|
I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
The crux of the accusation is that we've seen this before, with the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and from 3rd to 3.5.
I believe that while it is a good thing to try to draw lessons from history, it is a bad thing if similar events make you blind to how the events are really different. While there are certainly similarities (edition changes), there are clearly differences.
So, if you're in the group that isn't planning on switching to 4th edition (assuming you're playing 3.x now), why is this conversion different? Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?
For myself, I never said I was not switching editions before the release of 4th. That alone makes this different. If you're like me, what makes this different? I have my own answers, and will certainly offer them shorty (though I must leave now).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
I went to 3E because that was the current game system when I actively/regularly started playing. I switched happily to 3.5 after seeing the fixes, admittedly a little leery at first but pleased with the work.
Now, I'm of the not gonna change in the near future camp. I will keep running 3E, when that stops, if the only games I can find at 4E then I'll adapt as a player. But while there is life in 3E, I'm sticking to it.
why is this conversion different?
That is easy. The basic design principle is different. It is no longer "updating" or "improving" the rules, although some may think they are improvements. The new design philosophy is more about "streamlining" and "simplifying." Which isn't what I am looking for.
Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?
Kind of. I never claimed I wouldn't switch. But with 3.5 I was claiming "money grab." (Which it was, as well as a needed revision. It could have been handled with errata instead.)
In the end, I think the "we've heard all this before" argument is just a crutch. It seems to only be thrown out by people that can't counter the opinions against 4th Edition in another fashion.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
Best aspect of 3rd edition to be revised: Psionics Handbook to the Expanded Psionics Handbook.
No lame update, a complete overhaul into something that worked much better than any before. This and SAGA Edition (vs d20 Star Wars or RCR) are obviously what WOTC hopes will come of this 4E. They are shooting, hoping to not jump the shark.
I eagerly switched from 1st to 2nd Edition. My group at the time read Dragon and knew it was coming. As we got the previews of what was coming, we were excited with how they improved the game.
I didn't actually switch to 3rd Edition right away, but that was for reasons that had nothing to do with the edition change. I had stopped playing D&D regularly when the edition switch happened. I wasn't even fully aware that it did happen. My group at the time was playing Shadowrun exclusively, so that's what we were tinkering with at the time.
After quite a while (I didn't even switch until after 3.5 had come out), I finally looked at 3rd Edition to see what all the hubbub was about, and instantly became so excited about the new rules, I pestered my players to do something they didn't want to do -- play D&D again. They liked it. In fact, all of my friends who previously never played D&D because they hated it, had all converted to 3rd Edition.
I know at least one of my RL players wants to switch to 4e when it comes out, but I'm pretty sure the rest of us are on the fence, and I am really nonplussed by what I've been seeing. I have grave doubts I'll be switching because of that. 3rd Edition made me instantly excited. 4e very much does not.
During the switch from 2nd to 3rd I wasn't even playing D&D. I'd play d6 StarWars on occasion, but even that was rare. 3rd Edition got me excited for roleplaying again, and I dove in head first. From 3.0 to 3.5 it took me a year to convert, and it was only because I had players who refused to use the 3.0 PHB and had started picking up the complete books. I finally caved in and picked up the book so we were all on the same page.
This switch is considerably different for me: From 2nd to 3rd I wasn't gaming. I'm currently a very active gamer, and have no desire or urge to switch. (Now I better finish prepping for my game in 20 minutes)
I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
The crux of the accusation is that we've seen this before, with the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and from 3rd to 3.5.
I believe that while it is a good thing to try to draw lessons from history, it is a bad thing if similar events make you blind to how the events are really different. While there are certainly similarities (edition changes), there are clearly differences.
So, if you're in the group that isn't planning on switching to 4th edition (assuming you're playing 3.x now), why is this conversion different? Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?
For myself, I never said I was not switching editions before the release of 4th. That alone makes this different. If you're like me, what makes this different? I have my own answers, and will certainly offer them shorty (though I must leave now).
I've been giving this a lot of thought and have to say that frankly, I'm not the same type of person I was eight years ago and the circumstances around the edition change are entirely different.
For myself, I had gotten bored and had dropped out of playing Second Edition. I was playing a lot of other games, so when Third Edition was announced, it was a breath of fresh air and got me excited about D&D again. We started up a new Group and played our first campaign in years. The 3.5 shift didn't hugely effect our game and we just carried on.
This time around, however, I have a lot of 3.5 material that I will not be able to change over to 4th Edition (I have neither the time, nor inclination to try). Unlike the last big change over, I don't feel 3.5 has been exhausted and I'm not a returning prodigal.
