Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Tell that to your player characters, some of whom may have built relationships and/or cast from these now extremely perturbed, angry, or dead entities.
Uh...okay...
"Hello Balabanto's players. The core rules have changed the structure of the planes and the gods. Balabanto has chosen not to make those cosmetic changes."
Alternately:
"Hello Balabanot's players. The core rules ahve changed the structure of the planes and the gods. I would appreciate it if you would waive your suspension of disbelief to accomodate your character having worshipped a different imaginary diety prior to this point in the campaign. If you cannot or will not waive such suspension, we can discuss a way to make it work. I don't need a form of mass media to communicate this change to you or the rest of the world because this is the way it has always been - a retroactive continuity if you will - something frequently employed in many long running fiction series. Because I know we are all mature adults, I'm sure we can figure out a way to handle these changes in a way that accomodates our gaming expectations and provides for the greatest amount of continuity."
Done.
Boy, that sure was hard...
Myself, I'm going to say:
"Hello Sebastian's players. WotC has mandated that I change my campaign's cosmology. Being a good drone and incapable of reacting in a rationale and non-extreme manner, I am doing so. I will not be doing anything to ease this change into the world, it just happened over night and now everyone has to deal. If you don't like it, get the hell out right now and take your dice with you."
|
Tell that to your player characters, some of whom may have built relationships and/or cast from these now extremely perturbed, angry, or dead entities.
Wizards is not forcing you to change anything. There is nothing to stop you from playing they way you have always played.
There is also nothing that we know of that would keep you from using old fluff with new crunch - or new fluff with old crunch for that matter.
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual. So that would be why.
Myself, I'm going to say:"Hello Sebastian's players. WotC has mandated that I change my campaign's cosmology. Being a good drone and incapable of reacting in a rationale and non-extreme manner, I am doing so. I will not be doing anything to ease this change into the world, it just happened over night and now everyone has to deal. If you don't like it, get the hell out right now and take your dice with you."
Which is what i'd do and so would all the other players I know. In fact an old friend of mine has DnD playing friends who'd also take a swing at you for being a bit of a **** about it as well, but his friends are kind of like that.
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual. So that would be why.
But not in the first release of the PMB tho, which would and has ticked me off. Not sure if they will be in any future releases but i'd rather have gnomes over tieflings in the first release, I'd want tieflings in too mind you. I like 'em but I don't see 'em being that common. I know there has been the revisions to what gnomes are because they so seem kinda in the middle of halfings and dwarves.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Which is what i'd do and so would all the other players I know. In fact an old friend of mine has DnD players who'd also take a swing at you for being a **** as well, but his friends are kind of like that.
Myself, I'm going to say:"Hello Sebastian's players. WotC has mandated that I change my campaign's cosmology. Being a good drone and incapable of reacting in a rationale and non-extreme manner, I am doing so. I will not be doing anything to ease this change into the world, it just happened over night and now everyone has to deal. If you don't like it, get the hell out right now and take your dice with you."
Sweet! That's the first threat of physical violence I've gotten. I'm amazed it's taken this long.
(there's a chance, a slim chance mind you, that maybe, just maybe, my statement was tongue in cheek and making fun of the attitude expressed by Balabanto that somehow this change must be handled in the most clumsy and ham-fisted manner possible. I hope your friend with the tendency to violence is better capable of recognizing sarcasm than you are. I'd hate to get punched because the puncher has poor reading comprehension.)
Which is what i'd do and so would all the other players I know. In fact an old friend of mine has DnD players who'd also take a swing at you for being a **** as well, but his friends are kind of like that.
Myself, I'm going to say:"Hello Sebastian's players. WotC has mandated that I change my campaign's cosmology. Being a good drone and incapable of reacting in a rationale and non-extreme manner, I am doing so. I will not be doing anything to ease this change into the world, it just happened over night and now everyone has to deal. If you don't like it, get the hell out right now and take your dice with you."
Sweet! That's the first threat of physical violence I've gotten. I'm amazed it's taken this long.
(there's a chance, a slim chance mind you, that maybe, just maybe, my statement was tongue in cheek and making fun of the attitude expressed by Balabanto that somehow this change must be handled in the most clumsy and ham-fisted manner possible. I hope your friend with the tendency to violence is better capable of recognizing sarcasm than you are. I'd hate to get punched because the puncher has poor reading comprehension.)
For me that wasn't sarcasm, i've come across people like that. http://moltencoreloot.ytmnd.com/ < this is a real WoW guild leader, the guy is nuts and is rather psycho. I've heard this guy scream at people. BTW he is talking about junk thats not worth anything.
BTW violence is not something i condone, its just something which has happened in a few games my DM has hosted... thankfully not the ones i've been in. They usually start off seriously and end up as comedy.
The paizo forum prides itself on the intelligence of its posters. To even suggest violence against another poster, even if thinly veiled, is six clicks past ban worthy.
Be very careful with such language.
EDIT: I wrote this post before you doubly edited your last post. That said, I guess we're all on the same page now so, "Move on folks. Nothing to see here."
Just trying to keep things civil like.
The paizo forum prides itself on the intelligence of its posters. To even suggest violence against another poster, even if thinly veiled, is six clicks past ban worthy.
Be very careful with such language.
EDIT: I wrote this post before you doubly edited your last post. That said, I guess we're all on the same page now so, "Move on folks. Nothing to see here."
Just trying to keep things civil like.
No problem, i edit posts a bit.
S'all good. I'm a post editor extraordinaire myself.
A note on gnomes - while I wish they were going to be in the PHB, they need a revision of sorts - there are too many people who hear the word "gnome" and are stuck with images of tinker gnomes and kooky inventions. In my opinion, they need to slide them back closer to the fey.
A note on gnomes - while I wish they were going to be in the PHB, they need a revision of sorts - there are too many people who hear the word "gnome" and are stuck with images of tinker gnomes and kooky inventions. In my opinion, they need to slide them back closer to the fey.
I've played to much WoW, "gnome" to me brings up mages pyroblasting 0.1 second before the warrior gets aggro on the monster which usually ends up with a monster being very angry that is now killing everyone whilst the gnome lies dead on the floor.
Bringing them back to Fey might work for them, i'm not entirely up on their current 'history' which I think is part of the problem.
