Someone started a very interesting discussion on rpg.net about whether 4E is "Mike Mearls' Heartbreaker RPG". What makes it interesting is that Mike himself showed up and added some fuel to the fire; specifically, he listed 13 things that were wrong with 3.x:
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented. The thread is long (60+ pages) but worth checking out.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting, since I've not seen many of these addressed in 4.x
1)Still going to be time consuming. Not to mention that there's a) already software to help and b) WotC couldn't get it right.
2) I think this is player dependant, but I'll conceed his point. Still, no idea how this is fixed, besides 'Trust us, it is.'
3) This is a subset of 2, though I've not encountered it. Not counting the 'half hour for the spell caster to pick what spell they're using'.
4) Define swingy. If they're getting rid of low levels by increasing HP and the like then they're just getting rid of the low levels.
5) I don't know about confusing, but I'll conceed the wonky results. I'll believe that they've fixed that when I see it.
6) So the solution is to make everyone spell casters.
7) Conceeded, but do we need an entire new edition for this? and I'll believe it when I see it. Practiced Spellcaster and the Gish Armor feat from MM IV tackled this nicely.
8) Pet peeve of mine, but again, is a new edition needed? 2 point classes get 4, 4 point get 6 6 point get 9, 8 point get 12. More skill points w/o negating the rogue's advantage.
9) But our monsters with sudden actions, immediate actions and the lie aren't. trust us!
10) I like feats as a scarce resource.
11) Not to me. How hard are they?
12) Magic Items should be cool. But the Advanced Gamemaster's Guide gives rules for other rewards, adopt something like that. Again, is a new edition needed?
13) But we won't have weird subsystems, trust us! Conditions, damage tracks, critter unique systems that don't mess with having a stable system... And am I the only one who wasn't daunted by grappling or bull rush?
As odd as this may sound (coming from me) I'm more optimistic, not by this list necessarily (he does make some good points on that list), but by this he said like 2 posts up:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.
This is my attitude towards it. Everything I had heard about 4E about the setting made me believe that they felt quite the opposite. I still may question them, but ... I am more optimistic.
|
As odd as this may sound (coming from me) I'm more optimistic, not by this list necessarily (he does make some good points on that list), but by this he said like 2 posts up:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.This is my attitude towards it. Everything I had heard about 4E about the setting made me believe that they felt quite the opposite. I still may question them, but ... I am more optimistic.
Yeah, I thought that was a cool little bit.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, I thought that was a cool little bit.As odd as this may sound (coming from me) I'm more optimistic, not by this list necessarily (he does make some good points on that list), but by this he said like 2 posts up:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.This is my attitude towards it. Everything I had heard about 4E about the setting made me believe that they felt quite the opposite. I still may question them, but ... I am more optimistic.
If only that attitude were conveyed by their marketing department, I think we'd all be a lot happier.
Less cool, more respect.
If only that attitude were conveyed by their marketing department, I think we'd all be a lot happier.
Less cool, more respect.
QFT
OK lets see:
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Ok this is very true. I cant argue that. Luckily I play published adventures so never had to really make NPCs from scratch.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
I agree here to. It is the "sweet spot".
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
Hmm...Hes right again. High level games are pretty much a single fight taking up a session.
4. Low level games are swingy.
True...But fragile heroes makes the game cool. I really dont see this one as a problem.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
Huh? No I dont agree. The CR system is fine.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Umm...No. I REALLY dont agree. If you reach high level then they are powerful, but thats not a problem at all. Being weaker than everyone else in your party at first is a sacrifice you make so you can be stronger than the others at high level. I consider it a player option to go that route. Its one of things I really LIKE.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
Multiclassing doesnt work well with certain combos...So? It doesnt all need to work that great. I dont like multiclassing anyway.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
I 100% agree.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Sometimes this is true.
10. You don't get enough feats.
No you get a decent amount. If players had more feats it would make the game complicated again keeping track of them all.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
No not at all.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
This is the second time something that I like is being deemed a problem. All magic items are not created equal, nor should they be. There needs to be chaff magic items. Its just makes finding these doo-dads interesting. They are fun.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
I agree. I know some people say its simple..but Grappling, Sundering, Turning Undead..it is complicated because it doesnt happen often and I alway find myself opening the book and reading the rules again.
So I agree with 5 or 6 out of 13.
Maybe if these 13 problems were addressed only I would be on board with 4th edition. But since so much fluff and flavor is being changed thats whats killing me.
Fixing these 13 problems is nice, But no Gnome PCs, Dragonborn, Alignments getting the axe, the planes changing, the Realms being destroyed ect just tipped the scales to making 4th edition no good to me.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
I agree. I know some people say its simple..but Grappling, Sundering, Turning Undead..it is complicated becaus eit doesnt happen often and I alway find myself opening the book and reading the rules again.
Make a Sunder specialist PC sometime, or a Grappling PC or something similar that is based on one of those subsystems. You'll find the rules to actually be relatively smooth with a little practice. Same a regular combat; it looks confusing and can be confusing, but with a little practice its not that hard.
|
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
I don’t really agree with this one but then again I normally enjoyed homework, especially math. Putting together an NPC is a little (to me) like putting together a jigsaw puzzle. I like puzzles. It’s nice to see everything fitting together
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12. I actually like levels 1-12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run. I’ve only ever run high level one shots and they seemed fine to me. But I can see where this is probably true for campaigns.
