The biggest difference, overall, between 3.x --> 4.x vs. 2e --> 3.x is that third parties couldn't make 2e supliments.
I'd disagree. I'd say the biggest difference overall is that 3.0 had a perfect storm of success while 4.0 had almost a perfect storm of failure.
3.0, many fans said the new edition should have come long ago, 4.0, many fans say the new edition is coming to soon.
3.0 appealed to alot of people that wanted to get back into gaming after being away from it for so long (who now have jobs and disposable incomes and resonably predictable lives where they could schedule in a weekly game). 4.0, is being targetted at a whole new (and younger) audiance who are still in high school who would at best have a minium wage job and have attenction spans of gnats.
3.0, the system showed a number of substantial improvements over the previous system that made the game easier to use. 4.0 so far has shown a number of differences for difference's sake and for the sake of getting around the 3E OGL.
3.0, TSR stopped listening to their customer base and producing products that they want while WotC listened to the customers. 4.0, WotC has stopped listening to their customers.
3.0, The new edition felt like it was being pushed forward by the OGL believers, D&D champions, and those tha want what is best for the game. 4.0, The new edition feels like it is being pushed forward by marketting guys, lawyers, accountants, and those that want what is best for corporate profits.
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.
Well...I'm a non-audiophile, and I get it. But not because I can hear the difference, or even care, but because craming soundwaves into digital data is inherently "lossy," no matter how many samples you take, or how big those samples get.
I don't even see how this one is a debate...people who think CDs at their best can sound better than records at their best are just mistaken.
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.
Agreed. I don't know what it is about 'em, but I'll take a good record over an average CD any day.
But what if I can weave this threadjack back into the main topic? I have certain albums on both CD and vinyl. The CD sound is plastic and clean and the vinyl makes it sound as if the band is actually playing in the room. CDs are an audibly inferior yet more convenient product and two minutes in anyone's sound room will prove the point.
That said, I never said I wouldn't switch to CDs back when they first emerged. I was all about switching. CDs were supposed to be the shiny, smooth, hard plastic wave of the future. It was like I was Buck F@ckin' Rogers or something! Wait... this new invention... it... it doesn't really sound that great. And here I bought 180 of them in the first two years before figuring that out.
Their upside? Well, at least I don't have to try and drive my car steadily while attempting to play records on a dash mounted turntable. I'm somewhere between type A and type B driver as it is and the sound of a skipping needle dancing peppily across my records would send me over the edge straight to type AAA driver--armed and dangerous with severe mommy issues. So CDs are great for driving. I'm also thankful that I can burn files onto CD rather than needing to pound away on a laptop so immense it can press my files down onto LPs. That size of femur-snapping latop is little old skool for me.
Hey, new D&D will be more convenient in certain ways too, but something will invariably be lost in the change and each D&D enthusiast must decide which sides of the line they want to stand on based on personal preference--3.5, 4e, or just play both. That's the way of things. And there's always a new versus old debate. Some people drink soda with sugar in it and say it's the best. Others drink down whatever new stuff a lab creates and consider their drink superior. So, I don't begrudge anyone for enjoying a tasty counterfeit sugar, I just don't want to be called out for staying with the non-carcinogenic and as it now turns out less-fattening sweetener like I'm some kind of dinosaur who doesn't keep up with the latest flavor science or groundbreaking weight loss research. Laser surgery was supposed to be better and it quite often isn't. Every appliance is now full of plastic parts and breaks after a few years, one day after the warranty expires. My grandparents still have the washing machine they had back in 1981. Sometimes old stuff is good. Then again sometimes old stuff sucks the wrinkles out of dingo scrote and needs serious revision. Companies don't actually improve their product each year as a rule, they quite often try to figure out how to charge more while offering less. Just keep your eyes open people and make up your own minds and never, never believe the hype.
Well...I'm a non-audiophile, and I get it. But not because I can hear the difference, or even care, but because craming soundwaves into digital data is inherently "lossy," no matter how many samples you take, or how big those samples get.I don't even see how this one is a debate...people who think CDs at their best can sound better than records at their best are just mistaken.
