I am on the playtest list (real name is in the B's). They finally gave us permission to confirm that fact, although we are not allowed to discuss specifics under the NDA until June. I don't want to be part of the ongoing flame war over 4E, and I don't want WotC coming after me, so all I will say is that I am very happy with the direction of Pathfinder and will not be converting to 4E any time soon.
As part of a decision whether or not to have a 4e game, I ran Keep on the Shadowfell for our group last night and my first reaction was to remember this thread and the comments of playtesters wareaglemage and yoda8myhead.
I found myself in complete agreement with their expressed sentiments in this thread and I'm more satisfied and confident than ever with my choice to be a Pathfinder GM.
...The game isnt less lethal, its less swingy. If your campaign calls for character death for whatever reason, it might be easier to orchestrate it than it was before.
I like your adjective -- less swingy. It's a good description of what they tried to do, and apparently they've succeeded.
But it is less lethal. WotC has said so, and said it was a specific goal of the redesign process.
But, for what it's worth, I agree with your other points :)
Regards
I think trying to adhere to strange traditions is one of 3rd Edition's greatest weaknesses.
I agree 1000%.
However, no one is being left behind. They are choosing to get off the wagon, or at least hopping on a different one. Wizards didnt say that, no, you cant play with us, or boot you off. If you arent going to play 4th Edition, then you made that choice yourself. They cant please everyone out there...
I can't agree here, and I think this unfairly describes the position of 3.5 players. WotC is changing D&D -- they got on a different wagon. We can follow or get left behind.
The thing is, 4th Edition IS D&D. It allows for the exact same experiences that you had before, even if some mechanics are different. People can choose to complain about the strangest things. Gnomes are in the MM, the default cosmology isnt the same, monsters dont have Hit Dice (oh noes!), and wizards can attempt to do useful things most of the time. The fact remains that its still D&D.
But for many the fluff is the experience -- mechanics are just a tool to get there.
Grey elves are gone, unless I fix it. Succubi aren't chaotic, unpredictable demons anymore, unless I fix it. Tieflings, if I don't like them, will probably have to be painstakingly edited out of every supplement from now until eternity. Mind flayers will have a different set of abilities. If I liked Vancian magic (which I personally think would be crazy), I'm really out of luck -- that would be a hard fix.
Those things may not matter to you -- that's fine. But they might matter to me -- that should be fine, too. Telling me I'm getting the same thing I always have dismisses me and my preferences.
When you say "4e is D&D," that's just a label. Had Hasbro taken Monopoly and renamed it D&D, I'd be able to make the same claim, and been equally correct. But for many, the D&D experience is most certainly going to change.
Regards :)
|
But for many, the D&D experience is most certainly going to change.
But that was true when AD&D came out, when 2e came out, and when 3e came out. It was true when Forgotten Realms came along. It was true when Spelljammer hit the shelves. etc.
D&D has been nothing but change starting with Greyhawk and Blackmoor.
But for many, the D&D experience is most certainly going to change.
But that was true when AD&D came out, when 2e came out, and when 3e came out. It was true when Forgotten Realms came along. It was true when Spelljammer hit the shelves. D&D has been nothing but change starting with Greyhawk and Blackmoor.
OK. What does that have to do with my post?
|
I think both Mike and the OP have it wrong here. Most of the people I've seen posting here about PF have already tried 4th and decided that they did not like it. There is plenty of 4th ed materials out there if you look for it and there is certainly enough to play through a 1st level adventure, which I and my group have done. We, and yes that was all of the people in my group ranges from ages of 16 to 38, did not like it. None of us thought 4th was particularly fun, although it did have some fun elements.
The fact is that the fun elements that are in 4th could have been included into 3.5 without making the game like a MMORPG, which is what 4th feels like. Those of us here I think feel that PF is, at least, on it's way to finding that balance between the new elements and keeping what worked from 3.5.
This is what my playtest group has said from the beginning. No one really enjoyed the game, even if certain aspects were faster and some good ideas were present. It's just too far flung from the various versions of D&D we've all played for the past 30 years. Sure, it's cool to have some of the various abilities and powers and things, but it's not enough to make the game as a whole fun. None of the elements congealed into the desired result.
