Many of the arguments I hear FOR 4E are based around the mechanical or rules (percieved?) issues that are being addressed in the new edition. Other arguments against 4E (certianly not all, but many) cite examples of changes to the flavor or fluff of D&D as horrible changes to D&D (the FR changes being the most agregious example).
Are we arguing the same things here?
To me, I see no issue seperating the two in my mind.
- I dislike many of the changes that I have heard about to FR (though a few I like).
- I am ambivilent to many of the changes that are being made to the cosmology of the world (ie. no great wheel, adding in feywild, etc.)
- I either like the changes to mechanics I am seeing or feel they are addressing issues my group has (even if I personally do not have the issue).
Is it fair, though, to counter an argument that 4E is good because it fixes the issues with the 15 minute adventuring day with an argument that what they are doing Forgotten Realms is rediculous?
Is it reasonable for someone to day, like I am currently, that they will probably like 4E but won't be buying too many more FR products?
Anyway... I am rambling... I guess I feel many of the arguments in the same threads are arguing two different things... kind of like balancing a mechanical bonus in a class with a roleplaying handicap...
Sean Mahoney
I guess I also wanted to ask here, how do you weigh the two against each other.
If you like the rules and hate the flavor changes, are you pro- or anti-4E (so far, obviously it isn't out yet and seeing what is really there may well change your opinion in either direction)?
Sean Mahoney
I think you may have hit on something here. I look forward to 4th but I run a homebrew with its own cosmology. Hence the flavour changes don't really bother me becuase no matter what they did I'd need to adapt the flavour to my homebrew - good mechanics on the other hand are something I'm very interested becuase those will be used mostly unmodified in my home game.
For me, it was something like this:
1: 4e is announced. Since they said that it was long in the coming, I was at first annoyed that you can't believe anything they say.
2: Some of the rules changes are revealed, and I liked most of what I heard. I was actually getting excited about 4e. The fact that I like new things, often just because they're new, helped 4e.
3: The flavour changes, especially about FR, started to become known. I don't see why they have to change the flavour at all.
4: More and more mechanical changes I don't like were announced, and the implications of many of the changes I heard about sank in. This lessened the positive feeling I had about the mechanical parts.
5: Their marketing strategy became more and more annoying, which has made me more and more wary of their claims.
So right now, it is like this:
Mechanics: I like some things, but don't like others, and of those I like per se, I don't like the implications of many. So I have at most a mildly positive outlook. And all this is based on their claims!
Flavour: I like almost nothing, and especially don't like how they disregard over 30 years of D&D history to re-invent not just the rules, but the worlds, from scratch, so that it seems that 4e will be a different game, with different rules and a different story. A name and the kind of dice you use isn't enough for me to consider two games to be the same or even variants.
Attitude: I don't care at all about how they market the whole thing: Monthly fees, discontinuation of many good concepts like licensed products (Dungeon, Dragon) and the OGL, insulting and "firing" of fans, the slander of the old to sell the new, and a general feeling that I can't believe a word they say.
To sum it all up: The good points would be some of the mechanics, and since that is based mostly on their claims, not on actual information, I can't believe that. The bad points are other parts of the mechanics, the flavour, their attitude. The bad points outweigh the good ones by far.
|
Well, let's see.
I really like some of the mechanics changes they are doing and have actually instituted some of them into my game - love the new view on death and dying.
I also find I like the new cosmology. The pantheon I do not care about one way or another.
I have no trouble with them throwing out old concepts and creating new ones. I recently read Worlds and Monsters and I understand why they started from the ground up. The way the new cosmology works (which I think is good) they had to come up with a new backstory for many of the creatures in the game. And I think that the old wheel was flawed after reading what they had to say. I get that it is a bit much to have a plane for every alignment, and negative energy and positive energy. There is no way they could keep some of the fluff to do what they wanted to do with the crunch (of course anyone can keep the fluff - who cares).
I totally get that they were living with 30 years of history that developed randomly as different adventures were put out by different people and articles were written for Dragon (people writing those articles always had to look for something interesting for the readers). The things that some people seem pretty hung up on and call cannon were ideas of many people over many years and did not have a cohesive plan behind them. (I will not argue that give everything another 5 years with adventures and magazines and we will be moving back into that arena).
Now the Forgotten Realms? I only have a sketchy idea of what has happened there. I do not know if that was necessary. I think that if I was reimagining the game and working out new mechanics with new fluff to support it I would most likely have developed a new world to hold it all. Now for the new world would it have been okay to borrow from old D&D stuff - I think so. Probably not the Realms as it was so specific but some Greyhawk stuff and the old known world or other towns/regions from the old days - sure. I would have no problem with that.
So, I think they jumped the Shark with the Realms (probably a lot of people said that then 3rd edition came out). Other than that I am intersted and curious.
Some people seem very attached to certain things. In my opinion the whole 30 years has not been about a specific history in a certain world but about bringning us tools for the DM to weave a story for his players to react to and have fun with.
I do not think any of the fluff changes matter at all. There are many homebrew campaigns out there that do what they want. And some people jump around - Ebboron, the Realms, Greyhawk, the Scarred Lands, Ravenloft, etc. I recently said everyone make up a new character because we are hunting runelords and we entered Varisia. Before that we were in the Realms (which I have gamed in for years) and it didn't matter - we are having fun, we love the AP and we are spending time together doing what we like to do.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. There are two sets of changes with 4ed coming, the flavor and the crunch.
I really don't care what they do with the flavor. I have never played in the Forgotten Realms, so those changes mean nothing to me, (although I do appreciate that for fans of FR it is a very BIG deal). My campaigns from here on forward are going to be in Golarion, so I couldn't care less what WotC does with the flavor.
The mechanics on the other hand, I am really looking forward to the changes they have made. I think I have been positive about just about every mechanical change I have heard, I am failing to recall a change that I think it for the worst.
So, as you can imagine, I am very keen for 4th Ed to get here so I can start my next campaign (Hopefully Curse of the Crimson Throne), or even better, hopefully play in a 4th ed campaign.