For me, you cannot cannot just change a lore setting that has taken 25 years to set up so much. Discovering a new plane I can understand, but to suddenly go 'the inner planes are now one plane!' and ' outer planes? No! No Spire! No Sigil! No great wheel!'
Gawds... Can't believe I'm about to defend a decision made in 4E that I don't agree with but...
The "redefinition" of the planes is analagous to the redefinition of the Solar System.
At one time, we believed everything revolved around the Earth. For CENTURIES that was the view. Then it was discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun, and the sun revolves around some other point in the universe.
For centuries, we believed there were exactly nine planets, with the smallest being Pluto. A few years back, the "official statement" came out that there might be, IIRC, 11 planets, and Pluto was not one of them.The Great Wheel is how the multiverse was viewed at one time. Evidence surfaced favoring a "Great Tree" cosmology, and now that's been "proven" false as well, since apparently there's only one Lower Plane (and, presumably, one Upper Plane?).
But, we're talking a FANTASY world. The DM can choose to state that NONE of these definitions are correct (in my old campaign world, the Elemental Planes were inside of the planet itself, on a "moebius strip" configuration - actually more of a Klein Bottle, since it served as a prison for an Elder God but still), run with the current "official" one or backtrack and use a pre-existing one as they wish. Some of the fluff won't make sense - but again, that's the result of incorrect understanding at some point, not a "flaw" in the rules.Tell that to your player characters, some of whom may have built relationships and/or cast from these now extremely perturbed, angry, or dead entities.
I can tell you right now, I have at least five PC's who, if their god died or became a servant, would suddenly say 'No, screw you, I'm gonna...
Again, you wont HAVE to change anything. You are assuming that in 4th Edition that you will HAVE to abide by whatever story Wizards sets up as a vanilla story in the initial release. Forgotten Realms isnt going to have magical new origins on everything, and neither is Eberron.
There is no need to ret-con anything in anyone's campaigns. If your character worships, say, Pelor, and Pelor isnt in the first PH, why in the heck do you think that you wont be able to just keep the Pelor story, and tailor some stats to him based on other deities as an example.
The argument that "me hate 4E cause they changed story" isnt a very good reason to hate 4th Edition, since its the EASIEST thing to ignore or change. Two of my regular DMs have never used an official campaign setting, and as I've said, I see no reason why they would somehow find some strange mystical way to forever ban the creation of original content.
Well thats a wrap. What more needs to be said?
The folks at WotC now are just morons, The End.
Something with a bit more substance. I think 4E haters are actually a minority in the gaming community.
I think 4E haters are actually a minority in the gaming community.
It is possible. We are vocal, we know that. But here's something we also know, even if the pro-4E crowd outnumbers the anti-4E crowd by 2 to 1. That would mean that WotC just lost 1/3 of their income from D&D. That's a massive blow to any company. How will they compensate for it? Lay off 1/3 their R&D department?
The core book is crucial since no book the company produces will outsell it. None. Most won't even come close. So if their PR blunders cause them to sell 1/3 less books then they otherwise would, how much less will the other books sell?
EDIT: I don't remember if it was posted on ENWorld or here (I frequent both). But someone said that 3rd party companies sell more books for WotC then WotC does. Here's how:
-Most players only buy the core book for the game they are playing in.
-Most DM's buy many books in the line for the game they are playing in. DM's buy heavily from 3rd party publishers since they'll make adventures, locations, plot hooks, NPCs, monsters that they can surprise their players with. If DMs don't have that 3rd party support, some may choose a game besides 4.0 (stick with 3.5, pick up Mongoose Traveller, go C&C, etc).
-If a DM decides to play a game besides 4.0, the players will spend their money on that instead of a 4E core.
So that one player (the DM) has substantial buying influence over 4-6 other people. So the haters might be a minority in the community, but we just might be the "right" minority.
I dont think that there are enough 4E haters to significantly impact book sells. Also, I'm sure that a lot of new players will jump in a new edition since its a chance to start fresh, and not leap into the game 8 years into the current running with well over 60 books out.
Hopefully, it will draw crowds who left the game, or those who didnt like some of the D&D mechanics. More players is always nice, and with DDI, people who quit because of a lack of players or free time may also come back.
Seems pretty logical to me, especially since DDI isnt required at all.
Tell that to your player characters, some of whom may have built relationships and/or cast from these now extremely perturbed, angry, or dead entities.Uh...okay...
"Hello Balabanto's players. The core rules have changed the structure of the planes and the gods. Balabanto has chosen not to make those cosmetic changes."
Alternately:
"Hello Balabanot's players. The core rules ahve changed the structure of the planes and the gods. I would appreciate it if you would waive your suspension of disbelief to accomodate your character having worshipped a different imaginary diety prior to this point in the campaign. If you cannot or will not waive such suspension, we can discuss a way to make it work. I don't need a form of mass media to communicate this change to you or the rest of the world because this is the way it has always been - a retroactive continuity if you will - something frequently employed in many long running fiction series. Because I know we are all mature adults, I'm sure we can figure out a way to handle these changes in a way that accomodates our gaming expectations and provides for the greatest amount of continuity."
Done.
Boy, that sure was hard...
Myself, I'm going to say:
"Hello Sebastian's players. WotC has mandated that I change my campaign's cosmology. Being a good drone and incapable of reacting in a rationale and non-extreme manner, I am doing so. I will not be doing anything to ease this change into the world, it just happened over night and now everyone has to deal. If you don't like it, get the hell out right now and take your dice with you."
Since I pretty much run Eberron or Pathfinder games, I really wont need to say anything, since the only changes will be purely mechanical. Otherwise, I might use the vanilla story if its neat enough. I wish I had the free time to plan my own campaigns, but full-time work and full-time student takes a LOT out of you.
I dont think that there are enough 4E haters to significantly impact book sells.
There we disagree. So be it.
Also, I'm sure that a lot of new players will jump in a new edition
Call me pessimistic, but I don't believe it's going to happen, not atleast in the qualtity that WotC is hoping.
Succubi are devils? But they were demons before? Way to go, Wizards! Destroy every existing long running campaign and don't support them!This is what I do not get. WotC took an imaginary being and made it a different type of imaginary being and so people hate them for it as if you cannot simply say - in my campaign they are still demons.
sheesh
Huh. Funny, I think in the realm of 3.x->4.x changes, this may be about the only point we agree on. I just don't get it vhemence folks have attaches to this change. There's an actual logical basis to the change that doesn't exist for so many other choices WotC seems to be making for 4E.