4. Low level games are swingy. We have most of our character deaths after level four.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results. Never had a problem with it myself.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else. Except at low levels. Then they run out of spells too often according to many 4e supporters. In our games the fighters generally outperform the spellcasters but as I said we rarely get over level 12.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work. I just flat out disagree with this. I like 3e multiclassing for the most part. Jack of all Trades trade off proficiency for the ability to do a little of everything.
8. Characters have too few skill points. I wholeheartedly agree with this.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated. Some monsters might be too complicated but most of them seem fairly standard to me.
10. You don't get enough feats. Maybe. Maybe not.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing. No they are not.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff. So? Home electronics are really useful but it isn’t equal. Some seem critical while others are just luxury. Is the solution to get rid of magical trinkets?
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling. Maybe. I would have to see what replaces it. Overly simplified combat is not necessarily what I want. If its too easy to do its ripe for abuse,
So I agree with maybe five out of the thirteen. And even if I agreed with all of them I am not sure that changing the whole flavor of the game is really necessary to fix the problem. But maybe this is why I have been so ambivelant about 4e.
Someone started a very interesting discussion on rpg.net about whether 4E is "Mike Mearls' Heartbreaker RPG". What makes it interesting is that Mike himself showed up and added some fuel to the fire; specifically, he listed 13 things that were wrong with 3.x:
Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:1. Generating numbers...and so on (remainder of the list deleted in the interest of space)
There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented. The thread is long (60+ pages) but worth checking out.
My replies, in order:
1. And 4e is going to be any better? You can't have complexity without requiring some degree of effort. It's just not logical to think you can. Don't like making up NPCs? Then buy a book of pre-made ones.2. So? Mediocrity is always easy. That's the nature of the universe. Being on the bottom is dangerous, and being on top is complicated. Get used to it. You want a system wherein this doesn't happen? Then go back to playing 1e and implement the "max hit points at every level" rule.
3. See #2 above. Of course high level is more difficult - it's HIGH LEVEL.
4. Again, see #2 above. Remember there's no rule that says you have to start at 1st level. You're making a character, not giving birth.
5. No system can predict how monsters and players will interact. Bad players will have problems no matter what the CR is. Likewise bad DMs will run bad encounters no matter what. The key is to learn the game, not to change the system - and that's not going to change with 4e. Mike's statement is like saying golf is a bad sport because no two golf courses are alike.
6. This statement is simply untrue. I've seen plenty of fighter players who could whip any spellcaster they come across. In fact, just about everyone tends to be better with some classes and not so good with others. Learning to master your chosen class is part of the game.
7. Well, duh! So what? Again we have an example of Mike's flawed life philosophy trying to overcome the laws of the universe. You can't do everything you want to do all at the same time. Get used to it. Everything involves tradeoffs. You want to be a good fighter? Then you'll have to sacrifice some of your magical ability. This rule applies to everything from D&D on up.
8. Then give them more. This hardly requires a new edition. Or better yet, teach DMs and players how to make better use of the skills they have. Seriously - when's the last time you saw a DM maximize the usefulness of Knowledge (architecture and engineering)? Education is the key, not a dumbed-down system.
9. No they're not. You want simpler monsters? Then stick with goblins. They're nice and simple. Or how 'bout ogres? Mike, why don't you quit beating around the bush and just put the game online? Let the computer do all the thinking, DMing, and planning. In fact, why not let the computer do all the playing, too? Just take all the challenge out of it and send us an email every week to let us know how our character's doing.
10. Then give more. No, wait. You've already done that. It's one of the variant rules in Unearthed Arcana.
11. Then leave them out. Heck, I bet the average player forgets them half the time anyway. I know I've done it. And somehow the game survives. Again, this hardly justifies the need for 4e.
12. Once more: well, duh! Again, this is just silliness. I have tons of tools in my garage. Some of them I use regularly. Some I use once in a blue moon. But when I need that one seldom-used tool, I REALLY need it. Why should magic items be any different?
13. So? Leave them out. IMC, we've reduced all grappling-related actions to a single opposed roll. It works just fine.
What we have here is a situation in which someone with a flawed understanding of the workings of human nature (including his own chosen field) is trying to figure out a way he and his customers can have their cake and eat it too. Mike, you're never going to be able to give every player everything they want. It's just not possible. Even if you could do that, you shouldn't. It's not having the best magic sword that makes the game fun, it's overcoming obstacles and growing in the process. D&D is beloved by millions precisely because it allows the player to test himself against greater dangers than he can encounter in his everyday life. Tabletop gamers love their hobby because it allows them to get involved in the game's design. If they wanted to have all that done for them, they'd play a video game.
Besides that, Krypter's right: none of this has anything to do with all the other things you're changing. Explain to me how turning eladrins into elves is related to having too few feats. Why not just tell the truth? You're trying to get us all dependent on your computerized version of the game so you can have a greater degree of control over your customers' consumption and thereby increase revenue. There's nothing wrong with the game. The problem is that WotC lost control of the industry and now they're trying to get it back. It's that simple. The problem is only being compounded by the fact that too many at WotC have lost sight of why it is that D&D is so well-loved in the first place.
|
|
Mike, you're never going to be able to give every player everything they want.
