I apologize for breaking with the line of posts above me, but I'm just going to address the OP in this post.
I've got several misgivings about 4e, but hate is too strong for my stance, more like mild antipathy. I think that even if I decide between now and the 4e launch that I completely loathe 4e, I'll probably still pony up and get a DMG and PHB, if only so I can really grokk what I'm loathing. By extension, one would also be correct in assuming that I'm pretty dissatisfied with the 4e PR campaign.
I can really boil down my complaints to two points:
1. I don't think that the picture WoTC is trying to paint for game play in 4e is supported by the tidbits of crunch WoTC is releasing as part of the 4e build up.
2. I feel, some days very strongly, that a lot of the design choices being made in the name of streamlining the game/play experience are insulting. To clarify, I feel like WoTC is telling me that grappling, spells of certain schools, multi-classing and a range of other mechanics found in the current addition, are too difficult for me to use. Not that the mechanics are cumbersome, or inelegant in implementation, but I as a DM and Player, am simply not equipped to understand those rules in their current form.
I'll expand on those two points below, starting with No. 2.
Is my second assertion a bit paranoid? probably. No one at WoTC headquarters has a file on me, they don't know my college entrance exams or my scores in 2nd grade on spelling tests. However, WoTC seems intent on gutting rules and mechanics from the game that are too challenging. As evidence, I point to what we know currently as the entire school of enchantment. Based on comments from WoTC and posters who have read Races & Classes on the WoTC and ENworld boards, this school of magic is totally excised in the PHB. If I want to play a controller type caster, I need to rely on evocation spells (basically, walls of fire and ice storm). I can't charm a mook, nor can I use illusions. My wizard is reduced to what we would call a warmage in 3.5.
Why? WoTC says these effects/spells/mechanics are being reserved for later classes, and that they want to refocus the wizard on its (pardon my corporate speak) core competencies, specifically evocation.
Coupled with WoTC repeated instance on making the DM's job easier in 4e and streamlining combat in 4e, I honestly come away with the feeling that WoTC is telling me that charm monster and suggestion are too difficult to resolve, so I should just give up and discard those effects completely. In my mind 4e is a move back to basic D&D, away from AD&D, because WoTC has determined that an open and extensible rules set is not what players want. The thing is, I'm not interested in a canned, fast play system.
Returning to the first point, I don't see how providing every class with multiple swift and immediate actions (or their 4e equivalent) as well as multiple avenues for healing and self healing will stream line combat.
To borrow an analogy from World of Warcraft, every description of combat released by WoTC makes me think of fighting a paladin (I played on PvP servers). If your party cannot overwhelm the opposition within the first round or two, the combat will drag out until all avenues of healing are either exhausted or one party breaks off and retreats.
4e, from the way WotC is presenting it, will restrict the material for handling stuff outside combat, because "l33t r0xx0r p0wrz r k3wl."Eh? And jut where are you getting that 4e is going to restrict your game outside of combat? That's kind of humorous to me.
Slight use of hyperbole with the "l33t"-speak, but I'm just reacting to the tone of the WoTC releases.
As far as restrictions on my game go, it's not going to be much, but the following changes that WotC is pushing sound as if there will less material for running the game in non-combat situations than 3.x: "points of light" as the default world concept (there goes a lot of political intrigue), gutting the magic system (there go most of the non-combat spells), "simplifying" social interaction (back to the "reaction check" for everything, although it's now a skill), "quest"-based adventuring and rewards, and magic item levels (will DMs and players be able to easily design and categorize new items? Will PCs be able to enchant magic items at all?). From the information in the releases, there are a lot of things that 3.x covers that I may need to house-rule (or wait for the 2009 "core" books).
If it turns out that 4e covers these things well, then good. However the constant focus on hack-and-slash/wuxia/WoW style adventuring, as opposed to highlighting that 4e is suited to a variety of styles, is not very reasuring.
It is nice to start a new page on this thread with what I have to say.
I am looking forward to fourth edition for the following reasons-
#I will have a choice of editions and can choose the one that suits me.
#I believe that Wizards is going to make a system that is more elegant in it's basic mechanics and answers some of the problems that have been with the game since it's inception. - hit point bloat - mage exhaustion - mechanics bloat.
#There will be an online component that can allow me to play with people back in my other home countries.
#There will be new ideas at work in the new edition from everyone in our hobby.
#Learning new systems can be fun.
I am not at all looking forward to fourth edition for the following reasons-
@WTF is up with limiting the content in the first PHB in order to sell the second and third?
@The bastards killed my beloved Dungeon.
@The cosmology changes are obviously, to my mind, there just to invalidate the previous iterations of the game.
@Many of the changes presume that the existing cosmology is a burden, rather than an asset, which seems absurd to me.
@Many cows are sacred for a reason.
I guess my basic reaction to a lot of anti-4e (not all of it, many have legitimate challenges with it) is that it seems that no matter what WotC did right now, it would be wrong. I refer back to the "poorly folded" $100 bill example above. There's a great deal of focus on the negative when I personally find a lot of what they've revealed to be positive.
