Tatterdemalion's page

Gave the books a read, and pretty much confirmed what I already knew: its not for me.

I wish that everyone choosing to stick with 3e would say what you just said. 4e is not for you. That is the most honest expression of preference possible.

More honest than giving specific reasons, or less offensive?

Why is it OK for 4e supporters to point out the shortcomings of 3.5, when 3.5 supporters are often demonized for making specific criticisms?

Though to be fair, I might also ask: Why is it OK for 3e supporters to point out the shortcomings of 4e, when 4e supporters are often demonized for making specific criticisms? Maybe I'll ask that another day ;)

From the fake french guy in the intro video, to talking in podcasts about "putting a bullet in the head" of some semi-iconic monsters, to sneering that it only took "30 years" to change the magic/level mechanic, to telling us directly that some things were changed to make them "fun" (implying we were mistaken had we regarded them as fun before) and on and on.

This video really speaks to their PR incompetence.

Among other things, the contempt it showed for their own rules doesn't inspire confidence in any additional rules they might publish.

What happened to 3.x being groundbreaking? Were they just lying?

I can see how a game of "telephone" could end up with that result, but that wasn't really what happened... TSR was selling their products — fiction *and* RPGs — into bookstores with returnability...

Thanks for the info-- normal people wouldn't know what this "returnability" was :)

And I also understood that inventory control was a major problem for them -- I imagine this was part of that (perhaps the biggest part).

Lol, well we can make a wager if you want. I take no new edition by 2013, you take a new edition by then? Loser has to look stupid? :P

One of you looks like a bug faced boy; the other looks like a purple ghoul. Do you mean 'look stupider'? ;-)

Yeah, too late for me :P

And I'll take this bet -- I'll get you a copy of 5e if it comes out after 2013 :)

5E will come someday. Like Bard here, I'd guess in about 8-10 years.

Now that would really shock me. From WotC's perspective, 3.5 was a new edition -- specifically, it resulted in gamers completely restocking their shelves.

3e was released in 2000; 3.5 came out in 2003; 4e came out in 2008. My (mostly uninformed) expectation is another version in no more than five years.

The market has shown an ability and willingness to purchase new editions on the schedule above, and corporate America isn't good at passing on a pool of willing consumers :/

I posted this elsewhere, but thought it would be interesting here:

In 2004 Ryan Dancey (Vice President of WotC) stated that he believed the failure of TSR was due to

"...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy."

It would be a cruel irony if Dancey's words turned out to be prophetic for WotC.

And as a bit of a followup, in 2004 Ryan Dancey himself stated that he believed the failure of TSR was due to

"...a near total inability to listen to its customers, hear what they were saying, and make changes to make those customers happy."

WotC has said very clearly that they are looking for new customers with 4e. Many have accused them of abandoning the existing fans with the new edition.

It would be a cruel irony if Dancey's words turned out to be prophetic for WotC.

... all of my gamer friends told me that TSR went broke because they sank all of their money into poorly written novels which did not sell and eventually sat in warehouses gathering dust. Did anyone else hear the same story?

It was an unfortunate combination of events, all in a fairly short period of time:

• new competition fragmenting the market
  
• failed collectible game lines
  
• poor performance of fiction lines
  
• customer anger over increased TSR litigation against fan fiction based on TSR intellectual property
  
• introduction of multiple campaign settings (at least six in addition to five already established) diluting the TSR fan base

I agree with Jeremy 100% where he writes when the sales of splat books for 4e starts to dry up WotC will commission writers to produce 5e. This, surely, will only be a matter of time.

I agree :/

A laptop with PDFs (and other tools) is most useful before the session and at the game table for rules reference (especially if using a lot of non-core material), but to actually run/play the game... no. Display limitations (even with a 17" widescreen like my desktop replacement) just bite, unless you're willing to invest a huge amount of prep-work reformatting from standard 8.5 x 11 page sizes.

I agree 1000%.

What about the segment of the market without laptops (which is most of it), or laptop users that nevertheless opt for more-convenient hardcopy during play (most of the rest)?

Innovation meets ignorance. Again :/

There are solutions, however. My solution is probably going to be picking up data binders, which can hold stuff in the proper orientation. I can still think of problems, but I expect it to work.

