Dragonsfoot might have to add a 3E section - I wonder how that would go down?
Just reading about the history of TSR this morning left me wondering: Does WotC or Hasbro think that the D&D brand is a cash cow ready to be milked to the last drop? This was a fatal mistake made by earlier TSR management, with consequences we all know. The seemingly lacking acknowledgement of reader/fan feedback now (at least that is how it comes across to me) reminds me of the situation described by Ryan Dancey here:
"In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available. No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed."
Perhaps that is the true reason why many folks are up in arms about 4e - we´ve seen it before, and fear it might happen again to the game we love, to say nothing about the folks working for the game and who stand to lose their job if the new edition fails to be a success. Pride before the fall - again?
Stefan
*Excellent insight snip* Pride before the fall - again?
In my opinion it's a good helping of pride with sides of ignorance and greed. Sounds like it should be a Pathfinder AP. "Pride, Sloth, and Greed: The Three Faces of the Coastal Wizards" - A Paizo Adventure Path for levels 1 - 16
Just reading about the history of TSR this morning left me wondering: Does WotC or Hasbro think that the D&D brand is a cash cow ready to be milked to the last drop? This was a fatal mistake made by earlier TSR management, with consequences we all know. The seemingly lacking acknowledgement of reader/fan feedback now (at least that is how it comes across to me) reminds me of the situation described by Ryan Dancey here:
"In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available. No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed."Perhaps that is the true reason why many folks are up in arms about 4e - we´ve seen it before, and fear it might happen again to the game we love, to say nothing about the folks working for the game and who stand to lose their job if the new edition fails to be a success. Pride before the fall - again?
Stefan
I've read that entire letter by Ryan and I agree the situation right now is repeating itself again. WotC is telling, basically, everyone to "Follow the 4E movement" because that is where they are going, whether the lot of you like it or not.
If they truly listened to their fans, 4E wouldn't be a whole new game. It'd be an upgrade to 3.5E as much as 3.5E was an upgrade to 3.0E.
WOTC should have followed Dancey's statement....regretfully, they have made the same mistakes TSR made towards the end...the similarities are uncanny....its a shame they can't see the writing on the wall.
|
If they truly listened to their fans, 4E wouldn't be a whole new game. It'd be an upgrade to 3.5E as much as 3.5E was an upgrade to 3.0E.
How can you be so sure that they have not listened to their customers? They monitor the various forums - they have said as much. They listen to feedback at cons. People write to them all the time. They say they have done surveys and i have no reason to doubt that. They have run thousands of 3E games at Origins, the GenCons and Winter fantasy.
So how can you say they have not listened?
If they truly listened to their fans, 4E wouldn't be a whole new game. It'd be an upgrade to 3.5E as much as 3.5E was an upgrade to 3.0E.How can you be so sure that they have not listened to their customers? They monitor the various forums - they have said as much. They listen to feedback at cons. People write to them all the time. They say they have done surveys and i have no reason to doubt that. They have run thousands of 3E games at Origins, the GenCons and Winter fantasy.
So how can you say they have not listened?
I really do hope they listened to their fanbase. If their fanbase wanted changes we see now for 4e, then it is ok. And there are many folks (even around here, with these boards having a 4e-sceptic tone overall) that like these changes. Still, many folks around here voiced their opinion that they don´t like some or all of these changes. So, WotC made decisions that are not well recieved by at least part of their fanbase.
I hope that they listened to the majority of the fanbase. Based on what they published for 4e to date and how it was recieved, I have some doubts, as it seems to leave quite some fans out in the cold. This is to be expected with every major rules change, of course. But if the new edition does not appeal to the old fanbase who bought every edition before that one, this spells trouble to me. Listening does not mean considering the opinion voiced automatically.
I personally did not hear or read of any survey "what would you like to change in the game system" - this might be because I live in Europe. But then, they failed to reach me via their homepage as well, which I visited regularly for the Map of the Week and other features. Not that I would have contributed anything, but I do not consider myself asked in that matter.
