• Welcome to The Campaign Builder's Guild.
 

4E spoilers, courtesy of Rose

Started by Numinous, December 26, 2007, 12:05:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Bill Volk

#15
December 27, 2007, 08:45:10 AM
I think that splitting up elves into two races is an inspired move. 3.X elves were way too many things all at the same time. It was kind of a pain to fit all the "elf baggage" into a setting.

Elemental_Elf

#16
December 27, 2007, 09:01:40 AM
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work.  D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass.  You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.

D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.

But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other. Of course in practice this fails miserably as some classes are inherently more powerful than others. Still, like I said, D&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.

My friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.

From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.

LordVreeg

#17
December 27, 2007, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: LordVreeg
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw
Quote from: Elemental_ElfIts very difficult to simultaneously be everything to everyone and not come out feeling generic.
I kind of feel the problem is that trying to be generic in a system where players have restricted choices just doesn't work.  D&D spends way too much time pre-defining what a PC can do, whereas the fiction characters they supposedly emulate are really much more varied than a low-flexibility archetype can encompass.  You need something like the Generic Classes (SRD or Unearthed Arcana) to even begin to really fit in the many possible characters of fiction and myth.

D&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.

agreed.  The system should be more about building base archetypes and then rules for customizing them to fit the world, not decribing what races or classes are 'in' or 'out' in this month's version of the game.


VerkonenVreeg, The Nice.Celtricia, World of Factions

Steel Island Online gaming thread
The Collegium Arcana Online Game
Old, evil, twisted, damaged, and afflicted.  Orbis non sufficit.Thread Murderer Extraordinaire, and supposedly pragmatic...\"That is my interpretation. That the same rules designed to reduce the role of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting. And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a \'Fantasy Roleplaying game\' to something else\"-Vreeg

Elemental_Elf

#18
December 27, 2007, 09:06:22 AM
Quote from: Bill VolkI think that splitting up elves into two races is an inspired move. 3.X elves were way too many things all at the same time. It was kind of a pain to fit all the "elf baggage" into a setting.


I totally agree with you. D&D Elves were (and I suppose still are (until 4E is released)) so tightly woven into radically different and often opposed themes that creating anything less than the stadard elf and his 40 lbs. of excess baggage felt wrong in some way (not to me, so much as a friend of mine who absolutely *loves* all flavor produced by WotC).

SilvercatMoonpaw

#19
December 27, 2007, 09:06:34 AM
D&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.  That's why the joke about requiring every 3.x supplement to contain a new base class, new PrC, a new feat, a new spell, a new magic item, etc. exists.  It almost sounds as if they aren't even learning their lesson, as they say that they've already planned to release splatbooks just so they can give out new classes and not just new talent trees to customize the ones they already have.

The thing is, D&D could do very well if it stopped trying to be the end-all of fantasy roleplaying.  Other games have tried this and sound very good at what they do.  The Conon d20 RPG, for instance, is not something I'd personally want to play, but from reading the reviews I get a good sense of exactly what it wants to do.  My guess would be that if you tried to use the system for anything other than a solidly Conan-esque style of play it would either trip up or require a bunch of house rules.  And the thing is that D&D suffers from this problem simply because it doesn't clue you in to its limited nature.
I'm a muck-levelist, I like to see things from the bottom.

"No matter where you go, you will find stupid people."

SilvercatMoonpaw

#20
December 27, 2007, 09:25:46 AM
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other.
Unfortunately I fail to see how this has anything to do with the flavor issues of genericness vs. failed-genericness.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfD&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.
Well if the game was kept D&D as if D&D was one way to play out of many then I would be okay.  It's just that D&D keeps getting billed as the system for any sort of pseudo-medieval when it needs a bunch of tweaks to go outside the assumed D&D ideas.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
Either that or acknowledging that their limited number of choices isn't going to fulfill every character idea.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfFrom the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
ARGH!  Mechanics that we now almost nothing about!  We cannot make opinionated guesses about them for fear of being wrong!

Sorry, but I've gotten quite annoyed with the whole "we must wait and see before expressing our opinions" stance.  People are entitled to it, but it really misses the point about having meaningless debates (i.e. it's something to do while you wait).

Anyway: "Training" feats seem like another silly option that in the end misses the mark.  Why have specific feats that let you take options from other classes?  Why not just put those options into a communal pool and have one Varied Training feat?
I'm a muck-levelist, I like to see things from the bottom.