Well, actually I think the cosmology changes may be one of their better ideas as well--I thnk it will be more flexible. The cosmology of the Great Wheel was based on a metagaming mechanic (alignment serves One True Purpose--automatic factioning). I do think the proposed cosmology offers some intriguing flexibility the Great Wheel didn't. For example, like how all these pantheons can co-exist in the same set of planes (infinite or not, most deities are quite jealous of their demesnes).
This is what I do not get. WotC took an imaginary being and made it a different type of imaginary being and so people hate them for it as if you cannot simply say - in my campaign they are still demons.Hate to inform you otherwise, but a Succubus is an actual type of demon. D&D didn't make it up. So WotC is now going against folklore, which, at least I thought, the game was based on.
However, the separation of Demon and Devil into separate species of antagonistic extra-planar beings id artificial. Mythology lumps all of these creatures into the same pot, no matter what name you apply to them.
Personally, I like a variation of the way Kingdoms of Kalamar handles gods - each race and nation knows the same 40-some gods by different names (and sometimes different aspects; one god is female to Elves and male to everyone else, for example, but is still the same god).
Been true in my campaign world for more than 20 years.
I was starting to wonder why there was no threads like "omg, wtf where my gnomes?!" on the wizards forums.Jeese and I thought blizzard was bad.
wizards wants to compete with Blizzard you know. They just take it too far.
Anyway, I guess the official wizards boards see things just disappearing, while the inofficial wizards boards (a.k.a. EN World) will look for anything to call "inappropriate conduct" on you and ban you (note that they used to warn people before they ban, and that banning was reserved for real nastiness. Nowadays they shoot from the hip, for the smallest infraction, or something they can turn into one, without warning)
Well, you are first assuming that the "new cosmology" will be official and unable to be changed in anyway.
Again: From what I hear I get a very strong impression that they will make it hard to play anywhere besides their standard world (after all, they turned the Realms into a carbon copy of that standard world)
Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology, and neither did Eberron. I see no reason why you cant just make up your own cosmology.
The FR change of cosmology came with 3.0. Prior to that, they had the Great Wheel. The Very Same Great Wheel. The Nine Hells didn't just have the same name for GH and FR, they were the very same Nine Hells.
Note that they quietly changed the cosmology, without stories of mass destruction, death of dozens of gods and millions of mortals (the only thing that was put into stories was that Lolth now had her own plane).
And even that quiet change was less than popular with FR fans.
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual. So that would be why.But not in the first release of the PMB tho, which would and has ticked me off.
Same here. I like gnomes. I'm not the only one that likes them. And I'm sure there are more gnome fans than dragonborn fans. Except if they become 4e's dwarves - the overpowered base race.
A note on gnomes - while I wish they were going to be in the PHB, they need a revision of sorts - there are too many people who hear the word "gnome" and are stuck with images of tinker gnomes and kooky inventions. In my opinion, they need to slide them back closer to the fey.
And they could have done it, too. It's not like they didn't change any D&D history.
Look at what Midnight has done to gnomes. Great race with a fabulous history.
And while we don't know too much about Golarion's gnomes yet, they seem cool, too.
I think the main "problem" with gnomes wasn't the lack of fans, but the profusion of gnome-haters. wizards gave in to their hissy fits about how they stop playing and set the books on fire if they don't get rid of gnomes. They're sometimes words than the raving elf-bashers, and those guys are obnoxious.
Anyway, for me, the gnome situation has brought me to the point where I'd rather play WoW than wizards' 4e. And since it becomes more and more clear that wizards doesn't like to share any more (and other publishers, Paizo included, won't get the rules early enough to decide on products that could be released on or around 4e's release date), it seems that they'll avoid the terrible fate of getting my money altogether.
Two more anti 4th ed people now. Just told my best mate edd and his brother Edd said it sounded awful but also expect WoTC to screw DnD up.
Something with a bit more substance. I think 4E haters are actually a minority in the gaming community.Well thats a wrap. What more needs to be said?
The folks at WotC now are just morons, The End.
I can't speak for the whole gaming community - but I would say 95% of all these posts on all these 4E threads are by "people with negative feelings about 4E." In fact, you're the only one I've seen in the last 2 pages on this particular thread championing 4th. The entire "4E Apathy" thread lists a ton of people with players who could care less about 4th, and not one "My group and I can't wait to switch." But it's been stated they're looking at the new blood, so they aren't concerned with the old-timers anyway.
|
I dont think that there are enough 4E haters to significantly impact book sells. Also, I'm sure that a lot of new players will jump in a new edition since its a chance to start fresh, and not leap into the game 8 years into the current running with well over 60 books out.
Many people you would label "4ed haters" have just reached the point of no longer posting very often here, at EnWorld or especially at WoHasbro.
What's the point? I'm going to say that I hate most of the changes introdcued and some hasbro boyscout is going to type till his fingers are bloody nubs telling me how his opinion is better than mine (snort), that I just haven't thought things out (guffaw), and that if I was just willing to abandon my grognardy backwardness (growl), I'd see the beautiful goodness that is 4dventure (vomit).
Hopefully, it will draw crowds who left the game, or those who didnt like some of the D&D mechanics. More players is always nice, and with DDI, people who quit because of a lack of players or free time may also come back.
Seems pretty logical to me, especially since DDI isnt required at all.
Actually, I see the desire of hasbro to switch the DnD game from one of several large purchases annually (hardcovers) to frequent micropurchases. I think this will actually drive many of the folks with the largest levels of disposable income away. Personally, ALL of the gamers I know have stated their dislike of this model and their desire to no longer purchase WoHasbro products. For my group alone, that accounts for between 2500 and 3000 dollars a year for books, minis, etc... that will no longer be spent at Hasbro. And that's just 6 guys....
So, pardon me, but I question the "logic" of which you speak.
.....if I was just willing to abandon my grognardy backwardness (growl), I'd see the beautiful goodness that is 4dventure (vomit).
Shhh.....Don't you know that you're not allowed to make insinuations of hurling on these boards anymore? Be careful, or someone will have to create a thread solely for the purpose of calling you an obnoxious, juvenile, big meany-head. Then The Man comes and shuts you down!!!