This whole WotC playtest has been bogus since day one. I have been playtesting since October, and of the six people in my group, only three were actually listed as playtesters. I'm sort of glad my name was left off, though, as WotC's complete disregard for comments, critiques and feedback makes me want no credit for the finished product.
I had suspected that the random outside playtests had nothing to do with improving the game, and everything to do with giving fans the illusion of input. In other words, it was just PR with no substance. All smoke and mirrors. You just confirmed that for me. It's all about what the designers want, and the fans are just supposed to follow along blindly like sheep. I am so glad we have Pathfinder!
|
|
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
They've said that repeatedly. They published two preview books that said that. They've posted online and said that. They wrote web articles that said that. They blogged about it. They responded to emails about it. What more could they have done?
It's largely been the fans that have been doing the namecalling, not WotC. WotC called the system broken, but they backed those statements up.
Actually, the meassage that has come across, from the designers (intentionally or not) has been. "The game we made for you years ago and its many supplements are garbage. If you are still playing that game, you are'nt having fun. If you think you are having fun there must be something wrong with you, and you are a grognard. Our new edition will save you from that horrible 3.5 game. We can't tell you why, but you'll have to trust us."
The game we made for you years ago and its many supplements are garbage. If you are still playing that game, you are'nt having fun... Our new edition will save you from that horrible 3.5 game.
That's one of the things that has me most irritated about WotC -- the obvious marketing language, sometimes at their own expense. It was the best thing since slice bread until 4e came out. Now it's fundamentally flawed.
When were they lying, then or now?
|
|
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
They've said that repeatedly. They published two preview books that said that. They've posted online and said that. They wrote web articles that said that. They blogged about it. They responded to emails about it. What more could they have done?
It's largely been the fans that have been doing the namecalling, not WotC. WotC called the system broken, but they backed those statements up.
Mearls calling those who don't agree with him idealogues (or ideologues, whichever he meant) isn't name-calling? Andy Collins saying the games we've all been playing (with the 3.5 update he pushed through) are broke -- and by implication, that we'd be idiots for enjoying them -- isn't name-calling?
Look. I was initially over the moon when I heard 4E was coming out. I read every last blog post with excitement, until more and more announcements came about decisions I don't care for. But what really turned me off was the intellectual dishonesty of those Web updates, and the preview books, etc. etc. that amounted to little more than "This is the coolest thing EVAR, the natural evolution of the game, blah, blah" with virtually no substantive discussion about the repercussions of the choices being made. The benefits of the 4E approach very well may outweigh the drawbacks for many, many players. But I expect a more honest acknowledgement of the system's limitations, and a more sincere recognition of the players being written out of the audience than accusations that those players just don't recognize super-duper 4E fun when it's shoved down their throats.
Yeesh. I haven't been this riled by 4E propaganda for weeks. And now Pathfinder's got Monte!
You've echoed my sentiments with this post. I probably got off of the 4E bandwagon quicker than you. I'd say I was done after the first few tidbits I heard about 4E. The condescending tone, and the arrogance of the designers probably had as much or more to do with it than the actual changes. I was already ticked off about WotC killing the magazines (the e-zines are in no way a suitable replacement), and they had the gall to say things like, "You can shake your fist at the cloud (4E) but it's still going to pass by." and "If you use the profession skill, your games probably aren't that fun."
|
|
There is a huge difference between listening to customers, and making a new product entirely based on customer feedback.Henry Ford once said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
Except Henry Ford didn't try to say that it was a "new, improved horse." It was obvious to everyone that it was something completely different. Like many people said before, if WotC had made a new RPG called World of Dungeoncraft to sell alongside D&D instead of trying to replace D&D with this new game, it would have gone over a lot better. Then if World of Dungeoncraft outsold D&D by leaps and bounds, they could discontinue D&D because it wasn't worth the expense.
Monte is more of a hindrance, especially if he gets in on mechanics.