"No matter where you go, you will find stupid people."

Hibou

#21
December 27, 2007, 11:09:33 AM
I for one am going to be putting a fair amount of faith into the new edition. I was skeptical before, but the more I read the more I tend to look forward to the game at least as an improvement over 3.5. One good thing about it is that it will feel "fresh" and might give an incentive to try playing everything again instead of assuming your favorite class/race combo is the same and sticking with it.

I'm really hoping that the core books include a few generic talent trees to fill in the blanks. Since the nature classes seem to be missing, they could have a talent tree or two to help fill that that is generic - you know, something that offers animal companions, favored enemies, passive bonuses in the wilderness, tracking, etc.
[spoiler=GitHub]https://github.com/threexc[/spoiler]

Numinous

#22
December 27, 2007, 12:16:50 PM
Quote from: SovietTrollI'm really hoping that the core books include a few generic talent trees to fill in the blanks. Since the nature classes seem to be missing, they could have a talent tree or two to help fill that that is generic - you know, something that offers animal companions, favored enemies, passive bonuses in the wilderness, tracking, etc.
separate thread[/i] for the dragonborn mammary glands debate?
Previously: Natural 20, Critical Threat, Rose of Montague
- Currently working on: The Smoking Hills - A bottom-up, seat-of-my-pants, fairy tale adventure!

snakefing

#23
December 27, 2007, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.

From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.

From the structural design standpoint, I think the best class in 3.X was the fighter. Because most of the classes abilities came through the bonus feats, you could build quite a number of archetypes with just the base class, by choosing different feat trees. Unfortunately, other classes didn't go the same way.

If I was designing a variant d20 system, I'd probably go in that direction - making all the classes gain abilities through bonus feats. Say, every level you gain a feat. Most levels, that feat has to be selected from class-related feats, although at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. you can choose any (non-restricted) feat from any class or the general list. Your class only comes into play by which feats are class-related. Setting-specific details can be added by creating new class lists, restricting availability of certain feats, etc.

I think that designing a spell system requires making some assumptions about the setting. But I'd still prefer a situation where spell-casting is driven by skills and/or feats rather than being a whole separate sub-system. It might be easier to balance that way.

I'll be most interested to see the changes in the spell system for largely this reason. The Vancian spell system was awfully rigid, and very difficult to customize for a setting and remain balanced.
My Wiki

My Unitarian Jihad name is: The Dagger of the Short Path.
And no, I don't understand it.

Epic Meepo

#24
December 27, 2007, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.

Various D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support any setting and portray any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
The Unfinished World campaign setting
Proud recipient of a Silver Dorito Award.
Unless noted otherwise, this post contains no Open Game Content.
[spoiler=OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a]OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.

13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Doument Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Walker.

Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.

Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

Epic Meepoââ,¬â,,¢s forum posts at www.thecbg.org Copyright 2006-2007, E.W. Morton.

Cebexia, Tapestry of the Gods Copyright 2006-2007, the Campaign Builder's Guild.[/spoiler]

Numinous

#25
December 27, 2007, 03:28:13 PM
Update:Added Moradin and the dragon gods to the Deities.  Filled in the Empires section.
Previously: Natural 20, Critical Threat, Rose of Montague
- Currently working on: The Smoking Hills - A bottom-up, seat-of-my-pants, fairy tale adventure!

SilvercatMoonpaw

#26
December 27, 2007, 03:37:20 PM
Quote from: Epic MeepoI have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.
I've never gotten that feeling.  The fact that the names of races and classes are things you could pull out of random fantasy books rather than trying to be new is just an example of the factors.
Quote from: Epic MeepoVarious D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support any setting and portray any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
I think we're disagreeing on what "generic fantasy" means.  I take it to mean having a certain range but not a complete range.  In D&D's case it acts (through what it contains) like it can encompass a broad range of popular fantasy visions.  I just think that pre-defined statistics just don't cut it.
I'm a muck-levelist, I like to see things from the bottom.

"No matter where you go, you will find stupid people."

Elemental_Elf

#27
December 27, 2007, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw
Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D's failing isn't just that it's too generic, it's that it's bad at being too generic.
But that's the nature of the game. The Company gives us predetermined classes and we accept them because the classes are supposedly balanced off each other.
Unfortunately I fail to see how this has anything to do with the flavor issues of genericness vs. failed-genericness.

