June 20, 2008, 8:33 a.m. CST
June 20, 2008, 8:34 a.m. CST
passing out soon
June 20, 2008, 8:47 a.m. CST
Now I will destroy you!
June 20, 2008, 8:55 a.m. CST
I would fire it into a room of sweaty beardos playing Dungeons and Dragons. No doubt someone would roll a dice to decide just how injured they were or if they were allowed to call for a paramedic.
June 20, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST
by Allen T
You do realize that it was one of their more popular lines? As for the Normal crack, yes you were still a normal person who was chosen by a divine power, given some power, but had your whole worldview shattered. You weren't an highly trained sorcocor, assassain, or the like which were most backgrounds for the other games. As for your other complaint, you do realize that is a problem FOR EVERY SINGLE GAME? Out of character knowledge happens in every game line.
June 20, 2008, 9:21 a.m. CST
by Kid Z
June 20, 2008, 9:48 a.m. CST
ANY GAME that FORCES you....not suggests - or hints at - BUT FORCES you to use miniatures and battle maps IS NOT A RPG. It is a Miniature War Game with heavy RPG influences, but ***IS NOT*** an RPG. Pens, Paper, Dice and Rule Books are the ONLY CORE COMPONENTS that a TRUE RPG requires. If you like this new D&D, that's great. I'd rather see them develop this system that go out of business. And if that's what market research says they need for the OMG-WTF!!!11 crowd, so be it. But I've shot Magic Missiles and carried more 10' poles with iron rations than about anyone else, and I tell you again, this new D&D is NOT an RPG.
June 20, 2008, 9:49 a.m. CST
....system THAN go out of business...sigh....need more coffee...
June 20, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST
I don't know, Massa, it sounds like it lasts the entire encounter. It does seem overly powerful, although maybe it'll force the DM to make sure that every encounter is with a mix of bad guys, and the ranged attacks will go after the dude with the magic item (once they learn the hard way not to hit him). But yeah, seems broken.<p> Sadly, no one near me is doing free RPG day. Ah well.
June 20, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST
June 20, 2008, 10:34 a.m. CST
by Mavra Chang
Nothing against any of the other RPGs mentioned, but Cthulhu rocks.
June 20, 2008, 10:38 a.m. CST
by Mavra Chang
Have you ever heard the Dead Alewives "Dungeons and Dragons" routine? Hilarious! Your post made me think of that. "Dungeons and Dragons, Satan's game!" "Where're the Cheetos?" lol!
June 20, 2008, 10:55 a.m. CST
by Brians Life
I had to. I'm an avid MAGIC THE GATHERING fan, but I've never branched off into tabletop. A few friends (all in their 30's) want to get a Ver. 4 D and D game going....am I missing out on anything?
June 20, 2008, 11:18 a.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
So I guess you're one of those guys who doesn't actually know the HISTORY of D&D and how it evolved from the tactical miniatures game Chainmail...and how the reliance on miniatures is a return to form rather than a departure...pity...
June 20, 2008, 11:26 a.m. CST
esp for battles?
June 20, 2008, 11:30 a.m. CST
Um...Massawyrm, I know the complete history of D&D (I even did a competitive Informative speech on it in high school forensics) and I STILL agree with Ewok. Just because Chainmail was a tac-min game doesn;t mean that its evolution into an actual RPG should be discounted and then dismissed. Going back to tac-min is a de-evolutyion from the way I look at it. I agree with Ewok that you should need only your imagination and a rule book are the only things you should need (I don;t necessarily think you need pen, paper and dice though- remember the Amber Diceless game?)
June 20, 2008, 11:41 a.m. CST
by Brians Life
Guys, seriously. The mere rabidness has me excited. If I want to get a D and D game started TONIGHT, what books/materials do i need?
June 20, 2008, 12:14 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
<p>I see where you're going, but your premise is flawed. You assume that because there is a return to minis that the game is devolving rather than responding to the evolution of technology. In 1980, cheap, easily produced, good looking miniatures were not a feasibility - and the kids who picked up the game weren't able to purchase and paint the lead miniatures. So the game evolved away from that and created rules that didn't require them. Now that we do have access to such things, peoples desire to include them has led to rules that encourage them. It also helps that the company selling the game also sells the miniatures now - something that WAS NOT the case in 1980.</p> <p>But assuming that playing with miniatures requires any less imagination is nothing short of pure, Luddite driven elitism. "I didn't play with minis growing up, so that's not the way it should be played" is silly. You talk about gaming evolution, but accept it only evolving to a certain point.</p>
June 20, 2008, 12:18 p.m. CST
I've been thinking about getting abck into pen & paper RPGs, and FREE is certainly a good price. Should I keep waiting in the hopes that somebody will pay me to play? <p> Here's my game store corkboard classified ad: Will play your crappy RPG game that nobody else will. $10/hour + benefits.