I guess I also wanted to ask here, how do you weigh the two against each other.
If you like the rules and hate the flavor changes, are you pro- or anti-4E (so far, obviously it isn't out yet and seeing what is really there may well change your opinion in either direction)?
Sean Mahoney
At the moment, it is hard to see if they can be weighed against each other or not.
From what has been released so far, it appears that WotC is trying hard to tie Flavor/Fluff to the Rules/Crunch. So much so, that at best it will be difficult to alter one without altering the other.
This can still end up being a misinterpretation, but it is currently just as valid a theory as they will be as separate as always.
Beyond that, I can't really comment. My complaints about the fluff changes are limited to the fact that it appears that WotC lined up several of the sacred cows and then gunned them down like that scene out of Lord of War. The changes themselves don't really bother me, but the treatment and/or handling of them concern me. And even that stems from the feeling of why it was done.
The rules... I don't "feel" them. I don't like what I see so far, because they radically change the way the game feels. On top of that, they haven't addressed the reasons that were quoted as the need for a new edition.
So, I am still having to wait and see what the whole package is to be able to really contribute to this thread.
EDIT:: Oh, and for the record, I am very likely considered an anti 4th Editioner. ;-)
This is an interesting point, and one that I think matters a lot. The things people are getting the most worked up about regarding 4e are the things people are probably going to pretty much forget about once 4e is out. I don't mean to say that they'll "get over it"; I mean that changes to official fluff don't mean anything. They indicate a general tone or design philosophy which shapes the mechanics, which of course is of importance, but the actual differences in fluff will be overtaken. For example: Orcs are now blue. (I just made that up.) Will people pay attention to this? There will be riots in the Seattle streets. (They'll have to use flashlights instead of torches, on account of all the rain. Because, you see, it always rains in Seattle. A ha ha.) Will this have any impact on the rules? Not unless incarnum is a 4e core mechanic. (A man can hope.) Will this affect anybody's game? No; when you start up that 4e Greyhawk game, the orcs will be green, because orcs have always been green in Greyhawk. (I actually have no idea what color, if any, orcs are in Greyhawk.)
Fluff has very little do with crunch. You see this commonly in 3e; it's called "filing off the serial numbers". Oh, no, this is a Pathfinder game, you can't play a Radiant Servent of Pelor, but you'd love a Radiant Servent of Saranrae! 40% of all fluff attached to rules can be modified or removed with no ill consequences whatsoever.
The remaining 60% is tied to the more fundamental elements of fluff, such as "there are elves and dwarves and dragons" and "there are no guns" and "people can use magic". I feel this is one of the big issues d20 Modern had, and there's an excellent essay about how mismatching fluff to core rules can lead to disaster.
However, this 60% is so fundamental that it doesn't change, because it's the core of the game. It's a huge chunk of the fluff for any D&D setting, but I think we overlook a lot of it, because it's common to all D&D settings. (It's so huge, I upgraded my estimation to 60% from a previous 40%.) When we're telling a fellow gamer about some campaign setting they're not familiar with, we don't start on the ground floor with fighters, wizards, clerics, and rogues, monsters and dungeons and magic, and so on. That's inherent. Campaign settings will have lots of specific content, and may even change one or two core rules, but by and large most of the things that make the distinctions between campaign settings are cosmetic. For example: in Eberron, the drow live aboveground in a jungle environment, and worship scorpions. That's cosmetic. They're still LA +2, they still have +2 intelligence and +2 charisma. That's mechanical. The fluff changed; the rules didn't.
And, at long last, I think I can get to my point. You don't like the new additions to the Forgotten Realms canon? Nobody else does, either. Good thing you can ignore it! Welcome to the magical world of discontinuity. By and large, the changes to the Forgotten Realms setting won't have a lot of impact on the Forgotten Realms mechanics. And this is nothing new; in some ways, this is the same thing as playing a Greyhawk game even when Greyhawk isn't a "real" campaign setting anymore. This is why homebrew settings can work; they don't require wholesale changes to the rules. Heck, if you're a real stickler for canon, you don't even have to disown the new stuff; just run a "historical" game! Just the same as running a game set during the Time of Troubles, or a game set during the Last War, or a game set during any other event or period in the past of any setting's canon.
So, remember: if you don't like, it, you don't have to use it in your game!
By and large, the changes to the Forgotten Realms setting won't have a lot of impact on the Forgotten Realms mechanics.
That is a nice sentiment, but not quite true. A lot of the setting changes are to incorporate the mechanical changes. For example, the whole Spellplague thing to explain why the power sources work as they do - instead of how they used to.
Sure you can ignore one or the other, as needed, but then you are coming close to trying to mix oil and water. (ie: Power Sources without Spellplague, or Spellplague without Power Sources) And at that point, the effort may not be worth it. YMMV.
That is a nice sentiment, but not quite true. A lot of the setting changes are to incorporate the mechanical changes. For example, the whole Spellplague thing to explain why the power sources work as they do - instead of how they used to.
This may be true! Thank god for handwaves.
I should probably note that I haven't been following the FR shakeup very much at all, in part because I was never all that enthralled with Faerun, and also in part because it's my understanding that the parts I really like (Elminster and Thay) aren't being killed off.
i think elminister is a pretty cool guy. eh sleeps with mystra and doesn't afraid of anything.
it's my understanding that the parts I really like (Elminster and Thay) aren't being killed off.
But both will probably change a lot. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they weren't the same at all afterwards. Just like faerun, they'll be something completely different, only sharing the name with the previous incarnation
I totally get that they were living with 30 years of history that developed randomly as different adventures were put out by different people and articles were written for Dragon (people writing those articles always had to look for something interesting for the readers). The things that some people seem pretty hung up on and call cannon were ideas of many people over many years and did not have a cohesive plan behind them. (I will not argue that give everything another 5 years with adventures and magazines and we will be moving back into that arena).
