Ah, but if you wait a few years, 8.227E will be out, and the 4E books will cost about 5 cents each.

sauromatian wrote:OD&D would have handled it with a 2D6 roll adjusted for Charisma: on a 9-11, the jailer "accepts offer." Whether OD&D or 4e, it's up to the DM's discretion.

Um, no.  What you've stated is for the attempt at hiring an NPC into service, not for getting the party out of hot water.  It doesn't require roleplaying because it takes place during "down time", not during actual gameplay in a dungeon.  I suggest you reread the whole of page 12, but I'll sum up:

* The PC advertises that he wants a hireling
* This costs money and time
* Once a response is received an offer must be made to the hireling
* Then you roll the dice as indicated above to check for success.

One thing that's really getting frusterating is the amount of complete misinterpretation and direct comparison being made between OD&D and 4E.  They might both be round, but they're not both apples, folks.

sauromatian wrote:Thirdly, why should hiring mercenaries be devoid of role-playing?

It shouldn't, obviously.  Hiring mercenaries outside of gameplay (or doing anything else outside of gameplay) is devoid of role-playing.

If you're going to spout nonsense, expect to get called on it.  Presuming to explain to us how 4E is similar to OD&D, on this board, is extremely insulting.  You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

deimos3428 wrote:It shouldn't, obviously.  Hiring mercenaries outside of gameplay (or doing anything else outside of gameplay) is devoid of role-playing.

This is a contradictory statement. We're discussing how to use a chart for the game. Therefore it is part of gameplay.

deimos3428 wrote:Presuming to explain to us how 4E is similar to OD&D, on this board, is extremely insulting.

We are both participants on this board, we are both 'us.' The hobby doesn't belong to any exclusive set of insiders, neither does this forum.

sauromatian wrote:We are both participants on this board, we are both 'us.' The hobby doesn't belong to any exclusive set of insiders, neither does this forum.

Oh, you're one of us?  Excellent!  We were running desperately short on D&D experience around here.  

As one of us, naturally you too would be upset if some moron had the nerve to suggest that the newest bit of fluff from WotC's spew-machine is the equal of the late EGG's pioneering work, no?  The latter are the editions which everyone here seeks to collect and cherish, of course, so if someone wants to make a such a ridiculous statement, they'd best do it elsewhere if they don't want a cold reception.

Thanks for adding your thoughts to the combined thousands of years of shared D&D knowledge on these forums.  Hopefully now we've got enough to cow any such dull-witted fool into silence.  

FormCritic wrote:
1000  Hooray!    

Congratulations, Aneoth!

Thanks.... I dont think I will catch Al though... EVER.

I agree with you, Saruman, but what Deimos and a lot of others, including myself, have an issue with is WoTC labeling it D&D. The ONLY reason they labeled it D&D is to ride on the name built by 1E.

This post might be a little rambly, so bear with me, please. A little about me, first. First time I played this amazing RPG was freshman year of high school, and it was AD&D, orange spine versions. Right about that time AD&D 2nd Ed came out, and I played that more seriously through most of high school. Currently I am involved with a 3.5 edition bi-weekly game as a player and an old school AD&D game bi-weekly as a DM. I've read quite a bit about 4th edition as well, and have pre-ordered it and actually plan on playing it. Here's my take.

First off, whatever edition of rules you use has little impact on the quality or quantity of the role-play in the game. The players and the DM are in complete control of that aspect. Just because 3.5 has skill rules that CAN reduce the RP to a simple die roll, doesn't mean you HAVE to make it that simple. Personally, what I do is use the RP quality as sort of a seat of my pants skill modifier to the roll. So, you may need say a 40 to make the guard just open up the bars and let you out of jail, and that amazing bribe you offered him added a 10 to your roll in concert with your 22 diplomacy skill. Or, your terrible RP added nothing, good luck needing that 18 to succeed. Leaving the die roll aspect at least in the mix, is great, because man, the memories of rolling that CLUTCH nat 20 ring in your head forever hehe.