I knew a guy who had custom built speakers set up in a big empty room with nothing but wood floors and sound equipment. He invited me in and put on a recording of the 1812 Overture. I'm surpised the thunderous booming of those cannons at the end didn't bring the cops. Hearing sound as good as it gets ruined me because now everything else seems like a tinny music box by comparison. Same with visuals. I never saw the need for a high def TV until I really saw a good High Def TV. Now, when I try to watch a CRT I worry my vision is blurring. I'll tell you, High Def spotlights every dermal irregularity on an actor's face. Pock marks from childhood illness big enough to hold salsa. Skin tags the size of inchworms... It is one cruel medium. Ignorance was bliss.
|
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?
I switched quite enthusiastically to 3.0 both because 2e was not really in my chords - I played it for some years (mostly the GH, FR and DS settings), then went for a 6 years-long Call of Cthulhu campaign - and because I saw most of the changes brought forth by the new d20 system as an improvement.
Moreover the build-up preview that was published on Dragon has been a very succesfull marketing campaign, at least IMO.This time there is neither the tiredness of the present time (3.X) ruleset, nor the interest in the rules changes proposed and in the overall design/theme of the new edition.
I won't kick the dead horse of the 4E marketing campaign.
|
For me, it's all about CONVERSION.
According to WOTC, it will not be easy to change a character or adventure from 3.5 to 4e, let alone a campaign.
While I have no problem with starting up new campaigns, every previous edition, whether D&D or AD&D, was at least somewhat able to flow from one to the other. Maybe you had to dump a few of your characters (1st Ed Monk and Bard), maybe they underwent some radical changes (everyone from 2nd to 3rd ed), but you could still keep the majority of characters going in your campaign, as well as the history.
4e appears to have such radical changes in both fluff and mechanics that any transference will be incredibly disjointed.
Going by what has been announced so far.
BTW, I played 'em all, and was enthusiastic about every one once I started to see the previews: from blue basic, to 1st ed, to 1.5 (Unearthed Arcana 1), to Basic Expert Master, to 2e,3e,3.5 (with a side trip into yet another Basic Set).
I'm not this time. I will not rule out changing my mind, but it will be uphill for WOTC.
DIE DEAD HORSE DIE!;)
Some aspects of this thread sort of surprise me.
I can see where it would be sort of irritating that someone could imply that you don't know your own mind on a particular subject. That they would be so presumptuous enough to try to tell you how you think.
Even still, I don't think anybody has been called a liar, and nor do I think anyone has actually lied either. What would be the point, and who the hell would care? Yet, I can appreciate the frustration of someone saying, 'Yeah, but you'll change your mind later.'
The term liar is a dangerous one in civil discourse. I usually see it bandied about as a way to bring the conversation to an abrupt close by ending the debate and going straight to personal confrontation. I've known some co-workers who were good for that, "SO.. WHAT? ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR?!?" They bulge their eyes, raise their voices to an uncomfortable volume and seek to attract attention from nearby third parties. Invariably the instincts of the other person are to back down, because people don't like angry confrontation, or the perception that they might be attacking this person who is now loudly defending themselves. There can be a manipulative quality to it.
Nevertheless, to say 'You believe that now, but my experience says you'll change your mind later' is rather patronizing too. It’s a passive aggressive way of saying, 'Doesn't matter what you tell me, I know what you'll do better than you do.'
In the end, it doesn't matter if another poster believes you or not on your decision whether you'll change editions or not. Their opinion has only the value you assign to it.
Likewise, it's fine if you think someone's stated decision is likely to change later, but the need to volunteer that opinion to them stems from something else.
************************************
Actually, I think a large determining factor on whether people change editions or not depends on if someone is willing to GM it for them or not.
GM's are like clergy, doctors, nurses, and teachers.. There are never enough of them or they're always in short supply. GMing is hard work, and while it's a lot of fun, it's also service to the needs of other people.
I find it hard to believe that if someone volunteers to run a game (with the basic assumption they know what they're doing and are halfway good at it), that players are going to be unwilling to give it a try.