I always loved how D&D was a shared experience. A living, thriving thing created by many in concert.
Now they destroy everything deliberately so they can make their own, new stuff and keep anyone else out. They don't want other kids play with their toys any more.
Now the Forgotten Realms? I only have a sketchy idea of what has happened there. I do not know if that was necessary.
I'm quite sure it wasn't. A good designer makes the rules work with the fiction, not the other way around. Changing the world to fit the rules only shows that they don't care at all for the realms.
So, I think they jumped the Shark with the Realms (probably a lot of people said that then 3rd edition came out)
They didn't tear apart the realms to make them fit into 3e.
Some people seem very attached to certain things.
I think there's a flaw in that perception: It's not that there's change. The problem is that so much changes. How much change can something undergo and still stay what it was? I think 4e went over that line.
In my opinion the whole 30 years has not been about a specific history in a certain world but about bringning us tools for the DM to weave a story for his players to react to and have fun with.I do not think any of the fluff changes matter at all.
I do, because so much points towards a combination of mechanics and flavour, so that if you want to use your own fluff, you'll have quite a bit of work on your hands.
After all, they had to change the cosmology and all to make it fit the new game. If it didn't matter, there would have been no need for that.
And there's talk about races that give you abilities every level and all that. If you don't like what they think that race should be, you'll have a lot more mechanics to change than just a couple of skill bonuses.
There are many homebrew campaigns out there that do what they want.
Yes. Take Midnight for example. It's supposed to be a world where magic is rare and dangerous. That doesn't work at all with wizards that can cast magic all day long.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
They didn't tear apart the realms to make them fit into 3e.
The Time of Troubles. Also the changes to the FR cosmology, making it no longer part of the Great Wheel (which as I recall sparked almost as much debate and hate as the current changes).
Also the fiction has been heading this way anyways. With all the different novels that have come out prob over the past 2 years, there have been enough drastic world changes (Archwizards, Thay, Rage of Dragons, etc) that the world was close to needing a new Campaign Setting book just to keep it all straight and to advance the story timeline, similar to the need for the Red Box in Ravenloft after the Grand Conjunction.
I think that since they admit to having this all in the works since 2005, then they have prob had all their authors working on a massive outline/story plotline since 2006, advancing things to the brink of destruction.
Crunch/Fluff/Novels all meet in time for 4e.
They didn't tear apart the realms to make them fit into 3e.The Time of Troubles. Also the changes to the FR cosmology, making it no longer part of the Great Wheel (which as I recall sparked almost as much debate and hate as the current changes).
Also the fiction has been heading this way anyways. With all the different novels that have come out prob over the past 2 years, there have been enough drastic world changes (Archwizards, Thay, Rage of Dragons, etc) that the world was close to needing a new Campaign Setting book just to keep it all straight and to advance the story timeline, similar to the need for the Red Box in Ravenloft after the Grand Conjunction.
I think that since they admit to having this all in the works since 2005, then they have prob had all their authors working on a massive outline/story plotline since 2006, advancing things to the brink of destruction.
Crunch/Fluff/Novels all meet in time for 4e.
The Realms suffered the Time of Troubles to make it into 2nd edition. But the gods that survived still lived where they always had, and the major landmarks remained the same.
For 3E, the Realms were shaken up by the return of Shade. During 3E, we got the Rage of Dragons, Lloth's Silence, and several storylines heading into 4E. You're right, we would need a new Campaign setting to keep track of things by the time we're through.
|
In a good RPG Fluff and Crunch go hand in glove. As an example I point out the Warhammer Roleplaying game. The World is Grim and Gritty and everybody is out there to get you. Life is cheap and Chaos lurks everywhere. The Rules match the fluff perfectly. They enhance some of the fluff aspects of the game (insanity through Chaos) to have real impact on the PCs.
Now try to play Feng Shui in the Warhammer Setting. Might be possible but will need a lot of adaption.
Now, D&D can be considered a generic high fantasy RPG that favors the epic gaming approach.
That was true for basic D&D, for AD&D and for OD&D.
But due to the D20 engine it is possible to adapt the game to almost any style of play.
To come back to my above example, it would be far easier to play Warhammer with D20 rules than with Feng Shui rules.
What I see and fear for 4th edition is that a lot of rules will support a certain style of play. Leaning more heavily towards the cinematic and pulp style.
To pick up my example from above. IMHO a Warhammer campaign will have to get rid of the new healing rules. You would have to change the dying rules completely to simulate the Grim and Gritty rules. And you probably would have to get rid of the more exotic/magic Class abilities. To sum it up: You would have to rewrite far more stuff in 4th than in 3rd.
On the other Hand, those Settings that tend to the more cinematic pulpy style are better off.
I guess Ebberron is made for 4th edition and mechanics and fluff will fit seamless.
For me personally this change in mechanics works against my style of DMing. I like grim and gritty. Of course I will test 4th edition but most likely only as a player.
The Time of Troubles.
That was 1e-2e, not 2e-3e. And from what I hear, a lot of people were less than excited by it.
And, when all is said and done, it's not nearly as extreme as what the 3e-4e changes do to the realms.
Also the changes to the FR cosmology, making it no longer part of the Great Wheel (which as I recall sparked almost as much debate and hate as the current changes).
Yes. And they were done quietly. It was just assumed that it was always there, and it was understood that you could easily use one or the other - especially since the new cosmology wasn't introduced by a couple of appocalypses.
Also the fiction has been heading this way anyways. With all the different novels that have come out prob over the past 2 years, there have been enough drastic world changes (Archwizards, Thay, Rage of Dragons, etc) that the world was close to needing a new Campaign Setting book just to keep it all straight and to advance the story timeline, similar to the need for the Red Box in Ravenloft after the Grand Conjunction.
They've been heading this way because they were starting to lead up to the even bigger changes introduced now.
A good word about it would be escalate. The events have been escalating in the last couple of years. And still the changes they introduced after they announced 4e officially, are so much worse than anything done since 3e. They killed off dozens of deities and millions of people (including a great many novel heroes), trashed most planes to make way for the new ones (and going the exact opposite way than before: Instead of changing things so the realms are unique, they now change things again to make it conform to 4e's new Universal Gospel), and advanced the timeline a hundred years.
I think that since they admit to having this all in the works since 2005, then they have prob had all their authors working on a massive outline/story plotline since 2006, advancing things to the brink of destruction.Crunch/Fluff/Novels all meet in time for 4e.
What they fail to meet is the previously loyal fans.
The Realms suffered the Time of Troubles to make it into 2nd edition. But the gods that survived still lived where they always had, and the major landmarks remained the same.
Exactly. In fact, after the Time of Troubles were done, there was remarkably little change, especially in the grand scheme of things.
For 3E, the Realms were shaken up by the return of Shade. During 3E, we got the Rage of Dragons, Lloth's Silence, and several storylines heading into 4E. You're right, we would need a new Campaign setting to keep track of things by the time we're through.
And the book would have had enough new information (in addition to the changes to 4e rules you would have to make to make it work with the realms) without going to ridiculous lengths to smash things up and scare the old fans away to make way for new ones.
They don't want other kids play with their toys any more.
Sad that Hasbro, of all companies, would be doing that.
They now change things again to make it conform to 4e's new Universal Gospel
Universal Gospel? Wait a second . . . I know I'm been playing the ostrich game when it comes to most news about 4e . . . but I truely am scared to ask what you mean by that. (I'm getting flashs of the movie Mars Attacks with the universal sign of the donut)
|
|
Mechanics and Flavor are not necessarily mutually exclusive. While there are certain flavor changes that have no relevance to how a game plays (for example the name of a kingdom) there are certainly many flavor changes that do impact the mechanics.
Mechanics are the method by which we, as role-players, express the flavor of a game. To take an extreme example (a boundry condition if you will) if the flavor you wanted was space-age with laser pistols and gravity beams you would certainly design mechanics much differently than if you wanted flavor with flintlocks and clockwork machines.
The d20 system is a pretty good system in the sense that you can express many types of flavor with the same "core" mechanic, but there are certainly a lot of other mechanical changes one MUST do in order for the game to express specific areas of flavor.
Iron Heroes certainly plays different than "core" D&D despite using the same d20 engine.
The mechanics presented thus far seem to suggest mechanics that are designed to express a flavor of fantasy that is less gritty and more "super" than a lot of people are interested in.
How can you express a "magic is rare" flavor of D&D with these "everyone has powers" mechanics? I think thats the crux of the issue.
Blowing up the forgotten realms, for example, is being done for the sole reason of re-expressing the flavor of the realms through the new mechanics.
Of course, the caveat to all this is that we simply do not know the mechanics in any sufficient detail to determine if we are able to express OUR personal flavor of D&D play with it.
How does it go?
We fear that which we do not understand,
we hate that which we fear,
we seek to destroy that which we hate.
Bottom line: The fear/hatred/animosity/disdain for 4E is fundamentally stemming from our lack of understanding of the system. But we all know one thing for certain: It will be different than what we are used to.
How can you express a "magic is rare" flavor of D&D with these "everyone has powers" mechanics? I think thats the crux of the issue.
This is actually an interesting issue, because I've maintained for some time that even the 3e ruleset doesn't well adapt itself to low-magic or low-resources games. Every now and then I'll talk to somebody who will talk about the "low-magic" game they're running, and I'll just stare at them blankly, because what a lot of people don't seem to realize is how very deliberate the net worth of PCs is. If you're running a game where the PCs don't have ready access to magic items, and they're higher than fourth level or so, you damn well better have a binder full of house rules and modifications made to everything else in the game. DR 20/+1 on a CR10 isn't a big thing, unless the party's most valued treasure is a +1 dagger. It's an ENORMOUS nerf for melee characters, and a huge buff for characters who don't need equipment (wild shape druids and monks, primarily). And it'll get progressively worse as your party levels up.
Honestly, nine times out of ten "You can't buy magic items in my game" is a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't understand the concept of game balance... which is, itself, a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't know what he's doing.
If you're running a game where the PCs don't have ready access to magic items, and they're higher than fourth level or so, you damn well better have a binder full of house rules and modifications made to everything else in the game.
I think the changes you'd have to do to rebalance things after taking away magic items are a lot smaller and fewer in number than usually claimed. No binders, not even paragraphs. I think you can do it with as little as a couple of lines. You just need the right lines.
Honestly, nine times out of ten "You can't buy magic items in my game" is a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't understand the concept of game balance... which is, itself, a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't know what he's doing.
...or he knows the game, and his players, very well. I think the prudent thing is to take a look instead of just saying he's incompetent and going.
They now change things again to make it conform to 4e's new Universal GospelUniversal Gospel? Wait a second . . . I know I'm been playing the ostrich game when it comes to most news about 4e . . . but I truely am scared to ask what you mean by that. (I'm getting flashs of the movie Mars Attacks with the universal sign of the donut)
I refer to how the forgotten realms have been butchered so they conform to all the design philosophies they came up for 4e: It needs to have the new cosmology, it must have all the races and classes just as they're in the core books, it must be "Points of Light" all the way.
|
I always loved how D&D was a shared experience. A living, thriving thing created by many in concert.
Now they destroy everything deliberately so they can make their own, new stuff and keep anyone else out. They don't want other kids play with their toys any more.
I think this is the rose colored glasses view. Forgotten Realms is not a collective property. It was created as corporate IP, it was revised as corporate IP, and it continues to be corporate IP. The closest thing to collective IP was Living Greyhawk. Even then it was more like an open source world then a real collective creation.
D&D has always had the official party line and then there was the stuff we all created for our home games. Official material has always been their toy and we just get to play with it.
Forgotten Realms was not "created as corporate IP". It was Ed Greenwoods homebrew setting first.