Strangely (and this may be TMI) I like using my laptop in the bathroom more than reading a physical book. Books are made of paper and are thus fare poorly to moisture. If my laptop gets wet I can just wipe it down and it'll be fine. :)

Most definitely TMI :o

:P

Well, I have the choice between 2-3 adventures + 4-5 (6-10 pages) articles per month (some written by Nicolas Loge) + a full searchable compendium of rules + (eventualy) a character builder, all of this for 10$ per month Or I could buy 1 Paizo adventure module (in a system that I will have to convert to 4E) for 13.99$ (more with the shipping)... The choice is quit simple for most customers...

For what it's worth, you have the promise of those things -- from a company that has arguably demonstrated a notable disregard for deadlines and professionalism of late.

To be fair, the 4e content has thus far been excellent. But the very spotty performance preceding it damages my faith in their long-term reliability.

If its worse then here...then thats just scary.

Historically, this has been an exemplary community (in my experience). With a few exceptions -- the most notable and embarrassing being the ongoing debate over 4e -- I'd put us up against virtually any board of its sort out there.

And worse yet, 4.0 is not backwards compatible.

My big problem, too. We haven't given up on it, but if it can't be adapted to our campaign it's gone. And I'm not getting too hopeful.

My breaking point was easy. Remember that video promo they put out last year? This one?

Try this one :)

Indeed. I still don't like the tiefling being a core race, but the dragonborn has grown on me.

We've had a couple of (3e) tieflings IMC, but none of my players like tieflings as a core race. And while the dragonborn don't appeal to most of us, we agree there's a place and demand for such a race.

For the record, I think getting rid of half-orcs because of the sordidness of their origin is somewhat shaky and perhaps disingenuous -- are the offspring of humans consorting with the evil and demonic forces of the multiverse more palatable? And just wait for the religious D&D-haters to get hold of this.

But game appreciation is empirical!

"Game appreciation is irrelevant. Edition is irrelevant. Your roleplaying will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile..."

:P

Well, the DMG is widely reckoned to be a very good reference book. The PHB is oddly organised though...

I know -- I'm just picking for fun. WotC has made it pretty easy of late :)

It only took James nine weeks to write the Dungeon Master's Guide. Including over the holidays...

Cause and effect? You decide :P

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

Is it possible to make a very effective combat bard?

I'd say probably not.

But I'd also say few players creating a bard are trying to be effective combat participants. More than any other class, they fill a support role.

I don't see a problem with that. I'm not going to make a cleric if I want to fill the role of a thief, and I'm not going to make a bard if I want to be a capable combatant.

For those staying the course with 3.5, we will have this someday soon. This will happen for 3.5, so I'm also (one again) unimpressed with this "too little too late" attempt by wotc.

...should check out the Hypertext SRD...

Phenomenal resource. I'll be shocked if WotC equals it.

For what it's worth, I don't think the 4e compendium is "too little too late" -- it's just late. WotC continues to provide promises rather than products.

They're also setting expectations pretty high, so high they might not be able to live up to them. And even if they do, they'll have to overcome many subscribers' disappointment over months of missed deadlines.

Two more cents :)

<Takes sip from cup.> How's that grape Kool-Aid you got from WotC? Glad you like it. Me, nah, I can't stand the stuff anymore. <Takes another sip>

Why the adhominem attack? Seriously, the accusation that people who choose to play 4e are some kind of brainwashed cultist is getting old, and frankly it shows a complete lack of decorum.

For the record, there was no ad hominem attack here.

You really should look up the phrase. You response is rather ironic.

I suspect both 3.5 and 4E are going to be well-supported for that time period. Of course, many people can only feel good about the edition they are playing if the one they aren't playing doesn't do well. This is foolish. The two editions are quite different, and there's no reason they can't both succeed.

Sadly, I don't agree. The vast majority of publishers are going to see more profit in following the industry giant, and players will go along. There are few exceptions to be found.

It's not whether or not players feel good about their game, it's about getting good support and about what new players want to buy (or, more accurately, what corporate America tells them they want to buy).

