|
His blog post is quite interesting but it was the bit down in the comments that expressed my feelings about 3.5 and the hope that 4E would fix things:
I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.
You can read this at EN World or at his live journal
|
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!
|
|
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!
Um, he said folks would think that. Then he said (in essence) - that's too bad.
I know he may be biased but frankly his post and follow up comments lead me to believe he loves D&D as an idea and he truly believes 4E is as close to his original experience of the game.
Regardless of bias, that is encouraging.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!
First Erik, now Ari!
You know how you spot a WotC lackey? They say something positive about 4e. It's that simple. No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
He may be biased, but he's actually seen and used the game rules, which is more than almost all people who have a challenge with 4e.
I think this is encouraging as well.
No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
Shhh, if people find out, I may have to give WotC back their grand.
|
|
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!First Erik, now Ari!
You know how you spot a WotC lackey? They say something positive about 4e. It's that simple. No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
Maybe I came across a little harsher than I intended. I'm not saying that he's lying at all. He does sound like he enjoys the 4E rules, and that is encouraging. It's just that it would carry a bit more weight if it didn't come from someone who has a vested interest in 4E taking off. This did come shortly after the pit fiend preview which was highly disappointing and probably colored my opinion more than it should have.
He may be biased, but he's actually seen and used the game rules, which is more than almost all people who have a challenge with 4e.
I think this is encouraging as well.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair
At the same time, I'm taking him at his word because he's firmly put his support behind 4th edition.
Sadly this doesn't change my feelings about WotC and their marketing decisions for 4th edition. Until they set up a release model that doesn't unnecessarily bilk their customers out of more and more money (DI and/or multiple PHBs presenting "options" that should have appeared in the PHB, moving Dragon and Dungeon to a digital format that is dependent upon subscribing to an all-or-nothing DI account) I won't be supporting them.
|
|
Sadly this doesn't change my feelings about WotC and their marketing decisions for 4th edition. Until they set up a release model that doesn't unnecessarily bilk their customers out of more and more money (DI and/or multiple PHBs presenting "options" that should have appeared in the PHB, moving Dragon and Dungeon to a digital format that is dependent upon subscribing to an all-or-nothing DI account) I won't be supporting them.
Honest question - how is their current model any different than their old one? They had content in magazines, splat books, environment books, compendiums of all kinds.
Honest question - how is their current model any different than their old one?
Fair question. The current model only required that you have the 3 core books and a good imagination. If you wanted to pick up more material, you could buy more, but they were not necessary to play the game. But between multiclassing, feat selection, etc, you are able to play anything just about every niche in the game. "Good Game Masters do not require supplements," -Monte Cook.
Now things are deliberately being left out of the core books that are traditionally in there. If you want to fight those monsters, with those same classes, those character builds, etc, you have to pick up more books. If a necromancer wizard wants to fight a frost giant, neither of those are in there. If you want to optimize the gnome with racial feats, you have to buy PHBII. (Yes, that's right, those that say Gnomes will be in the MM forget that we've already seen racial feats for the elf. DOes anyone believe that Gnome Racial feats will be in the MM? I don't.) And so on.
EDIT: As much as I hate to admit it, only having the 3 core books (plus psionics) being OGL reinforced the notion that the game only required 3 books. If all core D&D products are OGL, then some 3rd party company could come up with a setting that only used the following power sources: Martial, Shadow, Incarnum, and Psionic. And its possible that each of those power sources would be in different books. So if a DM wanted to run that setting, they'd have to buy all 4 of those PHBs, the 4 corresponding MMs (since its a smart move on WotC's part to have the yearly MMs display monsters that use the same power sources as the corresponding PHB). The 4 DMGs would certainly help. That's 12 books and we haven't even gotten to the 3rd party's products yet.
|
|
Exactly, they are taking the contents of the PHB and parceling them out over several books and the DDI. They are also doing the same with the Monster Manual. Their 4E model requires you to buy a small library of books plus have a DDI subscription just to get the options you have in the 3 core books in 3.0 and 3.5. That is distasteful to many people. We'd probably be more fogiving of this blatant fleecing of customers if they hadn't already done some many things to tick off long time customers.
|
|
Honest question - how is their current model any different than their old one?Fair question. The current model only required that you have the 3 core books and a good imagination. If you wanted to pick up more material, you could buy more, but they were not necessary to play the game. But between multiclassing, feat selection, etc, you are able to play anything just about every niche in the game. "Good Game Masters do not require supplements," -Monte Cook.
Now things are deliberately being left out of the core books that are traditionally in there. If you want to fight those monsters, with those same classes, those character builds, etc, you have to pick up more books. If a necromancer wizard wants to fight a frost giant, neither of those are in there. If you want to optimize the gnome with racial feats, you have to buy PHBII. (Yes, that's right, those that say Gnomes will be in the MM forget that we've already seen racial feats for the elf. DOes anyone believe that Gnome Racial feats will be in the MM? I don't.) And so on.
But that is how 3E worked too. The DMG had a scant selection of prestige classes. It became rapidly apparent that prestige classes were critical to 3E character advancement. The feat selection was also fairly light. That became apparent when the splat books started to show up. The same with core classes - splat books had some mighty cool ones.
3E has a ton of material so it is not fair to say that 4E is limiting because X, Y, or Z isn't in the core books.
I have said it before - unless they produced a PHB the size of several phone books then someone's favorite race/class combo would be missing.
Here is the crux of it - I trust that WotC did its homework and that the new core will be just as fun to play as unextended 3.0. Yes, people will miss their pet race or class but that's what happens when space is limited.
|
|
Exactly, they are taking the contents of the PHB and parceling them out over several books and the DDI. They are also doing the same with the Monster Manual. Their 4E model requires you to buy a small library of books plus have a DDI subscription just to get the options you have in the 3 core books in 3.0 and 3.5. That is distasteful to many people. We'd probably be more fogiving of this blatant fleecing of customers if they hadn't already done some many things to tick off long time customers.
I guess we will never agree on this. Aside from the druid there is nothing I will miss in the first PHB. Others will miss their gnome monk and their half-elf sorcerer and their half-orc barbarian. Maybe they will buy in later. No skin of my nose if they never do.
I couldn't play a dragonborn warlock in 3.5 core. It's all a matter of perspective about what is core, which happens to change in any given edition. A good GM will make their own gnome racial feats according to the same Monte Cook logic.
Okay, I'm playing the devil's advocate a little because I do think gnomes should be in the Player's Handbook (but I'm not convinced bards ought to be). I'm just not sure the gnome's absence (or other certain races and classes) is justification enough to totally dismiss 4e.
To me absolute core is: race = human, elf, halfling, dwarf; class = fighter, wizard, rogue, cleric.
Ari is a good man, and a good designer, but you can't really take his comments as unbiased. He's a company man in the truest Shadowrun sense (not that there is anything wrong with that...I'm a company man for Paizo, I believe in this company hardcore).
To address his actual comment though, I agree to some extent, D&D has never been a game about roleplaying mechanics...it's about combat mechanics. Still, there are inherent implications in a system that now focuses whole heartedly on single encounter map-based combat that definitely robs some of the story-telling/roleplaying aspects of a game.
For example, I've NEVER once used a battlemat in my home game. I think from what I have seen of 4E so far, it absolutely requires one, and requires the gaming group to pay very close attention to it (I know other groups playing 3.5 who DO use a battlemat but only to basically keep track of things and don't count squares or measure areas of effect...which under 4E this becomes harder to ignore because of how intrinsic it is to the rules). This will mean a big change for me in how I play. Not that I am unwilling to try it.
So! My point after all this rambling is this: You can't tell me this isn't a departure from the D&D I know and love, it definitely is. Mechanics differences aside, the new mythology we've been introduced to is WILDLY divergent from what has come before. This is all fine, just don't tell me otherwise.
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"
My two cents.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Maybe I came across a little harsher than I intended. I'm not saying that he's lying at all. He does sound like he enjoys the 4E rules, and that is encouraging. It's just that it would carry a bit more weight if it didn't come from someone who has a vested interest in 4E taking off. This did come shortly after the pit fiend preview which was highly disappointing and probably colored my opinion more than it should have.
I agree that there is some bias attached, and if that's what you intended with your original post, I can't disagree.
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"
I lost my mind when my best friend's guts were pouring out on top of me like a sh!t milkshake, face down in the muck in Da Nang! But... your thing sounds bad too.