Stefan
Just reading about the history of TSR this morning left me wondering: Does WotC or Hasbro think that the D&D brand is a cash cow ready to be milked to the last drop? This was a fatal mistake made by earlier TSR management, with consequences we all know. The seemingly lacking acknowledgement of reader/fan feedback now (at least that is how it comes across to me) reminds me of the situation described by Ryan Dancey here:
"In all my research into TSR's business, across all the ledgers, notebooks, computer files, and other sources of data, there was one thing I never found - one gaping hole in the mass of data we had available. No customer profiling information. No feedback. No surveys. No "voice of the customer". TSR, it seems, knew nothing about the people who kept it alive. The management of the company made decisions based on instinct and gut feelings; not data. They didn't know how to listen - as an institution, listening to customers was considered something that other companies had to do - TSR lead, everyone else followed."Perhaps that is the true reason why many folks are up in arms about 4e - we´ve seen it before, and fear it might happen again to the game we love, to say nothing about the folks working for the game and who stand to lose their job if the new edition fails to be a success. Pride before the fall - again?
Stefan
I've read that entire letter by Ryan and I agree the situation right now is repeating itself again. WotC is telling, basically, everyone to "Follow the 4E movement" because that is where they are going, whether the lot of you like it or not.
If they truly listened to their fans, 4E wouldn't be a whole new game. It'd be an upgrade to 3.5E as much as 3.5E was an upgrade to 3.0E.
Razz, I don't know how WoTC/Hasbro could "merely upgrade 3.5 into 4.0" and ask you to repurchase all the books you've just bought over the last 3 years, AGAIN. I think if WoTC is going to put out the new edition, then they have to make significant enough changes to justify the new game and the new books that you'll have to buy to follow. I'm not entirely thrilled with 4.0 either, but I'd balk at a rehash of 3.5, unless I could continue to make use of my current 3.5 products. But that would beg the question of why was the new edition really necessary in the first place, and on and on and on...
For me it's simple vast changes to 30+years of gaming history.
...oh yeah and Dragonmen, Dragonborn,Half-dragon people,(aka Trogdor) ugh
Michele Carter-Races and Classes
I saw the dragonborn name come up relatively early and that made me(cringe) smile, even if the poster didn’t know anything about the new context we were using for the race(Not to much to guess at where your going with this). Dragon-people in a game called Dungeons & Dragons?(Please god No) How obvious(ly corny) was that?... But then again, it took us this long(Five minutes at the meeting) to put them into the core, so it probably was a surprise(Horror Shock) to most.
4e is a Bigby's Cashgrab Fist of Greed. It feeds off the need of power munchkins and players whom cannot fanthom their pc death at the hands of a DM and a dice roll.
The game remains the same? I don't think so....
|
I was entirely set to hate the Dragonborn, I mean really, really hate them. I disliked the idea, I disliked the concept, I disliked the very cheese of it all. Races & Classes changed my opinion though, I actually thought the fluff around them was kind of cool.
I don't know if they have a place in the campaigns I run, but the fluff was nifty.
|
The game remains the same? I don't think so....
Same game new PC race. If you don't like them then ignore them. I am glad that there are finally PC races that were not a part of the Fellowship of the Ring
I don't mind fiddling with races.... it's easy enough to just say "no dragonborn in my campaign." There have been way too many instances of "well if you don't like it just don't use it," though, which means that the system needs to deviate so far from the written rules (and yes I know we don't know nearly 1% of the rules yet, but to have so many exceptions already...) that you shouldn't be playing using this system.
As for it being the "same game new PC race" I don't think so. It's not the same game. It's trying to represent a different genre of fantasy - a different genre than all previous editions of D&D have tried to present. D&D has never been totally generic (a la GURPS), but they are definitely taking a step farther away from genericness (is that a word? :) to more clearly defined settings and how you can use the material and options they present. Once they say something like "you can't convert from 3.x to 4.0" they they have acknowledged this as well. It's a brand new game, and the only reason people think that everyone should move to it is because it's by the same company as made 3.x. If White Wolf had put out a system that is exactly like D&D4, there would be nowhere near this much discussion about switching to it or not switching to it. There would be no question that most people would just continue on playing 3.x... and I hope that people realize there is no reason to change systems if you're happy with what you're playing already. If you aren't already happy with what you're playing then you should have changed systems a while ago.
If they truly listened to their fans, 4E wouldn't be a whole new game. It'd be an upgrade to 3.5E as much as 3.5E was an upgrade to 3.0E.
I don't entirely agree. I've always thought 3.0/3.5 was too complex. WotC and many players have said as much. I think that the mechanics needed a big overhaul. I also think WotC is going well past fixing mechanics.
How can you be so sure that they have not listened to their customers? They monitor the various forums - they have said as much. They listen to feedback at cons. People write to them all the time. They say they have done surveys and i have no reason to doubt that. They have run thousands of 3E games at Origins, the GenCons and Winter fantasy. So how can you say they have not listened?
