Though admittedly, there is SOME need for 4Ed. The main reason being that dear old WoTC themselves have diluted the current edition down to the consistency of mud, with endless splatbooks that masquerade as rulebooks. Thus I've got players hauling in more rulebooks than laywers haul into court. Far too much material, much of it very low and watered down quality, leads to a diminished game, that is permeated with arguing, looking for rules, and endless munchkin PC's.
|
Though admittedly, there is SOME need for 4Ed. The main reason being that dear old WoTC themselves have diluted the current edition down to the consistency of mud, with endless splatbooks that masquerade as rulebooks. Thus I've got players hauling in more rulebooks than laywers haul into court. Far too much material, much of it very low and watered down quality, leads to a diminished game, that is permeated with arguing, looking for rules, and endless munchkin PC's.
I actually game with a Lawyer and he says the same thing about how much he has to haul around. I also game with a college professor(same game) who stated an agreement to that statement in comparison to what he needs to be ready for his classes.
Just my own observations in real life.
|
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.
A year after releasing the most expansive explanation of these types of imaginary beings they proudly begin crowing that a new system is being developed and it will be so much better than anything else written in the past. Folks like me have invested our own money on those imaginary beings with the expectation further material may be developed such as FCIII, Yugoloths. That can't be too difficult to grasp?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Y'know, I was looking through the shelves at Borders Books the day before yesterday (thanks for the gift card, Mom!) and read through the Races and Classes book.
I am firmer in my belief that 4th Ed. is a perfectly nice game that I have no intention of buying. And now I understand why.
I suspect that if Wizards had announced. "We're tying up the loose ends of D&D, and closing the game. But don't throw your dice away yet. In June, we'll be releasing a new roleplaying game." then a lot of people would have no problem.
And the reason I'm not buying 4th Edition at all? Because I don't want to get the new versions of things mixed up in my head. I remember the year that half of my friends were playing 3.5, and the others were playing 3rd Ed. It made my head hurt. I don't want new versions of dawrfen warlocks messing about with the versions of the rules I want to run.
By the way, and this is a question that Paizo people might have the background to address: is there any good reason that Wizards hasn't come up with a Magic: the Gathering world book for D&D? Is there any reason that 4th Edition *couldn't* have been "Magic: the Role-playing Game"?
I just figure that that would have tapped into the other major brand in the company.
Though admittedly, there is SOME need for 4Ed. The main reason being that dear old WoTC themselves have diluted the current edition down to the consistency of mud, with endless splatbooks that masquerade as rulebooks. Thus I've got players hauling in more rulebooks than laywers haul into court. Far too much material, much of it very low and watered down quality, leads to a diminished game, that is permeated with arguing, looking for rules, and endless munchkin PC's.
Of course, there's no reason to think that the exact same thing won't happen with 4E.
Also (and I know you know this), a DM is free to limit the game to the core books to prevent the above issue.
|
Most new stuff will could be converted (or will have already appeared as 3.5).
This is going to come out badly, so apolgies in advance.
This is what I see as called "the big lie"
With the huge fluff changes, especially in say, FR and teh gods shuffling and the changes to the planes and abyss and other places...
No I cant see it easily converted nor already appearing in 3.5
Most new stuff will could be converted (or will have already appeared as 3.5).This is going to come out badly, so apolgies in advance.
This is what I see as called "the big lie"
With the huge fluff changes, especially in say, FR and teh gods shuffling and the changes to the planes and abyss and other places...
No I cant see it easily converted nor already appearing in 3.5
The huge changes in fluff are annoying, but the differences in crunch are almost as bad. If 3.5 material can be converted without substantial effort, why do 4e's own designers state otherwise? Look at how 4e will gut the magic system, for instance. Magic will no longer be a wide discipline that can be used to play many different types of spellcasters. Instead, 4e magic will start out specialized (blaster wizard, healer cleric, "illusionist," mentalist psion, nature magic druid, "summoner," etc.) and split up between multiple books.
I think my biggest gripe with 4e is the big shift from a game that can be used for a variety styles of play and settings (especially with the options in the SRD) to one that is more focused on a specific style of play and setting (changing core mechanics to suit a group's preferences sounds much more difficult).
I like having to make saving throws.
I like trying to figure out what that big doggie's Damage Reduction is and is overcome by(Damnable Yeth Hound, I'll track you down).
I like different classes having wildly different abilities and contributing to the whole of the party.
I don't like non-magic-using classes having "Combat Powers" that can be used over and over(reminds me of that stupid Book of Nine Swords).
While I don't like Magic-users becoming spent after three rounds, I don't think they should be able to use all their powers all day long, either, nor do I like the Wand and Staff thing I hear is happening(having a bonus to your magic because you carry a Wand or Staff will quickly turn into having a penalty because you don't carry).
Healing your Allies because you attack an enemy is plain silly.I admit though, when it comes out, I will go to Hastings and read it. If it is to the contrary of my expectations, I may buy it. But, it will be some time before it will actually be used. I'm currently trying to build a campaign world in 3.5 and have already gotten a significant amount to change everything.
To all haters and lovers of 4E, at least, those insulting each other. Stop. You're just making yourselves and your positions in the argument look bad.
To all those who can't provide an argument for/against 4E other than spouting "IT SUCKS!" or "IT ROCKS!": Stop. You're just making yourselves look stupid.
To all those who might respond in a hostile manner because you may think I insulted you: I never mentioned your name. Don't take things personally.
Well put sir! Well put. I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment about certain things currently in the game that are good and decent (saving throws, wizards not becoming nigh on to gods with their powers ect.) I am not a fan of what has been revealed for 4th edition. I've stated that opinion many times on these boards. I don't hate that it's coming out, my only real concern is what third party publishers are going to do. Primarily: will they be able to succeed with the new edition? I myself don't plan on converting, but I know many people are. I hope 4th does well. For the players and the 3rd party publishers that are throwing their hat in with 4th.
If everyone could post as you do, then perhaps the anger about the new edition (from both sides of the aisle) would simmer down.
A year after releasing the most expansive explanation of these types of imaginary beings they proudly begin crowing that a new system is being developed and it will be so much better than anything else written in the past. Folks like me have invested our own money on those imaginary beings with the expectation further material may be developed such as FCIII, Yugoloths. That can't be too difficult to grasp?
Exactly.
It is as if WotC had decided to first make as much money as possible out of the folks who favors an elder version of D&D, before ditching them out.
Now they're bending the game out of shape so that it catters for a generation of computer-addicted WoW fans for which role-playing is a burden between them and their minis...
Those who favor a more traditional type of RPGing are left behind as the game is twisted into a mixture of WoW-on-paper and Warhammer 40K.
They don't need my bucks? Fine: they wont't get any...
Er... the two posts above about posting without being insulting flew by then?
They don't need my bucks? Fine: they wont't get any...
I think the same: They go out of the way to tell me they don't want my money. Then I won't burden them with 1000-1500 € a year. If they think the new kids will dump more on them then I did, good luck. Because I doubt they do. I also doubt that they get enough new fans to replace those they deliberately sent away.
They apparently want to make the game faster and easier and are perfectly willing to make it "dumber" in the process. They think they can get the WoW crowd with this. I think they make their game too similar to WoW, and WoW will win every time: It may be more restrictive still, but those guys have shown that they don't mind. And WoW looks better, and is even faster and easier (no need to enforce the rules at all, the machine does it all!)
Though admittedly, there is SOME need for 4Ed. The main reason being that dear old WoTC themselves have diluted the current edition down to the consistency of mud, with endless splatbooks that masquerade as rulebooks.
Give them a year or two, and 4e will be the same.
And BAM! We need 5e.
They said that there will be no 4.5e. I think it's true in fact, but not in truth. Give 4e a couple of years, and either a revision that isn't called 4.5e will come, or they go ahead and make 5e. If you think 3e was short-lived, wait for 5e.
And I already know their excuse: Since 4e was remade from scratch, a lot of teething problems were there - even more than with 3e. A lot of stuff won't make sens, and "in order to give you the best D&D there is", the next edition will be home early.
I suspect that if Wizards had announced. "We're tying up the loose ends of D&D, and closing the game. But don't throw your dice away yet. In June, we'll be releasing a new roleplaying game." then a lot of people would have no problem.
That's what I keep saying. The thing is: They want their cake and eat it, too. The name "D&D" means cash, and they want to get that cash. They want to make a new game and pull the wool over our eyes, telling those who already bought the game one or more times that it is still the same game.
By the way, and this is a question that Paizo people might have the background to address: is there any good reason that Wizards hasn't come up with a Magic: the Gathering world book for D&D? Is there any reason that 4th Edition *couldn't* have been "Magic: the Role-playing Game"?
I'm not a Paizo person, but I know this:
They don't want to "dilute the brands". There's some strong internal resistance to this, because they apparently fear that they'd lose all their fans (it seems that Magic fans and D&D fans are mortal enemies or something). And maybe something about playing styles (in Magic, you apparently play some kind of immortal superwizard. Not that it hasn't worked for other games, like Legend of the Five Rings)
Personally, I'd think that this would have done more for D&D than their WoW-scheme ever could!
Those Magic players show that they're willing to do something away from computers. They don't need CGI in order to enjoy their game. Give them a Magic: The Gathering d20 RPG and I think that many would buy it. It would be a d20 based RPG, like Star Wars, but largely compatible with D&D. That way, they wouldn't need to buy anything with D&D on them even. All they'd need would be this one book. 40 tacken or something, no big deal for a TCG player. And then tell them that while it's not called D&D, the game is compatible with the rules this game uses. I think many of those who like the way RPGs are played would want to play it more, buying into D&D.
I think they'd get a lot more D&D converts that way, and they wouldn't have to intentionally piss off truckloads of existing customers - only those extremist puritans who don't want D&D and M:TG mingled. Shouldn't be that many, a lot less than they lose now.
|
@KaeYoss - said, "The name "D&D" means cash, and they want to get that cash."
What if WE as fans no longer allowed that assumption to remain true?
What could we all do? I too am interested to see how third party publishers will do—however, what if we as a community no longer thought of PAIZO as third party? What if we looked to PAIZO as the new legitimate leaders of our game?
What if we as a community begin to think of PAIZO as the main souce publisher of our FRPG?
What would our new situation look like if we all believed in the following: PAIZO, WHERE D&D TRULY CONTINUED. Erik Mona is highly competent (and extremely trustworthy) to be our new leader. Can you imagine the positive outcomes and how this could help dislodge XPUD's stranglehold upon our community?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What would our new situation look like if we all believed in the following: PAIZO, WHERE D&D TRULY CONTINUED. Erik Mona is highly competent (and extremely trustworthy) to be our new leader. Can you imagine the positive outcomes and how this could help dislodge XPUD's stranglehold upon our community?
Pax, I think you're engaging in hyperbole. Paizo's a business, just like WotC. End result they'll go where the money goes.
You want 'D&D to truly continue' do what I do, write, teach newbies, grow the hobby.
You want 'D&D to truly continue' do what I do, write, teach newbies, grow the hobby.
Every chance I get. I also attempt to get people to try systems other than D&D, because 1) it can generate ideas to see how other systems handle things, 2) other systems can be better than D&D for some styles of play, and 3) it helps build creative thought.
|
Wand and Staff thing?!? Haven't heard that one... Is it something like the rule in Tunnels and Trolls that makes it more taxing to cast spells without a "proper" staff, and more advantageous to cast with a "special" one?the Wand and Staff thing I hear is happening(having a bonus to your magic because you carry a Wand or Staff will quickly turn into having a penalty because you don't carry).
What I remember reading is that Magic users will be able to keep a Wand, a Staff, or some other type of magical instrument(I forget, maybe an Orb, or something). WotC says that these items are not necessary, but grant a bonus to the spellcasting, and the normal level is how power the spellcaster is without these items. Kinda like they're chanelling their power through them and amplifying it.
Figure A: Normal + Staff = Bonus
However, this will become the opposite, because every spell-slinger will have them. Making carrying one of these things the Normal. Thusly, a magic user without one essentially a character with a penalty.
Figure B: Normal - Staff = Penalty
I could have misunderstood how they stated things, but I do not believe that to be the case.
Found it! Wand and Staff Thing
For those who didn't sign up for D&D Insider two days before 4E was announced its quoted below as a Spoiler to save room on the page.
Wizards and Wizard Implements by Bruce Cordell
Magic saturates the world and all the extraordinary realms beyond the world, an intrinsic force present in literally all things. Magic transforms and alters the natural world, sometimes actively and with sudden effect, other times subtly and over long centuries.
This arcane energy source is difficult to understand and even tougher to master. Wizards do so through years of study, practice, and apprenticeship to accomplished masters.
Wizards wield arcane magic, and they recognize reality for what it is: a thin veneer of structure supported and energized by a force that is ultimately malleable, to those who know its secrets. Though research and study, wizards learn esoteric rituals that allow them to alter time and space, hurl balls of fire that incinerate massed foes, and wield spells like warriors brandish swords. They call upon lesser and greater spells to unleash raging torrents of cold, fire, or lightning, confuse and enthrall the weak-minded, or even turn invisible or walk through walls.
What sets wizards apart from others who wield arcane magic are wizards’ unique implements. Most people recognize the three most common tools associated with wizardcraft: the orb, staff, and wand.
Any wizard can use an implement to increase the effectiveness of his spells. Just as a warrior gains a benefit when attacking an enemy with a magic sword, so does a wizard benefit from using a magic orb, staff, or wand with his spellcasting. In addition, each implement focuses magic of a particular discipline or tradition more effectively than the wizard would be able to accomplish otherwise. As a result, wizards are rarely without at least one of these tools.
The orb is favored by the Iron Sigil and Serpent Eye traditions. Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring. The mages of the Iron Sigil, on the other hand, employ orbs to guard themselves with potent defenses when invoking spells of thunder or force.
The staff is best suited to the disciplines of the Hidden Flame and the Golden Wyvern. Servants of the Hidden Flame wield fierce powers of fire and radiance through their staves. Golden Wyvern initiates are battle-mages who use their staves to shape and sculpt the spells they cast.
The wand is a perennial favorite for wizards who favor accurate, damaging attacks. Emerald Frost adepts use wands to help channel powers of cold and deadly acidic magic, while Stormwalker theurges channel spells of lightning and force through their wands.
A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell.
|
|
On Christmas Eve I was cleaning up the shelves where I keep all my game stuff, reorganzing and what not. I was looking through some select pieces from 3e and past editions. Overall, it was a nice and nostalgic endeavor but throughout the course of the night I started to realize something, I am done with the last 30 years of material.
The game is great, its classic, and it will always hold a place in my heart. But I am ready to see something new. I am ready for something fresh. If 4e can achieve that, great. If not, then I will be highly disappointed. While I enjoy the idea of using select old fluff for years to come I think I am ready for a departure from what D&D was. For me, its time to close the book on the game and push the restart button. This can be done and it can retain the name in the process.
This is a pretty large departure for me. I had been feeling more wary than not. I had thought I would not convert. I won't be finished with Ptolus until long after the release of 4e so I will have time to decide. I am just tired and I need something to shake me out of this ennui. I hope 4e is it. I hope it provides a new vision for D&D.
It might not be time for a lot of you. That's cool. I can understand. For me though, its time for something new. So my potential "hate" has really shifted in support for the edition change.
|
|
The huge changes in fluff are annoying, but the differences in crunch are almost as bad. If 3.5 material can be converted without substantial effort, why do 4e's own designers state otherwise? Look at how 4e will gut the magic system, for instance. Magic will no longer be a wide discipline that can be used to play many different types of spellcasters. Instead, 4e magic will start out specialized (blaster wizard, healer cleric, "illusionist," mentalist psion, nature magic druid, "summoner," etc.) and split up between multiple books.
I think my biggest gripe with 4e is the big shift from a game that can be used for a variety styles of play and settings (especially with the options in the SRD) to one that is more focused on a specific style of play and setting (changing core mechanics to suit a group's preferences sounds much more difficult).
I expect crunch changes. Much like 2nd to 3rd...stuff was going to get lost in the shuffle, the game mechnics needed to change.
Much like 3rd to 4e, the mechnics are going to change. Its inevitable.
What I dont expect is to find all of my stuff fairly worthless as reference material. Which is whats happening in the switch. In 3.5, for the overwhelming most part, I can pull an old module or reference book and still have some use. But with 4e, I'm finding them taking the chainsaw to the game, the shuffling of fluff on every single level, that it will be incredibly hard to do so anymore.
I am ready for something fresh. If 4e can achieve that, great. If not, then I will be highly disappointed. While I enjoy the idea of using select old fluff for years to come I think I am ready for a departure from what D&D was. For me, its time to close the book on the game and push the restart button. This can be done and it can retain the name in the process.
I heard that more than once (often from people who used to dislike the Forgotten Realms and say that they might like them now they're so different), and no offense, but I find it selfish. (I know it's not your fault directly that the game and the Realms change so much, I'm not accusing you).
You might be happy with 4e that is completely disconnected from D&D as it was before, but others aren't. Others want to keep playing their favourite game, and get support for that game.
It's like those guys who wanted the Realms to change. They basically wanted the Realms to be just like any other setting. Why not just play any other setting instead? Now the Realms change to suit those whiners, and as a result those who liked the Realms as they were don't have anything anymore.
Same should have been done here: If people want to play a different game, give them a different game. Make a new RPG that's similar to WoW, with lots of collective aspects and miniatures-centered gameplay, but don't take D&D from those who like D&D. That denial is a big factor in the outcry over 4e.
@KaeYoss - said, "The name "D&D" means cash, and they want to get that cash."
What if WE as fans no longer allowed that assumption to remain true?
What could we all do? I too am interested to see how third party publishers will do—however, what if we as a community no longer thought of PAIZO as third party? What if we looked to PAIZO as the new legitimate leaders of our game?
What if we as a community begin to think of PAIZO as the main souce publisher of our FRPG?
What would our new situation look like if we all believed in the following: PAIZO, WHERE D&D TRULY CONTINUED. Erik Mona is highly competent (and extremely trustworthy) to be our new leader. Can you imagine the positive outcomes and how this could help dislodge XPUD's stranglehold upon our community?
While I doubt that they could "take on" wizards, I do think that they (among others) will be the true inheritors of D&D (forgive my pompous parlance), giving us adventures and campaign settings that still feel like D&D, even if they choose to switch to 4e (and I think that if they switch to 4e, it's because they think that they can make it work with D&D).
I suspect that if Wizards had announced. "We're tying up the loose ends of D&D, and closing the game. But don't throw your dice away yet. In June, we'll be releasing a new roleplaying game." then a lot of people would have no problem.
Brilliant!! Awesome statement and very true.
|
|
While I doubt that they could "take on" wizards, I do think that they (among others) will be the true inheritors of D&D (forgive my pompous parlance), giving us adventures and campaign settings that still feel like D&D, even if they choose to switch to 4e (and I think that if they switch to 4e, it's because they think that they can make it work with D&D).
There is no need to tilt at windmills, so to speak. You simply do what folks do/did in the case of GAmesworkshop:
You vote with your wallet. More than a few do. GW's finances are not in great shape(although it finally took years for them to notice. And it wasnt an organized thing). You spend your money on folks that DO give you want(for minis, I simply went to privateer press and played their games. Some went to flames of war).
RPG's? I'll simply spend money on piazo items. Or Necromancer if I like what they have. Or Goodman perhaps. Or see if Monte Cook puts something out for arcana evolved or such.
Its really that simple, and gets the point across. Eventually.
|
|
I heard that more than once (often from people who used to dislike the Forgotten Realms and say that they might like them now they're so different), and no offense, but I find it selfish. (I know it's not your fault directly that the game and the Realms change so much, I'm not accusing you).
So is it more selfish to want some change in the game or is it more selfish to ask that the game never change? When does your selfishness outweigh another persons?
You might be happy with 4e that is completely disconnected from D&D as it was before, but others aren't. Others want to keep playing their favourite game, and get support for that game.
And hopefully a third party company will continue to support the game. But Wizards is not doing that. Sorry. It happens. Talk to DangerDwarf about how it feels
It's like those guys who wanted the Realms to change. They basically wanted the Realms to be just like any other setting. Why not just play any other setting instead? Now the Realms change to suit those whiners, and as a result those who liked the Realms as they were don't have anything anymore.