Edit: Oh yeah, sorry! I'm supposed to be dead. Move along. Nothing to see hear. *whistles a merry toon*
I dont think that there are enough 4E haters to significantly impact book sells. Also, I'm sure that a lot of new players will jump in a new edition since its a chance to start fresh, and not leap into the game 8 years into the current running with well over 60 books out.
Many people you would label "4ed haters" have just reached the point of no longer posting very often here, at EnWorld or especially at WoHasbro.
What's the point? I'm going to say that I hate most of the changes introdcued and some hasbro boyscout is going to type till his fingers are bloody nubs telling me how his opinion is better than mine (snort), that I just haven't thought things out (guffaw), and that if I was just willing to abandon my grognardy backwardness (growl), I'd see the beautiful goodness that is 4dventure (vomit).
Hopefully, it will draw crowds who left the game, or those who didnt like some of the D&D mechanics. More players is always nice, and with DDI, people who quit because of a lack of players or free time may also come back.
Seems pretty logical to me, especially since DDI isnt required at all.
Actually, I see the desire of hasbro to switch the DnD game from one of several large purchases annually (hardcovers) to frequent micropurchases. I think this will actually drive many of the folks with the largest levels of disposable income away. Personally, ALL of the gamers I know have stated their dislike of this model and their desire to no longer purchase WoHasbro products. For my group alone, that accounts for between 2500 and 3000 dollars a year for books, minis, etc... that will no longer be spent at Hasbro. And that's just 6 guys....
So, pardon me, but I question the "logic" of which you speak.
Despite the fact that neither you, your group, or "everyone you know" isnt going to buy anything from Wizards, you dont know how many people will. Again, if "everyone you knew" accounted for a good portion of the gaming community that doesnt like what you see, and you voiced your opinion on the Wizards boards (or sent them mail, even hate mail), then some things would likely change.
Since, again, I think that all the 4E haters combined accounts for a very small fraction, a fraction that they will likely more than make up in new/former players.
Hate is probably a strong word - at least in my case.
Today, roughly 5 months before the release of 4E, I am not convinced that 4E is any better than my house-ruled version of 3.5. In contrast, 5 months before 3E's release I know it was not a question of IF I would switch, but how soon after its release. (I ultimately bit the bullet and converted my 2E Campaign to 3E. It was a bit of work but well worth it).
3E wasn't perfect. But I have it tweaked where I like it.
There are two problems that 4E is addressing that I agree needed to be.
1. Spellcasters running out of spells after 30 minutes of adventuring time, thus necessitating a need to rest.
2. Alignment.
I have already addressed these issues in my 3E game. (I use action points which allow regaining a certain number of spell-points; I scrapped alignment completely). The mechanics for 4E to fix these problems may work fine, but I have got these issues covered.
Here are some changes they are making that I do not believe make the game better:
1. Eliminating level drain. The rationale for this was that their focus group data showed that players found getting level drained was no fun. Well boo-hoo. Your poor fighter got zapped 3 levels. Of course it sucks! That is what makes vampires one of the most interesting creatures in the game. Now they are just another monster.
2. Eliminating all save or die effects. When a medusa gazes at you, failing a save does not necessarily mean you be petrified. You just take petrification damage (whatever that means). The beholders disintegration ray is also going to work differently. It sounds like WOTC is appeasing a bunch of whiny players who lost characters in this manner.
Meanwhile, these monsters have completely lost their mystique.
3. Changing how criticals work (Natural 20 now always means max damage instead of possibility doing double damage). Believe it or not, there are WOTC fanboys out there whining about how it sucks to roll a natural 20 but then fail your crit...
People dont like things that arent fun, usually. I know in FFXI I didnt like losing levels because I died. The loss of hours worth of work down the drain? That really sucks. Vampires arent interesting to me because they can literally STEAL TIME! *gasp*
I dont know about you, but I cant really see a lot of people actually enjoying the loss of a favored character due to a botched roll. Seems pretty lame. Maybe you do, or maybe you dont get attached to your characters. Sometimes players just kind of remake their old character because they really liked whatever combo they had, and figure "whatever, just rename him and I'll jump back in later".
So, you got a player sitting around doing nothing (bored). Again, I dont know where you extract some measure of enjoyment out of the game, but I dont see really anyone actually having fun dying because they rolled bad, then having to sit around for a few hours (or perhaps the rest of the game night) watching everyone else actually HAVING FUN.
I try to downplay character death. It really isnt necessary ever, unless you for some reason are cursed with a stupid player. This is not to say that characters would never, ever die, but I'd rather have a turn of events lead up to it, then rest in the fate of a singular roll.
Monsters arent going to be any less mysterious, and I cant see players going "Meh, it'll just deal petridamage, I'll go ahead and have a staring contest with her." They will still be dangerous in their own right, especially the beholder who seems to be able to tackle an ENTIRE PARTY on his own.
As for crits? Thats not an "edition-pushing change" in its own right. Really, its a minor thing, and probably not slapped on because "poor WotC boys were whining" about it. Its a change that I'm mostly indifferent to, slightly leaning towards. Since spells can now crit, I'm pretty glad for this change (I was going to dread 20d6 fireballs).
I dont see why you think its inherently bad that a lot of people find it anticlimactic that you get the nat 20, then roll and find out that it fails. It makes sense that a lot of people would feel this way, but painting it in the worst possible light is what I'd come to expect of 4E haters (h4ters?).
You dont like it, so it must be the worst thing ever and anyone who does like it is a moronic, whiny child. Right.
Anyway, I dont want to get into a chicken-egg argument over D&D and DDI, but I think that 4th Edition came first, since they were planning it, what, FIVE YEARS AGO?
Some people might pick up on it for the new e-zines, especially if they get good. Some people might pick up on it for the behind the scenes stuff, or the extra book content (or the pdf downloads), and some might pick up on it for the virtual table-top. Its a lot of stuff for 10 bucks a month, and I'd probably shell out just for VTT since more gaming is always good.
I was starting to wonder why there was no threads like "omg, wtf where my gnomes?!" on the wizards forums.Jeese and I thought blizzard was bad.
wizards wants to compete with Blizzard you know. They just take it too far.
