Wizards of the Coast: We asked a similar question regarding Races and Classes—with 4th Edition releasing this summer, what does Worlds and Monsters offer me as a gamer? Why would I want to pick up a copy?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: This book offers a first look at the revised cosmology of 4th Edition D&D, with details about the concept and design of the various planes, and gorgeous art depicting their natures. It also provides lots of designer insight into re-concepting encounters and monster roles in combat, as well as some preview art for iconic creatures.
Wizards of the Coast: D&D Insider currently runs its Design & Development column, which takes an inside look at the new edition—what sorts of secrets and insights does Worlds and Monsters also look to provide? What information about the game was R&D looking to convey?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: This book is largely devoted to designer thinking about the “key conceits” of 4th Edition as they relate to adventuring and building encounters. Such ideas are part of the Races and Classes book as well: The world is ancient, mysterious and dangerous; gameplay should be fun and challenging; mechanics and assumptions that interfere with play should be replaced or removed in favor of material that encourages creativity and exploration.
Wizards of the Coast: One chapter in the book is titled What “World” Meant to the World Team”; can you tell us a little of what the book has to say on this matter? When players start playing their new 4th Edition campaigns, what will their world be like? “Points of light” has been introduced as a concept, but what does this mean for the 4E character just starting out?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: What “world” does not mean is a default “core” setting, such as Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms or Eberron. Rather, it refers to the environment of play in the D&D game, the set of shared assumptions held by players and DMs. A number of legends (such as the ancient dragonborn empire) and notorious locales (such as the Temple of Elemental Evil) form part of this shared consciousness, but their place in a given campaign is entirely up to that group.
The player characters are surrounded by a wide, mysterious world that is itself only one of several unlimited realms, each with a distinctive feel and unique opportunities and threats. The DM decides which, if any, of the legendary details apply to his or her game, and how they relate to one another.
Wizards of the Coast: Beyond the known (physical? material?) world of us mere mortals, what tidbits does the book have to say about other realms where adventures will likely take place? What can you tell us about, say, the Feywild? The Shadowfell? Or the Elemental Chaos?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: Five planar realms are known to exist, with another mysterious region hinted at in dark whispers. The known planes are: the world (what used to be called the Material Plane); two reflections of the world, the grim and dangerous Shadowfell, and the magical but equally dangerous Feywild; the Elemental Chaos (including the Abyss, home of demons) below; and above, the shining Astral Sea, home of the gods’ Dominions. Scholars of the arcane and bizarre hold that a strange, extraplanar space called the Far Realm also exists, home to weird and incomprehensible horrors.
Wizards of the Coast: What role will the Far Realm will play in the game? Does mean we’ll still be seeing plenty of aberrations: beholders, mind flayers, aboleths and the like? (And on a related minor note, did you receive a “Snowball” as a holiday treat?)
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: The new setting certainly links aberrations more thematically. An aberration isn’t just something that looks weird and tentacly (although most do), but is born of or linked to the madness beyond, what some mortals call the Far Realm. Some of them have a purpose, beyond the ken of ordinary beings, but many are the result of “leakage” from that strange world into neighboring reality.
And yes, Snowball resides with honor on my living room mantel. It’s frosterrific!
Wizards of the Coast: As we move a bit more from the worlds to the monsters, what could be a more iconic monster to the game than the dragons—what insights might the book have to offer on these legendary creatures? For instance, I hear that metallics aren’t quite the same dragons anymore?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: The designers spent a lot of time with dragons, as you might imagine. For decades, dragons have had traditional features, some of which actually interfered with using them as adversaries. The game is called Dungeons & Dragons, yet dragon encounters can be intimidating to a DM. With a dozen age categories, a multitude of special abilities in addition to the iconic dragon breath, as well as the “build-by-numbers” style of the 3rd Edition dragons, an interesting dragon opponent can take many hours to prepare and present an overwhelming number of choices. In addition, as powerful as a dragon might be, it is a single opponent that takes one set of actions against a well-armed party with four or more sets of actions every round. Against such odds, it can’t present a real challenge unless it significantly outclasses the PCs—at which point, the encounter risks becoming a TPK.