Monte is more of a hindrance, especially if he gets in on mechanics.
How so?
|
|
But for many, the D&D experience is most certainly going to change.But that was true when AD&D came out, when 2e came out, and when 3e came out. It was true when Forgotten Realms came along. It was true when Spelljammer hit the shelves. D&D has been nothing but change starting with Greyhawk and Blackmoor.OK. What does that have to do with my post?
The experience may change but that does not make 4e any less D&Dish than any other edition since each one has altered the nature of the game.
Arrogance of designers.
Bad PR.
Not real D&D.
This stuff doesn't change my wanting to read the rules in full and won't change my decision to run a game using them.
Sorry, not seeing it. I'm seeing these things elsewhere but not from 4E.
OK. What does that have to do with my post?
The experience may change but that does not make 4e any less D&Dish than any other edition since each one has altered the nature of the game.
This is getting absurd.
The experience offered by the game has changed. I said it, you said it, WotC has said it. It has been changed enough to (deliberately) alter how people feel about the game. I claimed nothing more than that many would feel differently.
But still you bicker with me.
That D&D has changed before is not the point, and is not relevant. Nor did I suggest otherwise. There are people that feel D&D hasn't been as good since AD&D 1e was discontinued. I am not so arrogant, condescending, and dismissive to suggest they are wrong in their opinions and choices. Nor will I condemn those that believe that 4e (or any other version) is flawed -- why must you?
|
|
OK. What does that have to do with my post?The experience may change but that does not make 4e any less D&Dish than any other edition since each one has altered the nature of the game.This is getting absurd.
It sounded as if you were one of the many saying that 4e is not "real" D&D. I am sorry if i misunderstood.
Nor will I condemn those that believe that 4e (or any other version) is flawed -- why must you?
I am glad that you will not condem yourself.
Shesh!
You feel that WOTC is run by a bunch of idoits and that 4e is a smoking pile of you know what.
We get it.
Move on to something else please.
It sounded as if you were one of the many saying that 4e is not "real" D&D. I am sorry if i misunderstood.
Fair enough.
Many have noted, and I also believe, that you have provided a great deal of intelligent, thoughtful input on these boards. I have, at times disagreed with your opinions, but I also admit to having become overly-sensitive on this subject. Please forgive me when I get too aggressive.
I tend to argue both sides of the coin, also. That may lead to confusion about what I think and feel.
For the record, I expect 4e to be an excellent ruleset that corrects a huge number of long-standing shortfalls the rules have always suffered from. At the same time, I think WotC has failed to appreciate the emotional attachment to "fluff" that thirty years of play has produced in the RPG community.
IMO they should have overhauled the rules -- they've done that, and seem to have done that well. At the same time, I think they should have left most of the fluff intact. New campaign settings are a safer and more appropriate place to introduce such elements. Certainly old, established settings are BAD places to radically overhaul background material.
In any event, thank you for you response, and accept my apology for any offense I have offered.
Regards :)
Except Henry Ford didn't try to say that it was a "new, improved horse." It was obvious to everyone that it was something completely different. Like many people said before, if WotC had made a new RPG called World of Dungeoncraft to sell alongside D&D instead of trying to replace D&D with this new game, it would have gone over a lot better. Then if World of Dungeoncraft outsold D&D by leaps and bounds, they could discontinue D&D because it wasn't worth the expense.There is a huge difference between listening to customers, and making a new product entirely based on customer feedback.Henry Ford once said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
(I'm back. For a while)
No,
Calling 4E anything else than D&D would be the worst marketing decision ever.
Why? Because WotC has zero intention of continuing to support 3.5.
Before announcing "World of Dungeoncraft" or whatever, WotC would have to announce that D&D is dead.
Don't underestimate two factors:
- The power of the brand D&D. You can be sure that much more people in the world have heard of "Dungeons & Dragons" than people who heard off "Wizards of the Coasts".
- The emotional attachment that D&D players have with D&D.
If WotC had said that they "oficially killed D&D", that would piss off every D&D fan. Including those who are pro-4E now.