Anyway, I guess the official wizards boards see things just disappearing, while the inofficial wizards boards (a.k.a. EN World) will look for anything to call "inappropriate conduct" on you and ban you (note that they used to warn people before they ban, and that banning was reserved for real nastiness. Nowadays they shoot from the hip, for the smallest infraction, or something they can turn into one, without warning)
Well, you are first assuming that the "new cosmology" will be official and unable to be changed in anyway.Again: From what I hear I get a very strong impression that they will make it hard to play anywhere besides their standard world (after all, they turned the Realms into a carbon copy of that standard world)
Forgotten Realms never used Great Wheel cosmology, and neither did Eberron. I see no reason why you cant just make up your own cosmology.The FR change of cosmology came with 3.0. Prior to that, they had the Great Wheel. The Very Same Great Wheel. The Nine Hells didn't just have the same name for GH and FR, they were the very same Nine Hells.
Note that they quietly changed the cosmology, without stories of mass destruction, death of dozens of gods and millions of mortals (the only thing that was put into stories was that Lolth now had her own plane).
And even that quiet change was less than popular with FR fans.
Same here. I like gnomes. I'm not the only one that likes them. And I'm sure there are more gnome fans than dragonborn fans. Except if they become 4e's dwarves - the...
Gnomes are in the Monster Manual. So that would be why.But not in the first release of the PMB tho, which would and has ticked me off.
Rich Baker was kind enough to comment on this type of thing:
We're not actually building a world out of the "core" setting. In a sense, the core setting is simply a collection of proper names, artifacts, and legends we expect many generic D&D games to share. This has always been true to some degree; even back in 1st Edition, just about *every* campaign every DM ran assumed that Corellon Larethian put out Gruumsh's eye, that the drow fought the other elves and were driven underground, that Acererak the lich created a Tomb of Horrors somewhere on the planet, or that the Rod of Seven Parts was lying around someplace waiting to be found.
The big new thing in the "fluff" of 4e D&D is that we're not tethering these names and stories to the world of Greyhawk; we've created a new skeleton of linked assumptions (proper names, artifacts, stories) to anchor the fluff of the "implied" setting. Since we're telling a story that tieflings are the descendants of a ruling elite from a human empire that made pacts with devils, we might as well attach a "placeholder" name to it. Some DMs will use the name Bael Turath; other DMs will make up their own infernal empire. But "Bael Turath" looks nice than "[insert your chosen name here]".
Now, for my own part, I favor the idea of sketching a simple map of that setting and thinking up a name for it. But many of my colleagues feel that doing so would simply replicate the Greyhawk phenomenon, and make it harder for DMs who build their own worlds to use the material we're creating. (So far, I've lost that argument; hey, it happens!) The idea is to create just enough flavor to have interesting proper names and links for DMs to pick up and use, without dictating how their worlds have to go together.
All of that is not really relevant to the Forgotten Realms, of course; the Realms is an example of a specific world that is not beholden to core stories, names, or flavor. So there isn't a Bael Turath in Toril's past... but we do suggest that ancient Narfell might have been the place where tieflings first appeared in Faerun.
Not that any of this implied campaign will apply to me, as I generally run Eberron or Pathfinder. If I'm going to blatantly ignore story material, at least its not a rehash of the last three editions.
As for gnomes, they are going to be in the initial launch, so I dont see why anyone cares if they are in the PH, DMG, or MM. Does it really matter which book they are going in? Seems like a pretty trivial thing to get worked up over.
As for the why? Well, probably because gnomes ARE a lot like some kind of dwarf-elf-halfling montage. As it stands they arent terribly unique, and I can see the logic behind making standard races more mechanically diverse. Gnomes are my favorite race, so I'm glad they got some love in the MM. Its better than having to wait a few years, if Wizards had bothered to put them in the game at all (remember: some races ARENT coming back).
|
|
Despite the fact that neither you, your group, or "everyone you know" isnt going to buy anything from Wizards, you dont know how many people will. Again, if "everyone you knew" accounted for a good portion of the gaming community that doesnt like what you see, and you voiced your opinion on the Wizards boards (or sent them mail, even hate mail), then some things would likely change.
Since, again, I think that all the 4E haters combined accounts for a very small fraction, a fraction that they will likely more than make up in new/former players.
Thanks for using quotes to imply exaggeration or dishonesty in my description of my gaming group. The arrogance of that decision is staggering, but I guess if you can't refute a person's point, ridicule is the next best thing, ehh?
Perhaps you haven't yet considered this, but I would like to point out several reasons why I would say your analysis of the situation is flawed.
1- Since many of Wo'Hasbro new changes seem to be disliked by long time players more than newer ones, Wo'Hasbro is alienating many established customers with a proven track record of purchasing their product.
2- Therefore, it is logical that they WOULD NOT modify their planned changes to accommodate fan concerns - they are set on these changes regardless of how the current fanbase responds. Exhibit A is the firestorm on their boards over the mags cancellation. They ignored it.
3- The potential new customers (and I'm sure there will be a good number) ARE not proven, loyal customers. Thus, its clear that Hasbro has made this decision out of the hope of taping a larger new market to expand their business even at the cost of losing a sizable portion of their existing fanbase. Again, current customer complaints matter little.
3- And finally, you seem to have confused your opinion for fact. THis is rather amusing, since you then use your opinion (that 4ed will roxor) to try to refute my post. While much of what I've posted here is opinion, I've based it off of evidence and logic, rather than simple personal preference.
With regard to your assertion that anti-4e players amount to little more than a drop in a proverbial bucket to WotC, that may be more-or-less accurate by corporate reasoning; but the rabid pro-4e crowd is an equally small subset of the community. Far more common are those who really don't care, who are entirely apathetic to 4e.These people will quite often play whatever game someone is willing to run. If their DM wants to keep playing 3e/d20, then they will; if the DM wants to switch to 4e, then they'll do that; if the DM wants to run another system entirely, they'll do that, too. A good many of these players will not be buying 4e, because their DM is going to keep playing 3e (or 2e, 1e, etc.).
In my opinion, a lot of the new players WotC is hoping to attract (seemingly at the expense of older players) will not be coming on board. Rather than spending a couple of hundred bucks on the 4e materials and DDI stuff, they'll spend it on the latest MMORPG or computer game system. I may be wrong, but somehow, I don't think so.