Yeah, he says that in his posts there as well.
Honestly, I think folks should actually click the link and read his quotes in context. It is not like he jumped on there to say: Hah! 3e sux because...
He has some interesting things to say, not that it will matter to a lot of folks though.
Remember, whether you disagree with these 13 points or not, these are the things they heard over and over from D&D gamers. So while your games may have solve many of the challenges listed, a large number, if not the majority, of players do feel this way.
Whether 4e solves these problems or not remains to be seen. But having not seen the system, it seems like the only reliable sources are those who actually have.
But I also agree - what do these 13 points have to do with fluff like devils vs. demons, the Great Wheel, gnomes vs. tieflings, etc? I personally like many of the fluff changes, but were they in high demand too? Did they hear enough grumbles about gnomes to decide not to put them in the PHB?
I agree with Mike in that I think many of these 13 things do need to be fixed in the CORE books, they should be addressed if many players are having a problem with them. I don't think people should have to buy Arcana Unearthed or other supplements just to fix grappling or too few feats.
My only hesitation, although I'm still going to buy 4e, is that I wish they would have just made a new game or figured out a way to continue support for 3.5 and also move on with their "New" D&D. Because it is turning out to be a completely new system that will be played in a fundamentally different way than 3.5 is played. I think 4e sounds fun, I really do, I just wish that the 3.5 people could still be given some love (me included, cause I like 3.5 however flawed it may be).
It's funny that 4e designers say 'if it ain't broke,' because it has become clear to me that the design team is falling into a common decision-making process mistake: post-decision rationalization. Supposedly they spent some time before deciding that a new edition was really necessary, but it's obvious from reading the preview books and other information they have released that they're changing things just for the sake of justifying a big new edition (whether or not they realize it). It's a case of looking too hard for problems in order to validate your quest to solve problems.
|
|
One thing I find interesting too is that for at least 1-2 years prior to the 4e announcement, several of the changes they are making to 4e could be previewed in the WotC site in the R&D articles, etc (they weren't calling it 4e though).
Even I, who rarely visits the WotC site, was aware of them and read them. There was even discussion of these things going on the forums there. So, looks like they were getting feedback from the fans. Apparently quite a bit of positive feedback as well since they moved forward with them.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
This is the second time something that I like is being deemed a problem. All magic items are not created equal, nor should they be. There needs to be chaff magic items. Its just makes finding these doo-dads interesting. They are fun.
Depends on whether you want a character that, at high enough levels, will look like a Christmas Tree under detect magic or not.
Or if you're tired of every character owning a ring of protection +X and a cloak of resistance +X, as well as an item of important-to-class ability score +X.
In some regards, I miss 2E, when getting a +1 weapon was a big deal, and not something guaranteed and absolutely necessary in order to keep fighting monsters as you got stronger.
Getting rid of magic item dependency is a good thing, getting rid of anything that doesn't have a direct effect on combat is stupid.
Honestly, I think folks should actually click the link and read his quotes in context. It is not like he jumped on there to say: Hah! 3e sux because...
What he said.
I think all of the above are problems that need to be fixed and are good reason for a new edition. If you don't feel they are problems, you can continue playing 3e. Not sure what the harm is...
The only harm is that the game so many of us love is not going to be supported anymore. I know that some of the changes seem miniscule to a lot of people, but you have to recognize that D&D is not like a lot of other games. Very few people become emotionally invested in Monopoly, for instance (I realize some do, but not nearly as many or to the same degree as we see with D&D). D&D has evolved into a community over the last 3 1/2 decades, and many of us think of the game as a significant part of our lives. Thus, many of us view these changes emotionally in the same way that we might view something like surgery or divorce.
The real problem that most opponents of 4e have is that the changes were made without respect for the traditions and philosophies of the gaming community. Worse, many of us feel that WotC's approach has been deliberate - we tend to believe they knew they were going to upset us and did it spitefully and on purpose. Many of us also feel disrespected because we perceive that WotC has been using false reasoning and even outright lies to justify their changes. Worst of all, there is a strong perception among many that D&D has been "stolen", if you will, by a small bunch of individuals who seem to think the rest of us are idiots and that they have a right to redesign the game in their own image.
Concerning whether or not WotC has made these changes because they were requested by fans, I'm sure most if not all of them have been requested. The point is not that the changes were not wanted, it's that they were neither needed nor wise. As a businessman myself I have to tell you the customer is not always right. Especially when it comes to product design, there are often factors the average consumer doesn't and sometimes can't understand. Granted, it's a fine line and product designers must beware of slipping into the "you'll take what we give you and you'll like it or else" mode of thinking. Product designers also need to remember that though some customers might be requesting changes, others are not. Customers rarely write into a company and say, "Don't change a thing; I'm completely satisfied." Satisfied customers tend to NOT express their feelings. Just because a change is requested doesn't mean it needs to be made.
|
|
The only harm is that the game so many of us love is not going to be supported anymore. I know that some of the changes seem miniscule to a lot of people, but you have to recognize that D&D is not like a lot of other games. Very few people become emotionally invested in Monopoly, for instance (I realize some do, but not nearly as many or to the same degree as we see with D&D). D&D has evolved into a community over the last 3 1/2 decades, and many of us think of the game as a significant part of our lives. Thus, many of us view these changes emotionally in the same way that we might view something like surgery or divorce.