In 4th Edition D&D, dragons have been redesigned as satisfying solo opponents. They can do things to interfere with PCs’ actions, take extra actions on their own turns, and stand up to the pounding of a group of opponents—essentially behaving as a group of monsters. Each dragon has an iconic suite of powers that is no longer diluted by additional details such as minor spell-like abilities or arcane spellcaster levels. We’ve simplified the age categories, eliminating those at the younger end and consolidating others, so that good dragon challenges exist at each adventuring tier.
Metallic dragons have traditionally been good-aligned. While flavorful and important to the “ecology” of dragons, the practical effect was to remove half of the available dragons in the Monster Manual as opponents. How often do PCs go up against good creatures? In 4th Edition dragons are more, well, dragonish. They are all ferocious and greedy creatures, with chromatic and metallic dragons distinguished more by personality than alignment. While chromatics tend to be destructive and cruel, metallics focus more on control and power. These differences are reinforced by the dragon’s special powers. The varieties of metallic dragon have undergone a revision as well, with some less well-defined kinds giving way to new ones with distinctive natures.
Wizards of the Coast: Other notable categories of monsters would have to be demons and devils. There are hints of changes taking place with these fellows as well—what does the book have to share about the shakeups to the Abyss and the Nine Hells, and their respective denizens?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: Previous editions of the game created demons and devils with parallel roles, differing only in alignment and minor abilities. Thus, you had the demon succubus and the devil erinyes, the demon balor and the devil pit fiend. In 3rd Edition, demons and devils had different suites of resistances and immunities, but these didn’t distinguish them enough. The Fiendish Codex series did a lot to further distinguish the two: demons as agents of chaos and destruction, and devils as tempters and plotters.
With 4th Edition, the two have been set apart: demons kill, devils subvert. Demons are native to the Abyss, a corrupted region of the Elemental Chaos. They are elemental beings that embody chaos and ruin above all, and they are monstrous in appearance. These are the brutes and skirmishers of combat encounters. Devils, on the other hand, are beings of the Astral Dominions. They control realms and are well-organized, tactical masters, the soldiers and controllers of combat.
As a result, a few former demons and devils switched sides to better align with their combat roles. The succubus, for example, uses deceit and temptation to further its ends, and is thus much better suited as a devil than a demon.
Wizards of the Coast: Let’s talk about D&D and 4th Edition in general. When did you find out that a new edition would be in the works, and what were your first impressions of the idea?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: I learned that we were starting design on a new edition in mid-2005, which is when the first design documents started to be written. I believed that the game did need to be overhauled but wasn’t so sure what the timeframe should be. We did an early playtest that summer. That first playtest was memorable for how much it didn’t feel like D&D—in my opinion, of course. It’s changed a lot since then, but that early game was fast and furious, with lots of options in combat. The best of those features have been retained in the final version, while keeping the game recognizably D&D.
Wizards of the Coast: And finally, have you encountered any of the 4th Edition creatures firsthand while playtesting the game—and how have you found them in comparison with their predecessors?
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: I’ve been running playtests with my own gaming group as well as lots of testing at the office. I find that having distinct roles in combat makes building encounters much simpler for a novice DM like me, and it’s easier to run creatures that have a few solid powers that complement their theme. I’ve run a dragon encounter and found it to be very challenging to the players but not overwhelming for the DM. I think the monster that impressed me the most as a player in the new edition is the purple worm. That is one scary encounter!
I don't troll, I kobold.
I don't troll, I kobold.
you go!whatcha think...
Having read all of this, I must comment on dragons for a moment.
And bear with me, this is my own experience only.
A dragon is listed as being a satisfying solo encounter in 4E. The implication is that dragons are therefore NOT satisfying solo encounters in 3.x.
Further details are discussed wherein the author mentions that the dragon gets 1 set of actions, but the PCs get multiple actions (say, 4). Said author moves on to the point that a dragon must be overwhelming in its power to pose a challenge and thus risk a TPK. New dragons can react to what others do. There's been a glimpse of this in one of the playtest articles (though I can't claim to remember which one).
A 3E dragon can unleash claw/claw/bite/tailslap/wing buffet/wing buffet as a full-attack action. Breath weapon, spell-like abilities, spells, and other supernatural goodness as a standard action (generally). Said dragons commonly fly, often swim or burrow, and are thus highly mobile. They provoke fear (in game and out of it). And this scratches their potential at best. 3E dragons are complex foes that have more options than they will likely use in battle.
Like many of us, I've fought a dragon or two. They have been quite satisfying battles, just because I've faced dragons that can do damage like the best barbarians and fighters, spellcast intelligently, and have the ever-popular breath weapon in their repertoires. Again, with extra options besides. While the dragon possesses fewer actions than the party, and actions are admittedly the currency of choice, the sheer power of a dragon has always compensated for the dearth of actions in our games. For others, this may differ.
I must ask the writer how she came to feel that 3E dragons are either ineffective or total overkill, as these are the two poles that she seems to believe that dragons currently operate at. I am not sensing a middle ground here.
And one other thought. 4E seems to be designed (I strongly emphasize SEEMS) with combat mechanics that are more streamlined. How does a dragon's reactive actions--those described as occurring in response to a player's actions--fit into this design paradigm? I would sincerely like to have this described to me, for I am at a loss.
That is my assessment of this particular piece. Thank you for bearing with me.
you go!whatcha think...
For the next 3 minutes, all the laws of nature bend backwards.
Wizards of the Coast:
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes: EDITTED OUT
Wizards of the Coast:
Jennifer Clarke Wilkes:
This, I have little problem with. In some cases, I LOVE it. This is a homebrewer's dream. A toolkit to put in your own world whatever you want and nothing you don't. Now you can have an ice castle in the middle of desert. Why? "Because I'm the DM, I created the world and I say so." "Well why isn't this ice castle in the middle of the desert famous?" "Well because is in the middle of the desert where people don't normally go and the few that have been there and returned are assumed to be mad."
Yes you could do that with 3.x, but by removing Greyhawk as the default setting, we're back to "play your own world" kind of game.
I just have one problem with the above.
This .... you know what. I said something positive and I am not going to go into a rant about this. Suffice it to say, I do not like this so much, I invalidates everything I said above (just like 4E invalidates 1E-3.x).
Jennifer Clark Williams should write all of WotC's press stuff about 4E. She can, like, communicate and stuff!
Therefore, we'll never hear from her again. She'll quietly disappear when we're not looking, having been kidnapped and sold to aliens.
The implication is that dragons are therefore NOT satisfying solo encounters in 3.x.
I don't think that is fair to draw as an implication at all.
I think the implication (and likely truth) is that dragons were not designed considered the number of opponents involved in the fight at all. 3E design takes number of opponents into account as part of the EL for the encounter (2 CR 7 dragons being an EL 9 encounter, for example).
Instead, my understanding at least, is that 4E PLANS for multiple creatures in most encounters as a base and then makes adjustments for those creatures that are likely to be encountered solo.
It isn't saying anything about the satisfaction of Dragons in 3E. It is saying a LOT about the differences in encounter design between the two.
All that aside, my experience is that my solo BBEG go down WAY faster than I would expect and tend to not be that exciting of fights unless there is multiple creatures involved. I would LOVE to see that rectified with out messing over other encounters and I am intrigued by what I have heard of the 4E encounter and monster design in these regards (and I would throw trap design in here too).
Sean Mahoney
The implication is that dragons are therefore NOT satisfying solo encounters in 3.x.I don't think that is fair to draw as an implication at all.
I think the implication (and likely truth) is that dragons were not designed considered the number of opponents involved in the fight at all. 3E design takes number of opponents into account as part of the EL for the encounter (2 CR 7 dragons being an EL 9 encounter, for example).
Instead, my understanding at least, is that 4E PLANS for multiple creatures in most encounters as a base and then makes adjustments for those creatures that are likely to be encountered solo.
It isn't saying anything about the satisfaction of Dragons in 3E. It is saying a LOT about the differences in encounter design between the two.
All that aside, my experience is that my solo BBEG go down WAY faster than I would expect and tend to not be that exciting of fights unless there is multiple creatures involved. I would LOVE to see that rectified with out messing over other encounters and I am intrigued by what I have heard of the 4E encounter and monster design in these regards (and I would throw trap design in here too).
Sean Mahoney
All right, to be fair, the words used were "not really a challenge", to poorly quote. Not the same as "unsatisfying". That said, I am truly interested in the design of monsters, specifically dragons and other creatures that can operate as solo creatures. Of all the creatures in 3E, I have found only dragons and the occasional outsider have offered our group worthy battles as solo opponents. I can't claim that we've ever faced a dragon and said "we're so dead" from the outset, or even during the battle. Nor have we ever considered them pushovers. For us, they are now ALWAYS satisfying. I am just trying to understand their perspective. Given that we are finally seeing intelligent, thought-out answers to our questions, I'd like a few more answers-or at least a few details. 'Tis all.
Given that we are finally seeing intelligent, thought-out answers to our questions, I'd like a few more answers-or at least a few details. 'Tis all.
Somehow, I doubt that we'll get spoiled with "intelligent, thought-out answers to our questions."
Somehow, I doubt that we'll get spoiled with "intelligent, thought-out answers to our questions."
It's interesting. I didn't see anything new or interesting in this article or how it was put across (that is to say I felt previous stuff was intelligent and thought-out as well). I guess just who says the same thing makes a big difference. Perception is reality and all that.
Sean Mahoney
It's interesting. I didn't see anything new or interesting in this article
Agreed, nothing new. I have been a supporter of the PoL setting concept from the beginning (just not applied to FR, but that's a different story). The real difference here is is that she didn't dis 3.x. She made the case for 4E on it own merits.
EDIT: She did have 2 references to 3E. 1) dragons. she presented 3E's dragons as a "by the numbers build". Ehh. Well I wouldn't call it a slap in 3E's face, it wasn't a secret that one of the the bigger changes between 3 and 3.5 was that 3 has a pure "by the numbers" approach. It would be impossible to remove that entirely without (frankly) an edition overhaul. and 2) Demons/devils. There all she did was state why they made the changes, including the sucubbus. She didn't say that 3E's design approach was shoddy, she didn't call it "boring". She just did a "here's the change, approach." No biggie if I don't agree.
Let me reemphasize the big difference here: She didn't insult 3.x.
All I want to know is: Where can I get a damn Snowball? Did you see that thing? Its like a ghost beholder.
No it's a beholder made entirely out snow like frosty the snowman, only its a behoder and in 4e your monsters can be anything you want them to be...
You can't they gave to everyone at wotc for X-mas bonus;they're not allowed to sell'em either no e-bay etc...mostly likely be used in some 4e merchandising scheme... a snowjob of sorts wait & see buy 12 4e phb get a snowball free!
Jennifer Clark Williams should write all of WotC's press stuff about 4E. She can, like, communicate and stuff!
Therefore, we'll never hear from her again. She'll quietly disappear when we're not looking, having been kidnapped and sold to aliens.
Or eaten by the new tieflings.
It's certainly peculiar that WotC let a competent writer explain 4/e. Next they'll be putting half-orcs back in the core rules :o
Curse you for single-handedly breaking the formatting on both the main page, and the message board overview! Shorter titles = good.
|
Having read the article, as a DM I feel that with all the Fluff-Stuff (great wheel cosmology, 9 Hells, unending abyss etc.) I was playing in an industrial sandpit, with trucks and diggers and tower cranes to help me build my castles. With the changed Fluff I feel that I am playing in my backyard sandpit with a plastic shovel.
I loved this rich, sometimes convoluted, thing that was build in more than 30 years of D&D.
Curse you for single-handedly breaking the formatting on both the main page, and the message board overview! Shorter titles = good.
I like a good long title -they are fun to come up with...and breaking format is the new Kewl thing these days...
Am i the only one who finds it odd that someone who by there own admision is a novice DM is helping desighn the rules and playtest them?
LOL
|
|
Am i the only one who finds it odd that someone who by there own admision is a novice DM is helping desighn the rules and playtest them?
From reading the design diaries, which mostly consist of, "3E sucks and y'all were morons to buy it from us, which is why you should trust us and buy 4E!" I'd say it isn't odd at all to find out that the current design and development staff have less gaming experience than the current fanbase.
Am i the only one who finds it odd that someone who by there own admision is a novice DM is helping desighn the rules and playtest them?
I think it's extreamly important that they have someone new designing the game. New blood means new ideas.
As a previous poster said, someone who is not indoctrinated in the lingo of the hobby will make sure that the designers explain things in simple words. Otherwise, the old guard os going to end up alienating new players and that is very bad for the hobby as a whole.
|
|
Am i the only one who finds it odd that someone who by there own admision is a novice DM is helping desighn the rules and playtest them?
Nope. I do find it odd that folks would take issue with that though. Especially when considering that she was informative and managed to avoid being condescending about 3e, something the "grognard" designers have failed to do according to many.
So, play testing should only be done with veteran gamers? No thanks.
I browsed most of Worlds and Monsters earlier in the week. Like Races and Classes, it feels like more of an explanation of the thinking that lead to 4E rather than an actual preview of 4E, since there are no mechanics presented. (Not even an example of play, which is an oversight, in my mind.) And I agree with most of the thinking about how 3E could be improved. I'm just not entirely satisfied with where that thinking lead them. At least from a flavor standpoint. A lot of effort was put into revising the cosmology, for example. The new cosmology is different from 3E, but not necessarily better. Then again, I was never really into 3E cosmology. In fact, there is a lot of canonical D&D flavor that never appealed to me, but that's why God invented homebrews. I think the modular nature of the new "points of light" core setting will be extremely useful to many homebrewers. And most of the revisions and updates to monsters, from dragons to illithids, appear to be pretty smart -- and certainly less of a jump than the 2E to 3E switch.
Yeah, have you guys checked out Worlds&Monster?
I've skimmed through it at the hobby shop, and read TWO paragraphs in detail: one on yugoloths and one on angels.
Guess what everyone? Now they butchered the cool D&D mythological celestials (archons, guardinals, eladrins, and angels) and literally stated in the book that they wanted (now, get this)
Angels to be fought by the PCs...
WHAT!?
Apparently, they didn't like the fact a DM couldn't use angels in D&D to fight the PCs without the DM using the stereotypical "fallen angel" scenario...wow...I can think of PLENTY of reasons why angels would fight PCs, even good ones. While, yes, still rare occurences, something like that SHOULDN'T be common occurences. The stats to angels are only good for two things really: knowing how well it can defend itself, and summoning purposes. That's IT!
Now they have it where ALL deities, good&evil, have their own host of "angels". There's the Harbinger Angel, the Angel of Murder, Angel of Fury, Angel of Darkness, Dark Jedi Angel, whatever else you can think of that's angelic and also bad to the bone, for the PCs to battle against.
So, I was right, in my assessment that 4th Edition is ALL about kill, loot, get XP, level up, move on to the next room...
Really f@~!ing sad...seriously, folks. Really...this is what D&D is devolving into? Hack&Slash, Loot&Raid, Cast&Blast? Again, let's revert D&D into the World of Warcraft generation, that'll keep it alive!
It'll be its death.
WotC SHOULD'VE sold themselves out to Microsoft (which fell through, by the way)...at least D&D would've died with some dignity left before Microsoft would've done to it what WotC is slowly doing already.
I've already figured it out...WotC doesn't WANT us anymore...we're old news, we're ruining their vision and business, we're too picky...they believe that for as many people that LEAVE D&D after 4th Edition, they will acquire twice, maybe thrice, as many new customers into their game.
Hah!
I really hope this backfires, I sincerely hope D&D dies after this fiasco, and maybe a more rightful company can resurrect it from the ashes.
Razz....Sigh, another blow to D&D in my opinion. Let's get more more bits and pieces on things I pull my hair out over please...what else is in the book? It is the weekend, I have 3 days off, let's see how bad we can ruin it for me.
|
@Razz - Yes. WOTC had shattered the concept of "official content" forever. By their own words they claim to have reconcepted 30+years of tradition. What for? Is there a shortage on imagination these days? The idea of more new customers than lost customers can sometimes work in the short run, but at the long run sacrifice of things like integrity.
dungeons and dragons does not require a logo to be played, the game was quietly played underground for many years and if needs be, there it will remain unless we as a consumer group shift our attention to another company. I personally enjoy the popularity of the game that makes accessories and products a viable investment for companies. Perhaps we do not need to wait until the so-called designers run this game into the ground... I like to think PAIZO could make for such an honorable company..."where dungeons and dragons really continued." Having Eric and Lisa at the helm there's bound to be enough integrity and respect for the traditions of the game for years to come.