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"I lost my mind when my best friend's guts were pouring out on top of me like a sh!t milkshake, face down in the muck in Da Nang! But... your thing sounds bad too.
I just shit myself with laughter. And I'm sending the dry cleaning bill to THE JADE!!! :-)
I don't need ranks in "tailor" on my character sheet, if that's never going to have a mechanical impact on gameplay.
I'm a huge believer in roleplaying. I don't want my D&D to be pure combat simulation. But I've also, after the mechanics glut of 3.5, come to realize that if something doesn't have a mechanical impact, it doesn't need to appear in the mechanics--and that doesn't make it any less real to the character. Roleplayers will roleplay because they want to; people who don't want to RP won't no matter what the rules say.
But if you're going to do any non-combat-encounter roleplaying at all, and not just stick your PC in the closet between dungeon forays, you're going to need a way to quantify what he knows and what he can do.
If I'm supposed to just roleplay my abilities as a tailor, what keeps me from "roleplaying" that I'm the world's greatest tailor, and that in between adventures I can earn 10,000 gp a month designing clothes for the rich and famous?
I can imagine having separate allocations of skill points for adventuring skills and life skills, but if you just leave out the life skills then you're back to the major flaw in the 1e rules: no way to quantify how well characters can do things other than swinging swords, casting spells or disarming traps.
I honestly don't believe there was any "mechanics glut" in 3.5... no more than is necessary to play a complex game that aims to simulate life itself.
I'm a company man for Paizo, I believe in this company hardcore.
As well you should be - I believe Paizo is the best RPG company out there. And your adventures are typically among my favorites (I don't care what anyone else says, Hook Mtn. was great flavor).
To address his actual comment though, I agree to some extent, D&D has never been a game about roleplaying mechanics...it's about combat mechanics.
A lot of my friends didn't like 3.0 when it came out because it had roleplaying rules like Bluff, etc. which they argued should be the job of the player, not the game rules. These heavy roleplayers feel game rules should be strictly combat, etc.
For example, I've NEVER once used a battlemat in my home game. I think from what I have seen of 4E so far, it absolutely requires one.
My personal view is 3.5 requires a battlemat too - in fact, I'd be interested to see how you play without one. I would argue that if you can take the battlemat out of 3.5, you can take it out of any system.
You can't tell me this isn't a departure from the D&D I know and love, it definitely is. Mechanics differences aside, the new mythology we've been introduced to is WILDLY divergent from what has come before.
I don't disagree with you, but I feel this way with any given new setting design. However, I like the feel of Paizo most and hope that in 6 months I'm playing a more dynamic system with a Paizo feel.
First Erik, now Ari!You know how you spot a WotC lackey? They say something positive about 4e. It's that simple. No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
Is today the start of the trolls' mating season? How can you say such a thing on a system you've not even played yet... The trolls are indeed breeding
first off, My hat is tipped to you folks...all of you. There is a LOT of rancor regarding WotC's imminent move to 4e. There are strong opinions on both sides, and as a veteran of the MSNBC political boards, it doesn't take much to set peple off. Thanks to all of you for being civil.
That said. I am VERY disappointed with this stat block. If "streamlining" this creature was the point, then they have failed. What they DID accomplish was stripping all of the flavor from an icon of D&D. I truly fear what the dragons will look like in 4e.
I happened to like damage reduction, regeneration, fireballs, and meteor swarms. Any gaming group worth it's weight in troll dung can rattle off the damage of a fireball, or what save is required vs poison. The pit fiend was a nearly "epic" encounter in and of itself with a little planning. And speaking of planning, When I learned to DM, the keyword was preparation. Isn't that what notebooks were for?
how about improvisation?
So you have problems running 5 different devils in the same encounter? make them all the same, but give the leader a couple of character levels. Half the fun is trying to overcome the problem of "Just how DO you take down a flaming, fireball throwing, meteor swarming, 12 foot tall, poisonous, flying, teleporting, duke of hell?
This whole 4e thing seems dumb to me. And I mean no disrespect to it's backers, their opinions are as valid as mine. My beef is with WotC for screwing it's fans with worthless fluff crap like the races and classes toilet paper holder (glossy even!).
I've been DMing now for 16 years. Through 2nd ed. revised 2nd ed. 3.0, and now 3.5. I am not a moron whom needs to be dumbed down to. It is the complexity that makes the game more fun. "Elite" monsters? Save it for the 12 year olds and layabouts of the online MMORPGs. I WANT rules!
On a final note, I will thank WotC for one thing...I will be able to fill out my 3.5 collection at much lower expense now.
He's a company man in the truest Shadowrun sense
This made me giggle. Did you ever expect to see a Kobold giggle?
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"
If there was just one thing I really wish Wizards would say, I'd give them back about 100 lbs worth of respect I've lost for them since pulling the mags, the announcement and everything else since. Its, "This game is a different take on traditional D&D. Its updated, streamlined and built with more modern influences inmind rather then influences that D&D traditionally draws upon. Not all existing fans will like this new approach that we are taking, but we invite all existing fans as well as those that have never played the game before to try it and see first hand if they like it on its own merits."
|
So! My point after all this rambling is this: You can't tell me this isn't a departure from the D&D I know and love, it definitely is. Mechanics differences aside, the new mythology we've been introduced to is WILDLY divergent from what has come before. This is all fine, just don't tell me otherwise.
It is for comments like this that I just signed up for Blood Gorgon!
Crosswiredminded:
I think you missing the point.....in previous editions of the game we received the same basic information (save but a few of things such as the half-orc) in 2nd edtion. In previous editions of 2nd and 3.0 the expected information was available in the core three books. Whether you agree with it or not this pattern established the D&D community with a certain of amount of expectations about forthcoming editions.
This is no longer the case with 4th edition. WOTC has stated that such information will be made available elsewhere. By splintering off the basic expected material in 4th edtion, WOTC errored in their consumer appreciation and respect department. Your arguement for feats and prestige classes is not comparable because with 3.0 this was all NEW information, therefore no expectations were set at that time. Now with 4th edition, expectations in these departments will begin to grow. When 5th edition rolls around and say for example feats are dropped from the game, many players will be upset because their expectations were not met. The consistency of expected material will keep changing as new features to the game are added.
I understand you can't fit everything into one book. The issue is WOTC has departed from tradition of included material. If anyone fails to see that this is not being done to sell more books or the DI then regretfully I believe them to be naive. You may or may not feel that this is their motivation, I do not know. Either way, they chose not to provide expected information by the majority of the consumers and that has resulted in less than favorable views of their efforts and motivations. It's their game, they can do what they want. If they choose not to make reasonable attempts to please previous consumers, it is their right to do so.
As more and more new information appears in the D&D game, consumers will grow to expect that information in the core rules. If WOTC changes the expectations of what core rules are over the next few years, this arguement will change or fade. For now though, the basic expectations were disregarded, thus not being met, resulting in disfavorable review by many D&D fans.
Sorry, Crossmindedwire, don't like to disagree with you or anyone else...but I guess today was different.
Honest question - how is their current model any different than their old one? They had content in magazines, splat books, environment books, compendiums of all kinds.Sadly this doesn't change my feelings about WotC and their marketing decisions for 4th edition. Until they set up a release model that doesn't unnecessarily bilk their customers out of more and more money (DI and/or multiple PHBs presenting "options" that should have appeared in the PHB, moving Dragon and Dungeon to a digital format that is dependent upon subscribing to an all-or-nothing DI account) I won't be supporting them.
Old model: 3 core books presented everything I needed to run a D&D game that contained the elements I wanted for my D&D game. WotC forums, support and bonus material were freely available. Dungeon and Dragon magazines were available in print, allowing me to cherry-pick issues.
Current model: 3 core books do not present everything I need to run a D&D game that contains elements I want for my D&D game. WotC forums, support, bonus material and Dungeon and Dragon magazines are bundled together in a pay for all or get nothing format. Classic material is deliberately left out of the initial PHB to drum up interest in DI subscriptions and future core books.
Sorry... I don't like it and am not on board.
But that is how 3E worked too. The DMG had a scant selection of prestige classes. It became rapidly apparent that prestige classes were critical to 3E character advancement. The feat selection was also fairly light. That became apparent when the splat books started to show up. The same with core classes - splat books had some mighty cool ones.3E has a ton of material so it is not fair to say that 4E is limiting because X, Y, or Z isn't in the core books.
I have said it before - unless they produced a PHB the size of several phone books then someone's favorite race/class combo would be missing.
Here is the crux of it - I trust that WotC did its homework and that the new core will be just as fun to play as unextended 3.0. Yes, people will miss their pet race or class but that's what happens when space is limited.
Prestige classes are NOT core classes. My groups really don't use PrCs all that much and rarely use new core classes (swashbuckler being the only exception). Out of 15 or so guys that I game with, I'm one of three players who actually purchased the Complete sourcebooks and it worked out fine... because PrCs and added feats were optional.
My groups could easily play D&D with just the core 3 books and be immersed in a campaign that held the "classic" elements of D&D (as we collectively saw them). In fact, my current Ptolus game is running wonderfully with just the 3 core books and the Ptolus book.
To accomplish the same feat in 4th edition each player is going to HAVE to buy multiple PHBs. That is a huge turn-off.
The issue is WOTC has departed from tradition of included material. If anyone fails to see that this is not being done to sell more books or the DI then regretfully I believe them to be naive.
I never wanted to say this, but now that it has been said, I have to agree. WotC knows that the PHBII and the DMGII sold better then the race series. So it only makes sense for them to use these names as future books. They know that the core races are seen as apart of D&D tradition and will sell well so it makes sense they'd split them up to help sell those books. If that was all a marketting person was looking at, they'd call it a very smart decision.
It's their game, they can do what they want. If they choose not to make reasonable attempts to please previous consumers, it is their right to do so.
I'd argue with one thing: Its WotC's IP, its my game. They can publish what they want. I can choose to homebrew it how I wish. And I can choose to switch to another game or stay with the old edition, which looks like I will end up doing.
QUOTE]
I'd argue with one thing: Its WotC's IP, its my game. They can publish what they want. I can choose to homebrew it how I wish. And I can choose to switch to another game or stay with the old edition, which looks like I will end up doing.
I know what you mean DMcCoy, I wanted to include that part to stave off the folks who wanted to argue points about "It's their game how do you dare state what they should or shoudn't do with it." As far as I'm concerned, they legally own the rights to the game. The moment we accept it into our hearts, we own a part of it. The moment we buy the books, we own those books to do what we want, as you mentioned. In essence, I agree with you.
I'd argue with one thing: Its WotC's IP, its my game. They can publish what they want. I can choose to homebrew it how I wish. And I can choose to switch to another game or stay with the old edition, which looks like I will end up doing.
Exactly! If I want to play D&D, it'll be 3.5 for me for the foreseeable future.
If I want a streamlined version of D&D, without all of 3.5's complexity, it'll be Castles & Crusades for me... not 4th edition.
But if you're going to do any non-combat-encounter roleplaying at all, and not just stick your PC in the closet between dungeon forays, you're going to need a way to quantify what he knows and what he can do.
If I'm supposed to just roleplay my abilities as a tailor, what keeps me from "roleplaying" that I'm the world's greatest tailor, and that in between adventures I can earn 10,000 gp a month designing clothes for the rich and famous?
I can imagine having separate allocations of skill points for adventuring skills and life skills, but if you just leave out the life skills then you're back to the major flaw in the 1e rules: no way to quantify how well characters can do things other than swinging swords, casting spells or disarming traps.
I honestly don't believe there was any "mechanics glut" in 3.5... no more than is necessary to play a complex game that aims to simulate life itself.
Good points. To add to them: What's to stop every other character from deciding they are also the world's greatest tailors in 4E? That sucks. I liked spending the skill points on these so called "useless" skills cause it meant I had bragging rights.
In 3.5: [/i]"The enemy forces approach! We need to fix these portcullis!"
I hold out my shackled arms, and smirk (knowing I have ten ranks in the skills necessary to get the job done: "I could help ye gov'ner, but I'm a bit tied up at the moment it seems"
Other PC clenches his jaw: "Release him, we'll need that gate fixed if we are to survive this siege, but I've got my eye on you Crookshanks Swindleheart, you hear me?"[/i]
In 4E: "The enemy forces approach! We need to fix these portcullis! So...let's all just do it, since we all just can...F@*! Crookshanks! Leave him shackled for all I care!"
...I guess you could argue that streamlines things. What I want to know is this...when did we all get so impatient? I don't need or want rpgs streamlined. I like that they take some mulling over and give my brain and creative juices a work out. Streamlined and fast button-mashing instant satisfaction is what my video games are for.
I've based WHOLE adventures on a PC or three having a useless skill that is absolutely vital to the given circumstances.
I'm a company man for Paizo, I believe in this company hardcore.As well you should be - I believe Paizo is the best RPG company out there. And your adventures are typically among my favorites (I don't care what anyone else says, Hook Mtn. was great flavor).
Thanks Chris! Paizo is the roxxor...or however the young kids are spelling it these days. :-)
To address his actual comment though, I agree to some extent, D&D has never been a game about roleplaying mechanics...it's about combat mechanics.A lot of my friends didn't like 3.0 when it came out because it had roleplaying rules like Bluff, etc. which they argued should be the job of the player, not the game rules. These heavy roleplayers feel game rules should be strictly combat, etc.
And I see their point. What I do like about Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate is they do supply a frame of reference for which PCs really do have social moxy. But yeah, I mostly ignore the actual rules for them, in favor of fun rpg moments.
For example, I've NEVER once used a battlemat in my home game. I think from what I have seen of 4E so far, it absolutely requires one.My personal view is 3.5 requires a battlemat too - in fact, I'd be interested to see how you play without one. I would argue that if you can take the battlemat out of 3.5, you can take it out of any system.
Taking the battlemat out of 3.5 requires a lot of trust on the part of the players. However, it seems that in 4E, removing the battlemat actually renders a lot of their (and the monster's) powers moot.
Again, this just means, Nicky has to get used to the battlemat, it doesn't mean 4E sucks.
I've based WHOLE adventures on a PC or three having a useless skill that is absolutely vital to the given circumstances.
*Said in silly voice* Thanks alot nick. Now I have a new idea for my character in an up coming campaign. Back to the drawing board for me.
DM Jeff, I hope you read this.
|
WARNING: THIS THREAD IS ABOUT TO BE TEMPORARILY JACKED.
Hey, Chris Perkins 88, I noticed you quoted a line from The Jungle earlier. A book that I blatently pillage for details of The 9 Hells, soul extraction industry, in my campaign. One of my favs.
Anyway, if you know that commie bastid well enough to quote him, you might be interested in the Thread I recently started in the Books section about discussions of canonical lit.
All are welcomed to check it out.
WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED THREAD.
-W. E. Ray
[QUOTE="DMcCoy1693"
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"If there was just one thing I really wish Wizards would say, I'd give them back about 100 lbs worth of respect I've lost for them since pulling the mags, the announcement and everything else since. Its, "This game is a different take on traditional D&D. Its updated, streamlined and built with more modern influences inmind rather then influences that D&D traditionally draws upon. Not all existing fans will like this new approach that we are taking, but we invite all existing fans as well as those that have never played the game before to try it and see first hand if they like it on its own merits."
I completely agree w/ this; I would have respected them a lot more for this honest approach to all the changes. Though I can understand why the marketing types at WOTC would as soon eat their young than allow something like this out...
|
|
Crosswiredminded:
I think you missing the point.....in previous editions of the game we received the same basic information (save but a few of things such as the half-orc) in 2nd edtion. In previous editions of 2nd and 3.0 the expected information was available in the core three books. Whether you agree with it or not this pattern established the D&D community with a certain of amount of expectations about forthcoming editions.
I really do appreciate that. I do. But it just does not bother me - except the druid thing. My D&D started with the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling. It had the fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. Everything else beyond that core is not as important to me. I am sorry that people will miss their favorite but I just can't get all juiced about it.
Sorry.
|
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!
To be a devil's advocate, Steven King's wife fished Carrie out of the garbage can.
What am I saying? I guess that at least they must be sincere, because they're in for a major major ribbing if it blows pony.
Crosswiredminded:
I think you missing the point.....in previous editions of the game we received the same basic information (save but a few of things such as the half-orc) in 2nd edtion. In previous editions of 2nd and 3.0 the expected information was available in the core three books. Whether you agree with it or not this pattern established the D&D community with a certain of amount of expectations about forthcoming editions.I really do appreciate that. I do. But it just does not bother me - except the druid thing. My D&D started with the human, elf, dwarf, and halfling. It had the fighter, mage, thief, and cleric. Everything else beyond that core is not as important to me. I am sorry that people will miss their favorite but I just can't get all juiced about it.
Sorry.