June 20, 2008, 12:20 p.m. CST
Terrorists everywhere are rejoicing.
June 20, 2008, 12:21 p.m. CST
Like Highlander II showed us, I was actually born on another planet.
June 20, 2008, 12:34 p.m. CST
A friend of mine just got us back into gaming casually with Keep on the Shadowfell and we just used the little tiles they include in the module. I don't think the minis are a necessity, just a helpful visual aid. If you don't need them, don't buy them. I'm flummoxed by a lot of the attitude towards 4E. If you don't like it, don't use it. If there's an aspect you don't like, change it. Unlike a video game RPG, you can change the rules of a tabletop to suit your style of play. I personally am against minis because I'm a cheap bastard. Which is absolutely fine because I can just set a quarter down on a piece of paper and say "this is me". Because I, ya know, have a brain of my own...
June 20, 2008, 12:35 p.m. CST
That one sentence alone actually is my point condensed. "people's desire to use them has lead to rules that encourage them." Encourage, not demand.
June 20, 2008, 1:47 p.m. CST
An RPG does not REQUIRE minis. They should be optional, but the 4th Edition seems to make them necessary in its attempt to emulate WoW and other MMORPGs. I've read much of the new PHB, and I really don't like it. <p> This isn't me clinging to my old way of doing things. This is me remembering sessions in which we didn't even use maps, but had a FAR better time than the ones in which we did use minis. I happened to use minis a lot, and not just in D&D. I sometimes used them for Villains & Vigilantes, Champions, GURPS, MERP, Boot Hill, Star Trek, and even, sometimes, for all the Palladium games. . . But they were never necessary, and they were only used in an abstract sense. <p> Not so with new D&D. It plays more like a tactical game, with less emphasis on the ROLE playing, and more on the ROLL playing. In fact, it reminds me of Car Wars in many ways. It sucks the individuality out of the game. The player characters remind me more of the ones from that old Basic D&D set, or the Dungeon! Board Game. <p> I'm glad you're loving it, Massawyrm, but to me the new D&D feels less like an "evolution" and more like an intentional devolution with a HEAVY emphasis on marketing accessories, minis, and hardcover books filled with some of the worst art to come from D&D in its entire history. <p> Oh yes. I went there. The artwork in the new 4th edition looks like comic book art, or even manga, rather than the awesome paintings of previous editions. Yes, there were some comic booky drawings in all editions, but there were also beautiful paintings. No more will we see these, apparently. Now, they want D&D to look as much like World of Warcraft as possible, without outright ripping off the art style. It sucks. <p> Anyway, back to the point: I don't MIND using miniatures, but I do mind when the rules are changed to focus on them. That transforms the game from a true RPG into a tactical miniatures skirmish game, and if I wanted that, I'd play Car Wars, Blood Bowl (still have my old set), Warhammer, Battletech, or Star Trek. <p> With D&D I want the rules to consider ROLE playing first. I want the players to have the flexibility to play what's in their mind, not what they're limited to by the rules which were streamlined to make miniatures combat more efficient. <p> D&D 4th Edition is made for DMs who don't want to do any work, or have limited imaginations. I'm very disappointed by it. <p> Frankly, I'm thinking of going back to good old 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons... But I sold all my books. I guess if I want to play, I'll stay with the 3rd edition, for now, or maybe switch back to playing Palladium Fantasy. <p> Wizards killed D&D by buying out TSR and turning it from a game company into a different beast. Now it's all about how to get people to buy more supplements and cards and miniatures. I'm surprised they don't make a new kind of dice and patent them so only they can profit from them. But then, what did we expect from the company that invented crack cards?