Looks like Mr. Mearls hold the same opinion:
What that does mean, though, is that it's very, very easy to piss people off when you change D&D or any other RPG. It's like giving their baby plastic surgery without asking first, or re-arranging their house while they're away on vacation. Even if you do a great job, there's a good chance they're going to be pissed off on general principle.
Like I said, people really should click the link, read his statements, and maybe you might see that they aren't doing these things to...
we tend to believe they knew they were going to upset us and did it spitefully and on purpose.
Very few people become emotionally invested in Monopoly, for instance (I realize some do, but not nearly as many or to the same degree as we see with D&D). D&D has evolved into a community over the last 3 1/2 decades, and many of us think of the game as a significant part of our lives. Thus, many of us view these changes emotionally in the same way that we might view something like surgery or divorce.
I can honestly say that the same is true with other RPGs. Exalted went through a new edition a few years ago and there were some serious cries of "its to early" "its a money grab" and so on. The changes WW made to Exalted were sweeping and large in scale but ultimately the fanbase loved them. Two biggest differences between Exalted's new ed launch and D&D's, 1) Good PR campaign, and 2) they genuinely did keep the feel the same, if anything they enhanced it.
|
I'd have to agree with the majority of things listed, but notice that none of them seem to touch on the drastic meta-setting changes that were also implemented. The thread is long (60+ pages) but worth checking out.
When 5e comes out, I guarantee you like Joe Namath, there are going to be umpteen and eleven senses-shattering statements preceded by "because you demanded it, the return of....." Each statement will summarily resurrect one of the "Sacred cows."
They had to slaughter the sacred cows to make all the 3e sourcebooks they possibly could not mesh with the new system.|
|
One thing I am curious about the PR. Even with the debacle it has been to many, how much will it effect the success or failure of 4e?
I don't know if my experience is atypical but of my past 5 gaming groups I have been the only member who regularly visits the various game related web sites to see this sort of thing.
Of my current two groups, neither would even be aware of the upcoming edition if I hadn't told them. They have no idea about the PR. It makes me curious about what the population of gamers out there is that are following this.
|
|
One thing I am curious about the PR. Even with the debacle it has been to many, how much will it effect the success or failure of 4e?
I don't know if my experience is atypical but of my past 5 gaming groups I have been the only member who regularly visits the various game related web sites to see this sort of thing.
Of my current two groups, neither would even be aware of the upcoming edition if I hadn't told them. They have no idea about the PR. It makes me curious about what the population of gamers out there is that are following this.
Yeah, interesting point. My regular gaming group have all said "Never!" to 4e ... but as far as I'm aware, I'm the only one who's been online and seen / heard about any of the PR stuff ...
Mostly from my group it's not a philosophical objection to 4E, but the fact that we only changed to 3.x about 3 years ago and have years and years worth of 3e and 2e stuff to get through...
My gaming group got their news through Dragon (except me, I actually went online). Then when dragon ... well you know, they lost all contact. None have gone online to seek out info and none have bought the preview book.
Of my current two groups, neither would even be aware of the upcoming edition if I hadn't told them. They have no idea about the PR. It makes me curious about what the population of gamers out there is that are following this.
Same here, man. Of my two groups, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who is even somewhat following developments.
Just from what I know about the players, I get the feeling that the younger of the groups would absolutely jump on 4E. Most of their characters already are aimed towards badass-ness and combat efficiency, with min-maxing and class-related/ability boosting items only. And I'm pretty sure that they would be all for simplified, streamlined combat and magic items systems that 4E seems to be geared towards.
If they're the target audience WotC is going for, I think they'll have them.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The only harm is that the game so many of us love is not going to be supported anymore. I know that some of the changes seem miniscule to a lot of people, but you have to recognize that D&D is not like a lot of other games. Very few people become emotionally invested in Monopoly, for instance (I realize some do, but not nearly as many or to the same degree as we see with D&D). D&D has evolved into a community over the last 3 1/2 decades, and many of us think of the game as a significant part of our lives. Thus, many of us view these changes emotionally in the same way that we might view something like surgery or divorce.
The real problem that most opponents of 4e have is that the changes were made without respect for the traditions and philosophies of the gaming community. Worse, many of us feel that WotC's approach has been deliberate - we tend to believe they knew they were going to upset us and did it spitefully and on purpose. Many of us also feel disrespected because we perceive that WotC has been using false reasoning and even outright lies to justify their changes. Worst of all, there is a strong perception among many that D&D has been "stolen", if you will, by a small bunch of individuals who seem to think the rest of us are idiots and that they have a right to redesign the game in their own image.
Concerning whether or not WotC has made these changes because they were requested by fans, I'm sure most if not all of them have been requested. The point is not that the changes were not wanted, it's that they were neither needed nor wise. As a businessman myself I have to tell you the customer is not always right. Especially when it comes to product design, there are often factors the average consumer doesn't and sometimes can't understand. Granted, it's a fine line and product...