Darrell:
I don't think your wrong! I think they will continue to play their video games and those that decide roleplaying is interesting will play what they are offered, whether it be 3.5 or 4th edition. Most won't get into D&D enough to give up spending their extra money on video games, and most teens I think would have a tough time supporting both on any kind of significant level. People only have so much extra money floating around. They will spend it on whatever gives them the most gratification and since they are alredy recieving that via video games it is unlikely that D&D will win them over.
I try to downplay character death. It really isnt necessary ever, unless you for some reason are cursed with a stupid player. This is not to say that characters would never, ever die, but I'd rather have a turn of events lead up to it, then rest in the fate of a singular roll.
That is your preference as a DM. Some DMs and players prefer to play a game where inherently dangerous activities (like, say, dungeon crawls and fighting monsters) are actually life threatening and luck plays a role in individual survival. Where, sometimes, even through no fault of their own, a PC will die from a chance occurance.
Despite the fact that neither you, your group, or "everyone you know" isnt going to buy anything from Wizards, you dont know how many people will. Again, if "everyone you knew" accounted for a good portion of the gaming community that doesnt like what you see, and you voiced your opinion on the Wizards boards (or sent them mail, even hate mail), then some things would likely change.
Since, again, I think that all the 4E haters combined accounts for a very small fraction, a fraction that they will likely more than make up in new/former players.
Thanks for using quotes to imply exaggeration or dishonesty in my description of my gaming group. The arrogance of that decision is staggering, but I guess if you can't refute a person's point, ridicule is the next best thing, ehh?
Perhaps you haven't yet considered this, but I would like to point out several reasons why I would say your analysis of the situation is flawed.
1- Since many of Wo'Hasbro new changes seem to be disliked by long time players more than newer ones, Wo'Hasbro is alienating many established customers with a proven track record of purchasing their product.
2- Therefore, it is logical that they WOULD NOT modify their planned changes to accommodate fan concerns - they are set on these changes regardless of how the current fanbase responds. Exhibit A is the firestorm on their boards over the mags cancellation. They ignored it.
3- The potential new customers (and I'm sure there will be a good number) ARE not proven, loyal customers. Thus, its clear that Hasbro has made this decision out of the hope of taping a larger new market to expand their business even at the cost of losing a sizable portion of their existing fanbase. Again, current customer complaints matter little.
3- And finally, you seem to have confused your opinion for fact. THis is rather amusing, since you then use your opinion (that 4ed will roxor) to try to refute my post. While much of what I've posted here is opinion, I've based it off of...
The quotes were meant to imply the fact that I dont think everyone you know accounts for all that much. However, you do seem to exaggerate on several things, in particular the "arrogance of my decision".
For instance, many of Wizards changes seem to be disliked by some of the long time players...that you know of, anyway.Again, many people who currently play 3rd Edition ARE looking forward to 4th Edition. I dont see why they would change things because a small percentage is venomous towards a new edition, especially since they havent even seen the game.
You seem to be operating under the "logic" that a majority of loyal players are griping about this, talking to them, and they are ignoring you because they are just hoping that they'll get enough people to recoup that.
I try to downplay character death. It really isnt necessary ever, unless you for some reason are cursed with a stupid player. This is not to say that characters would never, ever die, but I'd rather have a turn of events lead up to it, then rest in the fate of a singular roll.That is your preference as a DM. Some DMs and players prefer to play a game where inherently dangerous activities (like, say, dungeon crawls and fighting monsters) are actually life threatening and luck plays a role in individual survival. Where, sometimes, even through no fault of their own, a PC will die from a chance occurance.
That also seems to be the majority preference, otherwise I wouldnt see them making the changes that they do. If the activities werent dangerous, again, why would players even try to fight back? I didnt say that the game should be an "always-win", which you seem to be implying that I DO. What I AM saying is that it looks like most players dont like to have their character die from ONE bad roll, and then have to spend the rest of the evening watching everyone else have fun while they just sit around and try to occupy their time.
Its a GAME, after all, not some strange reality simulator.|
|
it looks like most players dont like to have their character die from ONE bad roll, and then have to spend the rest of the evening watching everyone else have fun while they just sit around and try to occupy their time.
This is an empty argument. Plenty of players have been killed in campaigns that I have ran or played in. NOT ONCE has the player of said character just "sat there". A good DM always has contingencies planned for just such an occasion - and the player will have something to do.
|
|
One complaint that I have, and I realize that I'm leaping into the discussion here without having thourghouly researched the subject, is the instant-grat, way-too-good implementation of magic in 4E.
Apparently, all the casting classes are becoming more warlocky. Now, I like warlocks, in the same way I like eberron. they're good for a change, but I wouldnt want them to become the default state of the game. It strikes me that they're pandering to the twelve-year-old that says "what, I can only cast Fireball three times per day? that Sucks! That means I have to THINK about whether I should use it or not! I HATE THINKING! I WANNA CAST IT! I WANNA CAST IT! I WANNA CAST IT!
Vancian Magic is a bit cumbersome, but I just feel that the game is trying to make itself more fun at the cost of beleivability and realism. Yes, it isnt much fun to have to keep track of your spells per day. But, magic is hard, and takes alot of power; it MAKES SENSE that you shouldnt be able to use it at will. Yes, it's inconvenient that a party has to rest after a certain ammount of encounters to replenish their abilities, but it MAKES SENSE that you cant keep on grinding through enemies all day without "letting your mana untap."
I say that they should have made use of a Spell Point System, if they really hated Vancian Magic so much. There also seems to be a stupid plethora or Auras and Mass Heal abilities. These spells should be cool and special, not common. Yes, being able to mass-heal everyone is easy and quick, but it just seems too video-gamey.
That is my core complaint. I dont mind the flavor changes, I dont like the $-grubbing, but I accept it, and intend to work around it, but I just cant tolerate 4E's focus on Ease and Gratification over simulationism. I dont like WOW.
|
|
he quotes were meant to imply the fact that I dont think everyone you know accounts for all that much. However, you do seem to exaggerate on several things, in particular the "arrogance of my decision".
For instance, many of Wizards changes seem to be disliked by some of the long time players...that you know of, anyway.
Again, many people who currently play 3rd Edition ARE looking forward to 4th Edition. I dont see why they would change things because a small percentage is venomous towards a new edition, especially since they havent even seen the game.