That's the most basic and compelling means by which people *might* start switching.
To get people GMing, there is a need for good support material.
Ironically, I think WOTC will be more dependent on 3rd parties like Paizo initially, than the other way around. WOTC will need people to be GMing this game until it takes off with some momentum and inertia of its own.
|
My experience tells me that many of the staunch AD&D and 2E holdouts switched at some point.Question: How do you know?
I worked at my FLGS when 2E came out. I watched the AD&D holdouts come in over the course of the first few years and switch no matter how much they said they would not. I also watched as the 4 Friday night groups moved one by one from AD&D to 2E.
I just seem to recall a whole lot of people saying they'd never play 3.5.
I just seem to recall a whole lot of people saying they'd never play 3.5.
Doesn't mean they didn't convert. They could have simply stopped complaining. I mean I stop complaining about star wars D20 several years ago and I never converted.
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.
I agree with this. In my case I skipped 2nd edition and was happy with 1st ed (or AD&D as we called it). I had slowed my gaming a bit and was using a very house ruled system when 3ed came out- because of 3/3.5 my gaming is now as regular as I could reasonably expect. I dont need a change.
(I have to say looking back at my 1st edition house rules they still have the stuff I like - 4 core classes - graduating to Paladin or ranger after a few levels of fighter, skills that went up with training and levels, statistics that went up with training- a lot of stuff that kind of appeared in 3e)
4e isnt seeking to rejuvanate a tired industry IMO. I dont know the marketing reasons for it- but from my POV it is not going to give me a reason to play more. That is the reason for a lack of enthusiam, and that is the difference IMO.
--I dont really understand how you can have 'played out' 3ed yet.
|
I just seem to recall a whole lot of people saying they'd never play 3.5.
True, but that was mostly based on the fact that it was released so soon after 3.0 and perceived to have had only minor changes. People were upset at having to replace their core books in such a short time-frame when the benefit wasn't obvious to many. The predominant reason for objections, was it seemed like a blatant money-grab.
However, 3.5 was compatible enough with 3.0 that it was easy enough to mix and match 3.0 with 3.5 books, and house-rule the differences. It was still the same game. Conversion wasn't difficult, and the transition occurred smoothly for most.
This time around, however, it's a whole different story - the changes affect every aspect of the game, and are quite extreme by comparison. It's a much larger step to make converting to 4.0 than it was to 3.5.
|
I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.
CWM,
Sometimes, after reading some of your posts, I get the feeling that you could really benefit from an "exchange program." I'd think it would be interesting to sit in on one of your high level games and see the whole process from your point of view. Then, I'd like to have you pull up a chair for one of mine so you can see where some of us come from on 3.xE's "playability."
Hopefully, we'd both benefit from the experience.
FP
I can't switch to 4e, even if I wanted to. I talked too much crap allready.
I talked a lot of crap at first, and I'm switching (sort of, I'll still play 3.5/2nd/1st edition when I can).
|
|
I can't switch to 4e, even if I wanted to. I talked too much crap allready.I talked a lot of crap at first, and I'm switching (sort of, I'll still play 3.5/2nd/1st edition when I can).
You didn't talk nearly as much crap as me. And I'm on Sebastian's radar.
Plus, Crosswiredmind would use my conversion for his purposes.
I dont really understand how you can have 'played out' 3ed yet.I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.
fair point- this isn't what I thought was meant by 'played out' but I get this gripe. The beauty of any new system is the flaws are less obvious and dont bug you as much- I think 4e looks like it will at the very least be different enough to fit this bill- for a while.
Heathansson, I will GM for you that way you can try it for free. I WILL sign an NDA saying you didn't play 4E so you can keep talking smack about it. ;)
Just keep it straight. A d20 is a lot different than a double D who is 20.
I never bought a 3.5 Player's Handbook. I said at the time that Andy Collins screwing up the Charge mechanics and changing the Nash Equilibrium of the hold spells to one where it was inconceivable that you would survive were bad changes that I was not going to spend 30+ dollars on. I stuck to my guns and kept playing with largely 3rd edition rules.