I simply have no interest in 4th Edition and will not be buying the new rules anytime soon. It's not a stand over quality or a statement about where the game is going- I just don't see the point. I don't enjoy Con games, I don't have anyone looking to play 4th edition in my group and we have enough material to last at least until 2010. Initially I was annoyed by what I saw from WotC, but this has settled back into disappointed indifference- it's not going to effect my game for years yet, at least until we catch up to Pathfinder once it converts.Talking to my older group back in Europe, they're even less enthused and have converted out our old D&D campaign to GURPS. We're all in our 30's, babies are on the scene and 4.0 just isn't on the radar, never mind a priority. We like what we have and have better things to be doing.
The shortsightedness of the “you’ll just cave” group is this: those whom eventually end up switching often do so from a simple lack of viable alternatives (for example, look at the current Ebay auction changes). If quality publishers continue to provide 3.5 OGL materials, then there will be significantly less impetus to change to a less popular option.
Kind of. I never claimed I wouldn't switch. But with 3.5 I was claiming "money grab." (Which it was, as well as a needed revision. It could have been handled with errata instead.)
Well, to be fair, it was also a "TSR going out of business" thing. Errata couldn't have handled that.
In the land of capitalism, sometimes a "money grab" is necessary. Just saying.
That may actually be a difference between now and then. I haven't looked over the numbers, mind you, but I don't think D&D is going out of business at the moment. Others may disagree.
...why is this conversion different?
For me this conversion is different because I've bought a sh*t-load of books for 3/3.5 several that I haven't even used yet. I don't want to buy the same books for a new rules-set. I don't like spending money that much ya know. And it's as simple as that. I don't care if 4th realy is the best thing since sliced breasts, I just don't have the money (for 4th that is, not breast, I always have money for breasts).
I started with 1st ed. AD&D in 1980.
I'd stopped playing D&D before 2nd ed. came out (mostly Rolemaster, GURPS, West End Star Wars, and Runequest), so that was moot.
I got back into D&D with 3rd edition shortly after it came out, at the recommendation of a long-time gaming friend. I was pretty excited about how they'd improved things.
I switched promptly to 3.5, as I think most of the changes were needed fixes (that, and the low quality of the 3.0 splatbooks took a toll on our local game). Though I did grumble about the cost at the time.
I'm now running Runelords in a 3.5 game.
My group doesn't talk much about 4th. We're only now wrapping up Skinsaw Murders, so we'll playing 3.5 Runelords for a good many months yet. When that ends? I don't know. I'm buying the 4th ed. core books when they come out to see what the new game is like. I'll probably play the occasional Living Forgotten Realms game.
But whether the home game switches will probably depend mostly on Paizo, as Runelords has made me a Paizo fanboy. As far as I'm concerned, rulesets are a lot less of an investment (and I don't just mean money) than topnotch adventures. I simply don't have time (and self-confidence) to do my own campaigns.
<end ramble>
I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
If I had to choose a camp for myself, I'd be in the pro-4E one. Not sure if that matters or not; just thought I'd throw it out there ;)
Lying is a nasty word. People used it to blast WotC when 4E was announced. (IMO, they mostly danced around the truth.)
Applying that word here is probably wrong. Circumstances change; people change their minds.
I believe that a good number of the 4E?-Never! crowd will eventually make the switch...maybe sooner, maybe later. Why? Because it's the current version and will almost certainly become the most widely-played. Because a lot of us gamers need our monthly D&D fix, and that's going to be 4E stuff for the next several years. Because (IMO, again), I think the 4E ruleset is going to be better than a lot of the 3E die-hards believe.
I also believe that a decent number of them will indeed stick to their guns and play 3E/3.5...maybe more than stuck with earlier editions when 3E came out. Why? Because I think 3E/3.5 is a better, deeper game than those editions that came before it. When people say they have enough 3E/3.5 stuff to run games for years, they're not lying.
I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
The crux of the accusation is that we've seen this before, with the switch from 2nd edition to 3rd edition, and from 3rd to 3.5.
I believe that while it is a good thing to try to draw lessons from history, it is a bad thing if similar events make you blind to how the events are really different. While there are certainly similarities (edition changes), there are clearly differences.
So, if you're in the group that isn't planning on switching to 4th edition (assuming you're playing 3.x now), why is this conversion different? Did you say the same thing when 3rd came out and/or when 3.5 came out?
For myself, I never said I was not switching editions before the release of 4th. That alone makes this different. If you're like me, what makes this different? I have my own answers, and will certainly offer them shorty (though I must leave now).