I'm confused. Is WotC shoving changes down our throat or are they listening to us but "we" don't know what "we" want? Wouldn't the same "the customer doesn't know best" logic apply to your comments? Is there any set of changes that would justify a new version, or is 3e the pinnacle of game design, never to be improved? What additional products in 3e were you dying to see?
You can still play 3e. You can still buy 3e material thanks to the ogl. Better yet, those horrible morons at wotc, whose work you so disdain, won't be polluting the market with their material. What makes you think they'd even produce 3e products you would like given your dislike of the current product they intend to produce?
No need to respond, and I shouldn't even bother to do so myself. It'll just be more of the same close minded convoluted b!!**%+* that infects damn near every thread like this. There are a handful of posters who are capable of seeing past their own noses and able to entertain rationale arguments that do not assume wotc is actively, intentionally evil and there are a substantial number who acknowledge their preferences are just that. And then there are those that want to be offended, want to hate every change, and are incapable of a substantive debate.
Heathy, where's the I'm done thread?
|
|
1. Not really. (Have you seen DMTools.org?)
2. Not really
3. Not really
4. What's a 'swingy'?
5. True!
6. True (for the most part)
7. True
8. True! (2 is a joke... and the # of class skills is also a joke.)
9. Nope
10. True (but only because there are SO MANY to choose from and power creep keeps making the new ones 'better' and 'must haves' than the old ones. No to mention the big number of Feats-that-nobody-ever-takes.)
11. Nope
12. True (a character must have equipment, it seems like every slot needs to be filled... and of course everyone wants a small group of useful items.)
13. Nope
my too ¢
|
|
There are a handful of posters who are capable of seeing past their own noses and able to entertain rationale arguments that do not assume wotc is actively, intentionally evil and there are a substantial number who acknowledge their preferences are just that.
I've been intentionally staying away from a lot of these threads. And while WotC might be "evil" the real question is are they Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, or Lawful Evil...
As far as the list goes, I might be able to agree with around half of them. But then there are things like "not enough skill points" or "not enough feats"... Not enough for what? I actually like the limitation put on the classes. Not enough to build the super uber "roxxor" characters that metagamers love? Is that such a bad thing? And, besides, it seems like a simple solution to fix -- let's all think about what we could do to fix that problem (assuming that it is a problem). I'd say that the easiest house rule to make would be to add more feats or skill points to the classes/races. Wow -- that was tough.
Other than that, I have yet to see how WotC will fix a lot of those problems in 4e. A CR system that is perfect and consistent? Magic items that are "equal"? Perfect class combinations? I'll believe it when I see it.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying that it needs to be perfect or right, but if people really expect "perfect" I just think that they will be waiting a long time. Will 4e be "better"? Maybe -- we'll just have to wait and see.
|
|
AOO's aren't that confusing. I got the hang of them pretty easily.
Which AOO?
AOO Accounting Operations Office
AOO Adjudant Onderofficier
AOO Air Operations Officer
AOO Air Operations Order
AOO Altoona / Martinsburg, PA, USA - Blair County (Airport Code)
AOO American Oceanic Organization
AOO Amphibious Operations Officer
AOO Analysis Objective Order
AOO Anticipated Operational Occurrence
AOO Area Of Operations
AoO Attack of Opportunity (Dungeons & Dragons game)
AOO Attribute Oriented Operation
AOO Aviation Ordnance Officer
|
|
:
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
1. This I don't mind; it's fun.
2. This I have no opinion of; however, I don't see low level as that difficult. Never got all that high.3. Again, I have no experience. I've heard this a lot though.
4. I don't know what this means.
5. It's not that confusing. It's a little wonky, so am I.
6. I have to disagree vehemently. Fighters kick ass.
7. This is true. However, so....now we care about "classic tropes?" I thought the sacred cows were there to get gutted.
8. This is true.
9. I don't care if this is true or not. I can pull a rabbit out of a hat. I can "subtract 4 from fortitude" if I want a monster with no immune system.
10. Aoo's aren't that confusing. I got the hang of them.
11. Feats (oops, I switched numbers with aoo's) yeah, 1 or 2 more'd be nice. So....add a feat once in a while .
12. This doesn't bother me at all.
13. This is true. However, I got the hang of aoo's, I'll get the hang of grappling.
I guess I agree with feats, hi level, and skills. That's 3 of them.
I don't see enough "wrong" with 3.5e to get all frantic for a new system. I don't need to turn in my cellphone for a new one. I don't need to turn in my game system for a new one. And frankly, I don't have any faith that 4e's going to be the magic bullet.
I'm confused. Is WotC shoving changes down our throat or are they listening to us but "we" don't know what "we" want? Wouldn't the same "the customer doesn't know best" logic apply to your...
Forgive me, I was unclear in my intent. I was merely trying to explain how the change is perceived on an emotional level among many who don't want 4e. I was not trying to suggest my arguments were the true and complete reason for being upset.
However, by way of explaining my personal feelings on the subject, I truly don't see that a new edition was needed. All of the concerns I've seen expressed here and on other boards could have been addressed (and were addressed, in the old days) by merely helping people improve their roleplaying skills or by providing alternate rules that impacted the game far less. In addition, I don't think WotC's approach in terms of marketing the new edition was executed well. I suspect, based on my contacts with WotC and with several who are involved in WotC's processes, that the real reason they botched the execution was a sort of "ivory tower" attitude.
And no, nobody is forcing anyone to change to 4e. However, they are forcing people to play without further product support or with 3rd party support that is often of inferior quality. Imagine that you were told that since a new Prius doesn't fit your needs that you'll have to continue to drive your current car. However, you will no longer be able to find parts for it unless you find them in a junkyard. Sure, that'll be fine for a while, but not forever.
|
|
However, they are forcing people to play without further product support or with 3rd party support that is often of inferior quality. Imagine that you were told that since a new Prius doesn't fit your needs that you'll have to continue to drive your current car. However, you will no longer be able to find parts for it unless you find them in a junkyard. Sure, that'll be fine for a while, but not forever.
Hmmmmmmm. I wonder what that is like. ;)
|
|
AOO's aren't that confusing. I got the hang of them pretty easily.Which AOO?
AOO Accounting Operations Office
AOO Adjudant Onderofficier
AOO Air Operations Officer
AOO Air Operations Order
AOO Altoona / Martinsburg, PA, USA - Blair County (Airport Code)
AOO American Oceanic Organization
AOO Amphibious Operations Officer
AOO Analysis Objective Order
AOO Anticipated Operational Occurrence
AOO Area Of Operations
AoO Attack of Opportunity (Dungeons & Dragons game)
AOO Attribute Oriented Operation
AOO Aviation Ordnance Officer
The one that's an OA in 4e.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've been intentionally staying away from a lot of these threads. And while WotC might be "evil" the real question is are they Chaotic Evil, Neutral Evil, or Lawful Evil...
Everyone cool is Chaotic Evil...
As far as the list goes, I might be able to agree with around half of them. But then there are things like "not enough skill points" or "not enough feats"... Not enough for what? I actually like the limitation put on the classes. Not enough to build the super uber "roxxor" characters that metagamers love? Is that such a bad thing? And, besides, it seems like a simple solution to fix -- let's all think about what we could do to fix that problem (assuming that it is a problem). I'd say that the easiest house rule to make would be to add more feats or skill points to the classes/races. Wow -- that was tough.
Here's my take. Skills fall into three categories. There are the skills that are important in nearly every adventure and every setting. Concentration, spot, search, listen, hide, move silently, tumble, spellcraft, and probably tumble. There are those that are important, but you probably won't prioritize them. Ride, balance, climb, open lock, things like that. Then, there are the marginal skills - you won't take them unless you're really trying to roleplay or you're in a campaign that heavily demphasizes dungeon crawling/combat. Forgery, profession, sleight of hand, those things.
The current system is structured so that the second tier of skills are chosen only by the classes with a lot of skill points. That's generally cool, because that's a differentiating factor for those classes. It'd be nice if more classes could dip into them, but not a must have. The third tier are NPC skills or very niche oriented skills. Most players will ignore them, and with good reason.
In Sebastian's ideal 4e, that third bucket of skills would be more accessible and more characters could dip into the second bucket. The point would not be to make each character good at everything, but let each character have a niche even out of combat, just like each character should have a niche in combat. That way, you can play a character and participate in more encounter types. So, to me, more skill points means more room for roleplaying skills (which are hopefully more relevant) and more room for having a non-combat option.
For feats, the problem with the current system is that you only get 7 feats (8 for a human, more for fighters/monks/wizards) over the course of 20 levels. As a result, feats are very very valuable. This creates a situation where the vast majority of feats go unloved just because a feat slot is too valuable a commodity to waste. This causes feats to get pushed harder to make them worth taking and a bunch of junk feats you'd never ever use.
In Sebastian's ideal 4e, feats would be much closer in power level and you'd get to pick many more. This would have to be balanced against the complexity, but that way, you can use more of the feats and experience a wider range of play options.
Other than that, I have yet to see how WotC will fix a lot of those problems in 4e. A CR system that is perfect and consistent? Magic items that are "equal"? Perfect class combinations? I'll believe it when I see it.
Don't get me wrong -- I am not saying that it needs to be perfect or right, but if people really expect "perfect" I just think that they will be waiting a long time. Will 4e be "better"? Maybe -- we'll just have to wait and see.
Thus the Sebastian's ideal 4e disclaimer. Implementation will ultimately determine whether any of this is any good. It may well be an impossible task or that the trade offs that the designers choose to make will not be worth it to me. And, if that's the case, I'll stick to 3e. That being said, I like the Bo9S, I like skill tricks, I like reserve feats, I like redesigned monsters Mearls did, I like most of the things I've read that he has said, and I strongly suspect that I will also like 4e. The less you like those things, the more likely it is that not only will you not like 4e, but that you didn't even like most of what the last few years of 3e have been about, and probably would not have liked the products that would have been put out in the absence of 4e.
I'm so glad they changed magic missle to magic bullet....
Of my current two groups, neither would even be aware of the upcoming edition if I hadn't told them. They have no idea about the PR. It makes me curious about what the population of gamers out there is that are following this.
None of my group would even know about the new edition if it weren't for me. I'm the only one that seeks out things like Dragon or Pathfinder or the Paizo message board. They all enjoy D&D, but none of them feel the need to look for more content since I'm the DM.
So basically I control their minds *evil grin*
|
|
I went to my call job, this guy was playing a fantasy board game thingy.
I asked him if he played D&D and he said yeah.
So I asked him if he was going to play 4e.
He replied, "what's that?"
I told him D&D fourth edition...
He says, "Oh, no. I don't play enough D&D to justify the expenditure required for a new rules system."
|
|
The less you like those things, the more likely it is that not only will you not like 4e, but that you didn't even like most of what the last few years of 3e have been about, and probably would not have liked the products that would have been put out in the absence of 4e.
I am sad to say you have a very valid point. They haven't produced much in the last three years I really wanted. Before the Rules compendium I bought some modules from WotC and Races of Stone and the Dragonomicon. Other than that it was all kind of bleh to me. I might pick up Heroes of Horror at some point and a few of the other books when they become really cheap but I found none of it really appealing.
I think in analysis I have reached the options saturation point with D&D and now all I really want to do is tell good stories with the game.
*sigh* I am slowly moving away from any desire for 4e. And I did so want to be able to look forward to it too.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Forgive me, I was unclear in my intent. I was merely trying to explain how the change is perceived on an emotional level among many who don't want 4e. I was not trying to suggest my arguments were the true and complete reason for being upset.
No, forgive me. I was much harsher than your post warranted. I'm frustrated that the new edition is getting hit so hard and criticized so much when we know so little and I directed more of it your way than I should have.
However, by way of explaining my personal feelings on the subject, I truly don't see that a new edition was needed. All of the concerns I've seen expressed here and on other boards could have been addressed (and were addressed, in the old days) by merely helping people improve their roleplaying skills or by providing alternate rules that impacted the game far less.
If I may sidestep the emotional issue, which is something that is not subject to debate, I'd like to address this briefly. 2e tried that approach with the skills and options books. The problem with that tactic is that you effectively get half a new edition. If you liked the skills and options books, you had no support for that material. 3e did that to a certain extent already with the various capstone books. One nice thing about the OGL is that a 3e community can survive and can find support. It won't be by the WotC folks, but there is a terrific opportunity for those that want to support that game to step up and become the source.
In addition, I don't think WotC's approach in terms of marketing the new edition was executed well. I suspect, based on my contacts with WotC and with several who are involved in WotC's processes, that the real reason they botched the execution was a sort of "ivory tower" attitude.
I could not agree more.
And no, nobody is forcing anyone to change to 4e. However, they are forcing people to play without further product support or with 3rd party support that is often of inferior quality. Imagine that you were told that since a new Prius doesn't fit your needs that you'll have to continue to drive your current car. However, you will no longer be able to find parts for it unless you find them in a junkyard. Sure, that'll be fine for a while, but not forever.
If 4e is not necessary, if 3e does everything 4e does and more, there will be plenty of support for 3e. And, even if 4e is good, there will still be support for 3e because some people just like it better. I've seen indications that Monte Cook intends to stay 3e. There's a thread listing off companies that intend to stay 3e too. They may be small potatoes now, but if 4e is not successful, the talent will go back to 3e and the product quality will stay the same. I could be wrong, but I doubt WotC has even been producing products that you are interested in for the past 2-3 years as they've rolled out 4e concepts. If they kept producing 3e, such products would continue to roll out, and regardless of their quality, they still would not appeal to you. The loss of WotC need not be the loss of quality, particularly if 4e is as bad as you fear it will be.
Here's my take. Skills fall into three categories. There are the skills that are important in nearly every adventure and every setting. Concentration, spot, search, listen, hide, move silently, tumble, spellcraft, and probably tumble. There are those that are important, but you probably won't prioritize them. Ride, balance, climb, open lock, things like that. Then, there are the marginal skills - you won't take them unless you're really trying to roleplay or you're in a campaign that heavily demphasizes dungeon crawling/combat. Forgery, profession, sleight of hand, those things.
The current system is structured so that the second tier of skills are chosen only by the classes with a lot of skill points. That's generally cool, because that's a differentiating factor for those classes. It'd be nice if more classes could dip into them, but not a must have. The third tier are NPC skills or very niche oriented skills. Most players will ignore them, and with good reason.
In Sebastian's ideal 4e, that third bucket of skills would be more accessible and more characters could dip into the second bucket. The point would not be to make each character good at everything, but let each character have a niche even out of combat, just like each character should have a niche in combat. That way, you can play a character and participate in more encounter types. So, to me, more skill points means more room for roleplaying skills (which are hopefully more relevant) and more room for having a non-combat option.
For feats, the problem with the current system is that you only get 7 feats (8 for a human, more for fighters/monks/wizards) over the course of 20 levels. As a result, feats are very very valuable. This creates a situation where the vast majority of feats go unloved just because a feat slot is too valuable a commodity to waste. This causes feats to get pushed harder to make them worth taking and a bunch of junk feats you'd never ever use.
In Sebastian's ideal 4e, feats would be much closer in power level and you'd get to pick many more. This would have to be balanced against the complexity, but that way, you can use more of the feats and experience a wider range of play options.