That did not stop me from getting and enjoying material such as Frost Burn. It was entirely usable with my own house ruled but recognizable 3rd edition campaigns.
When I say that I won't switch to 4th edition unless and until it has all the things I want in it, I'm dead serious. And right now it looks like it will never have what I want because what I want includes not having limited class/weapon associations like Diablo II.
-Frank
I worked at my FLGS when 2E came out. I watched the AD&D holdouts come in over the course of the first few years and switch no matter how much they said they would not. I also watched as the 4 Friday night groups moved one by one from AD&D to 2E.
I know of a number of groups that never changed from AD&D, they just shifted into Hackmaster so their system was at least still in print (for those who may not know, H.M. is AD&D with the serial numbers filed off). At the time I was a bit bemused by such intransigence, but now I get it- they simply don't feel the need to change.
|
|
I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.CWM,
Sometimes, after reading some of your posts, I get the feeling that you could really benefit from an "exchange program." I'd think it would be interesting to sit in on one of your high level games and see the whole process from your point of view. Then, I'd like to have you pull up a chair for one of mine so you can see where some of us come from on 3.xE's "playability."
Hopefully, we'd both benefit from the experience.
FP
That would be interesting. But you should know that I have played high level games with quite a few different GMs in the RPGA. They all tried various methods to speed up play. The result is always the same - we get 4 to 5 hours to complete a mod that has three combat encounters plus a lot of roleplaying and invariably we never get to finish unless we absolutely break the mod and steamroll the encounters. Of course they couldn't use house rules, but I never liked the idea of house rules. In my opinion, if a game needs house rules then it needs to be revised.
I do like D&D from levels 4 to 10. That is why I like the idea that 4E looked at the underlying math to widen that sweet spot.
The only way I see to widen the 3.5 sweet spot is to house rule the crap out of it.
|
|
I can't switch to 4e, even if I wanted to. I talked too much crap allready.I talked a lot of crap at first, and I'm switching (sort of, I'll still play 3.5/2nd/1st edition when I can).You didn't talk nearly as much crap as me. And I'm on Sebastian's radar.
Plus, Crosswiredmind would use my conversion for his purposes.
Actually, I would not.
I have never been an "I told you so" kind of person.
In fact I would say that the chances of me actually liking 4E are about 60/40 in favor at this point.
If I don't like it I do expect many people here to say "I told you so" even though they would be mistaken since I never said I would like it in the first place.
I just can't fathom how anyone would say that they hate it at this point never having played it.
I dont really understand how you can have 'played out' 3ed yet.I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.
Have any other games caught your eye?
|
|
That would be interesting. But you should know that I have played high level games with quite a few different GMs in the RPGA. They all tried various methods to speed up play. The result is always the same - we get 4 to 5 hours to complete a mod that has three combat encounters plus a lot of roleplaying and invariably we never get to finish unless we absolutely break the mod and steamroll the encounters. Of course they couldn't use house rules, but I never liked the idea of house rules. In my opinion, if a game needs house rules then it needs to be revised.
I do like D&D from levels 4 to 10. That is why I like the idea that 4E looked at the underlying math to widen that sweet spot.
The only way I see to widen the 3.5 sweet spot is to house rule the crap out of it.
In a sense, thats the beauty of not playing in the RPGA, you don't have to finish a module in one session. I just posted in the Dungeon message boards that I ran the Razing of Redshore as an introduction for epic level gameplay for people who have never played above 14th level before.
It took about five hours to go through three combat encounters, roleplaying as they investigated the town, and devising divinations to try to gain an edge. So far sounds like what you hate right?
That time also included the time I took to examine the PC sheets for errors (found a few), and one of players is the 10 year old daughter of another player (and with the attention span of one too!). Both factors slowed the game down some, but I'm expecting to finsh the adventure this Saturday.
I'm sure that if a serious gamer like yourself sat down at my table to play, your character would always be ready to roll.
Houserules used: None that I was aware of, everything went by the book.
Player Reactions: I was told in no certain terms that dire things would happen IF I DID NOT RETURN this Saturday for more. They're hooked.
Also,
I just can't fathom how anyone would say that they hate it at this point never having played it.