You seem to be operating under the "logic" that a majority of loyal players are griping about this, talking to them, and they are ignoring you because they are just hoping that they'll get enough people to recoup that.
Regardless of your characterization of why you used quotes, I think we both know what the reasons was. However, I'll cede this point to you since it was simply an attempt to point out the condescending tone of your post.
And look, you are obviously a strong cheerleader for 4ed. Bully for you. However, to claim that the majority of those who play 3ed are looking forward to 4ed, is ridiculous. YOu have no way of knowing. I never claimed that the majority of long time players dislike the change, but open your eyes and look around. Most of those complaining ARE longtime players. That is fact.
WHat I was saying, is that you (and others) who claim that those who dislike 4ed are a marginalized coterie of malcontents and grognards is unprovable.
lets just agree that the edition change has not been universally welcomed. I would ask that you try to respect the opinions of those who are unhappy and not belittle their concerns. Especially in threads devoted to why people dislike 4ed.
|
|
So many things still to use for 3.5?
Well if you like them enough use them in 4E. IDEAS can still be used and I am betting the stats are a whole lot easier to do. MANY of my adventures for 3.5 were from 1E and 2E. It really is little effort to convert.
And to answer someone else in the thread - I do not agree with you 'change for change sake' analogy. I see WotC finally actually coming up with reasons and niches for the races. It is starting to sound like a place where each race and creature truly has a place, rather than being a 'cool' set of stats.
I am liking the back story. How many people used much of the creatures' backstories in 3.5 anyway?
Fluff can be easily converted, but if they remove the entire structure that a mechanics idea is based upon, you can't really do that conversion.
Why do I hate 4e? they lied about it being in production, they said nothing til 2009 at least...
I don't like how they're treating us old-timers, specifically using grognard in a derogatory manner in the dragon article.
I dislike the fact they're not making a conversion guide, as this edition will have almost no backwards compatibility.
They have asked for no input from the gaming community as a whole as to what problems we'd like to see fixed. They have merely changed what they didn't like. So we get to play their house rules.
I also feel it's too soon.
I'm playing 3.5 for a long, long time, as are my players.
it looks like most players dont like to have their character die from ONE bad roll, and then have to spend the rest of the evening watching everyone else have fun while they just sit around and try to occupy their time.This is an empty argument. Plenty of players have been killed in campaigns that I have ran or played in. NOT ONCE has the player of said character just "sat there". A good DM always has contingencies planned for just such an occasion - and the player will have something to do.
I have only read the first and last pages of the 10 here, so I have not seen all of the arguments, but I think I get the general flavor. I have also been reading the Wizards pages on 4e. I have to agree with underling strongly here. It seems to me that most of the "fixes" that 4e seems to be adding are letting bad DMs run better games (which is not a bad thing). Their discussion on how they have completely revamped traps was idiotic. Any good DM was doing that in 1e.
I have actually seen the player have to sit around for until we got back to town thing, but the group I was playing with were a bunch of 10 year-olds 30 years ago. We fixed that problem the next gaming session, simply by having everyone roll up an extra character. If a group of 10 year-olds can find a workaround of that problem, I would hope that the more typical current demographic could as well.
BTW, their arguments for getting rid of crits were idiotic. They do too much damage and they don't occur often enough? It's the old prisoners complaint about food (It's horrible and there is not enough of it). Oh and the PCs get bonuses on crits, but monsters don't. WHAT?
|
I must admit that upon looking over the numerous 4e threads here, I'm surprised by the vitriol people feel about the whole process. (...) But why the attacks?
I have no idea, especially because - as I learned from the various threads here over past few days - 4E is obviously inferior to previous editions, no players or DMs want to use it and everyone is gosh darn jolly about all those future discounts of earlier, superior books. Furthermore, it also induces nausea and occasional cattle mutilation.
Considering all that, it's just amazing how much time people spend writing about game they won't buy, study, play and/or use in any way imaginable.
it looks like most players dont like to have their character die from ONE bad roll, and then have to spend the rest of the evening watching everyone else have fun while they just sit around and try to occupy their time.This is an empty argument. Plenty of players have been killed in campaigns that I have ran or played in. NOT ONCE has the player of said character just "sat there". A good DM always has contingencies planned for just such an occasion - and the player will have something to do.I have only read the first and last pages of the 10 here, so I have not seen all of the arguments, but I think I get the general flavor. I have also been reading the Wizards pages on 4e. I have to agree with underling strongly here. It seems to me that most of the "fixes" that 4e seems to be adding are letting bad DMs run better games (which is not a bad thing). Their discussion on how they have completely revamped traps was idiotic. Any good DM was doing that in 1e.
I have actually seen the player have to sit around for until we got back to town thing, but the group I was playing with were a bunch of 10 year-olds 30 years ago. We fixed that problem the next gaming session, simply by having everyone roll up an extra character. If a group of 10 year-olds can find a workaround of that problem, I would hope that the more typical current demographic could as well.
BTW, their arguments for getting rid of crits were idiotic. They do too much damage and they don't occur often enough? It's the old prisoners complaint about food (It's horrible and there is not enough of it). Oh and the PCs get bonuses on crits, but monsters don't. WHAT?
Okay, as it pertains to character death, simply making a spare character isnt always a terribly realistic solution. When I make a character, I pick something that I like to play, and intend on playing it for quite a while. If my character dies before having a good run (trying out one of many classes that I want to play), I'm pretty much just going to remake the character over again. In fact, I might only change the name. And why shouldnt I? I wanted to make a tiefling warlock, or a kalashtar swordsage, or a warforged artificer, or whatever.
It basically means that, swap the name, and wait til the party finds me. Now, if they are in the bottom of a dungeon, there might not be a logical place to drop said character. In one old campaign, we were in the middle of an arctic wasteland. Where is that character going to come from?Sometimes, players make a character with a pretty in-depth background, and to lose all that to a botched roll? Well, that sucks. And its not some "Oh noes I died time to hit the graveyard!" thing. Making a background can take time, and you can get attached. Its more than a "boo-hoo I dont wanna start over". Its more like a "Well, crap, I put a lot of time and effort into that character."
As for the whole trap thing, I dont have my 2nd Edition PH anymore, but I dont recall there being, well, skills at all that could be used to detect traps unless you were a thief or a bard. I dont think very many DMs at ALL were using any kind of encounter trap that had multiple possibilities to detect, disable, bypass, or destroy it. Good for you if you were, but I dont think very many else were.