I'd also like to reiterate the point above, which was never really addressed. All classes get features and powers, and powers never last more than an encounter. Say what you want about mechanics, missing stuff, reasons of economics and so on. Unless some book comes out with substantially different rules, I can see no way to add something like the above. True, a Paladin's Mount power...

The paladin's mount was more about character development and less about having a 'power' that had an effect within the context of an 'encounter' -- which is why I suppose it is gone :/

Same for animal companions for rangers and druids (or the entire druid class), the combat-crappy bard, miscellaneous utility spells, half-orcs, cohorts & followers, lances... etc, ad nauseum...

I should stop reading (or contributing to) some of these threads. I'm really quite eager to play 4e.

Things that were challenging to play usually fell into two camps: 1) It sucked, or required too much thought to be effectual that it wasn't as fun to play (which I guess if you're really into that kind of thing sure, but the guy next to you who went for the druid character is much more lax). 2) Rather than using creativity and effort, the player usually resorted to the common stereotype, which is where the dumb half-orc barbarian came from. Oh sure, people made half-orc clerics, and halfling wizards and what not, but nine times out of ten a half-orc was fighty.

Don't any players actually enjoy putting "too much thought" into their roleplaying? This makes it sound as if 4e is (as is often claimed) catering to the lowest common denominator among gamers. A claim that I am not making.

IMC things that are challenging to play are often chosen, and played well.

The trainwreck that is DDI will probably sink D&D in WotC/Hasbro's eyes and we'll see what happens to the trademark after that.

That would be interesting to watch. If DDI goes belly up (which I don't think will happen), will Hasbro stick it out? I say no.

Place your bets now :)

It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.

I would argue the same about 3.5.

You and Mark are right.

But, for the sake of discussion, I think half-orcs are an interesting example. The race is arguably very one-dimensional; it takes creativity and effort from a player to get out of the stereotype. Such a race encourages creativity -- not deliberately, and I'm not suggesting earlier versions of the game deserve credit for this fact.

But I do think 4e deserves a little criticism -- anything that might be challenging to play was removed.

And David is right -- this is all personal opinion. I believe what I believe, and I'm not likely to have my mind changed. Others believe what they will, and my arguments are unlikely to sway them.

Though your point is well taken :)

Regards.

I get what you're trying to say Tat ... but unless you cede that 3E didn't encourage it anymore, I think you're being unfair here.

Fair enough.

Everything you and Courtfool said is completely true, so maybe I'm imposing a double standard. Earlier editions didn't encourage roleplaying and/or creativity any more than 4e -- and I think you might make an argument that they did worse in some ways.

But I can't help but feel that they've deliberately trimmed away material (like half-orcs) that requires more work and input on the part of the player. Of course, if you have to cut something (as they clearly did), those things should probably be on the list.

And there's my new gripe with the new version :)

Half-orcs, as an example, are a race which really can't go anywhere without creative input from the player. What, no ready-made personality? Axe it from the rules!

Previous versions had countless utility spells begging for creative uses by players. What, a spell's value isn't immediately obvious to a first-grader? Axe it from the rules!

The bard (as another example) was a character with arguably little use in combat -- except in the hands of a clever player. What, not combat-optimized? Axe it from the rules!

Sure, 4e allows me to do everything 3.5 allowed (except use a lance, of course). It even allows roleplaying and creativity -- but it doesn't encourage them. IMO.

Regards all :)

...but the thing half-orcs lack more than anything is personality. I mean they have personality, but compare to halflings: fearless, affable, sneaky, good at pilfering things too. Half-orcs are: fearless (but out of stupidity, not ambition), dumb, crude, good at killing things, dumb.

You're right -- they do not come with a ready-made personality. Sadly, it falls upon the player to take an ostensibly one-dimensional character and invest it with life beyond what the racial stereotype dictates.

Of course, that's not the 4e-paradigm. The new rules allow, but do not require, creativity.

In game, do you think there were "neanderthal" elves, or "homo erectus" versions of dwarves, or some deity just created them?

Creator deities -- that's just how swords & sorcery fiction works.

No matter how many editions we traded up, we had to hold on to those 1st edition DMGs for all that cool stuff in the back. Different herbs and their effects! Gemstones and their magical associations! Names for royal ranks by culture!