Bottom line: The fear/hatred/animosity/disdain for 4E is fundamentally stemming from our lack of understanding of the system.
If you have been paying attention, we know lots of stuff about the system already. You can no longer say "hate" or "fear" of the unknown is why people have problems with 4.0.
the very small amount of mechanical stuff sounds good (that I've heard)
the flavor stuff sounds bad (that I've heard)
My complaint about the whole deal (well except for the insults, disrespecting and the name calling that wotc has done towards it's fanbase) is that this should have been a purely mechanical revamp. Leave the fluff alone. Don't break what isn't broken. Make the game less bulky and broken, fine, but leave the fun stuff alone.
I mean if you make mashed potatoes and they are dry add some more water or butter into them to make them smooth, don't then decide that adding some feces to them might help the flavor. Noone is going to want Poo-tatoes.
I guess I also wanted to ask here, how do you weigh the two against each other.
If you like the rules and hate the flavor changes, are you pro- or anti-4E (so far, obviously it isn't out yet and seeing what is really there may well change your opinion in either direction)?
Hi Sean,
Just to get back to the question you asked before the one I've quoted- No, I don't think it's unreasonable that you can look forward to and like the 4th Edition rules, and yet not wish to buy any more FR material.
I am in a weird place in this issue (and I'll try not to be too redundant in explaining this). I've mocked or been irritable with 4th edition, but at my core, I'm just not a 'Mechanics Guy.' I don't care that much about them, other than they make some logical sense.
So, I'm almost totally fluff oriented. (But I GM for people who are very mechanic oriented, so I don't discount the importance of mechanics at all.)
I would say that the rules and the fluff *might* be mutually exclusive for me. The possibility that they might not be mutually exclusive stems with how utilitarian the 4th Edition rules actually are.
If, however, there were something that about 4th Edition that really prevented me from importing my campaign setting of choice- then they wouldn't be mutually exclusive. Me and 4th Edition would have a real problem then. And that is 95% of my real concern with 4th edition when I strip away the horseplay and nonsense. "How flexible is it? Can I, through adjustment, still play my existing campaign setting without major changes?"
In a sense, a handful of little changes like succubi don't bother me. I'll adjust the fluff back the way I see fit. However, a mountain of small changes that accumulate to make the setting very different is a problem. I'm almost tempted to use the phrase 'cosmetic changes' but therein lies the rub- nothing you change about the fluff can be considered merely cosmetic! Because that's the nature of fluff!
I'd imagine I'm pretty quickly earning a pro-4E reputation around here, so it shouldn't be suprising that I am looking forward to the proposed changes in mechanics.
I'll be honest, though, and admit that I'm not 100% behind all of the flavor changes. My feelings are perhaps expressed closest by Timothy Mallory, so I'll let him do the explaining (again!)
I actually run homebrews mainly, so in that sense the fluff is completely irrelevant. But I do like to talk D&D with others and now that's going to be harder for no gain that I can see..
Now, I do see reason for some changes, and how some changes snowball into giant changes (eliminating alignment invalidates pretty much all of the Outer Planes, which has drastic affects on the outsiders who live there and so on and so on ...)
Other changes (I'm looking at you FR) seem to be more about updating an existing setting to conform to the new edition. Its strange, but FR seems to be the campaign always updated for the new editions. You don't really see any other campaigns going through anything like that ... I don't really expect Eberron to have any big shakeup, although I suppose that remains to be seen.
Overall, I'd say that while the fluff changes aren't 100% for the better, I don't really care, because its just fluff. This won't be the first (or the last!) that I've completely ignored the fluff for the nice juicy (should that be crunchy?) mechanics.
One last point. Unless FR is the only kind of DnD you play in, its destruction shouldn't turn you away from 4E completely. Obviously, to each their own, but the events in FR have little to do with 4E as a game. Like older editions of FR? I'm sure you'll be able to play them with 4E mechanics, with a bit of polish (and maybe a shoe horn) to fit them in.
You are technically correct ...
The best kind of correct.
The fluff changes are neither here nor there, imho. Some are very good, some are meh. What does annoy me is that they redefined everything instead of making something new. Fine, you don't like the great wheel? Great.. dump it and have the new planes. But please don't take all the existing material and use it to do something completely different. Archons are now some kind of elemental, eladrin are now an elf race, devils are deicides, succubi are devils, Bane and Pelor hang out together, etc..
Why does this bother me? Well, because I have friends and internet acquaintances that play everything from BECMI D&D to 1e to 3e and, doubtless, 4e soon enough. Everyone playing 1-3e can talk to each other about the fluff easily (BECMI players generally know the 1-3 fluff). But the 4e players will talk a different language that uses the same words.. Now if I post on Canonfire about Eladrin I'm going to have to specify which Eladrin. And even if I do, I'll probably still get misplaced replies...
You, sir, have hit upon one of my biggest reasons for despising 4th Edition. I have many reasons, but I could deal with 4E (and play, actually) if all my Top Reasons weren't at all on that list of mine. (which are about 5 total; magic changes, fluff changes, FR changes, no compatibility or possible conversions from previous editions, and omitted classic material)
One last point. Unless FR is the only kind of DnD you play in, its destruction shouldn't turn you away from 4E completely. Obviously, to each their own, but the events in FR have little to do with 4E as a game.
There is the issue that they have fired me as a fan. They made it clear that they don't want my FR money any more. So I go the whole nine yards and spare them the filth of any of my money. As always, I aim to please.
Like older editions of FR? I'm sure you'll be able to play them with 4E mechanics, with a bit of polish (and maybe a shoe horn) to fit them in.
They seem to think otherwise, or they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to change the FR to work with the new rules.
Plus, I liked the FR not just as a setting to play, but also as a setting to read about, and one where other things beside what happens in my campaigns are going on. Now that's gone, as I don't like the new canon, and that means that the new RPG books will be useless (they'll have mainly new setting info, none of which I want to keep), and so will be the novels (they play in a world I don't like).