June 20, 2008, 2:26 p.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
<p>"D&D 4th Edition is made for DMs who don't want to do any work, or have limited imaginations. I'm very disappointed by it."</p> <p>Spoken like someone who hasn't actually played. Well done sir. And Wizards didn't KILL D&D, they saved it from a company that had mismanaged it into the ground and was going out of business. Had they not bought it, it would just be another relic of our childhood. Disliking it is fine - but it's obvious you haven't played it. Kinda hard to be disappointed when you haven't really experienced it. </p>
June 20, 2008, 2:51 p.m. CST
by tk 421
Keep setting that record straight. TSR totally ran D&D into the ground and the only reason it's still around today is because of Wizards.
June 20, 2008, 2:56 p.m. CST
My group has been using miniatures and game mats since we started playing back in the late 80's. We have ramped it up now to where our one GM builds full on table length dioramas for the major battles in the game. For me personally, it's like a double edged sword in that it makes the battles much easier to adjudicate (was he REALLY in the radius if that fireball? Let's measure to find out)but it also takes away from the imagination because you have this 3D representation of the area your PCs are in. You actually see the layout as opposed to seeing it in your head. Although, now that our GM has gotten multiple games to hone his skills, his dioramas are looking REALLY good now. I mean really professional. I couldn't think about playing through a battle without them now. It just makes it go a lot faster easier.
June 20, 2008, 4:30 p.m. CST
I used Miniatures for 1st Edition. It just made things easier to see during combat. That said: we don't buy every monster that existed. We basically played "ok, this Umber Hulk represents the Roper, while these orcs are lizardmen". If I set up 4E, I'd probably do the same.<p> One of the things that annoyed me about 3rd edition is that WOTC said that they weren't going to oversaturate the market with product. Well, they lied through their teeth. And they're already planning on oversaturating the market with 4th edition (nothing like having a Player's Handbook 2 already announced). Granted, it's what TSR did to kill themselves in 2nd Edition, but I think Wizards are a bunch of morons for going that route. You publish your core rulebooks, a couple settings, and deliver adventures for us to buy on a monthly basis. Period. Supplemental material should come through a PRINT Dragon Magazine. It worked perfectly fine for 1st Edition, it would work fine for 4th Edition as well. But no. They're going to keep publishing hardbound timelines $30 that are available online. And why? Because they think bleeding gamers is the only way to profit.
June 20, 2008, 4:56 p.m. CST
are my specialty!
June 20, 2008, 5:02 p.m. CST
I agree with your antagonism, being the cheap bastard I am, but realistically how else WOULD they profit? I also wonder how much of the "oversaturation" is due to practical matters like page counts? I mean, if they published a single PHB with all the races and classes and powers and etc. they have in the wings, would it make the book even bigger and therefore more expensive? Wouldn't gamers balk at a $75 or $100 PHB? It might just be easier to break it up into Book I, Book II, etc. Though I also think if that's the strategy they should publish them all within at least the same month. That way people who are WILLING to drop the cash can do so.
June 20, 2008, 5:23 p.m. CST
Or subscribing to the DND Insider online. Heck, that's a better way of doing it. That way you're giving people choice: you can play just what's in the books, or you can subscribe and get additional material. People are more likely to subscribe, and it might end up being more profitable.<p> Here's the biggest problem: how many classic adventures can you name that came out from 2nd Edition onwards that gamers would immediately recognize? Classic Adventures is what builds nostalgia, not the game itself. A new generation of gamers may play 4E, but unless there are some classic adventures made, they won't come back for 6E (or try to get their kids involved). And that's why they should focus on adventures, not rulebook supplements.
June 20, 2008, 7:08 p.m. CST
If I was running 4E, this is what I'd say:<p> Core Rulebooks released in Hardcover.<p> Campaign Settings released in Hardcover as well (and no "player's guide to the Realms" either. One hardcover).<p> NO OTHER HARDCOVER RULEBOOKS *EXCEPT* future Monster Manuals. Which you will not need to purchase if you subscribe to:<p> DND Insider. It's a combo of Dragon and Dungeon magazines, and all new rules, races, classes, etc., are printed here. New monsters as well, but they'll be collected every year-and-a-halfish into a hardcover (as previously mentioned). If you don't want to subscribe, you can purchase articles/short adventures for a buck or two. Columns like Sage Advice would always be free.<p> Adventures, adventures, adventures. Softcover (no hardcovers; that's just stupid) adventures on a monthly basis. Sync with the Dungeon mini-adventures (like they did with Keep on the Shadowfell).<p> Softcover Settings books are ok, but should always be optional and should NEVER introduce a new class/race/monster/etc without previously appearing in Dragon article. In other words, it would deliver flavor and NPCs and little else.<p> And of course, dice and tiles and miniatures.<p> I believe that this would be the most successful model. I believe it would be profitable, and that a lot of gamers would appreciate the fact that Wizards is cutting out the BS and worrying about making the adventure the central part of the D&D experience.