Yes -- how could we question the veracity of their claims? Have they ever told less than the whole truth? Oh, wait...
|
|
There have been way too many instances of "well if you don't like it just don't use it," though, which means that the system needs to deviate so far from the written rules (and yes I know we don't know nearly 1% of the rules yet, but to have so many exceptions already...) that you shouldn't be playing using this system.
I have seen a lot of fluff that feels new but mechanically it seems like a solid system. What crunch do you see as being un-D&D like. What rules actually change the tone and tenor of the game?
|
|
For me it's a simple matter of trust, or lack thereof. What I keep hearing is 'trust us, it'll be great'. And I have to keep asking, why? What have the designers of 4th edition done to earn my trust that they are the right people and have the right vision for the future of the game? The guys who I trust by name no longer even work for Wizards, so they need to do more than just assume that we'll trust in their abilities.
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
I assume you are referring to Races & Classes? Actually, all that did was make me feel worse. If they want to generate demand they should be charging cost, rather than trying to make $20 off of largely disposable marketing material. That's the same price as the original 3e core rulebooks! It feels like a cheap attempt to squeeze money out of the fans during the downtime before 4th edition.Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
Yes, but have you read it?
I too had my doubts about a "preview" book that costs money. Therefore I looked it over in the bookstore. However, I think it's more than a simple preview. I found the race and class descriptions inspiring (I already have campaign ideas), the anecdotes about the creation process and their reasoning behind certain ideas informative, and the artwork to be of a high quality. I too have a lot more confidence in the design process now.
I understand that others may have a different reaction to the content than myself. But I urge those with doubts to at least peruse the book and then judge for themselves. I'm sure many intelligent people have done just this and decided it isn't what they want. But like crosswiredmind and myself, they may actually reconsider certain aspects of what they heard when the rationale behind it is revealed.
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
I've got to agree. I think 4/e is going to be an excellent game -- WotC seems to have very carefully learned from previous versions of the game.
But they don't seem to have learned that generic is better. The default universe/mythology appears deeply ingrained (so far, IMO) in the new edition. I think they're making adaptation more difficult, not less.
|
|
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
I've got to agree. I think 4/e is going to be an excellent game -- WotC seems to have very carefully learned from previous versions of the game.
But they don't seem to have learned that generic is better. The default universe/mythology appears deeply ingrained (so far, IMO) in the new edition. I think they're making adaptation more difficult, not less.
This is exactly the point I've been trying to make as well. I don't doubt that it will be a solid system (although I still expect many problems - probably more than 3.0 had because of the short development time on 4). It just isn't a system I can use to run the kind of fantasy game I want to run or play in. I use D&D 3.x because I like the rules and it's generic *enough* to adapt to whatever kind of world I want that fits in with my interests in fantasy. It's sounding like 4.0 is not going to be able to flex to accomodate that (without significant modification). That's just how it is. I really don't think some people are understanding that it's going to be a totally different system (which the designers have said is not compatible with 3.x) that has a much narrower allowance for the type of fantasy it can be used for. If you like that style, then by all means go to 4.0. If you don't like that style, but you feel you can't play 3.x anymore for some odd reason, then go to GURPS or something... pick a system where you can actually play the kind of game you want to play without the CORE RULES dictating your setting.
I just wanted to point out that 2nd and 3rd edition previews were almost entirely done with ads and articles in Dragon Magazine... which you had to buy. So even though I felt Races and Classes might have been a few dollars overpriced, for the amount of preview material (probably several issues of Dragon worth) and nice art its not a terrible value if you are interested in 4E.
I guess I see the 'preview books' as trying to replace the exposure they would have had in 9 months of Dragon.
Would have rather seen it in Dragon though. Thought that WOTC decision sucked, but thats another story... :)
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
Do the Dragonborn come from a egg or is it a live birth?
and if so which came first the Dragonborn or the egg?
I just saw a couple of WoW ads (the one with Mr. T and so on) and it hit me: Since 4e is becoming so much like WoW, why bother with 4e? I'm sure now: Before I play 4e as they present it, I'll go play WoW. At least I can play gnomes there!
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.
Well. This gave me NO confidence in the 4e design process.
1) Whoever wrote it didn't actually read the rules of the 3.5 game. The section on Tumble proves it. Go look it up. This is not how the rules work.