I understand, there are going to majority and minority opinions and it isn't a right or a wrong about what we as consumers feel should or shouldn't be in the game. I feel WOTC went with the minority of established players opinions. I'm sure they had their reasons, I just didn't agree with them. Hopefully when this is all said and done, those of us who were looking forward to 4th edition will be happy and those of us who weren't, will continue to play our favored edition with eventual support by other companies. Things change....eventually the pendulum may swing back to favor those whose opinions are being left behind, maybe not, I guess we'll have to wait and see.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
First Erik, now Ari!
You know how you spot a WotC lackey? They say something positive about 4e. It's that simple. No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
Other truths to remember: Christians don't play card games, Republicans don't care about poor people, the Red Sox will never win the Series, and white men can't jump.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
My personal view is 3.5 requires a battlemat too - in fact, I'd be interested to see how you play without one. I would argue that if you can take the battlemat out of 3.5, you can take it out of any system.
Nick runs a very anmated combat with no mat. In fact, while talking to him you realize he really knows his rules and such. But when gaming with him, you wonder if stats out anything. I fully got the impression a couple of years ago that some monsters were good for about three hits, while he kept the combat going. You could do, 40 total in three rounds, or crit for 160 in round one, and they die the same time. You get to roll dice, he gets to drop the F-bomb and make fun of villain lackeys, and the action takes just the right amount of time regardless.
And don't ask him about the battlemat, either. He does stuff like give you negative levels and take your feats away.
Nick has run some of the best DND I have ever played. While I think of myself as a littlemore mechanics oriented, no less than Tim Hitchcock explained it this way: "If it's all down there {on the table}, it's not up here {eye contact}."
Yeah, I read it. He sounds really enthusiastic about the new rules. Of course, he is working on 4E stuff, so you can't say that his opinion is unbiased. This isn't much different than Mike Mearls or another WotC designer commenting on how great 4E is. Duh! Of course, he's going to say that it rules!
Also, playtesters and freelancers were specifically instructed that they were aloud to talk about their status, but they were NOT allowed to say anything negative. Only positive comments. Regardless of how postive the man feels about 4e he's not aloud to say anything negative. In my eyes, this is a blatant attempt on WotCs part to mislead me (lie by omission) about the opinions of those who've engaged with the rules before most others. Shame on you, WotC!
|
|
Is today the start of the trolls' mating season? How can you say such a thing on a system you've not even played yet... The trolls are indeed breeding
First Erik, now Ari!You know how you spot a WotC lackey? They say something positive about 4e. It's that simple. No normal logical human being could ever ever ever like 4e. Anyone who claims differently is paid and lying.
Humor dude. Sebastian was ribbing people who were crying 'plant!' because Ari was saying something positive.
Old model: 3 core books presented everything I needed to run a D&D game that contained the elements I wanted for my D&D game.
Current model: 3 core books do not present everything I need to run a D&D game that contains elements I want for my D&D game.
On this point, I have no freaking sympathy. I've had to suffer through several editions of a game packed with garbage like elves, orcs, and halflings! And they're all still here - but at least I'm getting something that appeals to me.
The first person to say "But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?" gets a punch in the throat. LeiberVanceMoorcockHowardLovecraftMievilleMartinWolfePowers, people.
|
|
So! My point after all this rambling is this: You can't tell me this isn't a departure from the D&D I know and love, it definitely is. Mechanics differences aside, the new mythology we've been introduced to is WILDLY divergent from what has come before. This is all fine, just don't tell me otherwise.
If I hear "It's the same just better!" one more time, I'll lose my mind. I think a more honest approach is "It's really really different, give it a whirl and enjoy!"
My two cents.
And that my friend, is why you are paid the big bucks(well bucks anyway) :)
Old model: 3 core books presented everything I needed to run a D&D game that contained the elements I wanted for my D&D game.
Current model: 3 core books do not present everything I need to run a D&D game that contains elements I want for my D&D game.
On this point, I have no freaking sympathy. I've had to suffer through several editions of a game packed with garbage like elves, orcs, and halflings! And they're all still here - but at least I'm getting something that appeals to me.
The first person to say "But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?" gets a punch in the throat. LeiberVanceMoorcockHowardLovecraftMievilleMartinWolfePowers, people.
But if you don't like all that Tolkienesque stuff, why are you even playing D&D?