The whole thing left such a sour taste in my mouth that I abandoned the realms altogether. They're truly forgotten now.
But Golarion is shaping up just nicely, and I'm sure it will be more than able to take toril's place.
I always loved how D&D was a shared experience. A living, thriving thing created by many in concert.I think this is the rose colored glasses view. Forgotten Realms is not a collective property.
Read that quote again: I wasn't talking about the realms. I was talking about D&D.
It was created as corporate IP
Get your facts straight before you accuse people of not looking at things properly.
D&D has always had the official party line and then there was the stuff we all created for our home games. Official material has always been their toy and we just get to play with it.
Wrong again: During the days of 3e, there was the OGL, and other companies - actually, everyone - was allowed to create stuff using the rules and even sell it. Because of that we have things like Midnight, the Tomes of Horrors, Pathfinder, and so many other good things.
I mean if you make mashed potatoes and they are dry add some more water or butter into them to make them smooth,
Mmmmmmm. You're making me hungry.
don't then decide that adding some feces to them might help the flavor. Noone is going to want Poo-tatoes.
Ehhhhh. Nevermind. Lost my appetite.
They seem to think otherwise, or they wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to change the FR to work with the new rules.
This touches on FR's strange status of always being dragged along to new editions (and generally being blown up in the process!) I dunno why FR is singled out for this treatment, but there it is. As far changing it to fit with the new mechanics, thats true to an extent. But you could run pre or post Time of Troubles FR in 2E or 3E, and I'm sure you can in 4E as well. Likewise, I'd expect you could run post-Spellplague in 2E or 3E if you so desired. Of course they're going to change things though, thats what sells books (which is primarily what they're trying to do!)
Plus, I liked the FR not just as a setting to play, but also as a setting to read about, and one where other things beside what happens in my campaigns are going on. Now that's gone, as I don't like the new canon, and that means that the new RPG books will be useless (they'll have mainly new setting info, none of which I want to keep), and so will be the novels (they play in a world I don't like).
I understand the disappointment in no longer having new material which you think you'll like (which I suspect drives a lot of the 4E angst) but you'll still have lots of (insert favorite version of FR) material to run in. Aren't there whole sections of FR yet to be detailed? <- only vaguely familiar with FR ideas here.
Read that quote again: I wasn't talking about the realms. I was talking about D&D.
I have to agree with CWM here. DnD may be collective in that everyone creates pieces for it, and even shares among each other (something that I'm sure will happen in 4e) but the core settings have always been the companies. We pay to play with them, but by no means do we own them. Sure other companies made stuff using the OGL, but thats just changing the name of the company, not the reality of the situation. Paizo owns Golarion (I'm assuming Pathfinder world?) as much as Wizard's owns FR. And likewise, they're as free to blow it up, if they so desire.
For Wizard's (and TSR, for that matter) the situation with FR is "use them or lose them." If they don't publish FR resources then the rights to it revert to Ed Greenwood, who is then free to offer it up to other companies if any of them want to take a chance on it. And while FR RPG material doesn't sell anywhere near as well as core books, it's probably still bigger than any other setting out there. I expect quite a few companies would line up to take it over, and it would make them more than any other setting. Even split from the novel lines, it would still be a significant acquisition. It's possible that more than 5% of the people currently playing D&D use FR as their setting.
Very interesting, and illuminating! I didn't realize Mr. Ed could grab ahold of his original property if WotC dropped it. Does explain why FR's been dragged along so far though ... thanks!
If they don't publish FR resources then the rights to it revert to Ed Greenwood
Really? I never heard that before. My understanding of it is that WotC owns the whole ball of wax.
|
|
Read that quote again: I wasn't talking about the realms. I was talking about D&D.
...
During the days of 3e, there was the OGL, and other companies - actually, everyone - was allowed to create stuff using the rules and even sell it. Because of that we have things like Midnight, the Tomes of Horrors, Pathfinder, and so many other good things.
And that door is not closing. The conditions are changing but third parties will still be allowed to publish for 4E.
The OGL does not mean that everything published is public domain. D&D, even under the OGL, does not belong to everyone. Yes, there are a number of publishers and options available to us but that will be true in 4E as well.
In the context of game worlds - they are owned by the publishers. I a publisher wants to change things for whatever reason they can, they have, and they will continue to do so.
|
|
I still do not see the big problem with the fluff changes. Take the realms for example. You just do not move your realms into the new era. You keep it where you want. Keep the current Cosmology (in my game the dieties very rarely if ever make a showing anyway - the are mostly just flavor). Keep all the demons the same. Keep the many races of elves the same. I do not think it is that hard. Now there are going to be some changes to the magic system and I certainly do not understand those yet but in the realms find a way to include the changes without throwing out the baby. If I knew more about this I would make a suggestion.
As it is you can play the realms in any part of the timeline you want. You can play in the original myth drannor, you can play in the arcane age. Granted you have to make up most of your own stuff (something I do not choose to do anymore) but many DMs do that anyway.
I do not know about the agreement with Ed, but I would say that one reason the FR has survived so many edition changes is the novels. They have always been popular. On the other hand the Dragonlance novels still seem to be selling but it has not continued in the same way. It is a shame though that WotC pulled the license on Dragonlance.
I think one of th big issues with the people who are so puset is influenced by all the changes at once. The loss of the magazines (which I still think serbved us well int he long run because we got Pathfinder which I consider superior to the magazines. The loss of Dragonlance, etc.
I think one of the larger underlying issues with a lot of the mechanics and flavor changes lies not with the actual end product, but rather the way it has come about. Granted my views are a bit paranoid, but I think a lot of the 4e haters can empathize with me. I think that by and large Hasbro can be kicked in the shins.
[WotC]: Hey Hasbro overlords, we would like to rehash the Dungeons and Dragons rules and issue an update in 24 months. We believe we can invigorate the roleplaying market and attract new youthful consumers.
[Hasbro]: Great, instead of 24 months how about you finish it in 18. Also we want you to generate more profits because you're negatively impacting our availabe R&D budgets. Oh and our lawyers would like to make sure you dont force another OGL down our throats so they will be heavily involved.
[WotC]: We're going to be lynched...can we talk about this?
[Hasbro]: Nope, and if we dont believe that your new edition meets our standards and practice requirements we're going to cancel your funding and close the books on Dungeons and Dragons. The occult flare reflects negatively on our other market sales in the midwest united states anyway.
[WotC]: Crap...
------------------------------------------------------------
So now we end up with rules being changed just for the sake of changing rules. Because failure to shake the entire system up will allow for easy conversion of 3rd edition products to 4th edition. This wouldn't be so bad, except it doesn't seem like the game designers even buy all that they are trying to sell. I think that has come accross in some of the bizarre 'blogs' posted by designers that read as though they were copied and pasted from a Hasbro marketing memo.
We also see radical changes to the settings. Rather than introducing a new base world for dungeons and dragons we see a totally bass-akwards desire to hang on to the Forgotten Realms branding and protect various entities that have proven to be popular revenue generators (ie Waterdeep, Elminster, Drizz Do'Urden, and anything else that has appeared in a successful video game or novel). The whole thing seems like a blatant marketing ploy.
If WotC is trying to save the dungeons and dragons game for the forseeable future, they have to continue to appease Hasbro and make $$. The result is a new edition that lacks the thoughtfulness, respect and inginuity that we all (clearly not all but many) came to enjoy in 3rd edition.
I think THAT is the core of a lot of the anti-4e sentiment. It is not the fact that there will be changes or reprints of the same suplements with new stat blocks or alterations of the setting story lines. The problme IS that the changes do not seem to be built with the respect and care that many of the 4e haters expect from a revised dungeons and dragons. Rather it appears to be a profit driven, legalese heavy, insincere alteration of 30 years of tradition. It's not the change. It's the underlying motivations that appear to be flawed.
Sure my argument is based heavily on conjecture and a heavy amount of consipiracy theory. But what else can you honestly expect from someone that has spent 20 years imagining evil overlords and extra dimensional villains attempting to subvert the forces of good and conquer the known universe?
I still do not see the big problem with the fluff changes.
My problems with fluff changes are these.
1. making them integral into the book so you have to sift through and making it a severe hassle to ignore them Then having to nail down everything that came before and go to the work of reorganizing everything yourself.2. They are wasting valuable work time on it. It's obvious that this whole thing is rather rushed. To borrow a vehicle analogy, they are wasting time making "last minute rushed painting, chrome and interior color changes" when they should be "making sure the damn car runs efficiently and is safe to drive".
Sure I can ignore the fluff, but will I be able to ignore the "well we should've fixed this or that but just didn't have time, oh well 4.5 will fix it" crap. Also the excessive bloat of new add-on splatbooks and bulk they will add to the game trying to "fix what should've been done before it left the shop".
That is my complaint in a nutshell. I eagerly await a better system. I fear a half-assed system.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Honestly, nine times out of ten "You can't buy magic items in my game" is a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't understand the concept of game balance... which is, itself, a big flashing warning sign that your DM doesn't know what he's doing.
I completely disagree with this.
I've been running low magic campaigns in each and every edition. The key for low magic campaigns is to change encounters to include items that are absolutely necessary to keep the game running, and to make a few changes to the creatures resistances to make low magic work for the PCs (such as changing DR/Magic to DR/Silver (or other substance) - to cite one example).
I've also been playing in campaigns that disallow the purchasing of magic items in every edition as well. If a character really wants an item, we just tell our DM and he'll try to fit the item in as a result of a revised or brand new encounter. We have to work for our magic. We can't just go down to the local Orc-Mart and buy a +3 Holy Avenger.
My point is both low magic campaigns and campaigns where magic cannot be purchased have been done, and done well. It is not a sign that the DM is in any way incompetent or "doesn't know what he's doing."
Try to consider the possiblity that other people have found ways to make the system work for them that you have not tried, rather than assuming them to be idiots.
And that door is not closing. The conditions are changing but third parties will still be allowed to publish for 4E.
It may not be closing, but it will get a lot smaller and more narrow. Sure, you can still go through, if by go you mean crawling sideways, dragging your possessions behind you.
Works like Star Gate d20 won't be possible any more. True 20, Arcana Evolved and the like will not be possible any more, and there will be other restrictions, probably making it harder (and less desirable) to publish other Campaign Settings under the CGL.
|
|
Works like Star Gate d20 won't be possible any more. True 20, Arcana Evolved and the like will not be possible any more,
True - and i see that as a good thing. The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.
and there will be other restrictions, probably making it harder (and less desirable) to publish other Campaign Settings under the CGL.
That is pure speculation at this point. Wizards confirmed the first but the second is just free floating anxiety. Until someone outside the WotC legal team sees the license we just don't know if this is true or not.
The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.
I disagree wholeheartedly. Sure a lot of garbage came out, but the OGL gave people/companies who had great ideas for games but not necessarily the ability or resources to "reinvent" the wheel that is game mechanics. Speaking as someone who has in the past attempted building a system on more than one occasion, it is literally a pain in the butt, when really all I want to do is "build my world", not "find the recipe for mud". Now some companies did simply use d20 as a springboard, and reworked it into something more their flavor. That is also a great thing.
Another wonderful thing about the ogl is it let people see that there were more options than just "vanilla D&D". Knowing the system you could play space, superheroes or just about anything. Their were companies stepping up to fulfill that need. It allowed people to have a bridge to other genres. What is wrong with that?
Now I get that Wotc *cough*hasbro*cough* feels they don't have enough control. They also are being very snobby about the whole deal. The condescending remarks about people playing the current game or variants, and the "only LEGITIMATE companies licensed and willing to pay $5k can get to see the rules early and publish in a decent time period. They also want to be able to say "what you want to publish 'such and such' with our rules? No that doesn't fit our standards!" (read: our narrow view of how things can/should be done) so we wont allow you to publish it. The worst part is they will have the "we are doing this to 'better' the community" attitude.
So, you can think that variation or options that include familiarity is a bad thing when it comes to games. I on the other hand respectfully use my right to disagree.
|
|
I prefer a more invisible transition. When 2E changed over to 3E, the Simbul became a Sorceress instead of a Wizard. No stupid in-game rationale needed. Just, 'Yeah, she was always a Sorceress.'
That, to me, was an example of getting it right.
Killing off the gods of assassins and illusionists because they were not going to be core classes, only to belatedly find out that, oh yeah, you could still be an Illusionist and PrC into Assassin felt like a huge 'doh' on the part of the writers. "Wait, we *subtracted* from the setting, made it less than it was, and the new edition didn't even require that? Hugely unpopular Time of Troubles, and it was completely bupkiss, with various gods crawling back to life and things being reset anyway? What the heck!"
If they just wanted to update the setting and have Piergeron 4.0 be a Warlord and not a Paladin, then big freaking whoop, so long as he's the same basic person. No different than having the Simbul 'always have been' a Sorceress. Much more elegant than blowing up the planet, jumping forward a hundred years and killing off a bunch of gods and heroes just to deal with some rules tweaks. Yeesh.
It's a *setting,* not a math equation. Change a few values and the story changes not at all.
True - and i see that as a good thing. The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.
I agree wholeheartedly. A lot of publishers said "Hey, there's this system I can use to publish this game I want to make!" without really considering if the d20 system was well-suited to that game. Like any system, d20 has very real strengths and weaknesses, things it does well and things it does poorly. A LOT of games that really would have been better-served by making their own system tried to carve out a piece of the d20 pie, and that turned out poorly for both the games and the system at large.
True, some games (like Starship Troopers) did a really good job of adapting d20 to its needs. But I can't help but wonder - would Starship Troopers have done better if it hadn't been d20? How many people were turned off by the d20 symbol on the cover?
True - and i see that as a good thing.
Having seen several of those systems, True 20 among them, I have to disagree.
They didn't do it because it's bad for the industry. They couldn't care less for the industry or their fans. They only care for themselves.
That is pure speculation at this point.
Speculation, maybe. Pure, not at all. Their recent actions, as well as all we heard about the changes in the license and the changes in the game point toward soemthing a lot more restrictive than before.
I haven't seen anything that even remotely suggests that they want to share anything.
I prefer a more invisible transition. When 2E changed over to 3E, the Simbul became a Sorceress instead of a Wizard. No stupid in-game rationale needed. Just, 'Yeah, she was always a Sorceress.'
That, to me, was an example of getting it right.
My thoughts exactly!
The Simbul herself didn't change. The rules changed, but the Simbul didn't. She was still an arcane spellcaster. They just wrote up her stats differently, using the new rules.
Killing off the gods of assassins and illusionists because they were not going to be core classes, only to belatedly find out that, oh yeah, you could still be an Illusionist and PrC into Assassin felt like a huge 'doh' on the part of the writers.
For the sake of correctness: During the 1e-2e change, there were no PrCs. That doesn't mean that there couldn't be any assassins or illusionists.
After all, an assassin is just someone who kills people for money, usually with sneaky methods. Even without the 2e assassin kit, you could just play a thief and call him assassin. He's got the abilities to do it. And of course, this became even better in 3e.
Same for illusionists. The separate class was eliminated, but you could still play a specialist wizard with a focus on illusion.
"Wait, we *subtracted* from the setting, made it less than it was, and the new edition didn't even require that? Hugely unpopular Time of Troubles, and it was completely bupkiss, with various gods crawling back to life and things being reset anyway? What the heck!"
And what if 5e (if there ever is one - and if there is, it will probably be out in 5 years) changes things again and those things they've killed for 4e become available once more? Will we have Elminster awakening from a bad dream, like in third-rate soap operas? (Well, since much of what was written about the new realms sounds like from a fourth-rate soap opera, it would actually be a step up)
|
|
The fact that the OGL allows derivative stand alone games is not good for this industry. There was a time when the Stargate game would have been a new system rather than a D&D retread. With the OGL it was a race to the bottom where the diversity of rules systems gave way to night of the living d20 variants.I disagree wholeheartedly. Sure a lot of garbage came out, but the OGL gave people/companies who had great ideas for games but not necessarily the ability or resources to "reinvent" the wheel that is game mechanics.
I see that as the heart of the problem. Unlike the open source software movement I see a bunch of companies essentially leaching of of WotC's intellectual property. Many of these OGL games have made radical changes that makes "backwards compatibility" impossible. Instead of open standards the OGL games have made changes to keep their work proprietary for all practical purposes.
I like the notion of d20 whereby third parties are free to create compatible products. That will allow for the creativity to flow and maintain open standards.
|
|
True - and i see that as a good thing.Having seen several of those systems, True 20 among them, I have to disagree.
They didn't do it because it's bad for the industry. They couldn't care less for the industry or their fans. They only care for themselves.
So you think its a good thing to take the work another company has done and change it just enough to be familiar but different enough to be less than compatible? How exactly does the proliferation of d20 knock offs help the market? Why should any company open up its IP to this kind of manipulation?
That is pure speculation at this point.Speculation, maybe. Pure, not at all. Their recent actions, as well as all we heard about the changes in the license and the changes in the game point toward soemthing a lot more restrictive than before.
I haven't seen anything that even remotely suggests that they want to share anything.
But its still speculation. You may feel as if it will happen but your just guessing based on emotional bias.
I see a bunch of companies essentially leaching of of WotC's intellectual property.
The SRD wasn't their "intellectual property" by the fact that it was OGL. Some things in D&D were and some things were not. If they were not part of the SRD then they were wotc's intellectual property and people could not use them. There is a difference. That is why they are changing the rules this time around so they can use an iron fist over what is and is not done by other companies. It is also an obvious push to shove the "little guy" out of business or at least keep him from using " the new toys".