2) Racially specific armor? Can I call Al Sharpton's lawyers on the phone? That's like armor specifically measured for people of specific ethnic groups. As cool as "Custom Tailoring" is in real life (I'm a suit guy, I admit it), they should just have called it "Custom Armor" rather than open a huge can of racially loaded worms.
3) Dwarven armor looks like someone assaulted Voltron, Defender of the Universe, and left his lion head somewhere else on the battlefield.
4) Tieflings. What can I say? Destroying the backstory of about four PC's in my gameworld for their personal aggrandizement, making me abandon the world I and my friends have enjoyed for 20 years through 2 editions of play? Those huge tails? My A** hurts just thinking about roleplaying one. And HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET PAINTED MINIATURES FOR THESE CREATURES? Current Tiefling minis don't even have the tails, so Wizards has screwed themselves on their own petard.
5) The Warlock as a core class. Eat my shorts, Wizards of the Coast, while they're soaked in burning jet fuel. This class requires absolutely no thought. If I want to play a flying energy projector, I'll play a wizard, or better yet, I'll crack my Hero System rulebook and play Champions.
6) The Warlord. This is ridiculous. There should not be a "Leader" class. A leader is made by who they are, not by what dice they roll. In a roleplaying game, you step up and develop these aspects of your character. Guess what, sometimes people who play these games become department heads, corporate CEOs, and other challenging career choices instead of janitors and soup kitchen volunteers.
7) Dragonborn. Excuse me? This looks like a big, nasty Yuan Ti. And if I see a big, nasty Yuan Ti, most of my PC's and NPCS will KOS. In fact, Yuan Ti are more KOS than Orcs, or any other creature in the game. What will happen to existing Half Dragons? Will they explode in a bloody cloud of backstory like the Tieflings?
8) Wizards. What the heck is this? They are already the most powerful class in the game, and now they don't run out of abilities anymore? The reward of playing a wizard is that you suffer and husband resources at low levels so you can shine at the higher ones.
9) The idea of a sweet spot in D+D is ridiculous. You don't have to get something every time you level. That's not character development, that's reading off a chart. Character development comes out of roleplaying. All this says to me is that they are taking the roleplaying out of the game.
10) Orb, staff, and wand are wizardly magic items like magic swords? Say it ain't so. Seriously, rolling to hit with spells and breath weapons is the most markedly ridiculous thing I've ever seen. The saving throw is integral to D+D, and they're taking it out. My fate was in my hands. Now my fate is in the hands of my opponent, and my opponent can cheat.Is this a trustworthiness issue? Sure! But I don't like the idea that my opponent can just crit me and kill me, especially if I'm a player and my DM uses a screen. I've said it before about ten times on various message boards, and they can lick my orb, suck my staff, and blow my wand.
And that's just off the top of my head.
|
|
Have you looked at the preview book? It gave me a lot more confidence in the 4E design process.I've got to agree. I think 4/e is going to be an excellent game -- WotC seems to have very carefully learned from previous versions of the game.
But they don't seem to have learned that generic is better. The default universe/mythology appears deeply ingrained (so far, IMO) in the new edition. I think they're making adaptation more difficult, not less.
I do not agree. There seems to be just as much setting specific fluff as 3E had.
|
|
@Balabanto - yes, yes, yes! Great points.
Hmmm. It seems to me that some of them are a bit off the mark. For instance the sweet spot is not about character development, its about how the game plays. Racial armor is not racist.
I am sorry but it reads too much like a rant based on a brief flip through of the book rather than a critique base on actual analysis of what was actually written.
But they don't seem to have learned that generic is better. The default universe/mythology appears deeply ingrained (so far, IMO) in the new edition. I think they're making adaptation more difficult, not less.
I do not agree. There seems to be just as much setting specific fluff as 3E had.
I thought you read the preview book.
The most substantial Greyhawk components in 3.5 were the names of fewer than a dozen deities, each of which were detailed in one paragraph.
4/e, by contrast, is incorporating a detailed background mythology for the origins and background of the various PC races. As an example, have any previous version of the core rules stated, by name, the major cities of a given race (as is being done with the eladrin)? The origin and background of tieflings is very specific.
This is a significant philosophical shift in the role played by the core rules. All indications are that specific campaigns beyond D&D's default background will have to specifically contradict the core rules on multiple points -- in both fluff and mechanics.
This is hard to say without being offensive, but I think your pro-WotC stance just as militant and unreasoning as any other positions expressed here.
|
|
I thought you read the preview book.