The same way that someone can claim that 4E rules will solve the problems they have with 3.xE without having ever played 4E. You've seen previews of mechanics that WOTC has always said is subject to change and you've liked what they said. However, a lot of things that have been said are arguably "mere puffery" (its a lot "cooler" or "simpler to run"). They say they've extended the "sweet spot" to all levels of gameplay, but until you've actually played it, you have no clue how they define the "sweet spot" or if you'd agree with them.
In summary, to claim its illogical to judge a product negatively by previews alone while viewing it positively on the same previews is rather... off.
I honestly cannot recall you ever stating that 4E would fix everything you feel is wrong about 3.xE, and you have always said that you'd leave D&D altogether of 4E is not what you're looking at. I will say that I can't remember you ever telling a pro-4E person they're hasty for being excited about a alleged improvement.
FP
The only way I see to widen the 3.5 sweet spot is to house rule the crap out of it.
I have to agree with the prince. Try the game as far away from the RPGA as possible. It really make a huge difference if the DM can just make a judgement call and then move on. Things like giving indecisive players a time limit, house rules, and getting away from new players that don't know the rules will speed up play alot. And try the game on the other side of the shield for a while. You really sound burned out of DMing.
And don't think of house rules as a dirty word. Rules are there to serve the game; the game is does not serve the rules. If the RAW does not work well for that particular group, then they should be changed. IMO, those house rules should be incorporated into a game if a large number of players use the exact same house rule.
|
|
IMO, the real problem with RPGA play (which I experienced for the first time last year at GenCon, since the gamers in my group had awful experiences with them many years past, and shooed me away from them), is that you end up at a table with a bunch of strangers. Everything takes longer, as the people rarely know each other (and worse, when some of them do, you become a fifth wheel, as they coordinate together).
At home, playing with friends, the session can take as long as it takes, and the adventure can stretch out over multiple sessions, with occasional spouse interruptus, child interruptus and 'who wants pizza?' interruptus. And yet it goes faster, because we know each other. (DMing is also easier, since I have some experience with what they are likely to do, and I've had more than a cursory glance at their character sheets, often having helped design them, and I know what the characters are capable of.)
So to my mind, saying that 3.5 falls down because of the nature of 4 hour RPGA sessions at conventions, is kinda like saying that driving sucks because you live and work in a hospital zone and can't ever go over 25 MPH. You're not getting the full 'driving' experience if you are limited to RPGA games, with their artificial constraints, only a specifically limited subset of the possibilities.
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.By that time, you may be able to jump directly to 5th Edition.
Cool!!!
By that time, you may be able to jump directly to 5th Edition.Cool!!!
Why is that cool? That's edition where anything resembling the OGL is perminently gone. From that point on it'll be paid licences for the ability to write single standalone adventures.
|
|
So to my mind, saying that 3.5 falls down because of the nature of 4 hour RPGA sessions at conventions, is kinda like saying that driving sucks because you live and work in a hospital zone and can't ever go over 25 MPH. You're not getting the full 'driving' experience if you are limited to RPGA games, with their artificial constraints, only a specifically limited subset of the possibilities.
To be fair to CWM, he stated before that he's experienced similar problems in his home games and not just at tthe RPGA. I think that, to a certain extent, some of his group's problems are self inflicted. I think this is especially true given his group's tendency to implement what seems to be most of the possible rule "add ons" from various splat books. For example, he complained of the high level dice rolls slowing combat down. Upon inquiry he disclosed that his reference to rolling a "bucket of dice" was his friend's TWF Dervish character with a lot of weapon modifiers that... added more dice to his attacks.
On the other hand, CWM does have legitimate observations about different aspects of them game. While I may not agree with their severity or impact, I can understand where he's coming from.
I made the switch from basic D&D to AD&D in a matter of months. I made the switch from AD&D to 2nd Edition AD&D within the span of new books being available. But there's something to note here:
Most of my 1rst Edition stuff worked pretty easily with my 2nd Edition rulebooks when the transition happened. In fact for about a year or so, TSR was putting out books that were "bridge" books meant for use with either. I didn't lose the functionality of my previous books when the change happened.
When TSR went belly-up and then WotC saved D&D and released 3rd Edition, my gaming group was in the middle of a massive 2nd Edition campaign. We were all excited that WotC's staff at the time were all basically contemporaries of our age group and generation, brought up with AD&D and they had a "By Gamers, For Gamers" attitude for 3rd Edition. We all bought the books and quickly realized that it was not going to be compatible with our ongoing campaign, so we decided to finish the game and prepare a new one in 3rd Ed as soon as this one concluded. None of us felt anything was bad or unfair at the time but we all said the same thing... "This is an awesome game, but it's not quite D&D." Nobody pretended that it was the same. For us, it was a re-invention or reinterpretation, like listening to a cover song of an classic oldie by a talented new band.
Now over time, as the game grew more colorful in variation and many old-school things and concepts "reincarnated" under new rules, we gradually accepted 3rd Ed as our game again.
When 3.5 came out, we all had mixed feelings. Many of us felt like Monte Cook in that a new edition wasn't necessary and it was partially a money-grab. But there were enough fixes and changes that we felt improved the game that we accepted it. In addition, like the old transition of 1rst to 2nd, 3rd Ed to 3.5 Ed was smoothed near seamless, and our old supplement books continued to see use, even to this day. It didn't take much to adopt something from Song & Silence into 3.5.
The thing is with 4th Ed, there's multiple factors involved.
1) WotC handled the transition very badly, particularly with those of us in the RPGA.
2) The game design is shifting to something incompatible with previous editions.
3) Rather than seeing the staff and designers as "one of us", we now see people of a whole different generation and background who have a totally different concept of gaming and role-playing than we do.
4) Economically there is only so much the market can bear over a period of time. None of us have the overflow of disposable cash that WotC seems to imagine we do; cause if we did, we'd be playing and buying Games Workshop. ;-)
5) Rather than perceiving the new edition as a "reinvention of something classic" in the vein of my example of a cover song, we've now heard the oldies song remade for the fourth time by Jessica Simpson. There's no pretending that one even remotely bears any resemblance to the other anymore. And so it feels... as shallow as Paris Hilton.
So that's the perspective that I and my gaming group are coming from.
And I have something to address with Crosswiredmind's statement about
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...
"So please, reassure me again that I'll probably play 4th Edition, regardless of how I feel now."You probably won't. But you are not everyone. You are not even most of everyone. You are one person.
So when you make a blanket statement about people being likely to change, if at least one person is an individual who can consciously make the choice to not switch editions, who *exactly* are you talking about then? I certainly am not a member of the faceless masses.
The thing to understand is that while it's one thing for people to criticize or state an opinion on 4th Ed, they are talking about a product. When you and countless others say to people
It happened with the switch to AD&D, 2E, and 3E (and 3.5). It happened with MegaTraveller. It happened with the switch between RunQuest 2 and 3. It happened when Star Wars went from West End to WotC.
I have seen this pattern so many times I feel no need to qualify my statement. I have been a gamer far too long to be duped by the "I won't switch! You can't make me!" bluster.
What it comes off across is like when one is having a religious debate with zealous fundamentalists who say "You just haven't felt the Holy Spirit, but you will...". It sounds patronizing and condescending. It doesn't matter what your reasons are for saying it, or if you even have a good basis in experience for saying it; because now you've switched from making a judgment call on a product and started making a judgment call on people, total strangers who you have no actual frame of reference for making such comments about.
I hope that explains my perspective.
|
|
I can't switch to 4e, even if I wanted to. I talked too much crap allready.I talked a lot of crap at first, and I'm switching (sort of, I'll still play 3.5/2nd/1st edition when I can).You didn't talk nearly as much crap as me. And I'm on Sebastian's radar.
Plus, Crosswiredmind would use my conversion for his purposes.Actually, I would not.
I have never been an "I told you so" kind of person.
In fact I would say that the chances of me actually liking 4E are about 60/40 in favor at this point.
If I don't like it I do expect many people here to say "I told you so" even though they would be mistaken since I never said I would like it in the first place.
I just can't fathom how anyone would say that they hate it at this point never having played it.
Do you believe in intuition and edumicated guesses?
Lots and lots of excellent stuff.
*STANDING OVATION* *WHISTLES*
as shallow as Paris Hilton.
4E PHB - Paris Hilton Book.
I detest battlemats and minis. I'm told they're vital to 4E.
I dislike the preview crunch I've seen (I don't care about fluff changes so much).
I'm still going to try it, but I have a pretty good feeling I won't like it.
|
|
Have any other games caught your eye?I dont really understand how you can have 'played out' 3ed yet.I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.
Oh yeah. Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. I am starting a WFRP group in the next couple of weeks.
I may also go back and revisit some old friends - RQ3, Classic Traveler, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and Paranoia (original edition).
|
|
It took about five hours to go through three combat encounters, roleplaying as they investigated the town, and devising divinations to try to gain an edge. So far sounds like what you hate right?
What bothers me about high level play is that I have not been able to get 3 encounters plus roleplaying in 5 hours unless we break the mod or declare the combat to have ended once it is clear the PCs are going to kick butt.
Houserules used: None that I was aware of, everything went by the book.
Then you have done something that most GMs cannot do. You should not take your experience and count it as typical.
The same way that someone can claim that 4E rules will solve the problems they have with 3.xE without having ever played 4E.
I have always tried to express optimism given the stated design philosophy behind 4E. I am withholding judgement until I can read and play the rules.
I will say that I can't remember you ever telling a pro-4E person they're hasty for being excited about a alleged improvement.
I do not like to step on anyone's optimism. But when people tell me or others to not be optimistic, that its all garbage, that we are sheeple for hope then I will push back.
I also push back when people tell me that I should not dump 3.5. Why should I keep playing a game that, for me, has become tiresome and worn out? In some ways I envy those that still see life in the game and I wish them many years of continued enjoyment. But I wish they would stop trying to urinate in my corn flakes for having the temerity to have hope that 4E will be a solid edition of D&D.
Have any other games caught your eye?I dont really understand how you can have 'played out' 3ed yet.I have. The holes in the rules are grating on me and high level play just drags. If 4E stinks I'll be done with D&D for a while.Oh yeah. Warhammer Fantasy Role Play. I am starting a WFRP group in the next couple of weeks.
I may also go back and revisit some old friends - RQ3, Classic Traveler, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and Paranoia (original edition).
I've heard good things about the Warhammer RPG. But also that the company after much delay and work released the game and then announced that it will not continue to support the rpg.
Do you think they will allow third party publishers? Because that seems win-win for everyone if they don't want to do it themselves.
I'm still continuing to flesh out my WEG Star Wars collection.
|
|
I have to agree with the prince. Try the game as far away from the RPGA as possible. It really make a huge difference if the DM can just make a judgement call and then move on.
See - that bugs me. Too often DM judgement calls come from a lack of rules knowledge.
Take my experience at the D&D World Wide thingy last year. The group I was with had all kinds of house rules. When another player and I showed them how the rules actually work they thanked us and told us it was clear that they just didn't get how it was supposed to work.
3.5 is a tight rules system. Its flaws are not easily house ruled away. The problem is with the underlying math and a narrow sweet spot.
No - I like the idea that the rules should just work. To me the GM should not be writing rules on the fly. That was great in older versions of the game where there were huge gaps in the mechanics but today - it just seems like a bad idea.
Things like giving indecisive players a time limit, house rules, and getting away from new players that don't know the rules will speed up play alot. And try the game on the other side of the shield for a while. You really sound burned out of DMing.
Trouble is that I love to GM. I have been the primary GM for all of my groups since the 1970s. I like to play but not nearly as much.
As for the time limit thing - I just can't do that. I play with close friends and I do not like pushing them too much. They have to enjoy playing and if I force them to play in a way that puts a damper on them then I have done them a disservice.
And don't think of house rules as a dirty word. Rules are there to serve the game; the game is does not serve the rules. If the RAW does not work well for that particular group, then they should be changed. IMO, those house rules should be incorporated into a game if a large number of players use the exact same house rule.
I would have agreed with you pre 3.5 but now we have seen what a well written and comprehensive rules set can do. For all of its problems 3.5 is one heck of a set of integrated and consistent rules.
|
|
I've heard good things about the Warhammer RPG. But also that the company after much delay and work released the game and then announced that it will not continue to support the rpg.
Do you think they will allow third party publishers? Because that seems win-win for everyone if they don't want to do it themselves.
I'm still continuing to flesh out my WEG Star Wars collection.
Actually the 40K game is the one that will have very little material. WFRP actually has a solid base of material from rules expansions to adventures.
It's a solid game. I loved in in 1986 and its latest incarnation is just as good if not better.
|
|
What bothers me about high level play is that I have not been able to get 3 encounters plus roleplaying in 5 hours unless we break the mod or declare the combat to have ended once it is clear the PCs are going to kick butt.
It took about five hours to go through three combat encounters, roleplaying as they investigated the town, and devising divinations to try to gain an edge. So far sounds like what you hate right?
That's a legitimate complaint although part of it may be from a multiplicity of options. As players (& DM's) have more options to try, the game slows down while they work their way through those options. I would imagine a game reduced to "fight or flight" options would move a quick pace while at the same time being very dissappointing.
Houserules used: None that I was aware of, everything went by the book.Then you have done something that most GMs cannot do. You should not take your experience and count it as typical.
I never said it was typical, I'm just pointing out its possible. Conversely, neither should you claim you experiences is typical. To be fair to you, you have (as far as I can remember) qualified your statements as "in your expereience."
The same way that someone can claim that 4E rules will solve the problems they have with 3.xE without having ever played 4E.I have always tried to express optimism given the stated design philosophy behind 4E. I am withholding judgement until I can read and play the rules.
The problem is logic is double edged sword. While being postive about situation X is in general preferable to being negative, it is just as illogical. To say a pessimist is illogical is to say an optimist is illogical, they are both taking a stance on what they expect the future to be, often without concrete information to base thier position.
A guess about the future edition is still a guess, even if its "educated" by the best (stated) intentions of the designers.
I will say that I can't remember you ever telling a pro-4E person they're hasty for being excited about a alleged improvement.I do not like to step on anyone's optimism. But when people tell me or others to not be optimistic, that its all garbage, that we are sheeple for hope then I will push back.
If it means anything to you, I don't really appreciate anyone calling the Pro-4E's "sheeple" just as I don't appreciate being compared to a cave man stuck in the past. Neither is really a valid tactic in a discussion for a difference in opinion.
I also push back when people tell me that I should not dump 3.5. Why should I keep playing a game that, for me, has become tiresome and worn out? In some ways I envy those that still see life in the game and I wish them many years of continued enjoyment. But I wish they would stop trying to urinate in my corn flakes for having the temerity to have hope that 4E will be a solid edition of D&D.
You're abesolutley right, no one should try to force you to play a game you have problems with. However, its natural to expect someone to respond with a differing view when you criticize aspects of a game they enjoy.
I appreciate your well wishes, and I wish you the same for your systems of choice. As for the corn flakes, it might be that people are just trying to share the "flavor" they've discovered in their own breakfast.
Maybe they've unjustly identified you as the chef.
I've heard good things about the Warhammer RPG. But also that the company after much delay and work released the game and then announced that it will not continue to support the rpg.
Do you think they will allow third party publishers? Because that seems win-win for everyone if they don't want to do it themselves.
You might find this as helpful.
|
|
Do you believe in intuition and edumicated guesses?
Yes I do, but in the Blink sense and not in the uninformed sense.
|
|
... a bunch of cool and thoughtful stuff ...
You have a great attitude. I totally respect your views on this issue, and I thank you for actually engaging in conversation.
This is what I had hoped for when I first came here.
I agree that both pessimism and optimism have a certain amount of faith built into them. I believe it is better to hope with the expectation that ones hope will not be fulfilled then it is to lose hope and never give something new a try.
Pessimism closes the door before it has even been opened.