Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:D&D is a crappy FRP system. (Score 1) 213

by damiangerous (#40129157) Attached to: <em>Dungeons &amp; Dragons Next</em> Playtest Released

D&D is a crappy game system. Every fifth-level fighter is the same as every other fifth-level fighter. Every ninth-level magic user is the same as every other ninth-level magic user. The only way a character differs from others of the same class and level is in their strength, dexterity, etc., and those are (a) mostly not very important, and (b) generated by rolling dice, which is not very interesting.

When was the last time you played D&D? This hasn't been true since the early days of second edition, back in the late 80's or so. At the very least with Skills & Powers and Combat & Tactics in the mid 90's.

Comment: Re:Quick Summary (Score 1) 213

by damiangerous (#40129125) Attached to: <em>Dungeons &amp; Dragons Next</em> Playtest Released

3rd Ed: I think this was a conscientious effort to really pull the system into a consistent set of mechanics and a rules set that was (by now) more exceptions than rules.
3.5 slutty cash grab

You've got these two backwards. When Wizards bought TSR they decided to do a third edition as a way to modernize the rules and put their own mark on it. However, when Hasbro purchased Wizards in 1999 it put them under a great deal of pressure to get the new edition out ASAP. This led to the great concept and poor execution of third edition, as the development cycle was artificially accelerated. 3.5 was the result of having time to actually finish up the development cycle of what should have been third edition.

Comment: Re:Uh....May Fools Day? (Score 1) 213

by damiangerous (#40129021) Attached to: <em>Dungeons &amp; Dragons Next</em> Playtest Released

Fourth edition was a (relative) failure. Wizards saw their flagship game (no not Magic, the other one) beaten in sales by an iterated version of its very own previous edition (Paizo's Pathfinder). Paizo stole the crown from Wizards as King of the RPG. They improved the parts that fans wanted improved, left the rest alone and put it all in a professional and well designed world. The best developers fled from Wizards en masse, some working for Paizo, many starting their own operations publishing compatible material under the Open Game License (gaming's version of the GPL).

D&D Next is a lot more like third edition than it is like fourth. Wizards wants their crown back. Time will tell if they're just going to be a pale imitator in their own field or if they'll actually pull an innovative iteration of D&D out of this.

Comment: Re:Anything Else? (Score 1) 213

by damiangerous (#40128977) Attached to: <em>Dungeons &amp; Dragons Next</em> Playtest Released

AD&D has been gone for over a dozen years now. Third edition did away with the "advanced" moniker after Wizards of the Coast did away with the red-headed stepchild of the "original" or "basic" D&D line.

Also, I don't know what version of AD&D you played, but I've been playing since about 1980 and no version of AD&D I've ever played did anything close to "simulate realism". The d20 system (refined through 3.0, 3.5 and now Paizo's Pathfinder) does more to "get out of the way of playing the game" than the original first and second editions ever did. They are far more consistent, streamlined and straightforward than the old system.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo