Ok what if:
During some Recent Unpleasantness, some epic adventurers managed to thwart the plans of the Prince of Demons, resulting in his destruction. Total chaos (hee hee) reigns in the Abyss as every demon lord scrambles unsuccessfully to claim his crown. The Blood War is abandoned; the demons just stop showing up as any semblance of organization degenerates in battles between themselves. In fact the very Abyss rises up in rage at the loss of its Prince, ramping up the feral nature of its creations.
Or,
During some Recent Unpleasantness, the plans of the Prince of Demons succeeded beyond even his expectations. A tide of savagery powered by the effective destruction of an entire world (?!!?) wiped across the Abyss in such massive amounts that any shred of higher thought was wiped from all but the most powerful of demons.
Devil angle would still need to be explained.
..Of course, when TSR tried to rationalize rule changes with The Fate of Istus, it freakin' drove me nuts...
And of course there is the matter of the Abyss changing from the primordial birthplace of chaos and a primal, nearly sentient thing unto itself to it being Tharizdun's garden.
|
True, but 3rd edition was actually far more respectful of *1st* edition, in ways that 2nd was not. That's what attracted me to it.
I'm curious in what regards you see that to be the case.
Suplement-wise, I'd agree. Some of the modules and settings produced for 3e were far more worthy of being D&D than some of the crap that got put out in the 2nd Edition era. But, then again, all of those were from 3rd party folks.
From a rules stand point, 3e always seemed less like D&D and more like a Fantasy RPG that jacked D&D terminology.
ENWorld put up a poll on thoughts on this change:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208125
Judging by the results thus far, either everyone on these forums is a united minority that is in opposition to the changes OR some shills have stuffed the ballot box.
*scratches head*
These days, I actually look at the campaign material and determine if it suits me, and then I worry about the 'rules'. That's a sort of reversal of the old paradigm where you bought the rules and hoped somebody published adventure material that wasn't crap.
I see that you have posted the same opinion on another thread and I wholeheartedly agree with you.
I just ran Age of Worms, and as the campaign progressed with the open-agreement that any material from official WotC books were fair game, I became more and more disenchanted with 3.5. I like to say that Age of Worms was such a good adventure (campaign material), that it was a hit DESPITE 3.5 rules.
I have stated that I (my gaming group) will likely convert to 4.0 in Eric Mona's psuedo-poll. I think the truth is closer that I will either run a heavily modified 4.0 campaign, locking all non-core material out, OR I will run a new system like Iron Heroes (or perhaps create the system I want), modified to my liking.
I think that means good news for Paizo - I hold their material (i.e. authors) in high regards, and will likely pick up some Pathfinders in the future.
ENWorld put up a poll on thoughts on this change:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=208125
Judging by the results thus far, either everyone on these forums is a united minority that is in opposition to the changes OR some shills have stuffed the ballot box.
*scratches head*
United minority we might be, but in this case it's an important distinction.
Here's my thoughts on that poll. If there's around a quarter of the people saying they hate the change, there's a good chance that many of those same people will vote w/ their wallets and say no to 4th ed. What about those who "like" it? Well guess what? They're not going to buy 4th ed. b/c of what they just learned about this, they're buying it for other reasons. This might be an overstatement, but messing w/ well-established flavor like this might cost Wizards far more than it gains them.
I'd hazard a guess that old-timers like DangerDwarf are in the minority when it comes to how they feel about The Great Wheel cosmology and related topics being changed. Why does Wizards feel like it's a safe bet to alienate the old-timers, most of which have much steadier and greater disposable incomes than the newcomers they're trying to attract? Forget disrespectful (which I take it to be), it's just bad business sense. If the newcomers, the "next generation" or whatever you want to call them, don't have a stake in established fluff & canon, then making these radical changes doesn't affect them one way or the other. Arguably the same can be said for those who haven't played that long. They'll mostly buy into 4th edition for the new mechanics and that's fine. But I'd like to think I'm representative of a segment of longer-playing customers who can only take so much change w/out saying "no thanks".
Yes, we don't "need" Dragon & Dungeon magazines to play the game. We don't "need" Wizards' stamp of approval for fluff & canon. But enough people feel strongly about these things, that if you take them away altogether, you're at risk of losing us as paying customers. Where's the "win" for Wizards? I don't see why they need to counter lost old customers w/ potential new customers (as some have theorized). Leave enough of the fluff alone and you could likely retain more grognards like myself. How is that not in their best economic interests?
I liked the quote, attributed to Erik Mona, about the philosophy behind 3rd edition, and "firing" the customers (who had played before). If that's truly the stance they're taking w/ 4th edition as well, then I guess I don't understand why. Why throw away a dependable stream of revenue for an unproven new model? Why not try to have your cake and eat it too?
|
|
I'd hazard a guess that old-timers like DangerDwarf are in the minority when it comes to how they feel about The Great Wheel cosmology and related topics being changed.
Yeah, I'm more than likely a minority in those regards. But there is a reason why, in my mind at least.
But I'd like to think I'm representative of a segment of longer-playing customers who can only take so much change w/out saying "no thanks".
3e made me say that "no thanks" a number of years back as it rapidly devolved into a splat filled, bloated system with very little resemblance to what used to be called D&D.
Because I already hold that view of the current edition, they can't cause any further damage to it in my mind. So, why not make changes? It can't end up much worse then they already have. Plus, the new edition is akin to them hitting the reset button and getting rid of the bloat. Reducing it back to a manageable level and hopefully them learning from the mistake of 1,000,001 splat books.
I'm viewing this not so much as a break from "tradition" because in my opinion, official 3e pissed all over tradition with a lot that it did. I'm viewing it as a chance for them to get the game back on track. Maybe making it something I could enjoy again.
When looking at the cosmology changes, my initial reaction was "WTF?!?!?!" like many others. But the more I thought about it, the less I realized it would have an effect in my games. I'm not much of a demon prince, planes hopping type of DM. Cosmology needs to be confined to particular settings on a case by case basis. And how the universe, gods, demons and devils work should be mystery for the DM to determine and the players to discover through play.
Lets not feed the meta-game.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Given that 2nd edition also died the death of 1,000 splatbooks (remember kits?), I think it's likely 4th ed will go that route too.
I'd rather WotC had even an ounce of respect for what had gone before, but they don't seem to. They'll fail to attract a new audience, and alienate much of their new.
|
|
Another thing I'm curious about...
I was never a huge FR fan, but their planar structure was different wasn't it? More planes than usual?
Dragonlance didn't adhere to the standard cosmology.
Neither of those worlds are part of the Tradition? They surely are. They didn't adhere to this cosmology which "shouldn't be changed" yet they are classic D&D worlds.
I know jack about Eberron, but I think I've seen that its planes are different somehow too. So that ruins Eberron?
Not following the official cosmology is nothing new or groundbreaking as far as stepping away from this so called tradition goes.
Was the sky falling when these settings which screwed with the planar cosmology came out?
EDIT: In fact, I find it kind of funny that neither of the two currently supported official world adhere to the Great Wheel. =O Fire and brimstone!
But I'd like to think I'm representative of a segment of longer-playing customers who can only take so much change w/out saying "no thanks".3e made me say that "no thanks" a number of years back as it rapidly devolved into a splat filled, bloated system with very little resemblance to what used to be called D&D.
Because I already hold that view of the current edition, they can't cause any further damage to it in my mind. So, why not make changes? It can't end up much worse then they already have. Plus, the new edition is akin to them hitting the reset button and getting rid of the bloat. Reducing it back to a manageable level and hopefully them learning from the mistake of 1,000,001 splat books.
Well Russ beat me to my point, but I'll say the same thing. I can appreciate the need to start w/ a clean slate, so to speak, and wipe out all the imbalanced "bloat" as you call it. But you realize this will happen w/ 4.0 as well, don't you? They're already on record as producing one hardcover per month for years to come. Surely you see the bloat train a'comin?
If your response is, well, I'll just buy the core books and that's it--a popular bet hedging on these boards--you can imagine a lot of people said the same when 3.0 came out. And then 3.5. It takes some willpower to commit to that stance. If you have it, I commend you.
I've played through pretty much all editions myself. I acknowledge each edition changed in some fundamental ways. And, I have nothing negative to say about any of the prior editions. I enjoyed them all in their own way; what I didn't care for I simply changed. But while I don't mind changing mechanics that much, when you have a semi-solid continuum of fluff & flavor that builds up in your mind over many years (and you adapt further for your own homebrew, of course), for me at least, messing w/ that in such a dramatic way is far more upsetting than changes to rule mechanics. Perhaps I'm in the minority myself on this point :)
(I got myself so worked up after my prior post, I needed a "fluff massage". So I went over to download a bunch of stuff from the Living Greyhawk archives. Heh heh. But I'm still worked up. Hell, my copy of Halo 3 is sitting there unopened, and might remain so for a while.)
Another thing I'm curious about...
I was never a huge FR fan, but their planar structure was different wasn't it? More planes than usual?
Dragonlance didn't adhere to the standard cosmology.
Neither of those worlds are part of the Tradition? They surely are. They didn't adhere to this cosmology which "shouldn't be changed" yet they are classic D&D worlds.
I know jack about Eberron, but I think I've seen that its planes are different somehow too. So that ruins Eberron?
Not following the official cosmology is nothing new or groundbreaking as far as stepping away from this so called tradition goes.
Was the sky falling when these settings which screwed with the planar cosmology came out?
Forgotten Realms cosmology was the Great Wheel until 3rd edition, when it was retconned and no explanation ever given. If you look into any FR threads dealing with cosmology, you'll see this decision wasn't one that was well received by many long term fans.
Eberron and DragonLance were both conceived with different planar structure/rules. I have no problem with that. Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk both used the Great Wheel, and in fact, FR was conceived has having fairly stable planar connections to GH.
Had 4th edition created a new cosmology that didn't redefine already established planes, I'd have no problems with it, just as I'd have no problem with "core fluff" changes that didn't exclude possibilities. In other words, if succubi were just not included, and erinyes were, no problem . . . but the intentional shift of succubi and blanket, "there are no erinyes" causes problems.
Another thing I'm curious about...
I was never a huge FR fan, but their planar structure was different wasn't it? More planes than usual?
Dragonlance didn't adhere to the standard cosmology.
Neither of those worlds are part of the Tradition? They surely are. They didn't adhere to this cosmology which "shouldn't be changed" yet they are classic D&D worlds.
I know jack about Eberron, but I think I've seen that its planes are different somehow too. So that ruins Eberron?
Not following the official cosmology is nothing new or groundbreaking as far as stepping away from this so called tradition goes.
Was the sky falling when these settings which screwed with the planar cosmology came out?
EDIT: In fact, I find it kind of funny that neither of the two currently supported official world adhere to the Great Wheel. =O Fire and brimstone!
Gahh. Too much cross-posting. KnightErrant Jr already stepped in here, but I'll add just a little more.
I don't mean to imply I want a monolithic cosmology to rule all settings. It doesn't bother me in the least that Dragonlance uses a different schematic than the Great Wheel, nor a newer setting like Eberron. When you start a new campaign setting, you should be free to structure the cosmology as you see fit. On the other hand, when the FR setting already used the GW prior to 3rd, it annoyed me when they changed it for no good reason. Also, keep in mind the GW in 3rd ed. wasn't just "Greyhawk", but core.
What's bothering me about the 4th ed. fluff changes, from the apparent jettisoning of the Great Wheel, to the generic "points of light" setting, is that they seem to be consciously turning their back on all things Greyhawk. Yes, yes, I know the "Greyhawk is what you make of it" arguments. I just want my favorite setting to be at least acknowledged in some official way. Supported as well, but that's closer to a pipe dream at this stage. They at least threw me some bones w/ making the GW and many GH gods "core" for 3rd ed. By removing all that now, they're risking losing me for 4th ed.
|
|
Russ/BenS: Yeah, I well remember the bajillion kits of 2nd Edition. While never really into them, they never bothered me to the degree of the 3e stuff. Different degrees of "splat" I suppose.
Give me a 1000 kits over how many new classes and prestige classes? Kits are no where near as game altering as a boat-load of new classes are.
|
|
They at least threw me some bones w/ making the GW and many GH gods "core" for 3rd ed. By...
Really? You liked that?
I was the opposite. I'm a big Greyhawk fan too and when I heard that 3e was going to make it it's core setting I was stoked.
Then I found out that they just meant that they'd use the names and that was about it. They taunted me with those god names I tell ya! ;) Put them oput there then gimme nuthin? Bah! =P
Russ/BenS: Yeah, I well remember the bajillion kits of 2nd Edition. While never really into them, they never bothered me to the degree of the 3e stuff. Different degrees of "splat" I suppose.
Give me a 1000 kits over how many new classes and prestige classes? Kits are no where near as game altering as a boat-load of new classes are.
I'm closer to your way of thinking about this kind of bloat than you may think. I don't mind the numerous new classes as much as you, but I'm w/ you on prestige classes. I think this was a good idea at the start, but grew quickly out of control. Very, very few of these are both balanced and appealing enough for me to consider them. The only ones I've touched are "Contemplative" for my cleric--purely for aesthetic reasons; it's hardly an "optimized" choice--and "Illumine Soul" for my soulknife, b/c I wanted an anti-undead character. I also think the ballooning of feats and spells went way too far. I'd even go so far to say that there are too many monsters to choose from. I just can't keep track of them all, and even the ones I find interesting I can't get to. There are just too many.
Anyway, the problem is, I'm far from convinced that 4th ed. won't just bring its own bloat.
Did the cosmology change ruin FR though? I imagine it did cause a stir, I'd have been irritated too if I were a fan. But it is still a viable D&D setting that is still supported by fans.
Not exactly ruinous change there. Neither is this new stuff.
Guess I'll respond to each post individually.
No, the cosmology change didn't ruin the setting. But my question to Wizards would have been at the time, "Why?". What purpose did it serve to make such a drastic change to the cosmology? Did it make the setting better? If not, why alienate those fans who liked the way it was before?
These same questions can be posed to Wizards now. Even if the Great Wheel is only nominally "core", sad though it might be to admit it, it at least is of some comfort to all those players who've liked it for many, many years (Planescape fans or not). I don't see how Wizards would lose anything by keeping it core, but they could lose something by alienating fans who appreciate it. So then why change it at all?
|
|
Anyway, the problem is, I'm far from convinced that 4th ed. won't just bring its own bloat.
I agree with you there. I'd like to hope they'd have learned by now but more than likely not. But, at least there will be a year or two of a semblance of normalcy.
My biggest dislike with PrC's is that they are not used as was initially intended.
Remember the articles in Dragon and I think even the 3.0 DMG explained them far differently then what they have become. All they are now usually are cool power ups.
SP/MWP does an amazing job at PrC's in my opinion though. Several pages of organizational description and fluff, then a page or two of new abilities. While most other books have a paragraph or two of fluff then several pages of the hot new abilities.
To pretend that I'm staying half-way on the original topic though, I wish they would do away with the Great Wheel and cosmology all together and leave it to each individual setting to define.
They are gaining fans (at least initially in my case)who haven't bought a product from them in years, by moving past an edition which is overly bloated and barely recognizable as D&D anymore except in name.
Let me see if I understand you correctly...
You appreciate WoTC moving past an edition that you felt was unrecognizable as D&D, to an edition that is even more unrecognizable as D&D?
Is that what you are saying?
They at least threw me some bones w/ making the GW and many GH gods "core" for 3rd ed. By...Really? You liked that?
I was the opposite. I'm a big Greyhawk fan too and when I heard that 3e was going to make it it's core setting I was stoked.
Then I found out that they just meant that they'd use the names and that was about it. They taunted me with those god names I tell ya! ;) Put them oput there then gimme nuthin? Bah! =P
Ok, last response before I hit the sack.
I'm w/ you in a way here, too. I was distressed that they did as little as they did w/ GH in 3rd edition, but like a beggar hoping for scraps from the master's table, I learned to make do w/ the GW & popular deities. Maybe my hope was that these tidbits would intrigue players not familiar w/ GH to learn more about it, to clamor for more support, etc. I guess that didn't happen.
Now, they're removing the last traces of GH from 4th ed.--from what little we admittedly know so far--and thus I'm facing an edition of D&D that for the 1st time, is totally divorced from my favorite D&D setting. The question then becomes for me: is generic D&D good enough to keep me playing the latest version? If not, then I'll remain w/ 3.5 and/or play in Golarion exclusively. Which means beyond the core books, Wizards is losing out on my money. That's a lose-lose for both me and them.
|
|
What purpose did it serve to make such a drastic change to the cosmology? Did it make the setting better? If not, why alienate those fans who liked the way it was before?
The cynic in me would say it's very traditional for D&D to do such things. Ever heard of Dragonlance? ;P
Greyhawk is my preferred setting but I'm also a major DL fan. Now THAT is one messed up setting. We're talking mega-big changes there over the years. But regardless Krynn and its diehards just wont go away.
Maybe thats partly responsible for me feelings about the changes for 4e. I've been desensitized. =D
Honestly though, a large number of posts I see on various boards about this subject aren't fans being alienated by this change. Most are, "I wasn't happy with 4e anyways but now THIS? I really don't like it now."
Sure, not all of the unhappy are that way, but you see a lot of jaded folks simply finding another thing to point out that sucks about an edition they don't want to see anyways.
|
|
They are gaining fans (at least initially in my case)who haven't bought a product from them in years, by moving past an edition which is overly bloated and barely recognizable as D&D anymore except in name.Let me see if I understand you correctly...
You appreciate WoTC moving past an edition that you felt was unrecognizable as D&D, to an edition that is even more unrecognizable as D&D?
Is that what you are saying?
Ayup. That sounds about right.
In my eyes they already killed D&D so whats the worst they can do now? They might even end up making a FRPG I like.
Besides, and this is very crummy of me I admit, after taking flack all these years for preferring AD&D over 3e it is finally pay back time.
I've said it on other threads and forums that after years of listening to smug 3e players talk down AD&D and proclaim their newer system better it finally comes full circle:
Catch up with the times folks! Its stupid to cling to a dead system! Newer = better, just look at the options! Far superior to your archaic and silly 3e rules. Modern gamers need more, the d20 ruleset is just so primitive. Hahahaha! You silly 3e grognards.
It's all about progress baby.
Ayup. I'm petty too. But I'm cool with it. =D
Yeah. This anal probed my gameworld.
I freely admit that even as we speak, 4E, in the form of a tarrasque with extremely large genitals, is trying to sneak up on me and !@#$$! me in the behind.
I can't imagine how deranged this is going to be.
All right, boys and girls, I'm AO, the cosmic lord of the Forgotten Realms! Here I come, and me wanna go HOME!
I woke up one morning to discover that my wheel was gone from my yard, and that some !@#$%$$!!@$ had planted a TREE there. Worse, this tree got into everything, and made a big mess of it, so I discovered that some people, who were still using my wheel, were telling me that I still had it. Only now people fought over whether I had a tree or a wheel, and now, it seems, I don't have either. Having made a new walking stick from a piece of the tree, I decided to go to the Lady of Pain's little get together...mrwor...that girl sure knows what bending over a city is for.
Only on the way, I almost !#$%@!ing drowned in this astral sea, and my clothes got all wet. My ardor was cooled, and the demons who came mysteriously were all farting in a corner while their traditional enemies, the devils, were snickering. Much to my shock and horror, the Lady of Pain was completely gone. She had transformed into a bunch of points of light, that floated around the room and made seductive noises.
I'm a god, so that didn't work too well on me, but all these mortals on the plane below said "@!!#$%%! you, LORD AO. You couldn't even stop your bridge guard from being whacked by a ONE ARMED MAN!"
Here I come and me wanna go home!
Thank You! I'm here all aeon!
In my eyes they already killed D&D so whats the worst they can do now? They might even end up making a FRPG I like.
That´s a very cynical way to view things. I basically like 3e, even if it has its bumps and warts, but I like the older editions as well, which have their own flaws. But I agree, 3e is very different from the older editions - the changes from 1e to 2e were not as fundamental. From what we see now, 4e seems to be quite different again from 3e, thats what has many folks in arms about it, IMO. And some changes like the cosmology seems unneccessary - there were settings differing from that anyway, and that is ok. But now changing the default is something different IMO. It is not as the new ideas could not have been integrated into the old basics, so this change seems to be superfluous and made for the sake of changing it. Change and progress is ok, but I don´t like change for the sake of change.
(and don´t get me started on Greyhawk - using it as a mine for names and ideas is not what I want to see for that setting...)Stefan
4E is a way to make Dungeons & Dragons 2.0, not merely a re-imagining of the concepts and ideas that have entertained us for 30+ years but, more importantly, a way to create an entirely new IP to exploit, IP that, unlike now, no one else can use in order to produce their own D&D clone, because it'll be impossible to do so under the terms of the new OGL/D20 STL.I may be wrong and time will tell if I am, but I'm betting heavily that I'm not.
So chillingly plausible.
So sad.
If anything, I truly expect a 4.5, and will wait for that! (seriously too - I don't see why it won't happen).
I think Ozyr has a point here. I can see a 4.5 within 2 years, adjusting the flaws in 4.0.
Yeah. This anal probed my gameworld.
I freely admit that even as we speak, 4E, in the form of a tarrasque with extremely large genitals, is trying to sneak up on me and !@#$$! me in the behind.
LOL!!!
I don't think things are that bad, but what an image... :D
Altering some mechanics because they're 'better' is a much easier sell that changing fundamental tenets of the world's background. In fact it negates the expansion of the existing lower planes as detailed in the recently published FC1 and FC2. I can't see how a schism will be good for the company or the hobby. While it is certain that some portion of existing people will not move to 4e, I doubt that non players will now flock to the game because of 4e.
Change is one thing, progress is another.
“Change” is scientific, “progress” is ethical,
Change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.
--Bertand Russell
|
|
That´s a very cynical way to view things.
I agree that it is. I still feel that way though.
And some changes like the cosmology seems unneccessary - there were settings differing from that anyway, and that is ok. But now changing the default is something different IMO.
Considering that WotC's two supported setting don't use the default cosmology, and haven't for years. I don't think it's so much an change for the sake of change, but perhaps a re envisioning to be more applicable for their planned supported worlds.
Besides, it is not like it will stop any 3rd party folks from using a cosmology that they want. The default cosmology doesn't come into play in a lot of games as written anyways (yes I am aware there are exceptions).
(and don´t get me started on Greyhawk - using it as a mine for names and ideas is not what I want to see for that setting...)
That started with 3e.
I think you guys are overestimating the popularity of the planes and especially the Great Wheel cosmology. Even if every 4e designer hated, hated, hated the Great Wheel (and I don't), strong market research to the contrary would have probably disuaded massive changes to the core planar settings. I doubt this change will have a significant impact on the sales of 4e
|
While it is certain that some portion of existing people will not move to 4e, I doubt that non players will now flock to the game because of 4e.
This is something I have been thinking about as well. Will 4e really entice hordes of new players to the game? And, if anyone believes that, what is it that makes you believe this is the case?
Right now I run two groups of players, both using 3.5 rules. One group consists of a long term veteran of about 15 years, a moderate veteran of about 6 years, a gamer from other systems, and newbie. The other group consists of a veteran of about 10 years, the same moderate 6 year veteran, and two newbies who have only been playing for about a year or so. I guess I have always seen it as my responsibility to introduce new players and I think I have done a pretty good job of it since the veteran of 10 years, the veteran of 6 years, and the newbies were all brought to the game by me. Outside of these two groups I have probably introduced another four people to the game in the past 10 years.
Outside of "word of mouth" advertising what does WotC really do to net new players? Putting editions aside, where are the television commercials that air during such hit shows such as Battlestar Galactica, SG-1, Doctor Who, and Heroes? Right now advertising deals struck with Blizzard could generate not only interest in D&D but with the d20 version of World of Warcraft. Wouldn't such a deal be lucrative for both companies? Does WotC still run ads in comics? What about ads in magazines that aren't explicitly gamer oriented but hit audiences that might be interested?
Unless such a marketing push is planned I don't see how anyone with his/her nose stuck in WoW or Halo 3 is even going to notice 4e's release.
A little more on topic, the changes are throwing me for a loop. The changes might be important and revolutionary. I must admit they do have a veneer of "cool" about them. But, based on what I have read so far, my opinion matters very little. As a "fence sitter" WotC is going to assume I will eventually buy 4e. At the very least they assume I will upgrade to keep current with the way games are being played in the future. They want new players and they see opportunities to achieve that end. I just don't see how hitting the reset button will achieve that end if the market they are trying to reach doesn't have it thrown in their face through aggressive PR campaigns.
|
|
[
Considering that WotC's two supported setting don't use the default cosmology, and haven't for years. I don't think it's so much an change for the sake of change, but perhaps a re envisioning to be more applicable for their planned supported worlds.
In addition, I would like to know how many DMs actually use the Great Wheel. I have not used it in a long, long time. While the changes make me whince I have ask myself "why do I care?" If the Great Wheel is of so very little importance to me why do I care if WotC changes the way the default cosmology works? My current homebrew certainly doesn't use the default cosmology and I can't see any future campaigns using it either.
Perhaps, despite my knee jerk reactions, the whole thing could stand to be cleaned up.
|
|
Personally, I don't think the that the cosmology of the D&D universe should be part of the core rules. I believe that sort of information belongs in campaign setting books. ECS and FRCS are already different than the core idea of planar organization, so why sweat it?
What I would really like to see, and have had almost none of, is CRUNCH! WotC has been so vague about releasing details about the rules side of the new game that I'm convinced that their marketing department used to work for the Whitehouse. :) Talk about wagging the dog.
So, give me more Crunch and less Fluff! A steady diet of sugar is bad for you, so give me some damned meat and potatoes!
|
|
In addition, I would like to know how many DMs actually use the Great Wheel. I have not used it in a long, long time. While the changes make me whince I have ask myself "why?" If the Great Wheel is of so very little importance to me why do I care if WotC changes the way the default cosmology works? My current homebrew certainly doesn't use the default cosmology and I can't see any future campaigns using it either.
I also have never used the Great Wheel, sticking to homebrew, just taking what I need from here and there. But I understand the concern of those for whom it matters.
(and don´t get me started on Greyhawk - using it as a mine for names and ideas is not what I want to see for that setting...)That started with 3e.
Right, and it seems to be getting worse in 4e. I don´t want the umpteenth reprint of the 1980 folio information, either (as was the LGG at least in part), but rather, some real development - ideas for continuing the timeline, ideas for the less-explored areas. Not down to the last peasant, but some more details while leaving enough space for own ideas. The old sourcebooks from Carl Sargent (The Markland, Iuz the Evil and Ivid the Undying) were just what I wanted for the setting. Now, mining the setting for more or less "cool" ideas (like that Tharizdun stuff) and leaving the field fallow otherwise is not what I hoped for - neither in 3e nor in 4e.
Stefan
They are gaining fans (at least initially in my case)who haven't bought a product from them in years, by moving past an edition which is overly bloated and barely recognizable as D&D anymore except in name.Let me see if I understand you correctly...
You appreciate WoTC moving past an edition that you felt was unrecognizable as D&D, to an edition that is even more unrecognizable as D&D?
Is that what you are saying?
Ayup. That sounds about right.
In my eyes they already killed D&D so whats the worst they can do now? They might even end up making a FRPG I like.
Besides, and this is very crummy of me I admit, after taking flack all these years for preferring AD&D over 3e it is finally pay back time.
I've said it on other threads and forums that after years of listening to smug 3e players talk down AD&D and proclaim their newer system better it finally comes full circle:
Catch up with the times folks! Its stupid to cling to a dead system! Newer = better, just look at the options! Far superior to your archaic and silly 3e rules. Modern gamers need more, the d20 ruleset is just so primitive. Hahahaha! You silly 3e grognards.
It's all about progress baby.
Ayup. I'm petty too. But I'm cool with it. =D
Well, this post explains everything. You are obviously a 3rd edition hater and are happy to see it changed. Fair enough, but you are STILL MISSING MY POINT. If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of assuming that my idea was automatically wrong, you might learn something.
It's not about the damn demons and devils and plane settings. It's about the radical and completely unnecessary changes to established lore/cannon. If you as a gamer/GM don't like them, don't use them. Fine. BUT (!) if you do like them (as many do) then there is no reason to have yourself alienated by WotC. You can have multiple campagin settings and such, but don't flit away 30+ years or history because you can.