I like Sebastian's ideas. Let's make him a designer quick! :)
Seriously though, I have much the same thought processes about skills and feats. They could both use an overhaul to make things a little better. To further expand on your skills idea...right now 3 of the 4 "primary core" classes (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue) have 2 skill points per level + intelligence. Say you don't have an intelligence bonus then all you get are those two skill points. Well, gee, I guess spot and listen get those skill points again since those are often the most useful for surviving a dungeon. Now obviously that is an oversimplification, but I've seen it happen.
I'm interested to see how 4th edition goes about the changes to these systems.
|
|
1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
Not if you reach for your Dungeon Magazines, they are full of NPCs just waiting to me modified for your game. Oh but you cancelled that resource, didn't you?
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
Actually I would say all three of these depend more on the people playing the game and not the game itself. And I don't know what "Swingy" means. Is this another one of those WoW terms, like Agro?
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
Never had any problems with it. Personally, I don't care if my monsters "balance" with the PCs, They're Monsters! They're supposed to be "unbalanced". When facing a Vampire, you are supposed to be afraid!
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
Again, this depends more on the players and DM. One of the best aspects of 3rd edition is that the different clases all have something they are best at. If 4E gives everyone magic, everyone weapons and armor, everyone skills, then noboby will be special.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
I have always seen Wizards and Fighters on opposite ends of the class spectrum, they should not blend easily. And we have new core classes; Hex Blade, Marshal, Psychic Warrior, Lurk, Book of Nine Swords classes, Mage Blades, etc..how many more do you need?
8. Characters have too few skill points.
Then do what I did; everyone has all Class Skills with their Class Level in Ranks. Skill points are what makes you better than the NPC next to you, as they don't get the bonus skill points. This also makes NPC creation easier, a group of 5th level Rogues all have 5 ranks in all skills, no need to even write it down.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
Only if you make them that way.
10. You don't get enough feats.
Then fill in the dead levels with feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
Not to me.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
So, some of the most memorable items my PCs have had were complete chaff. Back in the 1e Balton's Beacon, my half elven Thief/Magic User got ahold of the Vorpal Razor. Of course it had the one restriction that it could not harm living flesh. But need a rope cut? Want those steel bars out of your way? I had lots of fun with that razor! Remember, the game is supposed to fun, right?
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.
Again, it is only as complex as you allow it to be. If grappling needs fixing, then fix it. There is no need to demolish the house because a faucet drips.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Depends on whether you want a character that, at high enough levels, will look like a Christmas Tree under detect magic or not.
Or if you're tired of every character owning a ring of protection +X and a cloak of resistance +X, as well as an item of important-to-class ability score +X.
In some regards, I miss 2E, when getting a +1 weapon was a big deal, and not something guaranteed and absolutely necessary in order to keep fighting monsters as you got stronger.
(blink, blink)
Hello, Modus0. Nice to see you. You raise a couple of important issues.
But when it comes to magic items, I honestly don't see what the problem is. If you don't want the player characters in your campaign to have rings, cloaks, and permanent buffers, then:
(a) make them very rare to find, and unavailable for purchase, or
(b) make them very expensive. I found that, by making ability raising items cost 8000, 64,000, and 216,000 gp for +2, +4, and +6 bonuses, I let my players know that they couldn't rely on finding / buying / making such items.
It's your campaign. Nobody makes you put treasure places.
And I admit that I remember a different AD&D than you do. I remember a game where magic items were the only thing differentiating two 12th Level fighters with 15 STR, whether 1st or 2nd Edition. (Take a look at some old AD&D write-ups of PC's -- such as the old "Rogue's Gallery" supplement. Those characters had some serious loot.)
|
|
And I admit that I remember a different AD&D than you do. I remember a game where magic items were the only thing differentiating two 12th Level fighters with 15 STR, whether 1st or 2nd Edition. (Take a look at some old AD&D write-ups of PC's -- such as the old "Rogue's Gallery" supplement. Those characters had some serious loot.)
Thats how I remember it too.
My longest lasting AD&D character, a rogue, had a ring of greater invisibility, a ring of regeneration, a robe of useful items, two magical blades, a sack of holding and more (all this by level 7 or so). There wasn't as much "balance" when it came to handing out loot in those days. :)
|
|
And I admit that I remember a different AD&D than you do. I remember a game where magic items were the only thing differentiating two 12th Level fighters with 15 STR, whether 1st or 2nd Edition. (Take a look at some old AD&D write-ups of PC's -- such as the old "Rogue's Gallery" supplement. Those characters had some serious loot.)Thats how I remember it too.
My longest lasting AD&D character, a rogue, had a ring of greater invisibility, a ring of regeneration, a robe of useful items, two magical blades, a sack of holding and more (all this by level 7 or so). There wasn't as much "balance" when it came to handing out loot in those days. :)
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. There was as much balance then as there is now.
One thing that concerns me: the term "Heartbreaker RPG" is something that I've previously only seen come out of the Forge (a bunch of arrogant ****s who believe they are the be-all, end all, of game design--to the point they locked their forum on Game Design because they've determined that all of the ideas have already been discussed and no on else could have a new idea). Anyway, if any of the designers have been influenced by those ********, D&D is truly dead.