Thursday, May 29, 2008

The LotFP Promise!

No regular blog today, but the hot topic right now is you know what.

I give you a solemn promise... I won't look at it. I won't play it. From this point forward, I'm not even going to mention it on this blog. Ever.

I mean, heck, I haven't looked at a 3.x book since 2000.

(...and I haven't listened to a new Metallica album since 1991... so... you know... I'm hardly one to bother with things I already know I'll hate. If I've missed something good? I don't give a fuck, I've already got good things, and there is nothing, nothing, nothing in all the publicity to suggest that the new stuff will satisfy like the old stuff... which was 1989 for D&D, and 1986 for Metallica, really...)

12 comments:

  1. That's a pity, because the word among the indie crowd is that it's the closest the company's come to 1E/OD&D in 20 years, and is a repudiation of the 2E paradigm and the complexities of 3.X

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unless it has the same literary traditions that gave birth to D&D in the 70s, I don't see how it can be anything close to delivering the same feel.

    ... and if it's not even close to being compatible with the old stuff, then I don't even know the definition of "close" that people would be using.

    Castles and Crusades was "close."

    Every preview I've seen, and the comments from people in the past couple days that have seen the thing, holds this new thing to be pure action game that's all about the encounter.

    ... and wasn't one of the big deals about the indie crowd in the first place calling D&D "incoherent"?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unless it has the same literary traditions that gave birth to D&D in the 70s, I don't see how it can be anything close to delivering the same feel.

    Bingo.

    More to the point, I doubt most of the people crowing about 4e's supposed closeness to OD&D/AD&D have any direct experience with playing either of those games, so I take such comments with a huge grain of salt.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi!

    I don't think that you will miss something. As far as I know until know (and I know), 4e IS NOT D&D. Why? Well, I read a lot in blogs and forums, and all I read is about rules this and rules that. Since I recently began DMing a Hackmaster group with the aim of capturing an "old-school atmosphere and spirit", I began reading stuff from the people who created and played 30 D&D years ago (blogs, forums,...). So for me, the main difference in the editions are:
    1. The world the editions try to create. 1st edition is about creating world like Conan, Middle-Earth, Dragonlance (I know that this came later) - classic Sword&Sorcery. They tried to capture these world, even if there was't a thing called "balance"(in the newer sense). The 3rd and 4th editions are about super powers, like in WoW, Manga, Comics, Video-Games,game-balance (equal power=equal fun) and they take their inspirations from there.
    2. This point is more important. I think that the newer editions are more about rules-lawyering. It is built into the system as an axiom. They say:"These are the rules, except them, and ask us if there are some rules missing." Go see the Wizards forum if you want to see what I mean (FAQ, build-threads...). In the older editions, rules-lawyering was despised (see the dragonsfoor-thread). It was about:"Your imagination is the limit". No rules there for something - go make them up, decide it on the fly. Older editions were about liberties. The newer ones are about taking them away.

    These are the reasons (for me), why 4e is not D&D for me. Not because rule xy is handled in this or that way.

    Btw, 4e is absolutly combat-focused, it's a WoW/MTG/Anime/3.5 hybrid.

    Frank

    P.S.:What do you think of AD&D 2nd? And why don't you like the black album?

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's a pity, because the word among the indie crowd is that it's the closest the company's come to 1E/OD&D in 20 years, and is a repudiation of the 2E paradigm and the complexities of 3.X

    I have browsed some preview copies, and I am quite certain that anybody who says that is dead wrong.

    Stop dissing Metallica 2e, Jim! :)

    http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4274&start=0

    ReplyDelete
  6. Metallica after Master of Puppets... hmmm... And Justice For All was a good try, but it wasn't so epic, just repetitive. I like a couple songs on there, that's all. The Black Album... shiny and easily digestible. A pop album with big guitars.

    AD&D2E? Nothing against it, at least before they added all the kits and "skills and powers" and all that. It was perfectly compatible with all the old stuff, even if all the life had been drained from the presentation. I'm surprised we didn't see "A Paladin in Heck!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eh, all I am saying is that it's one thing to say, "4E isn't for me" having tried to engage with it in good faith, and "4E isn't for me" based on hearsay.

    Marketing and internet blather may be a basis for a first impression, but it seems silly (to me at least) to make these blanket statements based solely on hype and anti-hype.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marketing and internet blather may be a basis for a first impression, but it seems silly (to me at least) to make these blanket statements based solely on hype and anti-hype.

    I agree, but on the other hand are we obligated to try every RPG on the market before commenting on what we think of the rules as written? It may well be a good game (and from what I hear the miniature based combat is a lot of fun), but having given the rules a good lookover it's obvious it isn't for me.

    Regardless, my point was that it is in no shape or form closer to OD&D or 1e than 2e was.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "are we obligated to try every RPG on the market before commenting on what we think of the rules as written?"

    No, of course not: but by not making blanket statements, I meant something like, "I would rather DIE!!!! than play this game, for it is the tool of LAMENESS! Never, fair friends, will I ever sully my lips by speaking its name!"

    I mean, to the extent such statements are intended to parody FUD in the gamer community, great! but if it's intended sincerely, it greatly weakens the credibility of the speaker.

    I don't think I'm the market for 4e either, and in any event I don't have the money to spend on it. But I'm not crapping my pants with fury, either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I would rather DIE!!!! than play this game, for it is the tool of LAMENESS! Never, fair friends, will I ever sully my lips by speaking its name!"

    I didn't see anyone say that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For several months RPG.Net has been fuming over how crummy 4e is going to be and how no worthy gamer will ever pick it up.

    I saw James Raggi's comments as part of that discourse.

    This is more energy than I want to put into defending a game I don't intend to play, though.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My problem with the new edition isn't whatever it is... it's the fact that it's got "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover when it so obviously only has the most tenuous connections to what Dungeons and Dragons was for so many years.

    I hate pretty much all "re-imaginings" and reboots and things of that nature in general. If you have a new idea, great... call it something new.

    If you can't get any more blood from a particular stone... then let it die.

    Creative work as "intellectual property" and a "brand name" to slap all over anything... man, that's the kind of thing that makes me want the nukes to start flying just to see if the cockroaches can make a better go of it... this whole fascination with "shiny and new" and "total convenience at your fingertips" and "the past doesn't exist, everything is NOW or its OUT!" has to end, on a societal level, because the world the marketers are trying (and succeeding) to make just isn't worth living in.

    ReplyDelete