You know, after the initial shock of hearing that 4e would soon be released despite their assurances that it's not due for a long time, I became excited with 4e. I liked what they told me about the new mechanics, I liked that FR was still supported, and so on.
But then, two things happened:
1. The implications of many of those changes set in. All-day-powers for everyone might be great, but it makes a lot of settings incompatible with 4e without serious changes (probably beyond the point where it resembles 4e more than 3e), and a lot of other things are the same.
2. The news about the flavour changes started to roll in, and it became clear that they were hard-wired into the rules on a very basic level. If I don't like how a race (or anything flavour-related) works in 3e, it's quite easy to change it. In 4e, it sounds as if I'd have to replace a lot more than that if I don't like a piece of their flavour.
It doesn't sound at all like the D&D I have played and read about for years.
2.5. They force the FR into 4e's mold and no excuse is too stupid for them to "explain" why everything changed all of a sudden.
To me, the fact that they have a DI that costs money to use is not a good argument against 4e cause it's just another optional service.
I believe that when I see it. Right now, I'm convinced that they'll try their level best to put stones in your way if you don't sign up to their DI.
|
2.5. They force the FR into 4e's mold and no excuse is too stupid for them to "explain" why everything changed all of a sudden.
THAT sounds like the D&D I have known and played for years.
Shaking up a campaign setting and causing countless aggravating retcons?!?!? No, they've never done that before.
;D
|
|
As far as restrictions on my game go, it's not going to be much, but the following changes that WotC is pushing sound as if there will less material for running the game in non-combat situations than 3.x
Huzzah!
See, thats a good thing to me. I don't need a lot of extra rules, especially out of combat. The less crunch they get in my fluff, the happier I am.
"points of light" as the default world concept (there goes a lot of political intrigue)
Ummm, because WotC is know for producing a lot of political intrigue modules? Really, I'm not sure why you think that "points of light"will somehow make folks unable to do that.
"simplifying" social interaction (back to the "reaction check" for everything, although it's now a skill)
Huzzah!
Give me a quick, simple role to let me gauge an initial reaction and let the rest play out through roleplay. Again, the less crunch they get in my fluff, the happier I am.
"quest"-based adventuring and rewards
Because everyone knows that D&D aint about quests?
The quest based awards thing sounds cool to me because it will shift the focus of earning xp towards the goals of the story and away from killing monsters. I think this will enhance story and rp in the game not take away from it. However, I do think the idea of giving players cue cards with the goals of the current quest written on it (like a video game journal menu) is a little cheesy (unless your players tend to forget everything), and yet I've had players over the years say "Why did we come here again?" because they couldn't remember all the details of the story (especially after a few weeks off from gaming). Maybe the cheesy cue cards aren't such a bad idea (mental note- write cheesy cue cards for Jeff for next game session)...
Most adventures are "quest" based and that doesn't make them lame. Savage Tide could be seen as a series of quest based adventures (our current quest is to rid the City of Broken Idols of its demonic master). What could make this format lame is how it's presented ie... "You are walking through town and an old man approaches you. He says "Here is your next quest " and he passes you a card." If you do crap like that in your game it might get real lame real quick. Fortunately, I don't see many dms doing that, and I don't see WotC encouraging many dms run a game in such a fashion.
2.5. They force the FR into 4e's mold and no excuse is too stupid for them to "explain" why everything changed all of a sudden.
THAT sounds like the D&D I have known and played for years.
Shaking up a campaign setting and causing countless aggravating retcons?!?!? No, they've never done that before.
;D
They didn't do it for 3e. Not like that. In 3e, they reexplained a lot of things using the "new language". So the simbul was suddenly a sorcerer, not a wizard. Big deal, the story still saw her as a careless spell-slinger.
But 4e changes the story itself. They don't just explain the Realms anew with the new rules, they change the story to fit the rules.
And the changes are more extreme than anything we ever saw. They wrote it themselves. "The world has ended, a new one begins."
Realms Shaking Events have become Realms Shattering Events.
And those "explanations" are worse than we ever had, too. When you think Cyric (the Mad) believing his own propaganda and becoming more mad as a result was bad, you haven't seen soap opera stile mix-up-kills and major deities (and not just any major deity, the most powerful around) being killed in her home domain, just like that - and the deity who killed someone else because he looked at his girlfriend funny just gives the guy house arrest. Yeah right.
As I recall, the avatar crisis had some pretty serious story changes that moved 1E to 2E for the FR. However, I haven't looked at their plans for the realms yet, and I don't care about the FR all that much anyhow. Maybe I'll look into it.
2.5. They force the FR into
4e's mold and no excuse is too stupid for them to "explain" why everything changed all of a sudden.
THAT sounds like the D&D I have known and played for years.
Shaking up a campaign setting and causing countless aggravating retcons?!?!? No, they've never done that before.
;D
They didn't do it for 3e. Not like that. In 3e, they reexplained a lot of things using the "new language". So the simbul was suddenly a sorcerer, not a wizard. Big deal, the story still saw her as a careless spell-slinger.
But 4e changes the story itself. They don't just explain the Realms anew with the new rules, they change the story to fit the rules.
And the changes are more extreme than anything we ever saw. They wrote it themselves. "The world has ended, a new one begins."
Realms Shaking Events have become Realms Shattering Events.
And those "explanations" are worse than we ever had, too. When you think Cyric (the Mad) believing his own propaganda and becoming more mad as a result was bad, you haven't seen soap opera stile mix-up-kills and major deities (and not just any major deity, the most powerful around) being killed in her home domain, just like that - and the deity who killed someone else because he looked at his girlfriend funny just gives the guy house arrest. Yeah right.
As far as restrictions on my game go, it's not going to be much, but the following changes that WotC is pushing sound as if there will less material for running the game in non-combat situations than 3.xSee, thats a good thing to me. I don't need a lot of extra rules, especially out of combat. The less crunch they get in my fluff, the happier I am.
I liked the greater consistency for determining the results of non-combat actions in 3.x. There were less house rules needed, which resulted in less variance between different campaigns/DMs. Larger toolkit = easier to run more styles of play.
"points of light" as the default world concept (there goes a lot of political intrigue)Ummm, because WotC is know for producing a lot of political intrigue modules? Really, I'm not sure why you think that "points of light"will somehow make folks unable to do that.
It completely cripples any sense of competing city-states, widespread conspiricies, foreign spies, etc. Any criminal network or secret society will be purely local, given the difficulties in travel and communication. Wipe out the local cell and that's it.
"simplifying" social interaction (back to the "reaction check" for everything, although it's now a skill)Give me a quick, simple role to let me gauge an initial reaction and let the rest play out through roleplay. Again, the less crunch they get in my fluff, the happier I am.
This is a consistency issue for me again. Also, the techniques for misdirection (Bluff), bargaining/creating a good impression/inspiring others (Diplomacy), and scaring someone (Intimidate) are different.
"quest"-based adventuring and rewardsBecause everyone knows that D&D aint about quests?
Read this thread. When the focus of adventuring becomes "perform Task X for Reward Y," instead of being based on the characters' background, goals, and the campaign storyline, that's putting the cart before the horse.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I believe that when I see it. Right now, I'm convinced that they'll try their level best to put stones in your way if you don't sign up to their DI.
To me, the fact that they have a DI that costs money to use is not a good argument against 4e cause it's just another optional service.
They already have:
It's completely and entirely true that (aside from the possibility that many prospective players might be less willing to play 3.5 in the presence of a new edition) I can continue to run and play 3.5. In fact, I probably will.
The great disappointment in me with 4e is the squandered potential. 3.5 is far from a perfect game; I think the game mechanics could use tuning up.
The problem is that it's not just the mechanics that are getting tuned up. The game is undergoing severe conceptual alterations. Concepts that have existed and been added to since 1e and before were supported in 3e (succubus, the great wheel, gnome PCs). With some minor exceptions, the philosophy has been more about extending the game and adding flexibility and capability to the ruleset.
The 4e philosophy seems to be "stip out the names and use them to represent something different". Elves now worship Gruumsh, paladins can be any alignment, succubi now hang their garter with devils. And so on. What central concepts in the game *represent* are shifting.
This is a disappointment to me, because I am invested in the conceptual framework of the game as it existed in 1e-3e. I could use the mechanical improvements in the game, but the concepts that 4e represent are too much of a shift for me to relate to.
Some of the changes I see in 4e are actually pretty cool (I like elves that don't suck, reflex replacing/merging with touch AC, etc.) It's a disappointment that it won't conceptually be the D&D that I want to play.
I will say, though I do see some mechanical improvements, there are some annoying ones in the offing. For example, I see Smites and the elven auras to be another easily forgotten conditional modifier, akin to the buffs and feats like Dodge that plagued 3e.
|
"quest"-based adventuring and rewards
Because everyone knows that D&D aint about quests?
Read this thread. When the focus of adventuring becomes "perform Task X for Reward Y," instead of being based on the characters' background, goals, and the campaign storyline, that's putting the cart before the horse.
For me, I like to run a game that is pretty free-form. Not wildly so, but the characters decide where they are going and what they are doing. If they happen across a nearby old man who says that he wishes his wife would stop bugging him about bringing in the laundry, and that happens to have a quest card... well, I hand over the quest card, and the party wouldn't likely have bothered with it otherwise. In such a system (which I will not be playing, so this is hypothetical) I would simply keep all the quest cards to myself as the DM and access them as needed should my players decide to follow a lead. The players would still never know about the card's existence. It can be worked around, and I don't see much difference between the Quest Card and just having the players make notes (other than the issue I pointed out above, which may not be a widespread issue).
I think the problem I have with this (and perhaps what others are experiencing as well) is that the quantification and modularization of "quests" is so ingrained in MMORPG style that it's annoying. It also could lead to quests that are there just for the sake of being a quest, rather than actually playing any part in the greater story.
Dunno... it just doesn't feel right, but I can see some usefulness for some styles of play.
This is going to be long, but, it's worth it. If it means to explain my vehemence for hating 4E, so be it.
Here it goes:
I started in 2nd Edition. Played it for years with my close friends (some of which are still my players to this very day). Bought over $2.5k worth of material. I've poured through as much material as possible, loving every piece of it, applying rules here and there, house ruling this or that...it was pure awesome. TSR provided the mechanics, the options, and I ran with what I want. To make matters more important, the "D&D Mythology" as we all like to call it, was very consistent (at least as consistent as it can be).
Consistent as in there's the Great Wheel, one multiverse, there is a difference between demons and devils and the addition of the unique D&D fiend, yugoloths. Paladins were always Lawful Good, heck, alignment was always in the game. It caused arguments, but that's what gave D&D part of its charm. Sure, there were a lot of crossovers between campaign settings but it worked. At least that's what I believe. It made everything more connected, like we were all this one big family enjoying the same, yet different types, of the game.
There was a COMMUNITY to this game. Bottom line.
But...it had its flaws. Unfortunately. Then came the 3rd Edition talk. Were we upset at changing our system, buying new books all over, and changing everything we once knew about 2E but no longer applied in 3E? Sure we were. But as previews were released, we began to realize this seems to be for the better. We would give it a try. But, want to know the best part?
It was the same game. The same feel. The same traditions. The same knowledge.
So what really did change from 2E to 3E? Any race as any class, no level limits? We already house ruled that in 2E. Feats and skills? Upgrades and additions, it didn't take away from anything. Ability scores? Still there. Ability bonuses and penalties for your race? Still there. Schools of magic, gnomes, devils&demons, the Blood War, the Abyss? Still there.
The only huge change, was they altered the way the cosmologies worked. They pretty much made a huge gash at the Planescape setting. But that was it. It made some interesting inconsistencies, but we dealt with it.
That was the thing about 3rd Edition I came to enjoy and embrace. It was a fix, an upgrade, a massive improvement to the system. More options, diverse playstyles, fun character making and monster making thanks to prestige classes, feats, and templates.
Yet, it was the SAME EXACT GAME!
That's right. Same game. Tell me one thing from 1E or 2E you COULD NOT use for your 3E games? That's non-mechanic? The fluff and flavor then...is still there now in 3E. Sure, some of it changed around, but WotC made it work or they implemented something to make it work. An example? How about the drow spell-like abilities they received at higher level? A feat now. Problem solved.
But now---on to 4th Edition:
First, it's too early. There was nothing wrong with 3rd Edition that couldn't be solved with some clean up. Some of what they use in 4E, they could've used in 3rd Edition NOW. They began working on it 5 years after 3E came out. WHAT?! That quick? What's the point of getting into 4E? 5E will be right around the corner once we decide to get into it.
Second, they're trying to actually make the Tabletop RPG industry compete with MMORPGs. To do this, they need to "dumb the system" down so any moron can understand and play it with little time.
Um, that's not the D&D I know. Sounds like a different game to me.
Next, let's make everything in the game KILLABLE. One big game of Munchkin, pretty much. Let's get rid of alignment, let's change the flavor of every creature, let's change all their abilities so they're geared towards combat. Let's make D&D a combat savvy game. A game about smashing the door and killing what lies beyond.
Role Play? Let's make that more interesting. Let's involve a lot of dice rolls, make it more like COMBAT! There.
Eladrin? The Chaotic Good celestial representatives of the universe? Too complex. Plus we're getting rid of alignment. Make the game dumber, more appealing to the "jocks" and not the "geeks" anymore.
Schools of magic? Nope. Gone.
Spell levels? 1st-9th? That confused people. Again, dumb it down. Up
to 25th-level now.
Levels? People like killing things. You get XP when you kill things. People like leveling. Bump the level cap to 30, make leveling faster.
Combat? Too slow. Make it faster, make it bigger. Kill 50 orcs in 5 rounds, get 500000 XP, get to level 10 in an hour.
Any of this D&D to you folks? Not me.
Try this experiment:
1) Continue your 1E, 2E, 3E games. Wait 5 years.
2) Come to a huge 4E following, and talk to them about D&D. Study what they say.
3) Compare 4E to the other editions.
Conclusion? You won't understand a damn thing. The two of you will talk blabber to each other, it seems. Evidence of a "generation" gap. A huge GAP! What for? Obvious.
WotC has this idea. It's called "let's 'nuke' the grognards, they're ruining our vision". This was stated rather bluntly by Rich Baker on his thread a couple of months back.
Now I can go on and make this really long. I can go on and say everything about 4E I despise, how they're going about it, why they didn't just do it with 3E, how they're marketing it, etc.
My point is, in a nut shell: 4th Edition D&D is NOT D&D. It's an entirely new game, not just new rules and system, but new EVERYTHING. Not the D&D I remember, not the D&D any of us will remember nor will most likely enjoy without watering our eyes at how much of it has been torn apart.
You World of Warcraft players enjoy your 4E. You'll dump it in a few months anyway, never realizing the potential D&D once had and the effect it was supposed to have on you.
Dungeons&Dragons...Rest In Peace. If not anyone, ~I~ will remember you for what you really were and what you truly represented.
Wizards of the Coast---Rot in all Nine Hells (which you nuked, also, anyway).
P.S. The seecond post above mine represents what more of what I feel about 4E. About the destruction of its concepts.
|
C) They are trying to get D&D out of the basement and have it accepted by a larger audience. A very good friend of mine tells people that he is gay before he tells them he plays D&D. When I was dating my wife we talked politics and religion, we got married, and then I fired my campaign back up. If WotC can take D&D from nerd to Geek then I'm all for it.
I have never felt the need to hide my hobby. Does it come up in every conversation? No. But I don't make it a big secret either.
I don't date someone unless they can at least accept the hobby. I make it a topic of conversation early on. I introduced my most recent partner to D&D. Honestly though, this has only been as issue once. And that guy had whole host of problems that had nothing to do with D&D.
That statement about your friend introducing himself as gay before he says he plays D&D is silly. Of course he does, its much more likely to be pertinent in everyday conversation.
I don't know where you live but around here I am not getting pelted with rotten fruit for being a geek. If you are, sorry to hear that, but I simply have never run into a problem in my adult life dealing with the geek stigma of D&D. When I was younger there was the whole "devil worship" angle but I lived a very religious household, so there you go.
By the way, I tell people I am gay before I tell them I play D&D. But that has everything to do with situations and nothing to do with the game. I talk about my hobbies as openly as I do my sexuality.
As for bringing it out of the basement and making it more acceptable. I think you would have a hard time telling the hordes of people at Gencon, people of all types and from all walks of life, they are part some group of pariahs.
Honestly if someone does not like me because of some personal trait, be it my sexuality, my hobbies, or anything else, they can pretty much go screw themselves. They are choosing not to see the whole picture of who I am anyway.
From 1st to 2nd and 3rd edition, the PHB, MM and DMG were fairly generic and built upon the game's history. 3rd edition and 3.5 have some mechanical issues (too many supplements mucking up the works, high level play headaches, multiclassing limitations that are patched by PrCs) but the game is deeply rooted in what came before and the writers seemed to respect that those who came to the table to play D&D did so because they wanted to play D&D and not some other fantasy RPG.
4th edition, for whatever reason, wants to redefine the "core concepts" of D&D and, in nearly every instance, I find myself at odds with the decisions being made. Changing the mechanics to facilitate play and improve the game is a laudable goal... but I just can't get behind what I've been reading over on EN World and on the WotC site.
The only changes that I've read and liked involve:
1] Less reliance on magic items
2] Consolidation of some skills (though they went too far)
3] Removal of PrCs and improved multiclassing rules.Everything else just leaves me scratching my head in disbelief and muted anger.
AWESOME post! Everything I was thinking, right there in a beautifully clear and coherent post. I could not possibly have said it better (although as a side note, out of respect I should point out that putting "88" after your name would get you shot in a heartbeat by a number of my Jewish friends, who take the Holocaust VERY seriously).
So what really did change from 2E to 3E? Any race as any class, no level limits? We already house ruled that in 2E. Feats and skills? Upgrades and additions, it didn't take away from anything. Ability scores? Still there. Ability bonuses and penalties for your race? Still there. Schools of magic, gnomes, devils&demons, the Blood War, the Abyss? Still there.
That was the thing about 3rd Edition I came to enjoy and embrace. It was a fix, an upgrade, a massive improvement to the system. More options, diverse playstyles, fun character making and monster making thanks to prestige classes, feats, and templates.
Yet, it was the SAME EXACT GAME!
That's right. Same game. Tell me one thing from 1E or 2E you COULD NOT use for your 3E games? That's non-mechanic? The fluff and flavor then...is still there now in 3E. Sure, some of it changed around, but WotC made it work or they implemented something to make it work. An example? How about the drow spell-like abilities they received at higher level? A feat now. Problem solved.
Again, same ideas as Chris expressed, and also well stated. These posts, in my mind, distill the essence of the distaste for 4th edition on these boards. I don't mind changes that make sense (consolidation of skills? Sign me up!). But I seriously mind it if there's no continuity, and no way to convert from one edition to the next. 4th edition isn't next in an organic line of changes; it appears at this point to be a whole new game, and therefore needs a new name.
|
|
This is something that has been bothering me for awhile, the perception that 3.5 was an edition change and not just an update. Could you please tell me what changes between 3.0 and 3.5 changed the game play enough for you to see them as totally different edition to the game?
I admit this is personal perception, and a silly one at that. It really has nothing to do with the conversation has the rest of my post goes against this line of thought.
But if you want to know what I am thinking when I say this, here we go.
I liken the change to the transition between 1e and 2e. While that change in editions was slightly more dramatic it was still easy to use material from 1e in 2e games. I could run monsters out of the book with minimal tweaking, I could run modules with ease, and I could easily convert characters with a few snags. The rolling mechanic stayed the same, the system was pretty much the same. Would you say that 1e and 2e are the same edition?
The transition from 3.0 to 3.5 is similar in a few ways, no matter what they decide to call it. I agree I can still use 3.0 material in a 3.5 game, with some changes here and there. But I could do that just as easily with a 2e game in which I used 1e material.
For a good illustration on what has changed try running Monte Cook's Banewarrens in 3.5. You can do it but there are distinct hiccups along the way.
I guess I should ask, can you use the 3.0 core books in a 3.5 game? Would allow a player to use those books while everyone else is using a 3.5 PHB? To me that is the strongest indicator when considering if 3.5 is a new edition. The answer, for me, is no. Of course I can't use the 3.0 core books in a 3.5 game. If the 3.0 to 3.5 change was simply a revision then I think it would be possible to at least have a 3.0 PHB at the table knowing some things were updated but that most of the information still stands. I don't think you can do that.
You could use the 2e revised books alongside the original 2e books. But you could not use 1e core books alongside 2e books. While I could use 1e modules and convert at the table in a 2e campaign, the same way I can with 3.0 modules in 3.5, I cannot use a 1e player's handbook in the same game.
I know this is somewhat tangled in its journey to a conclusion but there are my thoughts on the subject.
Razz - have a dirnk. No honestly, it's on me.
For the record, I think any association to TSR's bungling, inevitable downfall, and collapse upon itself really has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not 2nd edition DMs like me were (and still are) able to create and run vibrant games. That's a common misconception. The system obviously has flaws, but every system does, and it's up to each DM to make what they can of it.
I totally agree with you Varl. Individual DM's kept D&D alive back then by running amazing games for their friends. I wasn't speaking of the individual DM's ability to make the game great, but of the new D&D products being produced at the time.
I know there are still people out there playing 1st and 2nd edition right now, and I say god job! Enjoy your games, and I hope you never stop playing.
The problem is, that you can't keep a company like TSR or WotC alive by selling books which are ten years old. There just arn't enough people wanting to buy them. New products have to be produced to introduce new players to the hobby, and they need to be good products so people will buy them.
That's actually why I want 4th edition now, so that 3rd editon will remain a great system and not end up being spoiled by years of bad products.
|
|
It completely cripples any sense of competing city-states, widespread conspiricies, foreign spies, etc. Any criminal network or secret society will be purely local, given the difficulties in travel and communication. Wipe out the local cell and that's it.
Have you never played in Wilderlands? It's all of those things and still very much a points of light setting.
Also, the techniques for misdirection (Bluff), bargaining/creating a good impression/inspiring others (Diplomacy), and scaring someone (Intimidate) are different.
I'll disagree about needing varying mechanics though. In my opinion, 90% of those activities should be done through RP, not die rolling.
Razz - have a dirnk. No honestly, it's on me.
Yes, a "dirnk". I've probably had a few already. Hic.
The great disappointment in me with 4e is the squandered potential. 3.5 is far from a perfect game; I think the game mechanics could use tuning up.
If this is only what they would have done, I'd have been much more tempted by 4E.
|
|
If they happen across a nearby old man who says that he wishes his wife would stop bugging him about bringing in the laundry, and that happens to have a quest card... well, I hand over the quest card, and the party wouldn't likely have bothered with it otherwise.
You shouldn't hand it over at that point anyways. When the party shows an interest in what the guy is talking about, draws something out of him and then decides to help him...then you give it to him.
I was luke warm about the quest card thing though. At least until I read the thread here indicating its not uncommon for players to not remember the name, or even race, of their party members. That's basic folks. Yeah, toss them some cards.
Quest cards aren't mandatory anyway, they're a piece of advice, an aide memoire.
|
|
I don't plan on buying any 4e stuff, due in part to my wife's pleas not to (looking at all the 3.5 stuff I own) and my love of 3.5's core mechanics and feel. My group has been dismayed by many of the details that have come out about 4 so far (loss of important {to us} core races & classes, the lack of control in characters fate perceived by no longer rolling saving throws, etc.) and the general feel of the PR for the edition has been offensive at times to our sensibilities.
I disagree to the statements made that the developers don't listen to the fans: they have agreed to restat all the minis instead of just 60, they changed their plans for Ebberon's time change, they dropped the Griffon Whatever Fooey, etc. However, at the same time, they have also refused to listen to other complaints, such as those about the Realms changes in timeline, etc. It seems that "business" is what is driving most of the decisions, which is likely a good thing for the future growth of the industry.
It could backfire, however, because of the tactile and social aspect of D&D. The "feel" of D&D is the reason most of us come back to the table time and again. And the "feel" is changing.
The destruction of "sacred cows" is leading to this change in feel. Whether these cows are "mechanical bulls" or "fluffy guernseys", we're used to them being in our pasture, and the landscape isn't the same without them. The grass may seem greener on the other side of the fence, but I'll stick with the Ponderosa I know and love.
Damn, I want steak now!
|
|
I can understand that. That's how 3e lost me.
See, that's the thing about an edition change... it's going to loose fans of the game. Hopefully, WOTC can come up with something new in the way of marketing that will open up new "markets" for the D&D brand. The way the OGL did for 3e. So far, I really haven't seen anything jump out at me that will accomplish this, but the release of 4e could come with a blitz the like rpgs have never seen before... certainly, Hasbro has the resources to do so. If they don't it could signal a declining period in the hobby as the core constituency is fractured yet again. Next year will be an interesting one for the hobby.
Meanwhile, I think the advantage those of who love 3e have is the OGL, which opens the possibility for continued legally published support for our game, unavailable for previous editions. 4e could be the best thing to happen to "our" game-3e- as well. But that's probably a fantasy, even bigger than the "death" of D&D. Frustrated potential is aggravating me....
As I recall, the avatar crisis had some pretty serious story changes that moved 1E to 2E for the FR. However, I haven't looked at their plans for the realms yet, and I don't care about the FR all that much anyhow. Maybe I'll look into it.
Note that this was the 1e-2e transition, as you said. (Apparently, there was an outcry about that). They seemed to have learned about it and made a more natural transition between 2e and 3e. Now they're changing the Realms again, and the changes are even more extreme than before. And worse.
Ummm, because WotC is know for producing a lot of political intrigue modules? Really, I'm not sure why you think that "points of light"will somehow make folks unable to do that.
WoTC? not so much, but there is a long history of such modules in the AD&D cannon, an excellent example being L2, The Assassin's Knot.
"simplifying" social interaction (back to the "reaction check" for everything, although it's now a skill)
Give me a quick, simple role to let me gauge an initial reaction and let the rest play out through roleplay. Again, the less crunch they get in my fluff, the happier I am.
So variance in arbitration between DM's isn't a problem for you? You just ignore it out of hand? I like having a mechanical underpinning for noncombat encounters because:
1. It doesn't penalize players who are poor or shy RPers.
2. It lessens the impact and appearance of DM favoritism/subjectivity (Why does Joe/Dargoran always do better with the nobility? Well, Joe's a better roleplayer, go take some hints from Joe).
3. It gives rise to nuance and specialization. The players aren't *completely* playing against my RP of the Duke, rather they can glean hints based on an understanding of mechanics *and* use my RP of the Duke to appropriately act in turn*
*does this negate metagaming? No. Only a consciousness effort on the part of the players and DM can counteract metagaming.
Furthermore, Mr. Bugleyman, although you and some others may disagree with the poster's statement, his remarks were not even remotely so inappropriate or off color that he should be banned for them. It is unfortunate that your quick rush to condemn others who express contrasting viewpoints; is apparently being applied to over on the WoTC boards; where posters who make unflattering remarks about WoTC products or policy are reportedly being "removed" from participation. That limiting of reasonable debate and discourse is rather limiting of an individuals free speech; which fortunately, is upheld here on Paizo's boards.If you actually read my statement, I'm not condeming anyone for expressing a contrasting opinion (in fact, I didn't *express* an opinion), but rather for dancing rather close to calling other folks "suckers" and "fanboys." That isn't expressing a relevant opinion, it is insulting people.
I would love to have a reasonable debate, but "arguments" that amount to attacks on people you happen to disagree with make that impossible. Which was kinda my point...
Mr. Bugleyman, I did read your statement, and you stated, "I HOPE YOU GET WARNED, IF NOT BANNED." So while your disagreement with the poster in question is understood and respectable, you still called for the poster to be banned because of his statements. That's over the top. His statements were not such that even remotely merited action being taken against him.
This type of 'policing' is unfortunately what is reportedly going on over on the WoTC message boards, where those who voice disagreements are silenced, just as you have advocated for. I suspect you'd get a much more sympathetic and agreeable audience over on the WoTC boards. Why not try posting there? After all, most others who you'd disagree with, or would disagree with you, have already likely been banned, and thus aren't in the position to irritate you with their views.
Mr. Bugleyman, I did read your statement, and you stated, "I HOPE YOU GET WARNED, IF NOT BANNED." So while your disagreement with the poster in question is understood and respectable, you still called for the poster to be banned because of his statements. That's over the top. His statements were not such that even remotely merited action being taken against him.
This type of 'policing' is unfortunately what is reportedly going on over on the WoTC message boards, where those who voice disagreements are silenced, just as you have advocated for. I suspect you'd get a much more sympathetic and agreeable audience over on the WoTC boards. Why not try posting there? After all, most others who you'd disagree with, or would disagree with you, have already likely been banned, and thus aren't in the position to irritate you with their views.