FYI, as I have gone to great lengths to explain on other threads, I do *not* think people are "lying." I think they honest expect not to switch. I just think as 4E is rounded out and matures the value of being "current" with respect to the player network will simply become too great for most players to ignore. Obviously you are free to disagree with me, but please don't put words in my mouth.
In general, when people say they will "never" do something, it strikes me as hyperbole. How do you know what you will or won't do in a year? two? five? People are angy...I get that. But I think that angry is leading them to irrational decisions that will likely change when the anger isn't so fresh. Many may eventually realize a fractured player-base is bad (possibly lethal) for the hobby and take one for the team despite their misgivings.
And I often hear "things are different this time," and then I hear all the same arguments I heard when 3.0->3.5. And when 2.0->3.0. And when AD&D->2.0. Etc., etc., etc.
So yeah, I fully expect that most people will eventually switch, but no, I'm not calling anyone a liar. Things are rarely so black and white...
I started with the Basic rules in 1982 and within a year moved to AD&D. When second edition came out I eagerly bought it up and had mixed feelings about the changes, but still embraced it. Slowly through the 90s my house rules grew and interest in the game waned until I had pretty much quit playing by the time 3rd Edition came out. I didn't know about the edition change until 6 months after it came out and when I read about the changes to 3rd Edition I quickly became excited about D&D again.
4th Edition is the first one I'm not excited about and this time I have tons of 'old' (meaning 3.5) edition stuff to tide me over for quite awhile. My stance right now is that I'm not switching to 4th. I do think it's different this time, at least for me.
I also hope, for the sake of D&D's future, that 4th Edition is good and succesful.
I didn't switch to second edition in the first place. Made it hard to go from 2nd to 3rd.
You see, second edition was still AD&D while I played the other D&D (sometimes called basic, sometimes classic). (Non-A)D&D was still supported all during AD&D2's years and didn't stop until TSR/WotC came out with 3rd.
Besides, there are other RPGs out that look more interesting to me then D&D4. I'm not the kind of gamer that buys stuff just because it's D&D.
The "you're saying you won't switch but you really will" bit strikes me as a naively arrogant thing to suggest, and it is so disempowering. I truly like all the people who've said it and don't hold this insignificantly frictional POV against them. We all use barbed concepts from time to time, and well, you know barbs… Nevertheless, their sentiment makes me say, "What, you know me? You're so all-knowingly astute when it comes to your sociological and psychological read of human nature that I'm little more than a meat can with a psychic ingredients list on the side of my label?"
Sure I resented Dragon and Dungeon going digital. They lost me there, not because of said resentment so much as the medium itself. I don't read them because when it’s not being sent to my house it’s just a tree I don't hear falling in the forest--maybe the one saved by going digital, who knows?
But that isn't why I'm not going 4th edition.
I switched from box set to basic to 1st to 2nd to 3rd to 3.5 and I didn't gripe once. Certain new rules and rules alterations left me a bit cold, but I was interested in staying current and didn't want to lose the good thing into which I'd invested so much time.
However, people change. I built a room-spanning floor-to-ceiling oaken wall unit to hold all of my material, and then had to build another. It actually nauseates me to look at it all. As I've said before, it causes me to wonder where I've placed my priorities. This collection doesn’t exist in order to bolster my gaming (which has dwindled down to "once in a blue moon" and then only as a player in one of Nick Logue or Lou Agresta’s games); it's more a way of holding onto a beautiful perfect shard of my otherwise imperfect youth.
A big change in the D&D scene that would cause me to scrap old material in favor of all new material? I just can’t make that move at this stage in my life. I've enough material to game you all from now until Jorgmungandr drowns the world in poisonous blood if I so choose. That all said, I am likely to buy more 3.5 because it doesn't require me enduring a big change or summoning a renewed vigor for the D&D market. I just don't have it in me (really, you can check the label on the side of my can).
I, and co-writers, have a few projects that absolutely depend on IPs owned by Wizards. They’re fantastic and I hope Wizards will have us. I hope D&D survives and flourishes, and I sincerely hope they learned a few new things about public relations this time around. I just can’t follow along as a consumer. That isn’t a hardcore rant about not playing 4e, that’s just me telling you how it’s going to play out in my own little hopscotch square in this vast universe. Disbelieve me if you must, then question why you need to.
|
I am one of the people who have said that many of the people who currently say they won't switch will likely switch at some point.
I am not saying that anyone is lying. I think that each person that says they won't switch truly holds that intention.
My experience tells me that many of the staunch AD&D and 2E holdouts switched at some point. Many 3E holdouts switched to 3.5.
Lot's of regulars at my FLGS said at one point that they would never play game X, Y, or Z and eventually they changed their minds.
Minds can change, and in my experience they always have.
New editions bring new books, ideas, adventures, and other cool stuff. People start having a hard time finding a group to play an older edition. With D&D there are some that will always stay with an older edition and never buy into the newer ones.
That's okay too.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
Not sure if you are lumping me in there with the 'number of other posters' but what I said was
Doesn't mean anyone is lying.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.Not sure if you are lumping me in there with the 'number of other posters' but what I said was
Doesn't mean anyone is lying.
Why would such statements lump you in with the group DeadDMWalking mentions? Your opinion expressed an altogether different idea. Matter of fact, my post just above backs up the tail end of your point. Are you uncomfortable that I'm backing up your tail end?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why would such statements lump you in with the group DeadDMWalking mentions? Your opinion expressed an altogether different idea. Matter of fact, my post just above backs up the tail end of your point. Are you uncomfortable that I'm backing up your tail end?
It's more the sniffing around my tail end that freaks me out.
It's more the sniffing around my tail end that freaks me out.
Why would such statements lump you in with the group DeadDMWalking mentions? Your opinion expressed an altogether different idea. Matter of fact, my post just above backs up the tail end of your point. Are you uncomfortable that I'm backing up your tail end?
Not my fault your diet must consider solely of lavender and allspice.
How do I know what I'll be doing in a year, or two, or five?
By looking at my gaming past.
You know, no matter how many times I am reassured that I will probably switch, no matter what I say, the people giving those reassurances seem to miss a couple of things:
1.) I have already proven myself capable of skipping an entire edition -- I never really played 3.0. I got into it after 3.5 was released. Okay, I skipped half an edition, but it was a span of probably almost ten years without a D&D game of any kind. Which brings me to my next point...
2.) I have already proven myself capable of walking away from D&D entirely, and playing some other system, for many years, if I am unhappy with the current rules set. There are lots of reasons I stopped playing D&D, but among them was utter boredom with the 2e ruleset.
And finally...
3.) I have grown to despise minis, battlemats, square grid movement (especially when the only value for the space given is "1 square = 1 square"), and the effects these things have on combat and roleplaying. I have been led to believe by highly trusted people who've been play testing 4e, that minis, battlemats, and 1 square = 1 square are mandatory when playing 4e. This actually leads me to believe that I will likely never play 4e, since I've basically banned minis and battlemats from my table.
So please, reassure me again that I'll probably play 4th Edition, regardless of how I feel now.
|
I, along with a number of other posters have indicated that they won't be switching to 4th edition at any time in the forseeable future.
A number of other posters have implied that the first group is either lying, if not as individuals, at least as a collective. Most of the people are lying, even if some individuals are not.
I don't remember the switch from 1E to 2E. But I do remember looking at those Dragon articles about the new stuff coming in 3E and being pretty darn excited to hear about the Sorcerer and the new Fighter and the new stuff for Clerics (Domains and whatnot). We bought into it so damn fast that we ended up with the 1st printing PHB that was eratta-ed in 2nd printing and had a 'DOH!' moment when we realized that we had to buy the 2nd printing, too!
So far, 4E's previews have been less inspiring, somehow. I'm not sure how much of that is residual blowback from the decision to cancel Dungeon and Dragon, and how much is the tone of many of the posts, which suggest that something is profoundly wrong with 3rd edition, that it is unplayable, takes hours to do anything and is like 'boring homework' and that our games are really, really boring if we like them.
I don't recall the 2nd->3rd transition that well, but I can go look up the articles to confirm my suspicions that they did *not* crap all over 2nd edition, the way these 4E-previews are crapping all over 3rd edition, and, by extension, 3rd edition players (which, atm, includes anyone who isn't playtesting 4E).
I think the proliferation of, 'You're just saying that! You'll buy 4E the second it comes out! Liar, liar, pants on fire!' posting is kinda funny. They do seem to love insulting the crap out of anyone who doesn't have their love for the product that none of us have actually seen yet.
Ironically, my quibbles about 3E are that they haven't gotten around to re-introducing some of my favorite things from 2E, such as the Al-Qadim setting, or the various idiot changes made in the Time of Troubles, or the Totem-Sister kit from Elves of Evermeet. And now 4E is promising to cut down on a plethora of the stuff I like about 3E as well, and further contract the setting.
I fear that the game will get smaller and less interesting, and I sure as heck don't want it to fail!
3.x and the OGL produced a renaissance of D&D gaming. With a more restrictive license coming out, some of that innovation and enthusiasm is likely to disappear.
There has never been a better time not to switch.
I've never said I won't switch, but whether or not I will is entirely dependent on the 4e rules. If they are good enough and flexible enough to allow me to play in a variety of different gaming styles and model a variety of character and world concepts, then I will probably switch at some point.
The issues I have with 4e is that, from what little has been released by WotC, 4e will probably not be as flexible in allowing me to play in/with the same variety of styles, characters, and worlds as I can currently achieve with the 3.x PHB, DMG, MM, and the SRD (or a few simple house rules). Instead, it seems like 4e will be a stripped-down version of 3.x, with different mechanics, that's optimized for a specific style of play; adding insult to injury, if I want to get 4e versions of some of the material that's "3.x core" (not even counting the SRD; I'm talking half-orcs, druids, necromancers, etc.), I have to subscribe to D&D Insider and/or purchase additional books beyond the PHB, DMG, and MM. The "rebranding" of the majority of what's been developed over the last 30+ years also irritates me.
I will look 4e over and make my decision then. However, WotC has made their job of convincing me to switch more difficult from what they have released about the direction they are taking the game.
|
|
While I admit there is a possibility that the 'holdouts' might eventually migrate for reasons currently beyond their control, I don't consider it to be a forgone conclusion, and in fact, consider it highly unlikely. While there are certainly gamers that like buying 'new books', I've often considered myself to be in that category. However, as a gamer, I always have a choice about what I choose to buy. While I've almost always played D&D, there are other systems that I own and would like to spend more time playing. One reason that I've played D&D as long as I have is that it is easier to continue to play a game that my current group is familiar with.
While I might easily master a new set of rules, others have little interest in doing so. Since things clearly work differently in 4th edition, there is no real reason to switch to 4th edition instead of a different game (say, Hackmaster). There are also a lot of reasons not to switch to 4th edition (WotC Marketing, for instance). And, even if our group wants to play a game that only D&D has managed to capture the feeling of, 3rd edition will still work just fine.
There is a major difference between 2nd edition and 3rd edition. The current edition has a lot of 'interchangeable parts' and 2nd edition lacked that. For example, with the ease of multiclassing and the variety of feat options, it is much easier in 3.x to create the character that you want, rather than being locked into a predetermined archetype. I think that 3rd edition offers many more possibilities than 2nd edition, so it takes a lot longer to feel 'stale'.
The simple fact is that it hasn't gotten to that point for me, yet. So, even if I were ready to switch games I might not switch to 4th edition, the simple fact is that I am not ready to switch games. The thing is, not switching to 4th edition hasn't reduced my gaming budget. It simply means that I don't have to deduct what I would spend on gaming to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, DDI, etc. Figuring that before the cancellation of the magazines I averaged one WotC book purchase a moth, or so, I'm freeing up $35-$40 that can instead be spent on Paizo products without impacting any other aspect of my life. And, since the announcement, I've begun spending more on gaming. Since I'm interested in continuing playing 3.x, that is where my money is going. And since Paizo is currently one of the few companies producing 3.x materials, they're the major beneficiary of my spending. And since I've been looking at their new releases, I've also been buying more and more back products. I either have (or will soon have) every flip-mat, every non-random item card product, every map-tile pack, and of course all the things that come through my subscription.
If there becomes no outlet for me to buy 3.x material, I'll instead go back to spending more money with Reaper Minis. I have hundreds in need of painting, but they can be used in any system, and I love the quality.
Regarding why I switched from 3rd to 3.5, I really did believe that the system was better, and what's more, the production quality was significantly higher. I like hardbound books, and I like nice paper. I like the tacticle improvements in the Complete Warrior over the Sword and Fist. In this case, there has been nothing to indicate an improvement in quality with the newer edition (and in fact, there has been somethings that suggest lower quality, but it may be too early to tell). Different does not equal better.
So, I just don't see 4th edition being something I will need to play. I have a number of non-gamer friends who would be very interested in starting to play under the 3.x rules, but I simply don't have time to start another group. If our group fell apart, I'd start teaching others how to play in 3.x. And since I am already well acquainted with the rules and have LOTS of expansion materials, there won't be much incentive to switch to the more 'restrictive' 4th edition material (pending the release of too many splat books), and if they need simplification, I can simply limit what I allow in to my games.
One of the things that I like about the end of 3.x as far as rules expansions is that it is possible to start really making a version that includes things that I like without worrying about what the next supplement will bring. I'll have a chance to get used to the rules we have, the spells we have, the feats available, and I won't have to worry about an innocent combination 'breaking' with the next book's release.
It's definitely different this time around. The game was so utterly broken at the tail end of 2.0 that you had to have your own manual of house rules in order to play the game in a way that everyone was on the same page. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the term "house rules" was coined because of 2E. ;) 2nd Edition was going so many different directions there at the end that it simply had to be scrapped for a new edition in order to get it back on track.
When v.3.5 was announced, I admit, I was one of those people that complained, "Dammit! WotC's trying to grab up money from me again." However, I was aware that there were a lot of holes in the system they hadn't fixed properly when it went live. There was just a ton of errata for everything that it made sense to print a revision to the current system that incorporated all of those corrections and clarifications. After my initial reaction I was much more open and accepting of the v.3.5 books and have used them very happily ever since. (Not so this time)
The game was pretty much "fixed" after the revisions. Sure, there were still some flaws. I mean, no system is perfect. But the flaws were very easy to address.
So, then 4E is announced. Problem was that the claim that 4E is going to "streamline" and "simplify" an already streamlined and simplified game just doesn't jive. The consumer base was looking for more products like source books, adventures, other supplements, not a completely new system.
THAT'S the difference, IMO. YMMV, of course.
|
It's definitely different this time around. The game was so utterly broken at the tail end of 2.0 that you had to have your own manual of house rules in order to play the game in a way that everyone was on the same page. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the term "house rules" was coined because of 2E. ;) 2nd Edition was going so many different directions there at the end that it simply had to be scrapped for a new edition in order to get it back on track.
When v.3.5 was announced, I admit, I was one of those people that complained, "Dammit! WotC's trying to grab up money from me again." However, I was aware that there were a lot of holes in the system they hadn't fixed properly when it went live. There was just a ton of errata for everything that it made sense to print a revision to the current system that incorporated all of those corrections and clarifications. After my initial reaction I was much more open and accepting of the v.3.5 books and have used them very happily ever since. (Not so this time)
The game was pretty much "fixed" after the revisions. Sure, there were still some flaws. I mean, no system is perfect. But the flaws were very easy to address.
So, then 4E is announced. Problem was that the claim that 4E is going to "streamline" and "simplify" an already streamlined and simplified game just doesn't jive. The consumer base was looking for more products like source books, adventures, other supplements, not a completely new system.
THAT'S the difference, IMO. YMMV, of course.
well said.
The only area I differ from your post is that I never truly made the switch to 3.5ed. I use the rules I agree with and ignore the rest. I guess I play something akin to a 3.125.
|
|
I would not say I have been accused of lying. However, the 4E proponents seem to just take for granted that we will switch simply because its D&D and its current.
People did not buy New Coke just because it was from Coke and it was current. People did not buy the PS/2 just because it was from IBM and was current. People have not lined up out the door to get Vista. I do not understand why some people are having a hard time fathoming that a significant portion of the gaming community will not switch.
D&D is like a force of nature. From 1982 until 2000 my opinion was that D&D was just the game that paid the bills for my FLGS but that it kinda stunk as an RPG. But it was so big, and so established that it drew gamers into it. If that is changing then I just don't see it.
I see people here that don't want to switch. Fair enough. I believe you. But the market and the D&D juggernaut just keep rolling.
I still don't know I I will like 4E at all, but I would not bet against it selling like gangbusters. And if the pattern of history holds true then many who said they would not ever play it will, at some point, hop on the bandwagon. That's how D&D has always been.
|
|
The boards ate this one. It might show up again when they regurgitate the posts they swallow, but in case they don't, I'll put it back down. Thankfully I copy all of my posts to the clipboard now.
(PS - the post above has a quote attributed to me when it should be attributed to Set)
While I admit there is a possibility that the 'holdouts' might eventually migrate for reasons currently beyond their control, I don't consider it to be a forgone conclusion, and in fact, consider it highly unlikely. While there are certainly gamers that like buying 'new books', I've often considered myself to be in that category. However, as a gamer, I always have a choice about what I choose to buy. While I've almost always played D&D, there are other systems that I own and would like to spend more time playing. One reason that I've played D&D as long as I have is that it is easier to continue to play a game that my current group is familiar with.
While I might easily master a new set of rules, others have little interest in doing so. Since things clearly work differently in 4th edition, there is no real reason to switch to 4th edition instead of a different game (say, Hackmaster). There are also a lot of reasons not to switch to 4th edition (WotC Marketing, for instance). And, even if our group wants to play a game that only D&D has managed to capture the feeling of, 3rd edition will still work just fine.
There is a major difference between 2nd edition and 3rd edition. The current edition has a lot of 'interchangeable parts' and 2nd edition lacked that. For example, with the ease of multiclassing and the variety of feat options, it is much easier in 3.x to create the character that you want, rather than being locked into a predetermined archetype. I think that 3rd edition offers many more possibilities than 2nd edition, so it takes a lot longer to feel 'stale'.
The simple fact is that it hasn't gotten to that point for me, yet. So, even if I were ready to switch games I might not switch to 4th edition, the simple fact is that I am not ready to switch games. The thing is, not switching to 4th edition hasn't reduced my gaming budget. It simply means that I don't have to deduct what I would spend on gaming to buy a new PHB, DMG, MM, DDI, etc. Figuring that before the cancellation of the magazines I averaged one WotC book purchase a moth, or so, I'm freeing up $35-$40 that can instead be spent on Paizo products without impacting any other aspect of my life. And, since the announcement, I've begun spending more on gaming. Since I'm interested in continuing playing 3.x, that is where my money is going. And since Paizo is currently one of the few companies producing 3.x materials, they're the major beneficiary of my spending. And since I've been looking at their new releases, I've also been buying more and more back products. I either have (or will soon have) every flip-mat, every non-random item card product, every map-tile pack, and of course all the things that come through my subscription.
If there becomes no outlet for me to buy 3.x material, I'll instead go back to spending more money with Reaper Minis. I have hundreds in need of painting, but they can be used in any system, and I love the quality.
Regarding why I switched from 3rd to 3.5, I really did believe that the system was better, and what's more, the production quality was significantly higher. I like hardbound books, and I like nice paper. I like the tacticle improvements in the Complete Warrior over the Sword and Fist. In this case, there has been nothing to indicate an improvement in quality with the newer edition (and in fact, there has been somethings that suggest lower quality, but it may be too early to tell). Different does not equal better.
So, I just don't see 4th edition being something I will need to play. I have a number of non-gamer friends who would be very interested in starting to play under the 3.x rules, but I simply don't have time to start another group. If our group fell apart, I'd start teaching others how to play in 3.x. And since I am already well acquainted with the rules and have LOTS of expansion materials, there won't be much incentive to switch to the more 'restrictive' 4th edition material (pending the release of too many splat books), and if they need simplification, I can simply limit what I allow in to my games.
One of the things that I like about the end of 3.x as far as rules expansions is that it is possible to start really making a version that includes things that I like without worrying about what the next supplement will bring. I'll have a chance to get used to the rules we have, the spells we have, the feats available, and I won't have to worry about an innocent combination 'breaking' with the next book's release.
|
|
While I admit there is a possibility that the 'holdouts' might eventually migrate for reasons currently beyond their control, I don't consider it to be a forgone conclusion, and in fact, consider it highly unlikely.
That is very different then saying that I am off in looney land and that I am calling everyone a liar.
I totally get your reasoning. I am sure you will stick with 3.5.
But I am basing my opinion on past gamer behavior. Lots of people had lots of good reason not to switch to 3E. Many did not - at first. Then people played the game and liked it. The 2E holdouts slowly began to migrate to 3E. Now there are very few groups playing 2E. They are still out there but there are fewer of them every year.
Nothing about the current situation leads me to believe that this transition will be any different. It may take longer but by the time 5E comes along there will be very few groups still playing 3.5
|
|
IBM was a juggernaut in the personal computer market too back in the 80's. Then everyone started buying PC compatibles from companies like Compaq. IBM launched its brand new, non-compatible PS-2 system and expected everyone to dump their PC Compatibles for the its new system. After all, they were the IBM juggernaut.
Unfortunately WotC doesn't really have any real competition and their product is not a commodity like computer hardware.
We just switched to 3.5 in 2005 and we have three campaigns yet to play under that rule set (AoW, STAP and Ptolus) with three different DMs ready to run them that 4th edition is something we'll adopt in 3-5 years, probably.
I mean core rule competition. No other game comes close to D&D.Paizo? Green Ronin? Mongoose? If any of them support 3.X they become competition.
Unfortunately WotC doesn't really have any real competition and their product is not a commodity like computer hardware.
They may decrease the chance that certain individuals will buy the 4E core books.