I was referring to your statement about how predetermined PCs actions are and how they have a lack of options. A big reason each player can do only so much is due in large part to his/her class choice. Each class is limited in options because WotC makes decisions about classes you, as a player, have no control over. Because you lack control, many of the heroic fantasy tropes are lost. Thus we either accept that they are lost and hope that in the end the classes are balanced off each other (so no one feels superior to anyone else) or design out own game. Sadly, most people choose the former.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw
Quote from: Elemental_ElfD&D is many things to many people. Changing anything will invariably ruin 'D&D-ness' to someone.
Well if the game was kept D&D as if D&D was one way to play out of many then I would be okay.  It's just that D&D keeps getting billed as the system for any sort of pseudo-medieval when it needs a bunch of tweaks to go outside the assumed D&D ideas.
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.
Either that or acknowledging that their limited number of choices isn't going to fulfill every character idea.

They could do that but they won't. D&D is, at least as far as I can see, attempting to be the flagship for fantasy RPGs. If they admit D&D can only truely work for particular sub-sets of fantasy, than its self hoisted position as flagship will be diminished. And that's the last thing WotC wants right now.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw
Quote from: Elemental_ElfFrom the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
ARGH!  Mechanics that we now almost nothing about!  We cannot make opinionated guesses about them for fear of being wrong!

Sorry, but I've gotten quite annoyed with the whole "we must wait and see before expressing our opinions" stance.  People are entitled to it, but it really misses the point about having meaningless debates (i.e. it's something to do while you wait).

Anyway: "Training" feats seem like another silly option that in the end misses the mark.  Why have specific feats that let you take options from other classes?  Why not just put those options into a communal pool and have one Varied Training feat?

Lol, meaningless debates are often the best debates :)

WotC won't do that because, IMO, their theme with 4E is to make it accessible and easy for new players to play. Giving a new player a communal pot of abilities with little restrictions is a forumla for him making a bad character. Which in turn might mean he will quit because D&D becomes 'too confusing.'

If your goal is to make the game accessible to new players, than it needs rigid structure which means predetermined classes. If your goal is to appeal to the older generation, than a communal pot of talent trees would probably be the way to go. If your goal is to do both, than meet in the middle and make semi-rigid classes for newbies but at the same time make multi-classing easier so older players can make the character they want to more easily.

Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.

IMO, people see D&D's flavor as generic because they have been playing D&D for many years. Everything becomes stale after a time. Add to this games like WoW that copy some of the core flavor of D&D and its not that hard to see why some believe D&D is generic. But then again, what is generic fantasy? Is it copying Tolkien or some of the other first fantasy writers? Is it merely having Orcs and Elves? Is it having medieval tech with magic? I have not seen any argument or justification about what generic fantasy really is (not just here but on other forums).  Until that matter is settled, no one can say this or that is or isn't generic because you could be talking about two different types of generic.

Quote from: snakefing
Quote from: Elemental_ElfMy friends and I often use generic classes to capture that 'this is our real character' feel. I find the generic class system to be wholly superior to the normal classes. Personally, I think giving people set parameters (such as a small number of classes) but each of those classes possessing a near infinite possibilities for customization is what WotC should be aiming for.

From the looks of it, WotC is coming half-way by introducing training feats as well as making multi-classing easier. Granted it isn't perfect but its an improvement over 3.X.
From the structural design standpoint, I think the best class in 3.X was the fighter. Because most of the classes abilities came through the bonus feats, you could build quite a number of archetypes with just the base class, by choosing different feat trees. Unfortunately, other classes didn't go the same way.

If I was designing a variant d20 system, I'd probably go in that direction - making all the classes gain abilities through bonus feats. Say, every level you gain a feat. Most levels, that feat has to be selected from class-related feats, although at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. you can choose any (non-restricted) feat from any class or the general list. Your class only comes into play by which feats are class-related. Setting-specific details can be added by creating new class lists, restricting availability of certain feats, etc.

I think that designing a spell system requires making some assumptions about the setting. But I'd still prefer a situation where spell-casting is driven by skills and/or feats rather than being a whole separate sub-system. It might be easier to balance that way.

I'll be most interested to see the changes in the spell system for largely this reason. The Vancian spell system was awfully rigid, and very difficult to customize for a setting and remain balanced.