I hate the Realms but I never would have asked for them to change. That's why I played in my homebrew or in Greyhawk. On the other hand, I don't think the major reason for the Realms reset has anything to do with the "whiners". It has everything to do with design considerations. The Realms has experienced major paradigm shifts in the past. Nothing quite on this scale to be certain but don't pretend the Realms are sacrosanct. To state this is the case shows either an unawareness of how things are or a need to express falsehood to prove a point.
Same should have been done here: If people want to play a different game, give them a different game. Make a new RPG that's similar to WoW, with lots of collective aspects and miniatures-centered gameplay, but don't take D&D from those who like D&D. That denial is a big factor in the outcry over 4e.
So one group of "whiners" (your term) is winning over a another more noble majority that seek to preserve the sanctity of D&D? You should get out more. Some of the people on the Paizo boards are a very loud and very vocal minority. And, in the end, I think many of the people leading the charge with the public outcry will either convert or simply keep playing their edition of choice. As for the masses who have not weighed in on either side of this debate, they will simply buy what appeals to them. Time will tell if this means 4e or not.
You want to keep playing 3e, go right ahead. You want support for it, let's see if any third party publishers can achieve that goal. Otherwise the game is changing. Up to this point I was resisting that change as well. Now, I am ready for it. I suspect if the game hadn't been changed in the near future I would have simply left it for something else.
So, which would you rather have, a game that dies a slow and nasty death as Wizards and other publishers release the Complete Book of Asshattery and other silly books ad nauseum or an attempt to bring some new players into the game? If Wizards thinks they can pull in some of the 9 million subscribers to WoW, then I wish them luck and I stand behind that choice. It makes sense to me.
By the way, I have seen a number of posts that seem to labor under the misconception that there is this wide gulf between MMO players and D&D players. With over 9 million subscribers I have trouble believing that conception would hold true.
I don't think 4e will completely discard everything that makes D&D what it is. That seems rather unlikely. And even if it does, so be it. If you don't like it you can vote with your money. If it turns out I don't like it then I can do the same. Otherwise calling people selfish because they somehow are stealing something away from you seems petty and silly. It also smacks of a skewed sense of reality. In the future, don't be disingenuous by stating you mean no offense when what you really want to do is slap someone in the face.
The thing that bothers me is that people keep saying that D&D with 3E is dead or dying. I don’t see it, I have years worth of good stuff I still want to run and I may be alone in this (which is fine by me) but I actually have ENJOYED all the complete books.
I guess that’s some of the things that bothers me about 4th edition is that we are being told about the death of 3E, they killed off the magazines, and they lied to us about 4th edition coming out so soon.
Though admittedly, there is SOME need for 4Ed. The main reason being that dear old WoTC themselves have diluted the current edition down to the consistency of mud, with endless splatbooks that masquerade as rulebooks. Thus I've got players hauling in more rulebooks than laywers haul into court. Far too much material, much of it very low and watered down quality, leads to a diminished game, that is permeated with arguing, looking for rules, and endless munchkin PC's.Of course, there's no reason to think that the exact same thing won't happen with 4E.
Also (and I know you know this), a DM is free to limit the game to the core books to prevent the above issue.
DaveMage,
I fully expect WoTC to REPEAT this process in 4th edition, because I think that WoTC believes, (and they're probably correct) that they can make more money by selling more watered down products, than by selling a smaller number of solid products that have concise and condensed material, essential for running the game. Futhermore in my opinion, fewer books & materials discourages powergaming and improves the overall quality of the game itself.And it's not like WoTC is re-inventing the wheel here, they're merely modifying an existing game and then charging you money to re-buy the same books you've already bought in multiple game editions before. Rather intelligent on their part, but pretty lousy if you're the consumer being asked to flip the bill for all this.
This is not only irritating due to the financial costs involved, but the ridiculous amounts of books & source materials involved. If you or I need a book to help me rebuild a car or complete my math homework, do you want to buy "rebuilding cars/or/math for dummies" with all the info you need in it, or do you want to buy several dozen books, and then have to hunt through most or all of them to find the bits and pieces you actually need? It is my sincere hope (likely in vain) that the 3 core books for 4.0 will have ALL important, pertinent, and necessary info to play the game, and NOT have a game designed such that it requires me to keep on buying additional books to run a credible 4.0 game. The 3.5 DMG for example wasted multiple pages on descriptions of the various Inner/Outer planes. You've got the Maunal of the Planes & the Planar Handbook that describe everything, but they continue to give you FILLER crap you don't need, don't want, and isn't essential for running the game. And DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THAT MISERABLE AND PATHETIC DELVE FORMAT.
AND THE MAIN PREMISE OF 4.0 IS THAT 4.0 IS SUPPOSED TO SIMPLIFY EVERYTHING. TO ME THAT MEANS REDUCING THE WATERED-DOWN/FILLER MATERIAL USED TO COMPLETE ALL THESE SPLATBOOKS, THAT ONLY HAVE A HANDFUL OF REALLY NEEDFUL THINGS FOR RUNNING THE GAME (which is precisely what they've done in 3.5), and thus you have to buy the splatbook to get the needed material. An example you ask: I could give you dozens. How about me having to buy "Stormwrack" just for some of the basic survival info contained in Chapter 1 (drowning, freezing, deepwater pressure, etc.) The rest of the book, while somewhat useful is hardly necessary to the game, and I would not have bought the book, were it not for the info in Chapter 1.