But 4E competing with 3E isn't necessarily like competing with other systems. If some publishers continue to make 3E materials, 4E might wind up competing against itself, and a pretty popular version of itself at that. Sure, the 3E stuff can't put the D&D logo on the cover, but most don't already, and most of the gaming community knows that SRD means a pretty robust and enjoyable version of D&D.
It may ultimately not wind up being anything, but we'll know in a year.
Also, if you think that because something is no longer the supported product, I would like
to point out that vinyl records are alive and well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I mean core rule competition. No other game comes close to D&D.
The biggest difference, overall, between 3.x --> 4.x vs. 2e --> 3.x is that third parties couldn't make 2e supliments. We have the ability to legally make 3.x product. If the CGL is as some of us fear, then publishers are looking at a powerful incentive to not change.
I think WotC will see their mistake and make it easier to make 3rd party content for 4.x. That said, I'm still thinking that the OGL let a Genie out that can't be bottled.
Also, if you think that because something is no longer the supported product, I would like to point out that vinyl records are alive and well.Yes, insofar as they are still produced, but they are not what they used to be.
Can't beat the sound of vinyl. CD is a piss poor substitute.
Can't beat the sound of vinyl. CD is a piss poor substitute.
Oh please no! Let's not start that debate. I agree with you The Jade... But trying to convince non-audiophiles is worse than reading the 4th Edition debates.
Can't beat the sound of vinyl. CD is a piss poor substitute.Also, if you think that because something is no longer the supported product, I would like to point out that vinyl records are alive and well.Yes, insofar as they are still produced, but they are not what they used to be.
Agreed. I don't know what it is about 'em, but I'll take a good record over an average CD any day.
|
While there are certainly gamers that like buying 'new books', I've often considered myself to be in that category. However, as a gamer, I always have a choice about what I choose to buy.
I compare this to when World of Darkness changed their edition, dumping whole clans/tribes/etc, and introducing new ones. To me, this just turned the history, the world, current characters, plots etc upside-down for no good reason.
I had a bookcase full of previous WoD products, which clearly places me in the 'like buying new books' category, but I refused to purchase a single new edition WoD. I'm not saying this is what will happen with 4E, but it has happened before, and I can certainly see comparisons.
If Paizo stayed 3.5, and continued to release 'new books', then they would appeal to those that wished to remain 3.5, but still 'like buying new books'!
|
|
That is very different then saying that I am off in looney land and that I am calling everyone a liar.
I don't think you're calling anyone a liar. I do think you're implying it. The big difference is that when I talk about the future, I do qualify it. There are many possibilities.
I do think that is edition change is different, though. I don't think you'll see people saying they won't switch and then doing it. If only one company stays with 3.x I'm almost certain that as a group, they won't. There is no 'historical comparison'. It's almost like looking at how many people switched from D&D to World of Darkness when it came out... Totally different systems and D&D was still 'alive and well'.
So, there is a chance that everyone (except me) is just pretending that they're sticking with 3.x and it is all some kind of big joke that I'm just not cool enough to be in on, but I take the posters at face value because that seems to make the most sense.
My experience tells me that many of the staunch AD&D and 2E holdouts switched at some point.
Question: How do you know? I mean the internet was around back then (younger then it is now, but still it was around) and people wrote into Knights and Dragon and what not and people complained. Well the complaining has, for the most part, stopped. Does that mean that they all converted? Does that mean the majority of those that said they'd never convert converted? No. I'd sooner believe that the majority of them went to different games or still play AD&D. Goodness knows you still hear from a few AD&D holdouts, both here and ENWorld. Yes, the majority of people that you know that said they'd never convert to 3.0 converted may have converted. But for you to speak for the community as a whole, I find arrogant and presumptuous.
We do know that around the time that 3.0 and a few years that followed, that other RPG companies experienced increase sales. Some attribute that to the launch of 3.0. Personally, I think they're close. I think it a sizeable percentage of them were gamers that left D&D since no further supplemental material was being produced.
I compare this to when World of Darkness changed their edition, dumping whole clans/tribes/etc, and introducing new ones. To me, this just turned the history, the world, current characters, plots etc upside-down for no good reason.
Perfect example. Some people still do not consider the nWoD the equal of the oWoD and refuse to play the nWoD. I'd definitely say that that is true for now. 4E is not the equal of 3.5 D&D. Did WW convert over the whole fanbase, heck no. Now add in the OGL. So imagine products coming out for nWoD and oWoD at the same time. Now imagine they are in direct competition with each other. Who'd win? I'd sooner believe the oWoD, regardless of how much I like the nWoD.