Three Point Five Never Dies —— Long Live 3P
|
Yeah, have you guys checked out Worlds&Monster?
I've skimmed through it at the hobby shop, and read TWO paragraphs in detail: one on yugoloths and one on angels.
Guess what everyone? Now they butchered the cool D&D mythological celestials (archons, guardinals, eladrins, and angels) and literally stated in the book that they wanted (now, get this)
Angels to be fought by the PCs...
WHAT!?
My reaction was a little more vulgar than that, but essentially the same. I can understand rule changes, but stuff like this is just idiotic, in my humble opinion. It seems to me like at least half the changes being made are to the flavor and fluff of the game. These are changes that I'm really not crazy about and would probably never use. So why would I want to buy a 4E book when half the material in it is something I won't use? Seems to me to be a waste of money.
methinks people, once again, are being a little bit overzealous.
Angels have existed in D&D for a while . . .with stats . . . which means that they are open to combat . . .IF the DM so decides.
Nothing has changed except some names and flavor . . .you do not have to fight angels unless your DM wants you too.
THe more things change the more they stay the same.
I actually liked Races & Classes and Worlds & Monsters. It was a fun look at some of their thought processes. The books do exactly as advertised -- offer a slight glimpse into 4e. A lot of the changes are things I already try to do in my homebrew (no dead levels, more resources for the mage (I use free reserve feats), less magic items, a dangerous setting).
Sorry. Please continue your disapproval.
Also, I don't know how many people play a homebrew . . . but as it pertains to YOUR game isn't flavor almost entirely dictated by the DM? Yes, WoTC offers suggestions, but most creative players already know what they want for flavor.
A lot of the changes are things I already try to do in my homebrew (no dead levels...
I've been finding this puzzling. Are 'dead levels' such a distasteful aspect of classes?
I don't mean to offend, but this strikes me as an effort to provide more immediate gratification to players. You're a fighter -- aren't you happy with more hp & higher BAB? You're a spellcaster -- aren't you happy with your additional spells? You're a rogue -- aren't you happy to be better at your class skills?
At this rate we'll have to insure every level provides an increase to BAB, and every saving throw, armor class, ability scores, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
IMHO. Let the flames begin :)
Also, I don't know how many people play a homebrew . . . but as it pertains to YOUR game isn't flavor almost entirely dictated by the DM? Yes, WoTC offers suggestions, but most creative players already know what they want for flavor.
It's more than flavor. Defining assumptions about races, for example, are based upon this 'fluff.'
For many of us, a big concern is that D&D is stepping away from being a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying. DMs and players will now, for the first time, have to rework (not just ignore) parts of the core rules to make them work for their games.
They haven't just redesigned the game. On some levels, they're making it harder to play the way people have for 30 years. Many have claimed WotC is trying to make us play D&D their way. I don't buy that, but I don't think it's a hard argument to make.
A lot of the changes are things I already try to do in my homebrew (no dead levels...I've been finding this puzzling. Are 'dead levels' such a distasteful aspect of classes?
I don't mean to offend, but this strikes me as an effort to provide more immediate gratification to players. You're a fighter -- aren't you happy with more hp & higher BAB? You're a spellcaster -- aren't you happy with your additional spells? You're a rogue -- aren't you happy to be better at your class skills?
At this rate we'll have to insure every level provides an increase to BAB, and every saving throw, armor class, ability scores, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
IMHO. Let the flames begin :)
No offense taken. My friends and I have played a regular session for about 15 years running now. I DM most often. Bottom line is we have come to the conclusion the more choices you have at each level the more fun
Also, I tend to give the characters more "power" because I am rather stingy with magic items. I like the approach that involves a character's abilities as opposed to their equipment.
|
|
Also, I tend to give the characters more "power" because I am rather stingy with magic items. I like the approach that involves a character's abilities as opposed to their equipment.