And, DangerDwarf, here's my point since you missed it twice: If they are willing to destroy the evil outsiders/planes cannon, what else will they/can they easily swap out or change? It's very easy to do something a second or third or more time(s) when you get over doing it the first time. Look at the Eladrins/elves thing too. So before you go 'round telling people they're just plain wrong, at least know what point they are making. :)
And as for the crack about modern gamers needing more, who are you to say that? Are you some 13 yr old who has so much electronic gadegtry that you can't concentrate without flashing lights, loud noises and smoke? Don't speak for "modern gamers" as a whole. Speaking for yourself is fine and we will respect your opinion even if we don't agree. But don't claim you know what "modern gamers" want as if you represent the generation and then call people stupid because they like what they have and want to keep it recognizable. It's really, really arrogant.
Considering that Planescape is my favorite campaign setting ever, and that the Great Wheel underpins that setting, this change has moved me from the "Meh About 4E" column straight into the "Actively Dislike 4E And Hope It Falls Underneath a Bus" column.
Erik is right that WotC can handle the mechanics like no-one's business, but they're woefully bad at story and metaplot. Thanks for the Fiendish Codices, they're a fine capstone for 3.5E.
|
A poll up on ENWorld suggests that a strong majority of posters like the changes to Devils and Demons.
Go to Poll.
Tam
|
|
A poll up on ENWorld suggests that a strong majority of posters like the changes to Devils and Demons.
Go to Poll.
Tam
Yeah, someone else already pointed that one out (earlier on this thread, I think). That was followed up with someone else pointing out that one poll on one website does not mean that an overall majority of gamers feel that way. After all, their could be another site which has a poll showing the exact opposite.
A poll up on ENWorld suggests that a strong majority of posters like the changes to Devils and Demons.
Go to Poll.
Tam
A majority of the people who voted on ENWorld. Although I understand that it does show that a majority does support this change, it's survey sample is rather small.
I suspect a majority of the people who don't like these changes angrily shut off their PC's and went to bang there head somewhere.
I suspect the majority of gamers, and not those on messageboards, don't care one way or the other.
|
|
Well, this post explains everything. You are obviously a 3rd edition hater and are happy to see it changed. Fair enough, but you are STILL MISSING MY POINT. If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of assuming that my idea was automatically wrong, you might learn something.
It's not about the damn demons and devils and plane settings. It's about the radical and completely unnecessary changes to established lore/cannon. If you as a gamer/GM don't like them, don't use them. Fine. BUT (!) if you do like them (as many do) then there is no reason to have yourself alienated by WotC.
Heh, switch to decaf dude, its not something to get so worked up about.
Both TSR and WotC have done drastic changes over the years, its nothing new and unfortunately be expected. Like I stated in a previous post I'm a huge Dragonlance fan. How many times have they raped that setting and given silly retcons?
And as for the crack about modern gamers needing more, who are you to say that? Are you some 13 yr old who has so much electronic gadegtry that you can't concentrate without flashing lights, loud noises and smoke? Don't speak for "modern gamers" as a whole. Speaking for yourself is fine and we will respect your opinion even if we don't agree. But don't claim you know what "modern gamers" want as if you represent the generation and then call people stupid because they like what they have and want to keep it recognizable. It's really, really arrogant.
Again, slow down and read my post guy. I was being tongue-in-cheek and basically turned an amalgam of phrases that I have had to suffer through from 3e fans due to me being a fan of previous editions. It was showing the irony of what numerous 3e'ers have been saying over the past several years back on them.
It's all good. Peace, love and all that.
Another possiblity is that some time after the 4E launch a product is released providing all you need to move your 4E game back to the Great Wheel for the low low price of $39.95. It has been a trend in the last year or so with the revamping of old adventures-Demon Webb Pit, Castle Greyhawk, Ravenloft etc. Why include the stuff people want in the first product, when you could charge them for it a second time later?
Ugh! KFC! Why would you put that garbage in your mouth? Popeyes is way better.
Depends on which im in the mood for. KFC is way closer, and the service at our Popeyes sucks something terrible.
One thing is for certain, both KFC and Popeyes are tons better than Church's, at least in my experience. The other point is, back home at a convenience store (Caseys) they served Chesterfried, and it is way way better than any of them.Back to the actual thread though. I think one thing the revampers at wotc have forgotten is that just because demons are chaotic, that doesnt mean stupid rampaging 'hulk smash' (as someone so correctly put it earlier). The important thing to remember about chaos is, it's chaotic, meaning it can be ANYTHING. That's kinda the point, not just destruction. Chaos is the power to do/be anything. That it the true power of chaos.