Ok, last try: I didn't advocate action based on disagreement, I advocated action based on the thrust of the post being an insult rather than an argument. I don't know how to state this any more clearly: I have no problem with dissent, or disagreement; there is no "freedom of speech" issue here. Quite simply, basic civility must be enforced if we are to have a meaningful conversation.
I like these boards, but I think things have begun to spin out of control. One of the ways we can combat that is to call out posts which are thinly veiled insults. I've seen way too many good communities crash and burn because this sort of thing went unchecked. I sincerely hope that doesn't happen here.
I think you're pretty thin-skinned, Mr. B. So the poster referred to other posters (and thus you by association) as a 'sucker' and a 'fan-boy'. Not exactly the types of things people go to court over, are they? I've been called far worse, and probably will be in the future as well. I choose not to be offended. You should try likewise. I strongly suspect that the poster in question, (in addition to attempting to state his case), was trying to get a reaction out of certain posters, and you've clearly played into his little game.
|
|
WoTC? not so much, but there is a long history of such modules in the AD&D cannon, an excellent example being L2, The Assassin's Knot.
Yeah, but his point was that somehow 4e was going to stop that from happening. The only people it can stop is WotC and since that doesn't seem to be their thing, no loss.
So variance in arbitration between DM's isn't a problem for you?
Nope, not in the slightest. That's part of D&D, always has been.
Flippant Point: (therefore I shall use the solemn incantation *smurf*)
Didn't a small green fellow called Yoda have something to say about 'fear', 'anger', 'hate', and 'the dark side'?
Serious point: Would a 'Why are so many people *fed up* with hearing about 4E' thread be more productive?
I don't hate 4e. I don't know it that well yet. But I am now leary of inviting it into my home. Why?
Because Every. Single. Thing. I have read about it sounds like they are not treating the intellectual heritage of the game with respect.
From the goofy video that makes all gamers look like muddled losers throughout the ages, to talk to streamlining and simplfying things that have worked fine for years, to changing how monsters work, and even WHAT THEY ARE for no reason that seems just. They do it because they can.
When WotC made 3e, there was a clear sign of respect. We were assured we could convert our wcharacters, and use the fluff of old books. Now, we are told to get ready to start whole new campaigns. Apparetnly the head of their RPG division says in the announcement to wrap up our old games, and get ready to play whole new campaigns.
Well, smurf him. I like my current games. Suggestiong I should ditch them in favor of his flavor of the week, which I am deathly certain will change in another 6 years, bothers me. It's insulting.
They watn to create a whole nbew, hip, mass-market, appeals to kids hooked on WOW kids game, but they want to use the most well-known name in rpgs. They just don't want to acknowledge that over 5 or 6 total versions, it's been pretty good. They aren't keeping anything, and they aren't apologisiing for it in thye least.
DND is more than a set of rules. It's a style of fantasy all its own. And it sounds, very VERY strongly, like they have decided that style isn;t going to make them enough money, so they are going to change the entire style of play, unabashedly, because they can.
Well, that's true. They can. But if they don't start saying something to convince those of use that want print magazines, Dragonlance books, miniatureless games, and lots of social fluff from long-running campaigns that they value us as customers, they shouldn't be surprised when we feel they and their new edition can sod off.
Sod right the smurf off!
Okay, is my icon a little blue guy in that post because I invokled their name?
Its a smurfing shame I tells ye . . .
So variance in arbitration between DM's isn't a problem for you?Nope, not in the slightest. That's part of D&D, always has been.
Either your players are saints, your you only play with extremely benevolent DMs. Third option, every person I've gamed with is a horrible misanthrope.
The spirit of this thread is disclosure, please provide a more elaborate response. I gave reasons why I'm dissatisfied, please give a better counter point than "No. You're Wrong."
|
|
Either your players are saints, your you only play with extremely benevolent DMs. Third option, every person I've gamed with is a horrible misanthrope.
The spirit of this thread is disclosure, please provide a more elaborate response. I gave reasons why I'm dissatisfied, please give a better counter point than "No. You're Wrong."
Nah, my players are far from saints, but they trust me as a DM/CK. There needs to be a certain amount of trust in a group, and when that trust is there, you do not need a rule spelling out everything. My players trust me to provide them with a good night of gaming, DM fiat or not. Bottom line is we all leave happy.
I have some groups that have tried to buck my style but end up enjoying it, others it wasn't for them. No love lost, we just have different gaming styles. It's all good and we part ways. If we don't have a good group chemistry, I'm not above saying "look guys, I'm out." I'll find another group. No big deal.
I've been gaming for a good while now, and every DM I have come across handles thing differently. Every DM will have their own house rules that modify the rules as written. Every DM has a difference in style,etc. I'm cool with that and I expect it. Some of us, our styles may mesh, others they won't.
There will always be variance in arbitration. It's human nature so no I have absolutely no problem with that.