I actually think the skill set for 3.5 is the best skill rules that have ever been in any D&D game. It could use a couple small tweaks, but hey, what couldn't. From playing AD&D where you ask the DM "Hey, can I swim?" and you get this blank look in response. Or, "what do I need to roll to escape this rope that is binding me?" Hey look! Skills that cover 99% of circumstances! Pretty robust I always thought.

AD&D, if you really go back and look at the game, is very rules light. Very DM led....I mean, if you had a poor DM, man, your game just sucked. Newer rule sets I think give the DM a bit more padding, so he doesn't have to micromanage every possibility. Levelling in AD&D was dull as hell too. Now, you get feats! Skills! Stat points! Huzzah! AD&D? You got next to nothing. One new spell. If you could cast them! A fighter got a die roll for HP, and an extra 5% chance to hit. That's dull and you all know it.

However, all this has it's downsides too. 3.5 is rules bloat to the max. 80 million different ways you can take your PC in 20 different books. Bleh.

4th Edition I see as a bit of the back and forth. Yes, they have developed a product that appeals more to today's youth, used to MMORPGs like WoW, Everquest, etc, and console RPGs like Final Fantasy, etc. Nobody has 10 hp at first level anymore. Things CHANGE. And that's OK. EGG changed the status quo like crazy when he did what he did. Am I comparing the two from a quality or earth shaking standpoint? No, I am just saying change doesn't HAVE to be bad. In this case, I dunno, it looks good guys, so far anyway.

I guess...Oh I dunno. It's still D&D. I hope it opens the eyes of thousands of new players, so THEY can all have similar experiences to me when I first swung an imaginary sword at an imaginary orc. If this game does that, we can't ask for much more now can we??

Zenfinite

P.S. Just taking this moment to pimp my friend Bruce Cordell. He's a writer for WoTC, and does a LOT of modules and stuff. The guy is a great writer, person, all around top notch. Whatever he writes I buy, and I suggest anybody who hasn't checked him out, give him a chance and run an adventure or two from him. It's just really well done. Thanks.

I starting gaming in 1978 or so.  We played 1st edition until 2nd edition came out, and we've played that since then. OD&D?  Never liked it.  Basic D&D?  It's ok if you are playing a pickup game or with kids.  1st Edition AD&D?  I would never go back; not that I won't play a one shot game using the rules but let's face it, it's a quirky SOB that just demands you house rule the hell out of it to make it "comfortable" for your own group.  For me 2E just works; yeh we've houseruled the hell out of it too, but I can make it do pretty much anything I want and it allows me and those I game with not to have to go out and buy new rulebooks every 4 years or so.
  Systems are only as good as your DM.  You could have someone running G1-3 with Grenadier minis using all the 1st ed rulebooks in a suite in Malibu and if the DM sucks, the game is going to suck.  Conversely, you could play Under the Storm Giant's Castle on the deck of a shrimp boat using fish heads for figures and if the DM is on, you're going to have a great time. So all this talk of different editions is just so much verbage.  How good or how bad a game is depends on the gamemaster (and to an extent, the players and their commitment to the game), period.
 That being said, there ARE plenty of forums extolling the virtues of all the advancements of D&D from 2000 on.  The Acaeum is for collectors of old style games, which mean nostalgia is going to triumph any system even if it's easier to use, more elegant, cooler, and has better illustrations.  
 Personally I"m not interested in any D&D rules system past the year 1999, no matter how good it is.  And that's the entire point. 4E could be the absolute direct successor to Gygaxian Fantasy Rules and very few here would bother with it.  Look at Mythus and Lejendary Adventures. Both systems written by EGG, and I'm sure in his mind they were SUPERIOR to anything he did at TSR (after all why write an INFERIOR system to what you have written before?)  Yet very few of us here (Deimos is one, actually) spend any time with those two games.  
  Sure things change, but the majority of people here aren't interested.  I'm not saying 4E won't be great, or that I won't watch a game or two just to get a feel for it, but convincing anyone here that it's somehow better, easier to play, or has the same "feel" as old school D&D is just futile.  If you grew up watching "I Love Lucy" reruns and are a fanatic for the show, someone telling you that "Everybody Loves Raymond" has better actors, better plotlines, a better set, and is in color for gosh sakes, isn't going to make you like it if you are a die hard nostalgia nut.  

Mike B.