Not only that; it also won't be able to attract new players without the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand.
Do you believe that World of Warcraft would be so sucessful if didn't have "Warcraft" on its name? Or that all those Star Wars games from Lucasarts would be sucessful if they were called "Spatial Battles" instead?
Besides... D&D 4E is not an entirely different game. It's just a very different game. It's actually far more similar to D&D 3.5 than OD&D is with 3.5, and no one would dare to say that OD&D isn't D&D.
Sorry, not seeing it. I'm seeing these things elsewhere but not from 4E.
I don't know if you meant the "Bad PR blah blah blah" that I wrote but if you did I'm not trying to milk the hate and I'm not testifying. I'm just saying I don't care what anyone says, good or bad.
I'm waiting for my books.
I am glad that you will not condem yourself... You feel that WOTC is run by a bunch of idoits and that 4e is a smoking pile of you know what. We get it.
Evidently you don't -- despite how often I've posted. Read my posts more carefully before jumping on me, please.
Two more weeks.
I didn't mean you Kruelaid; I posted intemperately. It's just that other gaming companies can equally be said to have these flaws.
...I posted intemperately.
A great many of us do that nowadays. (pointing finger at myself)
|
|
For the record, I expect 4e to be an excellent ruleset that corrects a huge number of long-standing shortfalls the rules have always suffered from. At the same time, I think WotC has failed to appreciate the emotional attachment to "fluff" that thirty years of play has produced in the RPG community.
IMO they should have overhauled the rules -- they've done that, and seem to have done that well. At the same time, I think they should have left most of the fluff intact. New campaign settings are a safer and more appropriate place to introduce such elements. Certainly old, established settings are BAD places to radically overhaul background material.
In any event, thank you for you response, and accept my apology for any offense I have offered.
Regards :)
No worries. Thanks for the apology but truly - none was needed. I did misunderstand your post and so I am to blame for this little bit of argie-bargie.
I also agree that they should have been more prudent in their choice to change the Realms. But I don't get that worked up over it since I have never been an FR fan, and i just don't get that worked up over fluff changes any way.
Cheers!
I am glad that you will not condem yourself... You feel that WOTC is run by a bunch of idoits and that 4e is a smoking pile of you know what. We get it.Evidently you don't -- despite how often I've posted. Read my posts more carefully before jumping on me, please.
Sorry about that. Post retracted.
I would rather just talk about the game that 'we' all enjoy playing. It's D&D in what ever form it might be at the moment. Right now I am excited about 4e and want to discuss it. I will hold any judgements until I get to play it for a couple of months.
Let's return to our previously scheduled program.
Um, I expect my hobby game company to act in a more honest and forthright manner than Microsoft?
I have a bridge for sale mate, come on over, and we will discuss the specifics.
Look, I understand that they're out to make money, but that doesn't mean they have to sling the BS so thick.
What BS? Could you provide a link?
Obviously, Paizo's decision to not directly support 4E has alienated some customers, the same way WotC divorced a significant chunk of the D&D player-base when it opted to toss 30 years of game history in the holy name of gamism.
Every edition change has alienated a small chunk of customers. Nothing new there. Only difference is that now they have internet access and the opportunity to b~#+! about it.
But Paizo seems to be doing pretty damn well without name-calling their previous customers. They're able to call a spade a spade (ie "We're not digging the direction of 4E, we think others agree with us, so we're catering to them") without resorting to "OMG! Pathfinder is so awesome!!!!! It's got gnomes!!!! It's so much better than 4E it's like the second coming of Gygax!!!!!"
I will agree that Paizo are more subtle, but it's there. Even though I am not a native speaker, it is quite easy to find.
It also helps that they consulted their customers about their desires rather than designing a radically different game in secret, then telling them what was best for them.
Yeah, makes sense. Except that WotC is developing a brand new game, and they might not want to share all the innovations they make. Paizo is merely patching WoTC's old game. Not to mention that maybe, just maybe Paizo does this simply because they do not have the resources to do it to the extend they want, without the help of the public.