D&D's golden age, when rules were less important than playing :)

In a few months, Martial Power will be out, and mounted combat and cohorts will be a major part of that book from what I understand. The new equipment guide will provide all the magic items and normal gear you could want. This will greatly improve the game, but those rules aren't things which you absolutly need to play the game.

Few complained that the 3.5 core rules were systematically lacking in important components for fantasy roleplaying. Yet 4e gets that criticism all the time.

With 3.5, players could usually play a satisfactory game with just the core rules. With 4e it increasingly seems I need to go beyond that -- even 4e's most ardent supporters say "just wait for such-and-such to come out."

What will be enough? I'll get a book for swordslingers, a book for rogues, a book for wizards, and a book for clerics. With core rulebooks, now I'm up to about $280 in books!

Eeeek!!!

Keith Baker does not own the rights to Eberron. They are owned solely by WoTC.

That was clear when I looked at the blog mentioned above. WotC seems to be taking whatever liberties they wish without his input.

Keith Baker is very excited about 4e, and reworking everything so he doesn't have to blow up Eberron like they did FR.

This is such a revealing point to me. One could argue that a more versatile game would have been adaptable to Eberron -- instead Baker is compelled to adapt to 4e or face the butchering of his creation.

IMO :)

And what if they did take out those classes? They were trouble classes, nobody knew how to fix them, so for now they're not included... Same with the loss of gnomes and half-orcs. I mean they weren't bad, but almost every gnome character was an a~&%&@~, and almost every half-orc was a dumb barbarian...

I think you missed my point. I didn't say they broke the game, I said they took away popular (enough) races and classes that could have been painlessly left behind. Eliminating these elements needlessly provoked the anger of long-time players.

And I'm not sure what made druids and monks 'trouble classes.'

What they did was OK to you -- it does not follow that it is OK to me or others. Your satisfaction does not prove they made the best decisions.

Huh. Didn't think trolls had the Int score to spare...

Trolls aren't necessarily dumb -- just mean.

Yup they killed Ellistraee. I'm a bit upset about this...

While I'm not a Forgotten Realms fan, it's upsetting to me, too. At what point does it stop being FR (no matter what the labels on the map say)?

And when they get around to my beloved Greyhawk, what can I expect? So far, I expect nothing less than a complete butchering of the setting. I hope they prove me wrong.

The Forgotten Realms is being gutted because the setting... cannot be modeled with the rules given in 4E.

I agree.

No matter how good the game is, I still think WotC has shown absolutely no interest in maintaining any compatibility with previous versions (not just rules, but even settings). Many similarities seem coincidental or accidental -- IMO.

Seriously, how hard would it have been to include half-orcs, gnomes, druids, monks, and a host of other components? And tey weren't just overlooked, they were deliberately excluded.

And the more I think about it, the more dismayed I am. Heroic fantasy with knights in shining armor -- sans lances.

Which is why 3E is so much better. You get a whole lot more options for your dollar.

And a system that becomes very cumbersome to play some time shortly after 10th level. Seriously, 4e deserves at least a little credit.

4E is not only dumbed down to the point where me and some of my friends already memorized the damned rules after the FIRST read-through...

Case in point. The game is easy to learn -- are you saying that's bad?

Don't get me wrong -- I think 4e has some bothersome shortcomings. I wish they'd kept a lot more of the past 30 years of the game. But it's not all bad. In fact, some of it is pretty good.

And if this had been the game EGG had launched thirty years ago, it would have been stunningly groundbreaking and applauded. It's a good game (just not the game you want).

The reason being, Humans, are inherently lawful creatures...

Brief threadjack: I disagree :)

I think people are inherently chaotic (or selfish -- though we can argue that equivalency). But people have also learned that a lawful society keeps them safe from others' selfish ways.

Somewhat back on-topic: The new alignment system is an improvement -- players could never stop arguing what law vs chaos meant (and a few argued good vs evil). But the names are uninformative bordering on stupid -- this thread has some good fixes :)

Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

On the one hand, I think your thesis is correct -- 4e will be ultimately accepted as the one and only D&D, primarily because WotC is shoving it down our throats as the one and only D&D. (Prejudicial language? Me??) Much like TSR and WotC did with 2e and 3e.