Wandering off topic here, but I agree with that approach. Midnight does it that way with the Heroic Paths and I think it works great.
Also, I don't know how many people play a homebrew . . . but as it pertains to YOUR game isn't flavor almost entirely dictated by the DM? Yes, WoTC offers suggestions, but most creative players already know what they want for flavor.It's more than flavor. Defining assumptions about races, for example, are based upon this 'fluff.'
For many of us, a big concern is that D&D is stepping away from being a generic toolkit for fantasy roleplaying. DMs and players will now, for the first time, have to rework (not just ignore) parts of the core rules to make them work for their games.
They haven't just redesigned the game. On some levels, they're making it harder to play the way people have for 30 years. Many have claimed WotC is trying to make us play D&D their way. I don't buy that, but I don't think it's a hard argument to make.
By chance, have you read the books or kept a close eye on the all of the 4e articles, blogs, etc. ? The reason I ask is because I garner the opposite. Instead of saying you have to play with the Great Wheel for example, they are making things more barebones ala sandbox style kit for the DM.
You can't sit here and tell me with all sincerity that the flavor of 3.5 D&D (or the history of D&D) is any more open than the history there using for 4e. How is the Great Wheel more flexible than an Astral Sea which can be home to any 'plane' the DM wishes to incorporate. Same with the infinite abyss and the infit Elemental Chaos.
Also, 3.5 and past Generic D&D has been 'based' on Greyhawk. 4e has been repeatedly stated that it is setting-neutral . . .a place where you can set anything as needed. I am not going to argue that this is a step up, because in my mind a decent DM can do that in any game system, but you cannot argue that it is any more closed than previous editions.
All that I get when I read between the lines is that people who have been playing years and years and years are aghast at the slaughtering of the traditions they grew up with. Fine. State that as so and be done with it. But do not try to constantly belittle each aspect of 4e, do not try to manipulate every thing you hear about it to make it seem so negative, simply because you are looking at it in the light of your traditional flavor preferences.
I hope I made a point in there somewhere. Also, Tatter . . .this is not aimed at you directly, this is just a general jab in the direction of the most vehement and nonsensical anti-4e crowd.
As a further caveat, I do not want to start a flame war or summon trolls or what have you . . .I just feel the need to defend 4e, or at least argue on its behalf, because so few do.
Also, I tend to give the characters more "power" because I am rather stingy with magic items. I like the approach that involves a character's abilities as opposed to their equipment.
That's probably a good argument & philosophy. Certainly traditional D&D is a treasure-grab, where character power is probably more dependent on magic items than level. Except for wizards, IMO.
But I still think there's a lot more (read: too much) flavor and fluff in the new core rules. Maybe I'm just being a grognard, but I think dragonborn and tieflings don't lend a generic feel at all; in fact, they would be members of a fantasy world that takes on a very distinctive, non-generic feel. The core rules name and detail the gods of the universe (deliberately limiting themselves to these few). Extraplanar creatures (devils, demons, abberations, whatever) now have narrowly-defined (and different) places in the setting.
I think WotC propaganda to the contrary is often just that -- propaganda.
All that said, I still expect (hope?) 4/e will be a markedly superior game to 3.5., at least as far as the mechanics go. How adaptable it is to my home campaign (and thus whether or not we will buy it) remains to be seen.
Regards again :)
Also, 3.5 and past Generic D&D has been 'based' on Greyhawk. 4e has been repeatedly stated that it is setting-neutral...
Everything I've read (and I have read quite a bit, and purchased Races and Classes, which I like) indicates a very distinctive feel to me. Admittedly, that's my impression, and I may be anxious to find fault.
IMO, 4/e is only setting-neutral in that they haven't named the setting.
One more comment (for now):
I want to say that I'm not trying to argue with anyone, or convince anyone -- I'm just voicing my opinions (and sometimes frustrations).
Also, a lot of my attitude is colored by a growing irritation (and distrust) of WotC's marketing. My sense is that they'll say anything to ease people's fears and concerns, or to get them to buy, as long as they can't get sued for it.