The reason that I've largely written off WotC as a company is not because they feel the need to pimp their product, but because they seem unable to do so without calling those who disagree with them or have concerns whiners and dinosaurs. Hell -- look at some of the recent feedback from playtesters on ENWorld. Those who wrote in concerns about some of the 4E changes have said they were basically written off as "simulationists" and ignored.
Link please. I read about 1000 posts a day on 4e at Enworld, and I have never seen this.
I'd just like WotC to be more honest and say, "There were several different approaches we could have taken, we chose X because of A, B, and C. We understand it's not for everyone, but we think this is the best way to go as a business."
If you had actually followed and read about 4e, you would have noticed they had done so a gazillion times.
Sorry about that. Post retracted... I would rather just talk about the game that 'we' all enjoy playing. It's D&D in what ever form it might be at the moment.
Apology accepted. Please accept mine -- I've been sniping too, and it affects everyone.
Regards :)
Can't we all just get along?
Oh wait, we are!
Don't get used to it, smart-alecks!
:P
|
|
Except Henry Ford didn't try to say that it was a "new, improved horse." It was obvious to everyone that it was something completely different. Like many people said before, if WotC had made a new RPG called World of Dungeoncraft to sell alongside D&D instead of trying to replace D&D with this new game, it would have gone over a lot better. Then if World of Dungeoncraft outsold D&D by leaps and bounds, they could discontinue D&D because it wasn't worth the expense.There is a huge difference between listening to customers, and making a new product entirely based on customer feedback.Henry Ford once said "If I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."(I'm back. For a while)
No,
Calling 4E anything else than D&D would be the worst marketing decision ever.
Why? Because WotC has zero intention of continuing to support 3.5.
Before announcing "World of Dungeoncraft" or whatever, WotC would have to announce that D&D is dead.
Don't underestimate two factors:
- The power of the brand D&D. You can be sure that much more people in the world have heard of "Dungeons & Dragons" than people who heard off "Wizards of the Coasts".
- The emotional attachment that D&D players have with D&D.
If WotC had said that they "oficially killed D&D", that would piss off every D&D fan. Including those who are pro-4E now.
Not only that; it also won't be able to attract new players without the "Dungeons & Dragons" brand.
Do you believe that World of Warcraft would be so sucessful if didn't have "Warcraft" on its name? Or that all those Star Wars games from Lucasarts would be sucessful if they were called "Spatial Battles" instead?
Besides... D&D 4E is not an entirely different game. It's just a very different game. It's actually far more similar to D&D 3.5 than OD&D is with 3.5, and no one would dare to say that OD&D isn't D&D.
I understand that it would be bad marketing to not call it D&D. Of course, the so called marketing they have employed has been so bad they might have done better if they had released an entirely new game. Other game companies come up with games all of the time. Many are successful. Sure, it'S easier to count on brand recognition to bring in fans of D&D, but it's not absolutely necessary. Calling 4e D&D seems to be dishonest. So many "sacred cows" have been killed that you went from a herd to a few sickly head of cattle. Sorry for the bad analogy.
I didn't mean you Kruelaid; I posted intemperately. It's just that other gaming companies can equally be said to have these flaws.
Agreed.
|
Since it was brought up before, I'm curious as to what kinds of limitations people think that 4th Edition has over 3rd Edition in terms of storytelling.
I think you can play all that was in 3rd in 4th and vice versa.
But, every game has a certain flavor to it. I do not mean the Fluff but that what remains if you strip the game down to the mechanics.
Are you able to play a High Fantasy Dungeon Crawl with Warhammer RPG? Yes, you are, but the mechanics do not support this kind of game fully.
Are you able to play a ungeon Crawl with WoD rules? Maybe, but this is even harden than with Warhammer.
Or look at all the different D20 Settings that twist some of the core rules to fit better.
A Game of Thrones Campaign Setting from Guardians of Order
The Black Company Campaign Setting from Green Ronin
Conan Roleplaying Game from Moongoose.
All use D20 and twist the rules to fit a special flavor of gaming that supports the Fluff.