But the answer affects nothing. We accepted 2e. We accepted 3e. We accepted 3.5 (amidst much ballyhoo from the fans)... We'll accept 4e (currently amidst much ballyhoo from WotC, I might add).

4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e.

For the record, I think 4e is a much more dramatic change. Those that feel 30 years of D&D has been taken away are justified in their opinions. IMO.

4E truly is just another "hype" that will die down as quickly as Pokemon did.

Uh, Razz... the popularity of Pokémon is still striving and hasn't died down in the slightest.

Then I guess Razz is probably right :)

The system is a bit horrible in places, but it's suitably sanity shattering/deadly and it can be fantastic fun to play.

Horrible?

The system is mostly rolling skills and attacks on d100, with little in place to deal with particularly difficult or easy tasks. The ability scores also have little effect on play (with some notable exceptions). It's just not a system that's seen much refinement over the years -- 25 years ago it was one of the better systems, now I'd say it's below average.

That said, I don't think it matters. The fun lies in the roleplaying and the mystery.

And it is my favorite RPG, hands-down :)

Another interesting example of why 4e is good and bad.

Certainly it was a rule that improves the game's playability and balance -- cohorts/henchmen have always been a game mechanic that was more broken than not.

But they are such a staple of heroic fantasy, and a part of the game that enriched (though simultaneously complicating) play.

House rules, here I come again...

And I'll say (off the cuff) that I'd simply make Cohort a paragon-level feat. We'd sort out details during play.

Not D&D, but incredibly memorable.

Twilight: 2000 game in the early 90s. An annoying player in the group had managed to get captured. As far as I remember, his capture was the result of considerable foolishness, and his buddies weren't motivated to go help him -- so he puts together an escape plan.

The character makes a noose in his jail cell, pins a note to his chest, and carefully suspends himself from the ceiling. The note reads:

You don't really think I'd be stupid enough to hang myself, do you?

The plan is that the guard will read the note just before the character opens his eyes and beats the snot out of him. If only he hadn't rolled a 1 when putting the noose around his neck...

So it turned out he was that stupid :)

What good reason is there for keeping yet another roll that serves only to frustrate players?

It makes fighters better than wizards at inflicting crits -- so it's a level of realism. My groups love it, though I know of many that ignore the rule and don't feel they miss anything.

To each their own :)

...but the deeper I dig, the more I think that the 4e PH1 was rushed out and incomplete. Too much has been left out.

First, I think there is some evidence that 4e was rushed out -- but I don't think that's the problem.

Instead, I think it's fair to say that 4e is the game the designers like to play. I'll bet if any of them were into lances, lances would be in the game. I also think druids, monks, whips, and a host of other things that have disappeared would similarly be present if the designers had liked them.

But the game still looks fun, and I look forward to playing it. We'll just have to house-rule a lot or wait for more (overly-expensive) supplements.

D&D will likely become uninteresting to Hasbro within a few years and they'll reject the idea of a new version and will probably want to unload the game on another company, and the only companies interested will be companies run by gamers...

I agree (and fear) that Hasbro may ultimately do this -- they'll tire of not getting the ROI they want from D&D and give up.

Unfortunately, I think they're as likely to let it sit in a drawer for the rest of eternity rather than let another company profit from it -- they've done it before.

D&D is healthy when it is owned and run by gamers. While I think WotC is made up of gamers, their Hasbro overlords worry me...

...Also, it really is a bit presumptive to be doing the whole "OGL in retrospective" shtick. We've just hit the start of a new chapter here, not the end of the book.

What else would they say?

Despite the patent absurdity of Mearls' claim, it's in WotC's interest to portray the draconian GSL as an appropriate (and necessary) successor to the OGL -- so the OGL has to be shown to be flawed and dying.

I'm increasingly impressed by 4e. I'm also impressed by the quality of their online 4e supplements. But I'm tired of their corporate rhetoric.

They need to preserve and build on that goodwill -- not continue to make claims which assume I'm an idiot.

Overdue, but as good an attempt as 4e allows (so far).

More kudos than criticism :)