At the risk of sounding like I'm wishing for days gone by, back in 1st edition, you didn't have this kind of problem. TSR was a smaller company, with few employees, and they didn't have to crank out this amount of profit to pay everyone's salary and turn a profit for the company and the stockholders. I'm not calling for a return of Gygax and Company, per say, but I think there are A LOT of people working for WoTC, and I think that if there were "fewer mouths to feed", then perhaps we wouldn't have to be inundated with watered down crud in 4th edition, as I strongly suspect we will be.
Some posters above have promoted the idea of change, and change being good for the game. Well, who has been calling for these changes? No one I've come across, prior to the announcement of 4.0. If massive amounts of players & DM's have lobbied WoTC for needed modifications in the game, then so be it, but I haven't seen it.
Who's been demanding that Erinyes become Succubi, or that Saving Throws be eliminated from the game? Yet, these are held up by WoTC designers and spokesmen as necessary reasons for an updated version of the game. Says who. Apparently only the WoTC employees themselves. And they're likely doing merely to provide a feeble rationale for why we need a new edition of d&d.
At the risk of sounding like I'm wishing for days gone by, back in 1st edition, you didn't have this kind of problem.
It's funny - I look at my 1E shelf (and, box sets aside, it only takes up 1 shelf) and I see 13 rulebooks and 60+ adventures, all from TSR.
That's the kind of ratio which, IMO, is the best for the game. Incidentally, only 7 of those 13 rulebooks are meant for players (and of those 7, two were more setting heavy than anything else - Dragonlance Adventures and Greyhawk Adventures).
Not sure that's the greatest example - the greatest strength and weakness of the Realms is that, to some extent, it was every other setting... :D
Still, it had some aspects that were rare, stuff you didn't see everywhere else. Not anymore:
- A goddess of magic that wasn't just neutral, in alignment and views. Mystra was good, and her priests promoted magic as something good, but still she had to grant everyone magic, even those who eviscerate small children with it or whatever. Made for some interesting internal conflicts. Now she's gone.
- Racial pantheons. My favourite way of handling racial deities. The "racial god" never appealed to me. I like how Pathfinder handles it (no "elf god" or anything to reinforce the stereotypes), but I actually liked the variety of a whole pantheon per race better. But now they're getting rid of them
- Related to the above: A plethora of deities. Other settings usually have a dozen of them, but the Realms had hundreds (kind of like our own world). But now they're whittling down the numbers because apparently the average D&D player is overtaxed with deciding for a deity among a hundred.
- Powerful characters on all sides. Your party isn't the only heroes around, and your villains aren't the only ones, either. But many of them will go down now.
In 3e, they made their own cosmology especially for the Realms, and now, one edition later, they're intentionally getting rid of it to make everything conform to 4e's core standards.
I still wonder what they're going to do about things that aren't in 4e, like druids and gnomes. Will they all just die, only to be resurrected when the rulebooks with those aspects appear again (should that ever happen). I won't put it past wizards to do it just like that, they didn't exactly show that they can come up with decent explanations for all the changes.
There is no need to tilt at windmills, so to speak. You simply do what folks do/did in the case of GAmesworkshop:You vote with your wallet. More than a few do. GW's finances are not in great shape(although it finally took years for them to notice. And it wasnt an organized thing). You spend your money on folks that DO give you want(for minis, I simply went to privateer press and played their games. Some went to flames of war).
RPG's? I'll simply spend money on piazo items. Or Necromancer if I like what they have. Or Goodman perhaps. Or see if Monte Cook puts something out for arcana evolved or such.
Its really that simple, and gets the point across. Eventually.
I already do that. I'm not sure whether it will help, but I hope so.
So is it more selfish to want some change in the game or is it more selfish to ask that the game never change? When does your selfishness outweigh another persons?
Two things:
First, I'm not saying that it should never change. I just say that it should remain recognisable as the game I want to play.
The second thing, which is especially true for the Realms: If we have something unique, and some people don't like the unique parts, I think it's more reasonable that those who don't like those people who don't like the unique parts play a game that is how they want it, not demand that the unique parts be taken away so they can play this game. That is what happened, and now those who liked the Realms' unique parts can't just go play something else like this, because there isn't anything else like this. Instead of telling the others to just play D&D4's new standard campaign setting, they've been taken away their favourite playground.
In such matters, I'm all for the solution that's best for everyone. 4e's Realms changes aren't. They're intentionally screwing people over.
And hopefully a third party company will continue to support the game. But Wizards is not doing that. Sorry. It happens.
So I'm not allowed to be angry?
I hate the Realms but I never would have asked for them to change. That's why I played in my homebrew or in Greyhawk. On the other hand, I don't think the major reason for the Realms reset has anything to do with the "whiners". It has everything to do with design considerations. The Realms has experienced major paradigm shifts in the past. Nothing quite on this scale to be certain but don't pretend the Realms are sacrosanct. To state this is the case shows either an unawareness of how things are or a need to express falsehood to prove a point.
Could you please clarify the last part? Because it reads like an insult.
Anyway, as you said, the scale is unprecedented. I reiterate: I'm not against change itself, I'm just against change on such a scale to FUBAR the setting. Which 4e's changes do.