So IMO, 4th edition will still be D&D in the sense that it supports epic Fantasy and dungeon crawling.
But the mechanis are sufficiantly different to better support cinematic fast paced heroic swashbuckling action than the grim and gritty sword and sorcery style type of play which, for me, is "old school" D&D.
I think in the next few years the themes of adventures will not change. It still will be the good old "kill the beast and save the world". But the style of how the adventure is scripted will change.
I think you can compare it to Films. With the advent of digital cinematography films changed.
Lord of the Rings was suddenly possible.
But you can also mess it up and substitute a good story with more action and bombastic graphics. For ME (and YMMV) this shows if you compare Star Wars 1-3 with 4-6.
Now I am off to play my first 4th edition game...
I understand that it would be bad marketing to not call it D&D. Of course, the so called marketing they have employed has been so bad they might have done better if they had released an entirely new game. Other game companies come up with games all of the time. Many are successful. Sure, it'S easier to count on brand recognition to bring in fans of D&D, but it's not absolutely necessary. Calling 4e D&D seems to be dishonest. So many "sacred cows" have been killed that you went from a herd to a few sickly head of cattle. Sorry for the bad analogy.
It would say it's absolutely necessary.
First, because much of the current D&D fan base aren't eager to try new games, much less "entirely new games".
I myself play D&D for 15 years, and I don't play anything else than D&D for at least 10 years. If WotC makes a new game called "World of Dungeoncraft", "Coolness & Awesomeness", "Demon chicks and Dragonpeople" or whatever, I sincerely would not even check what the hell it is. Just like I'm a big fan of Star Wars but I have zero interest on Star Wars Saga.
Second, again, because of the impact of WotC saying that they killed D&D.
A lot of comparisions have been made on this boards of D&D 4E with Marvel's Ultimate Saga. However, a huge difference is that Marvel didn't killed the original saga. If you don't like Ultimate Spider Man, you can just continue buying your old Spider Man.
This is not the same with D&D. According to Rouse/Linnae, for the amount of money invested on D&D 4E, there is no way to go back to 3.5. 4E is not called D&D, then D&D doesn't exist anymore as a commercial product.
I know that many people say that WotC already killed D&D. But a lot of people still think of 4E as D&D, which wouldn't happen if WotC announced that they are discontinuing D&D.
|
|
In the minds of many fans, WotC tried to kil D&D, but thankfully, Paizo is still trying to keep it alive, even if they can't legally call it D&D. I think I can sum up the feeling that is really annoying a lot of people. Here it is: Many of the designers working on 4E didn't really D&D. It doesn't matter why they didn't like it or how long it took them to dislike it. They didn't like it so they decided to make a game they would like. Then they had to slap the D&D logo on it so people that only want to play D&D would buy it. 4E wasn't created for D&D fans. It was created by and for a few select WotC employees with overdeveloped egos who decided to replace D&D with this new game.
|
|
In the minds of many fans, WotC tried to kil D&D, but thankfully, Paizo is still trying to keep it alive, even if they can't legally call it D&D. I think I can sum up the feeling that is really annoying a lot of people. Here it is: Many of the designers working on 4E didn't really D&D. It doesn't matter why they didn't like it or how long it took them to dislike it. They didn't like it so they decided to make a game they would like. Then they had to slap the D&D logo on it so people that only want to play D&D would buy it. 4E wasn't created for D&D fans. It was created by and for a few select WotC employees with overdeveloped egos who decided to replace D&D with this new game.
Uh, no. It is not an entirely different game. It still has class, level, hit points, AC, dwarves, clerics, wizards, elves, etc., etc.
Has the feel of the game changed? Sure. Was that change so dramatic as to make less like D&D than the previous version? Nope.
Cory - you and Razz and others would love it if everything you said were true but alas, 4e is still D&D and pretty darn fun to run and play.
You may not like it, and that is fine by me, but frankly you are starting to sound like a grognard troll that wants us all to go back to 3.5 or move to pathfinder and forget about all this 4e nonsense.
You play your game and i will play mine. You go have fun on the boards about the games you like and i will stay right here and maybe the Pathfinder board - though it looks more and more likely that I may never actually play it.