Going back to the crit-thing again, this is an example of how they are alleviating dice rolls so that combat runs faster. But by changing the fact that 20 is an auto-crit, they had to change what it did, otherwise yeah, it would be doing waaay too much damage.
Also, I dont understand the problem with monsters not getting the bonus d6s on crits. Is this going to impact anything in the "reality" of the game world?
By designing monsters to serve their intended role (whether its something to talk to, kill, or otherwise interact with) it'll probably make monster design a lot easier and not have huge stat blocks riddled with information that you really dont need.
|
|
Vancian Magic is a bit cumbersome, but I just feel that the game is trying to make itself more fun at the cost of beleivability and realism. Yes, it isnt much fun to have to keep track of your spells per day. But, magic is hard, and takes alot of power; it MAKES SENSE that you shouldnt be able to use it at will. Yes, it's inconvenient that a party has to rest after a certain ammount of encounters to replenish their abilities, but it MAKES SENSE that you cant keep on grinding through enemies all day without "letting your mana untap."
In previous editions, I pretty much steered the "bookish" types towards wizard and the "jockish" types towards fighter. All that record-keeping by the player is almost like the same sort of stuff the character would be doing: scribing spells, studying, etc. This really helped in regards to the roleplaying aspect of D&D.
When Jim says to John "Dude, hurry up and pick your spells man! My mom says I have to be home in an hour" I can hear Gorath the Bloody saying "Close that infernal book Wizard! Victory comes from battle, not stories!"
he quotes were meant to imply the fact that I dont think everyone you know accounts for all that much. However, you do seem to exaggerate on several things, in particular the "arrogance of my decision".
For instance, many of Wizards changes seem to be disliked by some of the long time players...that you know of, anyway.
Again, many people who currently play 3rd Edition ARE looking forward to 4th Edition. I dont see why they would change things because a small percentage is venomous towards a new edition, especially since they havent even seen the game.
You seem to be operating under the "logic" that a majority of loyal players are griping about this, talking to them, and they are ignoring you because they are just hoping that they'll get enough people to recoup that.
Regardless of your characterization of why you used quotes, I think we both know what the reasons was. However, I'll cede this point to you since it was simply an attempt to point out the condescending tone of your post.
And look, you are obviously a strong cheerleader for 4ed. Bully for you. However, to claim that the majority of those who play 3ed are looking forward to 4ed, is ridiculous. YOu have no way of knowing. I never claimed that the majority of long time players dislike the change, but open your eyes and look around. Most of those complaining ARE longtime players. That is fact.
WHat I was saying, is that you (and others) who claim that those who dislike 4ed are a marginalized coterie of malcontents and grognards is unprovable.
lets just agree that the edition change has not been universally welcomed. I would ask that you try to respect the opinions of those who are unhappy and not belittle their concerns. Especially in threads devoted to why people dislike 4ed.
I recall saying that the people who hate 4th Edition are likely a very small minority. You keep rolling in as many personal attacks and derogoratory terms as you can muster, but the fact is that more people than just moronic kids who "only play WoW" are looking forward to it. People who have played D&D for a long, long time are looking forward to it.
I think that the main reason only long-time players ARE so angry is because they feel like that whatever strange traditions that "make D&D D&D" are being cast off. The fact is, D&D isnt perfect and adherence to whatever sacred cows you worship isnt necessarily a good thing. Its like, you hate the changes just because. You dont know how the game works, or what the bigger picture is. You just hear that, hey, the tiefling flavor text isnt the same thing its been for the past three Editions, HOW CAN THAT BE!I'm not saying that 4th Edition is perfect, or will be, or that its going to be the greatest thing ever. From what I HAVE heard though, it sounds likes its definitely going to be a legup above 3rd Edition on several things.
Plenty of people here are just so stuck on some kind of circular hate-spewing trend and think that, no matter what Wizards has a universal dislike for you, and you, and reads these boards to find out what you like just so they can mess with you...because they want your money? I seriously doubt that many kids at all that play video games are going to suddenly break that habit and get into any sort of game off-screen.
but the fact is that more people than just moronic kids who "only play WoW" are looking forward to it. People who have played D&D for a long, long time are looking forward to it.
That is true. There are long time players that are infact looking forward to 4E. I have not met any of them personally, but I have heard some people say that they are both long time fans and are looking forward to 4E.
But the counter is is that, I have not met anyone excited about 4E. I have also heard others claim the same. At a certain point of "everyone not knowing anyone interested," that adds up to an impact in sales.
When I said that WotC will lose 1/3 its customers, I used the "equal option" model. The equal option model is when you have 2 options, neither demonstrating a clear advantage over the other. If there is one thing I learned from all the Pro/Anti discussions is is that some of the things the anti camp hates, the pro camp loves, and vice versa. So in the end, neither really comes out on top. So you get 1/3 that go one way, 1/3 that go the other. And then there's the 1/3 in the middle. 4E has the "new" "wow" factor, so I gave 4E the middle 1/3. Its a rough estimate, but it is surprisingly accurate.
So I stand by my numbers of WotC (or RWoT) losing 1/3 of their current customers.
Now here's the kicker. If any product lost 1/3 of its income, that would be a major travisty. The product would be considered a total failure. WotC can't afford to lose that many.
Some things excite me, some things have my interest piqued. Somethings I'm kinda like, sounds good, but otherwise arent too high on the Excite-O-Meter. Its a general positive feeling.
The only really bad thing that comes to mind when I think of 4th Edition is wondering whether Paizo is gonna stick with 3rd Edition and that Pathfinder will be too difficult to convert, or if they will stick with 3E just until they get enough space between now and whenever to make the transition to 4E...assuming its good.
I like a lot of what Paizo does, so if its easy enough to take, say, monsters in an adventure and just swap out the stats (adding or removing enough to make the encounter balanced), that I'll likely stick it out as long as its not waaay more work than its probably worth.
Otherwise, I might keep the subscription just cause. I might also end up running both 3rd Edition and 4th Edition games.
Considering all that, it's just amazing how much time people spend writing about game they won't buy, study, play and/or use in any way imaginable.
I think this is, for many, an opportunity to vent frustration. I don't criticize that, so long as people are civil to one another (as most are).