So one group of "whiners" (your term) is winning over a another more noble majority that seek to preserve the sanctity of D&D? You should get out more.
So you're running out of arguments, and instead use insults? Great!
So, which would you rather have, a game that dies a slow and nasty death as Wizards and other publishers release the Complete Book of Asshattery and other silly books ad nauseum or an attempt to bring some new players into the game?
Neither. This isn't an "either let the game die OR make ridiculous changes" question. There's more than these two options.
Plus, I doubt that 3e was dying. Far from it. That wizards couldn't think of decent titles doesn't mean anyhting.
At the risk of sounding like I'm wishing for days gone by, back in 1st edition, you didn't have this kind of problem. TSR was a smaller company, with few employees, and they didn't have to crank out this amount of profit to pay everyone's salary and turn a profit for the company and the stockholders. I'm not calling for a return of Gygax and Company, per say, but I think there are A LOT of people working for WoTC, and I think that if there were "fewer mouths to feed", then perhaps we wouldn't have to be inundated with watered down crud in 4th edition, as I strongly suspect we will be.
It is a pity that all the hate about 4th Edition has come down to the proposal that wotc should fire some of its employees in order to produce better products.
I sincerely hope that this kind of thinking is a minority.
|
|
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).
Yeah, the KoK gods are awesome in that regards. I love how they set it up.
|
|
Edit: I deleted my response. See this thread
I am being silly here and I see no reason to continue to participate in behavior I don't feel properly presents who I am as a person.
Time to take break from the 4e threads. I will say this, I am sorry for the insults I flung at you KaeYoss. It was uncalled for.
|
|
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).
Yeah, the KoK gods are awesome in that regards. I love how they set it up.
I think KoK is one of the best settings out there. Their design philosophy was admirable and provided for a fun game.
I think KoK is one of the best settings out there. Their design philosophy was admirable and provided for a fun game.Most definitely. All companies should strive for something as unbelievably great as the KoK Atlas as well.
The KoK Atlas is way awesome!
When I first got the setting book I tried to get our team to adopt KoK as our main setting. Nope.Then I got Dangerous Denizens. Still nope.
Then I found a second setting book in the bargain bin, and gave it to another player (for dual referances). Still nope.
Then I got the Atlas. Everybody wanted to play in KoK then.
At the risk of sounding like I'm wishing for days gone by, back in 1st edition, you didn't have this kind of problem. TSR was a smaller company, with few employees, and they didn't have to crank out this amount of profit to pay everyone's salary and turn a profit for the company and the stockholders. I'm not calling for a return of Gygax and Company, per say, but I think there are A LOT of people working for WoTC, and I think that if there were "fewer mouths to feed", then perhaps we wouldn't have to be inundated with watered down crud in 4th edition, as I strongly suspect we will be.
Well, actually, I don't think that it is really a question of "mouths to feed". Seeing that WotC did strongly downsize their D&D division in 2004 (IIRC), I am pretty sure they have worked out the best ratio of "smallest needed number of staff to produce as much as possible".
A company like Hasbro/WotC is really about maximizing corporate profit and not about feeding staffers. So: lower all costs - including salaries, in amount and numbers - and raise the margins (produce the books that sell most, and not those that best further a setting).
Smaller companies like TSR or Paizo (my guess) might have less shareholder pressure (Paizo shares are not traded on the stock exchange, right?), but higher commitments to their staff. And might be in a relatively freer position to put out a book with average positive margins (e.g. regional source book) rather than a low-cost, high-margin recycled splatbook (e.g. Complete Whatever).
So I don't think it's about number of staffers in that case. It's all about the Hasbro shareholders.
My bet, though, is that companies of the latter sort (e.g. Paizo) are better at retaining long-term customers and are guaranteed long-term, if lower, profits.
On the other hand, occasionally tricking your customer on the quality of products to maximize your short terms margins (e.g. WotC) might backfire and lose you customers in the long term.
Bocklin
|
|
On the other hand, occasionally tricking your customer on the quality of products to maximize your short terms margins (e.g. WotC) might backfire and lose you customers in the long term.
But it does give you the satisfaction of blowing a raspberry while declaring, "I tricked you!"
Some things you just can't put a price on.
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.
A year after releasing the most expansive explanation of these types of imaginary beings they proudly begin crowing that a new system is being developed and it will be so much better than anything else written in the past. Folks like me have invested our own money on those imaginary beings with the expectation further material may be developed such as FCIII, Yugoloths. That can't be too difficult to grasp?
This is the heart of the matter as I see it. WOTC (and Paizo) has produced some great stuff for the 3.5 version of D&D. Now, WOTC is withdrawing all support for it. I can see reasons for revising 3.5. What I don't see is the need to completely replace it with non-compatible rules and a re-vamped mythology. The consequence of doing this is to make all of the previous awesome 3.5 material obsolete. And yes, I do realize that I can still play 3.5 (and I plan to). But, I'm still disappointed that WOTC has decided to exclude the numerous 3.5 books that I've purchased over the last few years from their newest version of D&D.
We hate 4E because we love 3.5.
