic or detailed system could end up replacing good old fashioned roleplay and I think this might have been what Deguello was trying to get at. If you're playing a noble trying to negotiate something with another lord, it stands to reason that you'd roleplay that, no matter what system you are using. However, I have seen this 'roleplay' skipped in favor of a simple Diplomacy check. This is no fault of the system but comes down on how people may view and use the system.

But this isn't something that will slow play down. The main thing which is the issue of most debates at the gaming table centers around combat. Game design philosophy will play a big role in how fast or how slow this can be. In my opinion, 3.x has some issues in this area which needs addressing. That is not to say that they don't have a rule for it but there was enough of them to justify the recent Rules Compendium. It is also no coincidence that they are tackling this issue for the next edition. WOTC also feels that certain aspects of character creation and game mechanics can be streamlined. All these improvements are in the hopes to speed up the areas of play which they see slows down the typical game.

Even if what slows down play typically happens in combat... there is no way this actually affects roleplaying. I do believe that it is up to the DM and, to a lesser extent, the players that helps set the tone and pace of a given game. As to having a rule for every situation or factor that may or may not ever come up? That's a simply matter of preference.



M

Just to throw a few things on this thread...

1. WOTC has bungled this roll out of 4e. When they did 3e, they provided monthly HARD examples of what the rules were going to be like. It let people get excited and know about the game. Right now people do not know the game. Know if it is good or bad. Everything they have given out has been fluff (and mostly VERY BIG FLUFF CHANGES).

2. I honestly like 3.5e (3.0 was too broken). Good flexibility in the rules (for most things) and somewhat balanced until high levels. Well, if you stay core. The splat books ruin the game balance, but that is a second issue.

3. The WOWification of DnD is turningme off. If I wanted to play WOW I would go online OR play the WOW RPG game.

4. The de-Tolkienization (sp?) of DnD is getting close to being complete. WOTC is working on the final touches of removing some of the last vestiges of that from DnD.

That being said, our group is going to have to pick up 4e core books. so we can play in the DCC tourney at GenCon and the DnD Open.

But if 4e sucks, I am planning on dropping the DnD Open and just doing the DCC. As the DCC rocks!

I have been part of many posts on the DDI forums, but to no avail. Until there is hard evidence either way, 4e is a blind mystery. But for the first time in 30 year of playing DnD, I am NOT looking forward to the next edition of rules.