You took the words out of my mouth.

Classes should be defined by a player choice of an ability/feat, rather than by a predetermined ability/feat. It opens the door to so much more customization and personalization if the player is given more choices. This is one reason why I liked the Star Wars SAGA. Granted many abilities were predetermined but each of the talent tree paths (especially for the Jedi) were very flavorful and were very different. A Character would look very different if he went straight Sentinel compared to a person who went some what into Sentinle and some what into Guardian. If you add bonus feats to this mix then you really have a good system going for you.

As for the spells, I too am curious how it will work. IMO, it will probably be similar to a mix of Jedi Force Powers and more traditional spells by level system we all know from 3.5 (not vancian just certain spells have levels at which they become available).
 

LordVreeg

#28
December 27, 2007, 04:26:07 PM
Quote from: Epic Meepo
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawD&D isn't generic fantasy, it's just trying to be and falling all over itself.
I have to disagree with this statement. Everything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics. Bashing D&D for not being generic fantasy is like bashing Shadowrun for not being generic fantasy. Neither of them is - nor has either ever claimed to be - generic fantasy.

Various D&D rulebooks do say that you can adapt D&D to support worlds of different time periods, cultural backgrounds, and cosmologies. And D&D rulebooks do say that classes represent certain popular archetypes. But a claim that a game can support various settings and portray certain popular archetypes is not the same as a claim that a game can support any setting and portray any popular archetype. D&D has never made that latter claim.
No, they never claim that they are the most flexible and or that they support every whim of every designer.  They merely do what any larger company does to smaller companies, they use their position (through websites, continual updates, and teasers that fanboys write about on the blogs and fanpages...and setting design sites) to infer that their product is better and more desirable than everyone elses.  And by the interest in this one thread, there must be something to that.

But I'm frankly impressed by how many people seem to looking forward to this. People ponder about changing the games they play based purely on WotC coming out with a new blueprint that is certainly becoming less and less applicable to other settings.  I somehow don't think there would be a list of threads and comments if Shadowrun did announce a reinvention, so the comparison may be less valid.    
 
VerkonenVreeg, The Nice.Celtricia, World of Factions

Steel Island Online gaming thread
The Collegium Arcana Online Game
Old, evil, twisted, damaged, and afflicted.  Orbis non sufficit.Thread Murderer Extraordinaire, and supposedly pragmatic...\"That is my interpretation. That the same rules designed to reduce the role of the GM and to empower the player also destroyed the autonomy to create a consistent setting. And more importantly, these rules reduce the Roleplaying component of what is supposed to be a \'Fantasy Roleplaying game\' to something else\"-Vreeg

Epic Meepo

#29
December 27, 2007, 05:15:57 PM
Quote from: Epic MeepoEverything that I have heard from D&D designers supports the fact that D&D is its own specific genre of fantasy; it is only meant to work for worlds specifically designed to support D&D mechanics.
I've never gotten that feeling.  The fact that the names of races and classes are things you could pull out of random fantasy books rather than trying to be new is just an example of the factors.[/quote]this post[/url] by D&D designer Mike Mearls:
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think we're disagreeing on what "generic fantasy" means.  I take it to mean having a certain range but not a complete range.  In D&D's case it acts (through what it contains) like it can encompass a broad range of popular fantasy visions.
I don't see a broad range of fantasy visions in D&D at all. I see a high-magic sword and sorcery wargame with a bit of exploration and roleplaying added in. If D&D has fully-developed rules for any other fantasy vision, I have yet to see them.
The Unfinished World campaign setting
Proud recipient of a Silver Dorito Award.
Unless noted otherwise, this post contains no Open Game Content.
[spoiler=OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a]OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a
The following text is the property of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. and is Copyright 2000 Wizards of the Coast, Inc ("Wizards"). All Rights Reserved.

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute; (d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity. (e) "Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content; (f) "Trademark" means the logos, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Game License by the Contributor (g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content. (h) "You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

6.Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity.

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

10 Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.

11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so.

12 Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Game Material so affected.

13 Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

14 Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Doument Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Walker.

Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.

Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

Epic Meepoââ,¬â,,¢s forum posts at www.thecbg.org Copyright 2006-2007, E.W. Morton.

Cebexia, Tapestry of the Gods Copyright 2006-2007, the Campaign Builder's Guild.[/spoiler]
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions