hmarcbower's page

It could be worse... they could simply have said that all things in the world may only move orthogonally along the straight lines of squares and may not travel on the diagonal. ;)

Hey Watcher... we get what you were asking so don't treat us like people who just can't understand your question. The discussion just moved in a different direction than you intended. Deal. :)

"I must warn you... I'm Roger Moore."

- Roger Moore, Cannonball Run

Sorry... that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the name "Roger Moore". :)

I say that D&D is whatever the company that owns the IP says it is. You are free to agree or disagree but hey - that's relativism for ya.

Then you did totally miss the point of my post.

I actually just found out that I may be given an opportunity for Early Retirement in 3 years (I'll be 48).

I'll save you all spots in the rec room.

GM Employee by any chance? ;)

I get to laugh each time they send out the pension information with our pay stubs here. I think I can retire some time in the 2030s. I have my doubts that *civilization* will even last that long, let alone my pension plan.

Attempt at sarcasm aside, I agree entirely that it's a different enough game that it shouldn't be called D&D.

So what is D&D and who has the right to define it?

Perhaps it wasn't clear from what I wrote - I think we all have our own definitions of what D&D is, and for the most part they tend to line up behind what the general feel has been for the past 30 years. Not specifics (like whether half-orcs should be considered "core") but just the general feel of the game. I think that everyone, even 4e fans, can agree that it has definitely shifted. 4e fans feel for the betterment of the game, 4e non-fans feel to its detriment.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, I'm just trying to show that there is a difference between what is "legally" D&D and what is felt to be D&D.

Mystra is many things, and 'impartial' is miles away from being one...

IIRC after the events of the novel "Crucible," she is required to BE impartial even if she doesn't FEEL impartial.

But she can still cut off magic to anyone if she needs to, including other deities. Which is why I find it totally implausible that a has-been mook like Cyric could even get near her planar realm, much less kill her in it.

Yes, Midnight was having some issues with her own outlook (alignment) interfering with the spread of magic despite its purpose (which is why she cut Cyric off, as I recall). Similar to how Kelemvor had some issues when he first got "deified".

However, it's entirely true that she was able to cut other gods from using magic, which makes it absolutely ridiculous that she could be approached or slain on her own plane, as Andrew noted.

If *I* were the goddess of magic (current gender aside), I certainly would have some kind of protection that stops anyone from using magic who I don't explicitly allow to do so in my own house. :)

It's just another lazy fumble by the WotC Realms crew.

Yeah, but when I open a game box that says Monopoly, I don't expect to find checkers. If I open a book that says D&D I wouldn't expect to find Whitewolf. (I'm not saying 4E is like Whitewolf, I'm just making an example.)

That would be awesome... Hasbro could start selling their board games like WotC sells minis.... random grab bags of whatever you get. Just a brown paper box... does it have Monopoly, or checkers? Maybe Candyland or Twister? Life or Scrabble?

Attempt at sarcasm aside, I agree entirely that it's a different enough game that it shouldn't be called D&D. Yes, I know they have the legal right to call it that, and they can define what the legal definition of D&D is. That doesn't change the fact that they can't enforce their will on the rest of us to change our own perceptions of what really constitutes D&D. I think they are going to find that out come publication time, too.

But we're adding the dragonborn with breasts wielding 6-foot swords because they're totally awesome and this game is about fun!"

Uh-huh.

Boobs sell. Just look at the long list of replies Nic Logue got for using the word "titties" in one post. Also consider the demographic they are (allegedly) going after: WoW players. There is a reason there were several "nudity" hacks for WoW a couple of years back.

We do not have the GSL.

Perhaps Mike (or some other Paizian, a term I like btw whoever coined it) could open a thread that, each day, he comes in and says:

We have not yet signed an NDA.
We have not yet seen the GSL.
We have not yet paid the $5k.
We have not yet seen the rules.
We have not decided if AP3 will be 4e or OGL
We have not decided if AP4 will be 4e or OGL

And then when any of those facts change just eliminate the line that is no longer true. In this way they neither explicitly confirm nor deny attainment of any particular stage of the process. They simply stop explicitly confirming that they have NOT seen or been bound by any step of the process..... I'm sure better lines could be written to confirm the negative, but it's an idea... :)

Also, I wish they hadn't added in the last sentence. They could have avoided the word "fun" in the entire piece.

That would be a violation of the 4e Marketing Guidelines. ;)

Now, this brings up an interesting question. Are the WotC folks purposefully trying to distance themselves from Tolkein's IP? Or is this just a coincidence?

Me tink dey trew da bowuns.

(Translation: probably determined by the throw of chicken bones in some voodoo ritual designed to come up with the strangest changes possible. Apologies to any practitioners of voodoo. :) )

That said, I am having trouble caring anymore. I have so long ago decided 4e wasn't for me that I can't even rail against changes they decide (or the bones decide) to make.

I do appreciate that they are trying to provide some kind of backstory for races, though. Even if it is simply to justify all the changes the bones have told them to make. :)

Sure you can make a campaign setting

Unless you can provide a link of someone from Wizards saying you can, I'm sticking with, "They have said nothing to indicate you can, one way or the other."

Without links to back up the very first post, this is really kind of pointless. To present an interpretation (or a collection of "what the community has said with no input from any authoritative source") as some kind of compilation of facts is just silly. :)

There WAS a rumor at Origins last year (heard from two different unofficial sources, one second hand the other third hand, so take with several grains of salt) that Hasbro was looking to either sell off, dissolve or cut loose WotC. Maybe the push for 4E is a compromise "save or die" thing for them?

I'm not a business guru, or anything, but this has been my assumption since it became clear that 4e wasn't really ready but they were pushing it and telling people to stop playing the most successful RPG of all time close to a year before they even expected 4e to launch. They are, IMO, beefing up the bank account of WotC through selling new edition books then are going to jettison the RPG wing of their business (but not the profits they've gained from releasing the new edition). It seems fairly straightforward... what gets WotC the biggest, fastest influx of rpg money? A new edition. From what we've seen of their target demographic they aren't exactly the kind of folks who make life-long customers and they've successfully alienated a sizeable portion of their existing customer base. If you don't care about your existing customers (which are MUCH cheaper to keep than to attract new customers) and you're targeting people for your new product that have some cash but aren't likely to stick with the game even if they start playing (since it's a weaker imitation of something they're already interested in - computer games), that amounts to a "smash and grab" to me. And what always happens after a smash and grab? The running away part. They're probably trying to make a certain amount of money in this fiscal year and maybe next (if they stick around that long) and then they'll dash.

The best I can hope for at this point is that some responsible company picks it up (ie. Paizo). Although I wouldn't be surprised if it's someone more along the lines of WalMart.

1: I pay something like 90 bucks to a company that keeps telling me how much my favourite game sucks and has insulted me and my fellow gamers quite a lot lately, to get a set of books that will make the dozens of books I have bought in the last 8 or so years useless, since they went out of the way to trash the old stuff - not only rules but the whole history and background of the game. If I do this, It's either a complete overhaul or working to incorporate what I like about 3e in the new game.

2: I pay 9 bucks for an ebook done by someone who did a lot of stuff I worked (can't think of anything I didn't like, though I haven't seen all of it). A guy who didn't insult me or anyone I'm aware of, and who I have more confidence in to make those things right than wizards of the cost. If I do this I get handed a set of optional rules. I can look at them, apply as much and as little of it as I want, without having to work a lot at either the rules or the assumed background in any of the books.

Excellent analysis.

My choice is clear, and my only question is: What do I do with the other 81 bucks?

Contact me offline and we'll arrange for me to receive the $81 in question. ;)

I welcome 4th edition because we were due for it anyway if you look at how the game has evolved.

I was looking at the recent rule supplements (book of nine swords for example) and I was appalled by the power creep and complexity that has crept-up in the game.

This is not entirely surprising because, as the game grows older, WotC has to publish more and more overpowered feats/spells/Magic items to keep players interested and buying.

That is kinda funny, given that (as Jason said) the Book of Nine Swords was developed during the development of 4e, and was very much intentionally used to see how people would react to the "martial powers" idea that was then expanded to all classes in 4e. It talks about it in the Races and Classes preview book.

Many of the later books were WotC designers tossing ideas out that might be in 4e (heck, they've been at least officially working on it, if not very hard, for over two years now, so how many books have they released in that time?) either very closely modeled (Bo9S) or having a similar concept (I think that Magic of Incarnum was one that may have been mentioned for this kind of thing).

Anyway, before you cry your thanks to the stars too loudly you might want to make sure that 4e isn't just a logical extension of all the things that make you think 3.5 needs to go away. :)

Either way, for $9 it's worth a look.

Amen brother. That's the way I see it as well. By the way, maybe I missed it, but did it say when that was going to be available?

It should be available for download February 21st through DriveThruRPG.com .

Hm. I wonder if Monte is in some way trying to beat WotC to the punch because he thinks they stole a lot of his ideas and are now going to sell them as 4e?

Could be. But I am equally uninterested in the things I didn't like that WotC were doing. :) Monte has some good ideas, but that doesn't mean everything he produces is something I'll like.

I agree with Moonlion's point - this sounds an awful lot like the "big things" that 4e says it's going to fix... which leads me to my wonderings above regarding Monte feeling like his ideas are being ripped off.

Either way, for $9 it's worth a look.

And as far as the trust thing goes, guys - yah, I trust Monte WAY more than I trust any of the egos at WotC. Sometimes the merit of an idea is only seen when presented in a way that is appealing and respectful. Notice that Monte never once said that I was playing the game wrong, nor that there were gaping holes in the rules that he was going to save us from like some kind of RPG Messiah.

I kind of like the idea of changing it a bit (although I'm also fine with the standard 3.5 way of doing it, and don't intend to suggest changing it at my table). I think I would try something like this, though... if I felt inclined to try anything at all. :) The "-10 and you're dead" has worked for my group for a couple of decades now....

GOAL: Make it less likely that characters go from living to unrevivably (short of magic) dead in a single hit

SOLUTION: Whatever attack makes your HP 0 or less moves you into "unconscious and dying" mode. Implement a recovery roll based on Constitution somehow. Three successes means you're at 1 HP [although for 4e I suspect an earlier poster was right in that it will probably bring you up closer to half of max]. Three failed rolls and you're dead. A single attack that does more than [CON BONUS] damage while "unconscious and dying" means you're dead. Any attack while "unconscious and dying" that does damage means that your successful recovery rolls have to start all over. Actual totally dead HP negative is equal to half of your normal maximum.

To use the above in 3.5 (since I don't care how it will work in 4e or not)....

Let's say Crunch the fighter has a 120HP, a 24CON (+7 modifier). He's at 10 HP. He takes a massive hit from Pinky the Red Dragon. Crunch goes from 10 down to -48HP. He is unconscious and dying. Next round nothing attacks him. He makes a Fortitude save (would have to be changed for 4e, I guess, as I understand there are no more actively rolled saves...) at, say, DC25. His Fort is +18. He rolls a 10, success #1. Two more to go. Next round Pinky's sidekick Mr Fluffles (a dire crow.. I don't even know if such a thing exists, ok?) comes over and starts pecking at Crunch's eyes and soft bits. Mr Fluffles does 6 points of damage to Crunch. Less than his CON mod, so he just takes the damage, going to -54. His previous success for recovery is wiped out. Next round, Mr Fluffles attacks again, doing 5 points of damage and making it impossible for Crunch to make a recovery check. Next round, Mr Fluffles eats a lightning bolt from Crunch's buddy Kazap the wizard. Crunch may now continue making recovery rolls. One more point of damage, though, and he'd have been dead for keeps. If Mr Fluffles had been able to do maximum damage with the Eye Pluck (8 points) then Crunch would have also died as that would exceed his CON bonus.

This would stop people from being able to recover while taking continuous damage or damage every round (or every couple of rounds) while unconscious and dying, and continued beatings while in that state would eventually kill the subject. At that rate, even something that did 1 point per round would eventually kill anyone. Something that can do over the target's CON bonus in damage in a single hit would kill it immediately (kind of a free coup de grace, I guess).

I dunno... just thought I'd try something slightly altered. Like it or not, there is my suggestion which I just came up with right now. :)

I don't mind the "healing starts at 0" thing for reviving downed characters. It would sort of be needed if you have a system that takes you well into negatives. Or perhaps you could say, if you want more math but for it to make some sense that healing starts at 10-CON bonus; the higher the con bonus someone has, the more quickly the healing brings them up to consciousness. Probably one step too many into the math department (even for 3.5 :).

As for the "definition" of hit points... if you need such, anyway, as they are a total abstraction and make no logical sense... I've sometimes rationalized it as a simplification of the math that is involved in higher level characters being able to shave a percentage off of physical damage as they progress through their careers - whether through dexterity, sheer brute CON, subtle magics, luck, or what have you. It's easier than saying "the fighter reduces damage by 4.1% for each level gained" and never increasing the HP total (which you could always explain as "the first level HP are the real totality of the character's limit of physical damage").

Anyway... that was a fun break. :)

Yet again, here is a button just to see how many people push it

Curses! Suckered again! I cannot resist... there might one day be some nugget of wisdom in the last Spoiler button that will change my life...

I think a Paladin of Ioun would rock!

Ioun... rock... stone...

punny. :)

And I don't fancy a taking a white-knuckle ride on the glowy green Gleemax Epilepti-tron, either. Apart from the fact that it's ugly as hell, it's immediately apparent to anyone at the far end of my office that it's not work-related, whereas I can tootle around on the calming fluffy-white Paizo cloud-pages all day, as long as I outperform my slack-jawed colleagues (not hard!).

OK, that was hilarious. :) I, too, hate Gleemax. It's nigh unuseable.

In any case, I think that part of the "NPC creation time" dilemma comes from *inexperienced* DMs if they complain about it. As someone else said... if a DM is taking an hour to make an NPC, it's because he wants to (because of using lots of other sources, etc). There is no reason, in 3.x, that you can't simply say, "OK, I need a dock-hand thug. AC 13, +4 to hit with a club doing 1d6+3 damage, 1d10 HP, and... hm... +1 to init, Will+0, Ref+1, Fort+2. I guess that's all I need."

There, that took me 15 seconds to type. Now if I want the King of the Pirates who is hidden in one of the warehouses and the PCs are going to take him on, though I expect him to escape and come back to harass them later... well, I would probably build that NPC just like a character.

It should be geared to the actual life expectancy and function of the NPC. Heck, you could even, as the DM, make up 3 or 4 sets of stat blocks at various levels, and just describe them differently each time you need them. Today's dock-hand thug is tomorrow's trail bandit is the next day's town bully.

The players need to build characters that are adaptable and need to expect different situations. As the DM, if your dock-hand thug needs to make a balance check to run along the rail of a ship to avoid the PCs, then give him a reasonable balance check based on his level on the fly and make the roll.

Anyway, I'm not saying that SRM isn't exactly right that it can be done in 4e easily, but unless a DM feels that he *must* be a slave to the character creation rules when creating NPCs that's not something that was "fixed" for 4e, just carried over with some official language in the DMG.

It is good to hear, as well, that there is someone able to do this conversion almost on the fly. It does turn previous claims of its impossibility on their head, but it bodes well for the future of Paizo customers.

The same goes for the whole tiefling/gnome flash video; criticism gets leveled at Wizards, so the humorous response is really more to lighten up the situation than dismiss it.

Personally I think the gnome should have stayed in the PHB, and the Tiefling in the MM. However, I thought that the gnome was hilarious in that video. :) The tiefling... well, I found her very annoying.

"Do you have a lair? I have a lair!"
"It's like trick or treat, but all treats!"

Whoever did the voice did it very well. :)

I do find that there are people who will pick way too much at even the slightest hint of anything that isn't exactly what he or she wants to hear. That really does detract from the valid concerns others have about the new system. I certainly didn't see the video as mocking of those people who disagree with the switch of the core races.

I can be the most foulmouthed son-of-a-gun around, but I still think that the bleeped profanity is out of place in them, though.

Anyway, that was off topic. Cool.

As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company.

If that's the impression you've taken away from my posts, then I apologize. I mean no such insult when I say, "That impression seems to be based on only partial information." If you say 4th Edition doesn't feel like D&D, I respect that you've formed that opinion based on the previews, but my counter-argument would just be to ask you to take a look at the finished, completed product.

Additionally, I think we can disagree about the feel of D&D without it being me saying, "No, you're wrong." I think that's the most cynical and hostile interpretation. If you say, "This doesn't feel like D&D" and I say, "I think it does because of X" that doesn't mean I've dismissed you, it just means we're having a discussion. If I have been insulting anywhere, I'm more than happy to apologize for that.

No, I've not felt that from you at all so don't worry. :) It's the rest of the PR that has been so badly handled. Is there a marketing department at WotC? Whose idea was it to let the designers make official-sounding comments without vetting it through the PR department first? That person should take some classes or something.

However, I can only assume that the theory behind releasing what has been released already is that it's the best bits, or the most representative bits, of what the new system will be. You don't create a new car that you're hoping will appeal to a huge market, then spend the year leading up to its release only talking about the catalytic converter and the really cool rivets used in its construction. You highlight all the "sexy" bits. If it's the "sexy" bits that have been released, then that's what I have to judge the rest of the system on. Suggesting that I wait and see the whole thing together isn't really going to help if I already dislike what I've already seen. The best it could do is impress me so much that I will play in spite of the fact I already dislike important parts of the game. And if I have to spend more time fixing (relative to my own tastes) 4e than it would take to fix 3.5 (a little tweaking here and there wouldn't hurt it, for sure), then why switch? If even these small reveals are so contentious in the existing customer base, how can the whole thing together be something that will heal that divide?

I will explain, quickly, my process since hearing about 4e.

"Cool, that might be interesting." (I used "cool" long before 4e did)
"Are you sure what the designers are saying is right?"
"Hm, it might still be neat to see how they handle X and Y."
"What the hell is Rich Baker on?"
"I can't believe that they really believe their own reasoning for this."
"OK, I can't take any more of this foolishness from WotC."
"I still think I'll pick up the books and have a look. I know I won't play this as my main system, but it could be one of those 'backups' like GURPS or something."
"OK, if they're doing that to the Realms, I vow to never spend one nickel on WotC products from this day forth. I may not even sully my computer by downloading such garbage."
"I can't believe they are treating their customers this way."

And it goes downhill from there. With me, and as I think it is with many of the people who have proclaimed against 4e at this point, it's as much a matter of principle as it is a distaste with the revealed changes. It's too late, at least with me, to try to convince me that this is anything other than a huge money grab (see my percentages above... 80% money, 15% designer ego, 5% making fixes to the system). Ironically, it was the designers being allowed to mouth off to the customer base and the ridiculous changes to the Forgotten Realms that lost me as even a prospective customer of 4e.

And... perhaps I'm confused. It seems that the 4e idea of making NPCs and monsters is to give them whatever you want and the mechanics need not be consulted to do so. Why isn't this possible in 3.x again? Someone above did it very well with the general mook cultist.

I honestly don't have a freakin' clue what 4e will do. I have heard that there is supposed to be mechanics to make NPCs easier. All I'm sayin' is that it sounds like a good idea to me. Is it actually true? How the heck do I know? I'm not a playtester. I just think that 3.5 NPC generation, as written, is cumbersome. People have given me plenty of ways to make it less cumbersome. I'm grateful.

Please don't try and turn this into another anti-4e thread. I really thought the point here was how long it takes to make NPCs in 3.5e. I'm not pro-4e, anti-3.5e, nothin. I'll be playing 3.5 for a lotta years yet. But that is because I've got a lot of money invested in it. That's all.

Apologies - I didn't intend to lean this to anti-4e, but your comments made it sound like the solution to all your problems would be the NPC generation method in 4e. I think you are a victim of what many people consider "too many rules" in 3.x (I like how many rules there are, but I can definitely see that some people get caught up in them).

Out of curiosity, did you ever DM before 3.x? I think that makes a difference, sometimes, where DMs who came out of the older system are more accustomed to making things up on the fly (or at least only making up exactly what was needed beforehand).

Hopefully your future 3.x DMing will be helped by the excellent points made above (I know I'm even going to pay more attention to PHBII now - I didn't realize it had all that great stuff in it until this thread popped up :).

When Chris Perkins talks about incorporating stuff from MMORPGs and even adapting the vocabulary from those games into the new edition, with the specific intention to appeal more to current MMORPG players*, how is that not seeking to "find a new audience?"

Expanding an audience and finding a new one are two different things entirely. I can make a game more accessible without removing the very things that made it appealing to other fans.

You probably shouldn't use "I" when talking about these things... we know that you aren't necessarily responsible for 4e but if you take some level of ownership then you are setting yourself up as a target. :)

In any case, while it is, indeed, possible to make a game more accessible without removing the very things that make it appealing to other (existing, I assume you meant) fans, that doesn't seem to have been what happened with 4e - as I'm sure you're learning based on reading some of the threads here and some on other boards (when they survive the moderation process).

As Eileen noted... if I am an existing customer, and I say this doesn't look, smell, feel, or play like D&D, and the company answer is "You're wrong, it does so, you just don't understand anything yet" then I have some choice words for said company. I may not speak for the entirety of D&D players, but you would think that with the volume of feedback similar to that the company (and desigers) might have given it some consideration. There is no way it will appeal to everybody, but they definitely could have made it appeal much more to the existing fans while STILL making the changes they felt necessary to entice new fans. They didn't seem to choose this route, though, so you're reading about the backlash of those decisions now.

Scott Rouse (my roommate at the show) and I chatted with Lisa Stevens and Erik Mona from Paizo to discuss 4th Edition plans. We also met with other d20 publishers throughout the show, first to assure them that the OGL would be continuing under 4E, and that we're interested in working with them to iron out things that didn't work so well with 3E. Very exciting!

So... did they ever come back to you after GenCon, Erik or Lisa?

varianor wrote:

I'll also be curious to see how many Over My Dead Body Gamers choose to convert anyway.

I'll be surprised if less than 75% of the "I'm never playing 4th edition" were still holding out by June 2009.

Heh, by June 2009 it might actually be worth looking at. ;)

In any case, I really don't appreciate when people say things like this.

I don't go around saying "I expect at least 52% of the 4e sycophants will be crying in their cheerios because they are so ashamed of their decision to play 4e" now, do I? Or "people who are switching to 4e are the kind of people who would eat a spoonful of crap if WotC put a Dungeons and Dragons label on it and told them that their cheerios paled in comparison to their cool new stuff".

That would be wrong of me to do.

So again, I really, sincerely appreciate everyone's attempts to make NPC building easier for me. I will definitely look into it the next time I have the need. But this really is on the far side of fun for me, and I guess I'm one of those that think that easy NPC building will help the game.

And... perhaps I'm confused. It seems that the 4e idea of making NPCs and monsters is to give them whatever you want and the mechanics need not be consulted to do so. Why isn't this possible in 3.x again? Someone above did it very well with the general mook cultist.

It is clear to me Wizards has decided D&D needs a new audience. They are designing this game for that audience. Blessings on them, and Mearlsie, bgut I'm not part of that group.

You know, I keep hearing this over and over again--from people outside of Wizards. Never, in the entire time I've been at Wizards or working on 4th Edition, has anyone ever mentioned anything about finding a new audience or "firing" the old audience. Never. Not one single time.

It's an easily determined constant that it costs a lot less to keep your current customers than to entice new customers. This seems to be the biggest failure of 4e.

The fact of the matter is that 4th Edition has been designed with the hopes that D&D players that exist now enjoy it. Just because there are significant mechanical differences in the editions does not mean that one edition or another is "not D&D." The differences between 2E and 3E were huge, mechanically; did that mean that 3E was designed to find a new audience with 3E? I don't think so. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, 3E did a great job of bringing old players back into D&D, players that had tired of D&D as a game or just as a storytelling venue.

You (they?) can hope all you want. 3.x is still the most popular roleplaying game in the world. That's how people actually are able to advertise their products as having some level of compatibility without actually naming the game. It's not broken beyond repair. It might be tapped for sucking the money out of the customers, though, and I don't think *anyone* could rationally argue that finance accounts for less than 80% of the reason for this new edition. (I personally would attribute 15 of the remaining 20% to the egos of the designers, but that's just me.) That is the huge difference this time around - they not only have to figure out how to sell the new edition, but they need to somehow convince the people who have made 3.x the best selling p&p RPG in the world that they need to play something different.

Mechanics mean nothing. Except when the mechanics define a style of play. The mechanics of 3.x facilitate a Sword And Sorcery style of fantasy. From everything I've seen (and I know I haven't seen it all, but presumably those things released have been released to entice me to the new edition) the new edition is geared to a different genre of fantasy. I am not a fan of WoW, Final Fantasy, or anime games. I have no interest in my fighters and rogues being able to do SUPERnatural things, when they should be doing fightery and roguey things. The fact that the actual feel of the classes and races has been fairly consistent for this long, and now some designers decided it should be all different and still wear the D&D logo is what causes people to say "4e is not D&D". You could make a Supers game (which 4e seems to be leading to) and still call it Dungeons and Dragons on the cover... that doesn't mean it feels anything like the D&D we've become accustomed to and dumped enough money into to make it the most successful RPG ever.

What really matters is the experience. When I sit down at the gaming table, it's the experience I take away from it that makes it D&D. That is what is important, and that's what the people working on the game are trying hard to capture in 4E. You can disagree with whether or not adding dragonborn or taking out the barbarian makes it not D&D, but I think the scope of what D&D is will always be much larger than a few secondary races or classes.

You are exactly right. And when you change, fundamentally, what the genre feels like and has felt like for 30 years, why would I want something new and different? I am obviously enjoying the experience I have with the current edition (or 2e, or 1e, or AD&D) or I wouldn't still be playing it. If I want Fantasy Supers one day I might check out 4e. Until then, I will stick with what I already enjoy until it's no longer feasible. Then I will find something that is as close to that as possible so I can recapture that experience again. 4e won't be it.

I think this is what people mean when they say it feels like the "old guard" is being fired. No respect nor consideration seems to have been given to what people already enjoy about D&D.

And just for the record, and to make sure KnightErrant doesn't think I'm pinning everything on a single person who isn't even involved enough in the process to have any influence over what we're talking about, I am not directing my displeasure at you directly, Rodney. I can respect your point of view (and I hope you can respect mine).

In any case, material that’s open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, and there will be no language in the 4e OGL to restrict 3.0 or 3.5 products.

Right, which is a useless thing to say as they cannot possibly do so in any case. What already exists as 3.5 OGL material cannot be affected by the GSL. In fact, people can go on forever producing material under the OGL (any version of it they choose to use). HOWEVER, that does not remove the possibility of *FUTURE* production of OGL material if you choose to use the GSL (or CGL as someone has been calling it - clever :). That line could be read as:

"In any case, material that's open under the 3.5 OGL remains open, since we can't time travel and change the licence at this point (but look out once that technology exists), and there will be no language in the GSL which indicates our future expected ability to time travel and do such (since once we do that the course of future events will be changed such that the absence of the language will be inconsequential). We reserve the right to make you our b|tch3s if you sign the new GSL which will prohibit you from producing any MORE OGL material, though."

While a little wordier, it says the same thing in the end. :)

If they wanted to be clear, they should have said something like:

"In any case, material that's open under the 3.5 OGL [note: they really should find someone who knows what he's talking about and can use proper labels for the various contracts/licences to write this stuff] remains open as per the terms of the OGL. Participating in and producing material under the upcoming GSL will in no way restrict future, concurrent production of OGL-covered material and GSL-covered material."

But they didn't. While their marketing is bad, sometimes that might be a cover to stop people from thinking about what *isn't* being said. Or it could just be more public fumbling with language. :)

While I'm at it, Rich Baker isn't the evil mastermind that changed all of the Fluff of D&D either. He isn't the head of the "story" team, he is just on it. While other designers have been talking about how we should trust them because D&D is cool and fun and better, Rich has, rightly, known that some things aren't going to go over well and wanted some facts on the table to discuss, even early on, so that discussions were about facts and not speculation. I'm not saying he probably hasn't had a hand in some (or many) of the things I don't like, don't get me wrong. But he isn't the sole architect either.

Chris Perkins actually came out and defended Rich (long after Rich had already been tarred and feathered, I might note) saying that Rich wasn't the decision-maker, just the self-appointed mouthpiece. To assign blame, talk to Chris Perkins (a paraphrase of his managerly act).

Now, Rich Baker has not, to my knowledge, ever put "facts on the table to discuss" - in fact, his early posts said something along the lines of "this is how it is, suck it up because no amount of whining is going to change them at this point." If you choose to be the mouthpiece, you'd better be ready to take the return fire. And Rich is. While I despise what he and others have done to the Realms, at least he's got some balls.

If people complain about Hasbro's influence, they are told to stop making it out like some corporate conspiracy. When it gets personalized down to the people who are actually making the design decisions, someone comes back with "please don't blame the designers! Think of the children!" Well you know what? Someone has to be held responsible for the failures as well as the successes. You can bet that every designer will be happy to accept his or her share of the success... how many will actually take responsibility for their part in a failure?

Generic Evil Cultist 1: No time to prep heres how I do it:

AC: 20, HP: 30, Melee: +5 to hit Scimitar, dmg 1d6+2 treasure: 1-20 silver

thats it. Its a mook. I don't care if he has Power Attack, or any other number of feats. If he's meant to be mowed down, why bother? How long did that take? As fast as I can type (30-40 words per minute...I am a 2 finger typer.)

Evil Cultist Leader:

Ac: 20, HP: 40 Spells as a 10th level sorcerer treasure: a really fantastic ham and cheese on rye...you interrupted this poor saps lunch.

Awesome! Just flip the PHB to the spells page and fling as needed.

The Big Bad Evil Guy:

Why wouldn't I WANT to take 90 minute or even more to flesh out this engine of TPK? Thats part of the fun. As a DM, THIS is MY character. No player would spend less than 3 hours fleshing out his level 12 character, why wouldn't a DM do the same for his? Yeah, sure, my character is probably going to die, but thats ok, I have another wicked character idea...

I'm sure you've just totally ruined the surprise of how to make NPCs in 4e. Arbitrarily assigned numbers that can do whatever you want/need them to do!

I agree entirely... if they're fodder then don't spend time. If your players wonder how the evil cultist got a 20 AC... how do you show them, though? Or are your players better behaved (or more cowed?) than that? :)

For the big boys... yes, I also take a substantial amount of time (but not because it's a tedious process - because I want the BBEG to make sense and be a challenge, perhaps a recurring one, for the party). I like your analogy about the big guys being the DM's characters.

In case you couldn't guess, this is where any of my home campaigns set in the Realms begin to seriously diverge from the "published" Realms.

Yeah, I blew up Evermeet in mine...;)

Now that sounds like fun.

The last campaign I ran involved Silverymoon - where one could find Drizz't hanging from the walls by his wrists so children could pelt him with rotten fruit and vegetables all day.

I hate Drizz't like some people seem to hate Elminster (who I think is a harmless NPC :) ).

Hardly the first time you've made that thinly-veiled criticism...

Don't lecture about being reasonable.

He drives me nuts too, dude. He seems unable to grasp the opinions of others and get perspective on his own.

ad hominem - This is not about me. If you care to address my point rather than some perceived deficiency in my ability to communicate then I will be pleased to address your counter point.

However, if all you want to do is post how you do not like my style of communication then there is nothing more for us to talk about.

And yet, there you go talking to him about it. ;)

You have a "debate" style similar to a couple of guys who used to post on the DND-L list. I wonder.......

Anyway, carry on. :)

I wonder what Ed Greenwood thinks of all this :/

I was quite impressed with Ed's responses, right up until I found he he was paid a crapload of money to write 50,000 words for the new FRCG (or whatever it'll be called).

He portrays it as trying to continue to influence the direction of the Realms... unfortunately I expect it's more of a business decision at this point and that while he might be able to speak up in development meetings he can't do much more than hold on and hope that he doesn't get thrown overboard. I can't fault him for it, but I can still feel some amount of disappointment that it happened.

Not that it matters... as soon as he sold it to TSR they changed it. He's been dealing with "his" Realms and "published" Realms for a couple of decades now. Before, though, you always could still use the information he was able to provide and understand that it came about from a rich history of his actually creating and playing in that world. Now he's basically just another freelancer who has his marching orders from WotC and whose name will, they hope, fool people into thinking that the new Realms actually has a shred of its former brilliance. Ed's name on the book is like putting the Forgotten Realms logo on the new setting... hoping that name recognition will pull people in despite the fact that it's really not the same thing.

In case you couldn't guess, this is where any of my home campaigns set in the Realms begin to seriously diverge from the "published" Realms.

It's brilliant isn't it. I wonder if Dr. Evil doesn't secretly own WotC. Maybe they should ransom the Realms for "one billion dollars".

I hope they have sharks with lasers on their heads... or at least ill-tempered sea bass...

Short answer: Nothing.

Longer answer:

1. Scrap any of the stupid changes they are making to the Forgotten Realms (and that would, IMO, be all of them).
2. Roll the parties responsible for the above changes into the town square and have them stoned (biblical old-school style)
3. Somehow convince me that they have spent more than all of about 6 months on this - there is no way it could be in such disarray as this if they've really been working on it for two years
4. Stop stealing names of things and applying them to totally (or significantly different) things - see #1 above, as well as several other examples
5. No subscription-based content. This is a blatant money-grab which clearly indicates they have no real desire to provide a complete system without a monthly cost attached.
6. Don't make people take steps backwards when comparing core books to core books. I can understand if someone can't play a Deepwood Sniper out of the gate, but a druid? That should be pretty simple.... (see #3 above)

I have several other conditions, but they may not be appropriate for this forum as they involve specific people.

Anyway, I think that the Longer Answer really just leads back to my short answer. They've already forked it up so badly, as far as my interest is concerned, that I will never allow any money to flow into WotC again.

Here's a part I found amusing:

The "why" is pretty simple: we wanted a few more responsible, trustworthy, and respected non-staff voices out there talking about their experiences. Is someone going to buy 4E sight unseen because Ari or John or someone else says, "Hey, I liked it"--not likely. But if it opens a few more people's minds to being open to the new edition (or god forbid cautiously optimistic about it), that's a good thing.

It sounds like, based on the last sentence (and especially the parenthetical addon), all of the negativity might be getting to him.

Keep up the pressure, I say. :)

It does for D&D what midi-chlorians did for the Force.

I don't know one Star Wars fan that approved of that particular foolishness. :) I'm sure there were some, but I suspect they also liked Jar Jar.

Now all we need is some Jar-Jar like character to appear, and the ruination of the Realms will be complete.

And, of course, if this is what happens to the Realms to fit it into 4E, then I'd rather they left Greyhawk alone....

This is what I tell people every time they say "What about Greyhawk for 4e?!"

The 4E mind flayers will be just like Jar Jar

Messa hungry for brains! Pleasa,meesa eata your brainsa now?

Or perhaps Jar Jar will be the new Volo.... I can see a whole line of writing, which Ed will do if he gets paid enough, I guess, in the voice of Jar Jar. Jar Jar's guide to the Sword Coast, Jar Jar's Guide To The Underdark, and the final volume Jar Jar's Guide to the Dragonborn Lands (because they will mercifully just kill and eat him).

Just for a bit of correction - I read the original article on the WotC site and the OP incorrectly attributed it to Rich Baker. On the site it is credited to Bruce Cordell. (Unless they decided to "publish" this in both Dungeon and Dragon with different authors for the exact same content, anyway...)

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080130a&authentic=true

Tatterdemalion wrote:

I'm having an increasingly hard time believing 4/e's designers even liked D&D, so instead they made a game they did like.

QFT, my friend, QFT.

An excellent way to say it. And I'm thoroughly convinced of such as well.

It really does sadden me. FR has always been my favourite setting - ToT and all. It really was this (most of the information has been around in less flowery language for a while now) that absolutely solidified my "I will never play or put any money into 4e" resolution. I was willing to at least keep it around as a "wow, let's take a break from D&D for this week" kind of game, but ever since I heard about some of the "ideas" for FR I abandoned WotC to whatever fate the interlopers have devised for it.

And Rich Baker ought to be ashamed. Even if Chris Perkins is going to stand up and try to defend him, Rich is absolutely unapologetic about what has happened and the role he's played in the changes.

SOmeone above made a good point - this doesn't make new people want to try it out (as noted none of this makes any sense unless you know what has come before anyway), and it alienates the vast majority of FR fans who already play in the setting. A lot of those never progressed the timeline to or past the Time of Troubles, even.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that some people who aren't even fans of FR see this for what it is.

Wow, that's a big pile of dumb.

You know, I was searching for a way to eloquently express my feelings on 4e Faerun, and I believe I will agree with Sebastian's assessment. :)

I just look at this with bemusement now. As soon as they announced 4e WotC stopped supporting the Forgotten Realms as far as I'm concerned. I will never grace their bank account with one shiny nickel of mine, nor will I ever play in this steaming mound they have mistakenly named the Forgotten Realms.

Oh sweet Jebus it's been a long time since I read that. Good times all around... :)

I don't see a problem with this, to be honest. Sure, it's not the whole story, but it's still playtesting. Presumably they are still playtesting because the rules aren't finalized, and they will be tweaking based on feedback from the playtesters. Why announce all the crappy stuff if it's going back to the drawing board to be fixed?

That said, however, I would wonder what stops someone from giving away the things they think are "bad" by simply stating that they liked this or that, even though they clearly didn't - just to get the information out there.

I'm assuming they were told that they couldn't release any mechanics information, just things like "wow, we did 3 combats in 4 hours!" and other such lame stuff as that.

Damn you Aberzombie for exploiting my compulsion to click on "Show" buttons.

This one was my favourite:

Now only two classes – pirate and ninja. Monkey and robot to be added in 4.5

:)

Let me put it this way. I know one person that still uses a blank character sheet and a pencil as opposed to dozens of people that use Hero Forge. I also know one GM that does not use some kind of Critter Forge.

To me that says that something is too complex.

This is one reason the tools on the DDI are appealing to me.

So as long as the "electronic crutch" that you make it out to be is created (and charged for) by WotC then it's OK? And free or third-party versions mean that the game is too complicated? You've stopped making any sense at all, now (unless you actually do work for WotC, that is).

When you need a sophisticated speadsheet to play a game you know its too complex.

Yep, cuz as my example above shows, it's so much better to make crap up on the fly, eh?

Do you seriously believe that the same thing isn't going to happen to 4e? It is, at its core, RULES. That tends to imply some level of internal consistency. 3.x did this very well. 4e will, too, eventually I bet. At the outset it's easy to say "simplified, faster system!" because they haven't developed anything for it yet (hell, it looks like they've barely finished the actual core rules, let alone addons).