The most substantial Greyhawk components in 3.5 were the names of fewer than a dozen deities, each of which were detailed in one paragraph.
Greyhawk is all over the 3.5 core books. Race descriptions, class descriptions, spell names, etc.
Greyhawk is the entire context of 3E.
This is hard to say without being offensive, but I think your pro-WotC stance just as militant and unreasoning as any other positions expressed here.
Hardly. I am no booster of WotC. I think they have made some poor decisions over the last year including the death of Dragon and Dungeon. I will not wax hateful about them. They have every right to do what they are doing. It may come back to bite them in the end.
I thought you read the preview book... The most substantial Greyhawk components in 3.5 were the names of fewer than a dozen deities, each of which were detailed in one paragraph.
Greyhawk is all over the 3.5 core books. Race descriptions, class descriptions, spell names, etc... Greyhawk is the entire context of 3E.
The hair-splitting continues.
Did you notice the word "substantial?" Please check that word in the dictionary before your next response. You might also check the word "meaningful" as a synonym.
I say that because I know there are definitions of the word you could pick to your advantage before responding. Even having said that, I'm sure you'll find a way to miss my point and disagree.
|
|
I thought you read the preview book... The most substantial Greyhawk components in 3.5 were the names of fewer than a dozen deities, each of which were detailed in one paragraph.Greyhawk is all over the 3.5 core books. Race descriptions, class descriptions, spell names, etc... Greyhawk is the entire context of 3E.The hair-splitting continues.
Did you notice the word "substantial?" Please check that word in the dictionary before your next response. You might also check the word "meaningful" as a synonym.
I say that because I know there are definitions of the word you could pick to your advantage before responding. Even having said that, I'm sure you'll find a way to miss my point and disagree.
Well, put it to the test - can you say that the 3E books are setting neutral enough to in any possible campaign setting?
What about settings that have humans as the only race? Or games that have no gods at all?
The core books were written in such a way as to promote use in settings like Greyhawk.
I would call that both substantial and meaningful. Since we do not have the 4E core books in hand we can not make a fair comparison anyway.
Well, put it to the test - can you say that the 3E books are setting neutral enough to in any possible campaign setting?
Yes. They were designed that way -- as WotC has stated.
What about settings that have humans as the only race? Or games that have no gods at all??
Yes. WotC has specifically discussed such options before. No rules need to be changed.
The core books were written in such a way as to promote use in settings like Greyhawk.
A horrific distortion. WotC specifically and explicitly refused to support any Greyhawk campaign with any published work.
By any rational measure, the 'Greyhawk default' was meaningless. In fact, WotC made it clear that such a choice was nothing more than an attempt to present a generic framework for the rules.
4/e, by contrast, is incorporating a detailed background mythology for the origins and background of the various PC races. As an example, have any previous version of the core rules stated, by name, the major cities of a given race (as is being done with the eladrin)? The origin and background of tieflings is very specific.This is a significant philosophical shift in the role played by the core rules. All indications are that specific campaigns beyond D&D's default background will have to specifically contradict the core rules on multiple points -- in both fluff and mechanics.
I admit, this does make me wonder. As I read some of the race backgrounds I wondered how these fit in WotC published settings such as Forgotten Realms and Eberron, or other settings like Golarion or Dragonlance. I assuming most of the background fluff will appear in the core books. And I can only assume that the SRDs will be generic enough to incorporate in most fantasy settings. At least that's my hope.
At the same time, I liked the fluff that I read. It did give me some campaign ideas. So maybe the philosophy is to give people enough of a spark of background in the core books to create entire campaigns. Maybe that's why they are detailing an entire town in the DMG. Perhaps in their various surveys a lot of people wished there was more flavor in the corebooks to get more of a starting point. Not everyone who comes to the corebooks is a "30 year player".
I hope they will reveal more in Worlds and Monsters behind this fluff-heavy philosophy. But as a supposedly "pro-4e" person (although I really consider myself "cautiously optimistic"), this does make me hesitant.
Anyway, Dragon Magazine is a house organ and never pretended otherwise.
Incorrect - in the "good old days" it was 50-75% (from the point where the Strategic Review became The Dragon, then later dropped the 'the' from the title up to about 150 or so) house organ; about the time they began promoting 3e, it shifted to a pure house organ.
TSR was such an interesting company back then -- much more gamers interested in any and all RPGs, rather than businessmen (and women). Which is the main reason Gygax lost the company, and ultimately why WotC/Hasbro acquired D&D.