June 21, 2008, 1:37 a.m. CST
Keep on the Shadowfell and so far, I really like it. I just bought my fourth edition books today. Looking through the PH and GODDAMN I can not wait to play a Warlock.
June 21, 2008, 4:18 a.m. CST
June 21, 2008, 4:19 a.m. CST
Legalize "FIRST!" and watch it lose its appeal and become extinct, much like "Nuked the Fridge".
June 21, 2008, 9:13 a.m. CST
I think they plan to do *some* of that with the online subscription. Which might be even smarter since then they avoid printing costs. Might be a matter of printing extras in hardcover as a way to funnel gamers to the website. But that's speculation on my part. I'm not entirely sure.
June 21, 2008, 10:13 a.m. CST
But the extraneous hardcovers always contain more. I say: ditch 'em entirely. It also makes it easier for people to start playing later in the lifecycle of an edition. Can you imagine looking at a bookshelf with all the different books ten months ago when you were looking to start playing? You'd more than likely to just give up! Nah, Wizards is on path to make the same mistakes they made last edition, although I am somewhat encouraged that they seem more eager to make adventure modules with this edition. Hopefully that'll continue instead of the umpteenth dungeoneer's survival guide.
June 21, 2008, 10:24 a.m. CST
In the typical D&D edition universe, the stuff in Dragon and Dungeon were always considered extras and very very optional. The hardcovers, though, always had the smack of "canon" (for lack of a better word). So if a Player decides he wants to play a character class in PHB2, the DM is usually stuck with giving the Ok. If, on the other hand, the Player wants to play a class from Dragon Magazine, the DM gets the fun of saying Ah Hell Naw!<p> I think it should be the reverse. I think the Dragon/Dungeon stuff should be considered ongoing supplements to the core (and in some ways DND Insider will be that). And I think the inevitable hardcovers should be variations that only get embraced if the whole party is willing to embrace it.
June 21, 2008, 10:33 a.m. CST
by Mavra Chang
They're having it on July 19th. Did that happen everywhere?
June 21, 2008, 10:53 a.m. CST
that pisses me off is that the online stuff is available to people who have PCs only. Way to exclude the mac audience, Wizards, especially considering that is a lot of college age kids and MOST of the people that I play with. :(
June 21, 2008, 7:30 p.m. CST
But I do own it. I have read it (PHB, DMG, and MM). I'm pushing 40 and I've spent well more than half of of my years as a GM/DM for various RPGs, so I think I'm pretty well fucking qualified to judge an alleged RPG from the printed materials in my possession. <p> Your only defense-- Your only argument-- Is "spoken like someone who hasn't played it." as if I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm sorry, dude, but the materials printed by Wizards is pretty clear, and VERY dumbed-down, so I'm quite sure I understand EXACTLY what I'm talking about. <p> TSR was indeed having troubled, but Wizards didn't "save" them. Wizards bought the name and property, and promptly CHANGED the games to reflect their own business ethics and ideals. What Wizards has made since taking over has NOT been Dungeons & Dragons. Not in spirit. Not in practice. So yes, they bloody well DID kill D&D, and replaced it with a cyclical marketing setup that compels players and DMs to buy as many extra supplements, minis, and books as possible to get the "full" game experience. <p> But hey, don't take my word for it. Just look at Wizards' forums. People are PISSED OFF about D&D 4th Edition. <p> They didn't just change the mechanics. They changed the ideals. They mashed a few different game worlds together to get this new one. They turned halflings into kender. They got rid of half-orcs and brought in what are essentially Dragonlance draconians. They turned elves into faeries. They demoted gnomes to an optional race. They cast of full-fledged, customizable character classes for templates that are broken, and very narrow in their customization. They killed multiclassing. They killed the alignment system. <p> No, man. D&D is dead. THIS game is not D&D. It's a whole new game that resembles a pen & paper version of an MMORPG. It doesn't have the staples of D&D. It doesn't have the open-ended mechanics of D&D. The only way it resembles D&D is that they kept the names of the basic attributes. In almost EVER OTHER WAY this game is a departure from traditional D&D rules and setting. <p> Why did they even call it Dungeons & Dragons? It's clear that what they meant to do here was to combine Chainmail, WoW, and Magic: The Gathering to get a whole new game. <p> I'll re-read the books. But from my first reading, all I see is a lot of total rewrites of the rules and reinventing the wheel, and very little of the D&D game that I played since the late 1970s. <p> Hell, the characters I played in my favorite campaign wouldn't even be POSSIBLE in this current version. <p> Oh, yeah. And Mezzanine is right. There are a ton of us Mac owners out here, and Wizards alienating us isn't helping their cause. If I want to use their PC crap, I'll have to boot into Windows on my MacBook... And at this point I don't think it's worth it.