In the minds of many fans, WotC tried to kil D&D, but thankfully, Paizo is still trying to keep it alive, even if they can't legally call it D&D. I think I can sum up the feeling that is really annoying a lot of people. Here it is: Many of the designers working on 4E didn't really D&D. It doesn't matter why they didn't like it or how long it took them to dislike it. They didn't like it so they decided to make a game they would like. Then they had to slap the D&D logo on it so people that only want to play D&D would buy it. 4E wasn't created for D&D fans. It was created by and for a few select WotC employees with overdeveloped egos who decided to replace D&D with this new game.
I'm curious. How many people do you honestly think hate 4th Edition, and how many of those people do you think actually believe that bizarre train of thought?
From where I'm standing, it seems that the majority rule is 4th Edition, which IS D&D now.
In the minds of many fans, WotC tried to kil D&D...
Such a slippery word: many. Funny how it sometimes doesn't mean anything.
"Killing" D&D (okay you wrote kil)? "trying to keep it alive"? ... figurative language, worth about as much as a bag of farts, here.
When are the 4E detractors going to either come up with fresh commentary or move on? Sigh.
|
|
Speaking from a personal perspective, I am worried by the degree to which the subject of 4e has polarized the D&D community. This is not a good thing in a small hobby that is currently shrinking in size. The lack of a community consensus around the new edition is disturbing given the amount of attention that it has received. I get the feeling that WoTC bungled the marketing campaign and alienated many long-term fans for no real benefit.
Having said that, I'm not terribly interested in the new edition based on what I know about it at the moment. It's not that I hate it or that I think it will be poorly designed - there are a lot of talented people working on it.
However, I get the feeling that it's not going to going to do a good job of supporting the kind of games that I'm interested in running. I want a system that allows me to simulate the kind of classic sword & sorcery adventure exemplified by Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock (with perhaps an occasional pinch of Lovecraft). I get the feeling that 4e is straying from these roots and moving away from the idea that D&D exists to simulate the tropes of fantasy fiction. I get the feeling that Paizo has a greater level of sensitivity to the influences of the fiction exemplified by Appendix N of the 1e DMG.
Although I'm waiting to see the final product before I pass final judgment, my own concerns about 4e are centered on the overall feel of the game rather than any specific rules or mechanics. I'd love to see WoTC pull a rabbit out of the hat, but I'm not filled with confidence at this point.
|
|
I agree with prime evil. This discussion sometimes is done with nearly religious fervor by those who see either 3rd or 4th as the only real D&D.
I have had serious doubts about 4th edition in terms of mechanics and falvor (see my post above).
Yesterday I had my first 4th edition game.
It is cool, it is neat, it has Monsters to kill and treasure to rob.
It is still D&D.
BUT
It is markedly different to OD&D, AD&D and D&D 3rd.
The Mechanics make the game play and feel different.
Will I play 4th again?
Hell, yes, I will play through Shadowfell Keep and than make my own Character when the PHB is out.
BUT I will still play 3rd edition because the mechanics are better suited to my preferred style of play.
So while I am a player in 4th I will be a DM in 3rd.
For me 4th is NOT the evolution of 3rd but another offshoot from the same root which is OD&D.
|
|
For me 4th is NOT the evolution of 3rd but another offshoot from the same root which is OD&D.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter too.
What astonishes me is that WoTC has handled the marketing surrounding the transition from 3e to 4e so poorly - especially in contrast with the disciplined marketing campaign that accompanied the move from 2e to 3e.
In both cases (2e to 3e and 3e to 4e) the new edition went back to first principles and rebuilt the game from the ground up, slaughtering a lot of sacred cows in the process.
But whereas the folks responsible for marketing 3e successfully positioned the edition as a return to an 'authentic' D&D experience, the current marketing team hasn't delivered such a strong marketing message.
As a consequence, no clear consensus has emerged within the gaming community regarding the value of the new edition.
IMHO, this is a failure of marketing department rather than a failure of the designers of the new edition.