One useful result was that we got lots of adventures and campaigns back then -- TSR didn't realize and/or didn't care that they weren't profitable.
Ahhh, those were the days... :)
Nowadays D&D is in the world of big business -- hence our current uproar. At the same time, big business put together a top-rate band of designers that gave us 3.x. And, I predict, will give us a top-rate game known as 4/e. How many of us will want to play that game remains to be seen.
So where is it stated that 4E will not work the same way?
crosswiredmind on:
Eeeeeek -- it burns, it burns! My sanity! Aaaiiiiigh!!!
By any rational measure, the 'Greyhawk default' was meaningless. In fact, WotC made it clear that such a choice was nothing more than an attempt to present a generic framework for the rules.
I agree with Jack on this one. WoTC's "use" of the Greyhawk setting as the default setting, was in name only. And in my belief was merely done to appease the devout Greyhawk faithful, who they then screwed by releasing only 2 or 3 products for the Greyhawk setting during the entire 7 years of 3.0/3.5.
Furthermore, there was very little else other than the listed Gawds and a few spells, for Greyhawk in the core books. No specific magic items, etc. were provided in the core books.
"The difference is that you got the previews as an article in Dragon magazine. It wasn't the entire content. If they'd sold us several months of Dragon magazine with nothing in it but 3e previews and no other material, it might have been a different issue".
Timothy,
I hear what you're saying, my point is that paying for "previews" is nothing new and with the death of Dragon (in print form) creating a preview book, not unlike magazines devoted entirely to previewing upcoming movies, is not a lousy idea or an attempt to fleece gamers.
I'm not a defender of WOTC or 4E. I am also more than a little worried about seeing D&D evolved into something that doesn't appeal to me. Frankly I've felt that with every new edition to some extent.
I do also believe that WOTC took D&D to another level with 3E and that WOTC/Hasbro ran with that bringing an unprecedented amount of talented artists and production to the D&D line. And yet still I fear what the big corporate machine will do with my game.
When I read these posts I go back and forth from getting excited to fearing 4E. Eladrins and Dragonborn don't really appeal to me as changes. Tieflings don't fit well as 'core' in my mind either.
Other changes and a general reworking of the game mechanics will probably bring some major improvements and some new flaws, but that part is at least interesting if not exciting.
Anyway, I've been DMing for 30 years as well, but I enjoy buying new products. I truly hope the game is worth the name and tradition it holds, if not maybe WOTC/Hasbro will sell it off to a Paizo and we won't have rename demons and devils ever again... :)
|
|
Timothy,
I can see your point. It is one of the features of 4E that I do not like. It seems that I will need to wait at least a year before I can include all of the races and classes that I would want to use in a campaign setting. It is also unclear how hard it will be to add home brewed classes and races to the mix.
Right now it may seem daunting but without the actual books i can't really form an opinion.
WoTC's "use" of the Greyhawk setting as the default setting, was in name only. And in my belief was merely done to appease the devout Greyhawk faithful, who they then screwed by releasing only 2 or 3 products for the Greyhawk setting during the entire 7 years of 3.0/3.5.
Furthermore, there was very little else other than the listed Gawds and a few spells, for Greyhawk in the core books. No specific magic items, etc. were provided in the core books.
Actually if you download the SRD, and format that content the way Core Books I, II, and III, are laid out; it is nearly complete.
There may not seem to be that much Greyhawk specific fluff, but the reality is there simply is not that much fluff in the Wizards D&D.
When the SRD was envisioned, the good wizards (pre-Hasbro) was doing what was best for the hobby. Their D&D was actually as bland as a Magic the Gathering deck. Cool art, functional mechanic, and one line of fluff. This was no big deal for the SRD promised a system for anyone.
If I wanted to play (create) a dark world of Conan like violence or Elric style perversion; All that was necessary was to take the rules from the SRD that fit my vision, dump that which does not, and rename or alter that which is close. Where the third party publishers (many -not all) failed to live up to the promise of 3.0 was the fluff.
The purpose of the SRD was not to provide examples of how to format mechanics; it was a flavourless base for people to build worlds on. Rather than create 5 new sword wielding classes with slightly differing mechanics, the goal would be to rename the Fighter (Warlord or something) and add the world specific description that players use to get excited about playing the class in this or that unique way.
Perhaps 4E will take D&D back to it's Role-playing roots rather than it's current Roll-playng state.
ROFLMAO :)