June 21, 2008, 7:42 p.m. CST
http://tinyurl.com/55cwz4 <p> People are NOT happy with this new D&D in-name-only. <p> I may give it a chance in actual gameplay, but so far, it just seems so dumbed-down that it's not worth the bother.
June 21, 2008, 8:08 p.m. CST
June 22, 2008, 4:01 a.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
You can tell me you UNDERSTAND the game without playing it, but everything you're saying shows me you don't. It shows me that you know how to repeat the same tired arguments, but you've illustrated not one word of comprehension of the system in front of you - especially what's involved with running it. As I said in my initial review, there were things I disliked (even hated) BEFORE I played it. Playing it changed that. Seriously, until you've actually given it a few sessions, you've got very little clue what you're talking about. You're effectively telling people how a car drives just because you've looked under the engine. You haven't felt what it's like behind the wheel, but driving other cars gives you all the knowledge you need. Yeah...you keep going with that...
June 22, 2008, 3:53 p.m. CST
Look, a name is a name. If you want to call 4th Edition D&DINO go ahead. If you want to call 4th Edition the Greatest D&D Evah! no one is stopping you. Although ZC, I have to wonder where you're getting your information. The original D&D had 3 alignments (lawful, neutral, and chaotic) and no multiclasses (heck, races were treated as a class). So from that standpoint, 4th edition has definitely expanded from the original.<p> And yes, I'm being a complete and utter smartass. Well, about the 1st vs 4th thing, not about getting along.
June 23, 2008, 2:11 a.m. CST
What if you met someone who told you that they loved film? And you thought, "Cool, someone I have something in common with." Then they went on to say how much they admire Jerry Bruckheimer's filmmaking skills, Hulk Hogan's acting ability, and the comedy of Carrot Top. Would you think that this kind of person really loves film? The depth and breadth of their film knowledge was something to be admired? Granted, the above individual could be a lot worse. He could enjoy films like Beethoven's 2nd or Son of the Mask. I think analogizing the pen-and-paper game industry with the film industry in this case isnt stretching it too far. D&D and 40k are the gaming equivalents of Bruckheimer films and Pro wrestling. Capable of sometimes spectacular visual effects, but ultimately shallow in their use of the medium. Are games systems such as GURPS, HERO, or even the White Wolf line of games too artsy? Too far out of the mainstream? If you would agree with that they are, I believe it is similar to saying that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or David Cronenberg are too cerebral for the average moviegoer. So there it is. I believe there is a craft in making good RPGs and in playing them. There is little or no craft in D&D 4 or in 40k. Or do you address these games in particular just because their names will be recognized by the average AICNer? If that is the case, it seems as if the averager AICNer could care less about pen and paper RPGs.
June 23, 2008, 2:33 a.m. CST
by Massawyrm 1
I address them because they have new editions coming out - D&D this month and 40K the next. Kind of a big deal. When Gurps and Hero have new editions coming out, I'm sure they'll get mentioned. And read above, dingleberry...I kind of talked about Hunter. As much as could be mentioned from a small demo book. If I can get my hands on that, I'll talk about that too.
June 23, 2008, 5:12 a.m. CST
Is it necessary to insult people? Or are RPGs really played by only 12 year olds and grown men who think they are children? Shall we prove the stereotype? "Kind of" talking about one white wolf game doesnt void my original question as to why only the "big boys" get so much attention from you.
June 24, 2008, 3:31 a.m. CST
Am I going to get some kind of a response or no because this is off the front page?
June 24, 2008, 2:52 p.m. CST
That's what I'm doing with some comments I plan on making
June 24, 2008, 3:23 p.m. CST