The "setting-neutral" comment is an example. This 'non-setting' of the upcoming core rules has creation myths for the main races, names for geographic locations, and a history. Just because it doesn't have a name doesn't means it's not a setting.
Will any of that make 4/e a worse game? I doubt it. But I'm very touchy about being manipulated by transparent and deceptive statements, and WotC has been making such statements with reckless abandon.
For what any of that is worth :)
I was at the bookstore today and took a good look at both 4th edtion preview books.....I felt like I had picked up one of those games next to the D&D shelf and was browsing through that. It just didn't feel like D&D to me. Not this time. Not at all.
Tatterdemalion, you bring up good points as well.
I guess all in all, I just hope WoTC hits a home run with 4e.
I am holding my breath.
|
|
I guess all in all, I just hope WoTC hits a home run with 4e.
I think this is shared by all DnD players, 3.5 nuts or 4e enthusiasts alike. I myself (a 3.5 nut) hope that 4e is a good game, because if the numbers are correct, 70% of everyone is moving and that'll be my only chance for a game called Dungeons and Dragons. If it isn't, I guess there may be a chance at 3.75, and I'd readily play it, but I have a hunch that even if 4e blows, 3.75 will have a hard time coming to fruition.
Now they have it where ALL deities, good&evil, have their own host of "angels". There's the Harbinger Angel, the Angel of Murder, Angel of Fury, Angel of Darkness, Dark Jedi Angel, whatever else you can think of that's angelic and also bad to the bone, for the PCs to battle against.
So, I was right, in my assessment that 4th Edition is ALL about kill, loot, get XP, level up, move on to the next room...
Really f!~*ing sad...seriously, folks. Really...this is what D&D is devolving into? Hack&Slash, Loot&Raid, Cast&Blast? Again, let's revert D&D into the World of Warcraft generation, that'll keep it alive!
It'll be its death.
Razz, I agree with a number of your past concerns and criticisms of WoTC and elements of 4.0, but on this one I somewhat respectfully disagree. As a DM & Player of 25 years, I have yet to meet ANY player that could not "role play". I don't think we need to have the new edition primarily focused on the "role playing" aspect of the game.
I really don't have a problem with the new edition being heavily focused on combat, because (in addition to my preference for combat over all other elements of the game), players who want to "Role Play" will role-play anyway. They'll find ways to inject roleplaying into the game in whatever way, shape, or form they find it.
What would distress me greatly is a HEAVY "role-playing" focused game that ignored the combat angles, because the combat mechanics of the game are significantly more difficult for a DM to work up on his own, and could hardly be transferred to any other gaming group he/she participated in.
|
Yeah, have you guys checked out Worlds&Monster?
I've skimmed through it at the hobby shop, and read TWO paragraphs in detail: one on yugoloths and one on angels.
Guess what everyone? Now they butchered the cool D&D mythological celestials (archons, guardinals, eladrins, and angels) and literally stated in the book that they wanted (now, get this)
Angels to be fought by the PCs...
WHAT!?
Apparently, they didn't like the fact a DM couldn't use angels in D&D to fight the PCs without the DM using the stereotypical "fallen angel" scenario...wow...I can think of PLENTY of reasons why angels would fight PCs, even good ones. While, yes, still rare occurences, something like that SHOULDN'T be common occurences. The stats to angels are only good for two things really: knowing how well it can defend itself, and summoning purposes. That's IT!
*blinks*
*blinks again*
(10 pages of severely rude commentary)
As someone who has been yelled at by players for writing an adventure where the PCs have to fight a real, non-fallen angel, simply because it was an angel and they were playing paladins or good clerics or what not, those designers can . . .
(20 additional pages of even ruder commentary)
I just need to find the page reference for that so the people who played the adventure with me as DM can mock it.
I guess all in all, I just hope WoTC hits a home run with 4e.
Agreed. 100%.
Am i the only one who finds it odd that someone who by there own admision is a novice DM is helping desighn the rules and playtest them?LOL
I was thinking about this last night. I believe she said she was a novice DM 2 years ago. Mind you, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (minus vacations) would make her a professional grade DM very quickly.
For the record: If my recent posts make me come across as a 4E convert, have no fear that that is not the case. I'm merely trying to be fair.