And it's not like WoTC is re-inventing the wheel here, they're merely modifying an existing game and then charging you money to re-buy the same books you've already bought in multiple game editions before. Rather intelligent on their part, but pretty lousy if you're the consumer being asked to flip the bill for all this.
Which, of course, makes it not intelligent at all. Even the stupidest company has to realize that eventually even stupid sheep will eventually catch on to being fleeced in the wintertime. Or will they? A lot of sheeple don't mind being fleeced with the expectation and the hope that what they're buying into will somehow improve their games, but imo, there's only so much wool-pulling-over-the-eyes a company can do before the sheep get fed up and move on to other things. I mean, are people really getting anything new and original when they buy into yet again the next incarnation of the Complete Book of X? Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
|
|
Just weighing in here as well ...
I don't think I would describe my feeling toward 4E as hate. In fact, hate is a pretty difficult emotion to muster up over the few, rather murky and nebulous nuggets WOTC have thrown our way so far.
I'm rather ambivalent at this point.
Heck, call me 4E Agnostic at this point.
For me, though, WOTC's decision to kill Dragon and Dungeon was a HUGE blow and certainly did NOT make me predisposed to warm and fuzzy feeling about 4E. Many of the things I've heard since then have also not thrilled me.
To be fair, I have heard a few things that I kind of like, so there you go ...
If WOTC had NOT killed Dragon and Dungeon, and we were currently reading regular updates etc withing their hallowed pages (much like we all did when 3.0 and 3.5 came out) I very sincerely believe many of us would be feeling very different about 4E right now.
It is a pity that all the hate about 4th Edition has come down to the proposal that wotc should fire some of its employees in order to produce better products.I sincerely hope that this kind of thinking is a minority.
Mormegil, my statements were not hateful in ANY way, shape, nor form, and I have been supportive of 4Ed. within reason, in all of my prior posts. The fact that you have attempted to 'demonize' me by labeling my statement as "hateful" shows how much you lack any intelligent argument to oppose what I have previously stated.
Companies cut costs by reducing staff all the time, Mormegil, just ask anyone who's ever worked in the Airlines business or for any automotive company in the U.S. It happens REGULARLY.
And before you shoot down my suggestion that a few less employees over at WoTC might do them good,...ask yourself what do all these employees do, and why is their continued employment essential? Ask anyone college student (past or present) how many old fossils they've had to take classes from, that should have been sacked long ago, but because our university institutions have the less-than-wonderful practice of TENURE, these aging professors are allowed to remain in place, long after they should have been shown the door, and regardless of how lousy they perform as teachers. Working at WoTC is not a birthright nor an entitlement. As a company that generates revenue, their employees are subject to being sacked right along with the rest of us.
|
|
You vote with your wallet. More than a few do. GW's finances are not in great shape(although it finally took years for them to notice. And it wasnt an organized thing). You spend your money on folks that DO give you want(for minis, I simply went to privateer press and played their games. Some went to flames of war).
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
The best thing the disaffected can do is play other games. Make the hobby broader.
This could be the best side effect of 4E - drive a chunk of gamers on to other games.
|
|
You vote with your wallet. More than a few do. GW's finances are not in great shape(although it finally took years for them to notice. And it wasnt an organized thing). You spend your money on folks that DO give you want(for minis, I simply went to privateer press and played their games. Some went to flames of war).Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
The best thing the disaffected can do is play other games. Make the hobby broader.
This could be the best side effect of 4E - drive a chunk of gamers on to other games.
Yes, but a lot of us don't want to play other games. We want to play D&D. 4th edition seems to be shaping up as something that is "not D&D". That is what is ticking off a lot of us. I don't want to spend what little time, energy, and money I have to invest in gaming purchasing and learning dozens of different game systems. I just want to play D&D, not a game that is D&D in name only.
Time to take break from the 4e threads. I will say this, I am sorry for the insults I flung at you KaeYoss. It was uncalled for.
Alright. Let's just take a deep breath and look at it in a more cool-headed way. I guess I'm being more than a bit emotional about this, too. No harm done?
I wasn't aware of that bit... Kind of neat. But if they're getting rid of alignments, I guess it just doesn't fit anymore...
They're probably just getting rid of rules that tie into alignment. They can't ban the concept of good and evil (or order and chaos, for that matter) from the game at all. Even they have to know that.
People will still be well-disposed towards certain ideals, like goodness, evil, order, chaos, knowledge, excitement, pleasure, contentment, and so on (unless they really turn it into a Diablo-like hack'n'slash game where you just kill enemies and move into the next room).
They could still have good and evil deities without having things like "smite evil". Gods should have a personality, too.
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).
That works as well.
|
|
Yes, but a lot of us don't want to play other games. We want to play D&D. 4th edition seems to be shaping up as something that is "not D&D". That is what is ticking off a lot of us. I don't want to spend what little time, energy, and money I have to invest in gaming purchasing and learning dozens of different game systems. I just want to play D&D, not a game that is D&D in name only.
So play the game you have. Play it for the rest of your life. Totally cool by me.
Some will keep playing the version of D&D they believe to be the "real D&D". They will look at the people that play that new fangled version of the game and tell them that it is "D&D in name only" be it AD&D, 2E, 3E, 3.5, or even 4E.
If 4E sucks then I may even be one of them if I don't shift over to a whole new system.