I have recently been reading through my collection of Dungeon magazines again and came across an interview of Monte Cook in the January 2003 (155) issue of Polyhedron (perhaps asked by Erik Mona... not sure).
Polyhedron: "Having gone through that entire process, what words of advice do you have to the people who will be designing Fourth Edition some time down the line?"
Monte Cook: "The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought. If there are things I could go back and redo in Third Edition a lot of them probably are the way they are because we were afraid to make too big a change. We called them "sacred cows," things that made D&D D&D and we couldn't change them. I think that Fourth Edition can probably take that idea and go even further with it.
"The differences between First Edition and Second Edition were not very big, and I think that came from a level of conservatism, and maybe at that time that was the right choice to make. I don't know. I think my advice to a Fourth Edition designer is 'do what will make a good game.'"
Discuss...
Sean Mahoney
Certainly is ironic!
It makes me wonder how much resistance is the financial cost of changing editions. That is, the considerable investments that people have made in 3.0 to 3.5.. and if there hadn't been so much 3rd edition product on the market would that play a factor in how much unwillingness there is to explore the new edition.
Of course, I can wonder all I like, and it will still be a generalization. Someone will rightly be able to say "that doesn't apply to me."
I'm feeling heretical today, and the recent threads here(in the last week) have made me remember that I've known many many gamers in the last ten years that have steadfastedly been disinterested in DnD because of the mechanics. In the last 9 months, the group I've been running DnD has been a mere fraction of that number. (Though, that says more about the gamers I've known, rather than what the whole gamer population is like) I guess, I'm pondering whether there are really two groups 'current players of DnD' and 'not current players of DnD', and do they have to be serviced exclusive of one another.
And sometimes, like right now, I wonder if you introduced 4th edition to a 'blind study group' who had no basis of comparison, whether they would like it or not.
Unfortunately, I don't know.
Certainly is ironic!
It makes me wonder how much resistance is the financial cost of changing editions. That is, the considerable investments that people have made in 3.0 to 3.5.. and if there hadn't been so much 3rd edition product on the market would that play a factor in how much unwillingness there is to explore the new edition.
Thats probably a significant factor for a lot of people, especially if you only really got heavily invested in the game because it can be hard to 'throw' all that money away.
In fact one of the reasons I'm so willing to convert is because I have been down this road. I was loath to convert from 2nd edition to 3rd. I in fact did not do so until 3.5 came out. I had so much invested in 1st/2nd edition that it was a huge financial burden.
Furthermore it was clear, after I picked up the 3.0 players handbook, that 3rd edition was not D&D. It was absolutely clear to me that this was not like the change from 1st edition to 2nd edition which simply refined things a bit here and there but remained basically the same system. 3rd edition obviously was not D&D - I mean even Gygax poo-pooed it, when the godfather of D&D tells you that you have strayed from the path you got to believe it.
The mechanics where completely different - there where no feats, skills where a much smaller part of the game - miniatures - the whole game needed miniatures!!! This was a board game basically - but with collectable card game elements. Well I was old school! I was a purist! I did not use a battle matt in my roleplaying! - battle matts where for battletech.
My house rules where based on Kits etc. and there are no kits in 3rd, that means that I can't easily reflect culture and training prior to 1st level - which in turn makes it hard to emphasize the difference between a character with a background from a woodland hunting tribe similar to Iroquois and people with a background thats more akin to inuit (Eskimo).
The problem with having to toss out house rules was a big deal for me - I was that DM that did not have a few house rules, oh no, I had whole binders full of house rules...giving them up was hard ... and never completely done. My players book for 3.5 runs just over 300 pages (though most of that is fluff, world history etc).
In the end though I finally caved and went 3rd and ultimately was happy with the change. The rules were a lot different - but they actually where better and more streamlined, I learned to love the battle matt and found that I enjoyed converting adventures so a lot of my old material remained viable.
Having found that the world did not actually end when I switched to 'collectable card game' D&D I'm more willing to take the plunge this time.
And isn't it interesting how many of those same arguments you made about the change from 2nd to 3rd are the exact same arguments we hear now from 3rd to 4th?
As a side note, the same article I pulled the above from has Monte Cook quoted as saying that they showed Gary Gygax the rules for 3E and he like them and gushed a bit about the 3E DMG (which made Monte happy as his original D&D book was the DMG that Gary had written... coming full circle).
Sean Mahoney
Jeremy, I hear what you're saying. I have about $16.95 invested in 3.5 WOTC Books, having skipped 2nd and 3.0. For me, it makes a huge difference in willingness to convert.
It also makes the concerns of those who have invested a lot of money very understandable.
*******************
Ultimately, I think the success and failure of 4th edition depends on whether they can "break the ice" with GMs, specifically.
If it's a halfway quality system, supported by a good setting and good support material... I believe most people will be willing to try it, if only as a player. If the edition can get it's foot in the door, it can start to gain a following.
"If you run it, they will play."
If you can't get people to GM it for the resistant skeptics, then initial sales will be slow and it will hurt WOTC, maybe kill the Edition.
This, to me, is the biggest factor. If I was WOTC, I would want Paizo to convert, and insofar as making sound business decisions I'd want to help with that conversion. If you can get GMs running, it will happen.
Getting me to convert depends on whether I like the setting, and whether I trust the quality of the adventure material written. That's where I actually have my doubts about the new edition.
|
Jeremy, I hear what you're saying. I have about $16.95 invested in 3.5 WOTC Books, having skipped 2nd and 3.0. For me, it makes a huge difference in willingness to convert.
It also makes the concerns of those who have invested a lot of money very understandable.
*******************Ultimately, I think the success and failure of 4th edition depends on whether they can "break the ice" with GMs, specifically.
If it's a halfway quality system, supported by a good setting and good support material... I believe most people will be willing to try it, if only as a player. If the edition can get it's foot in the door, it can start to gain a following.
"If you run it, they will play."
If you can't get people to GM it for the resistant skeptics, then initial sales will be slow and it will hurt WOTC, maybe kill the Edition.
This, to me, is the biggest factor. If I was WOTC, I would want Paizo to convert, and insofar as making sound business decisions I'd want to help with that conversion. If you can get GMs running, it will happen.
Getting me to convert depends on whether I like the setting, and whether I trust the quality of the adventure material written. That's where I actually have my doubts about the new edition.
QFT. I'm not crazy about what I've been hearing about 4th, so I really don't want to put in the time, effort, and money to buy and read all the rules and plan a game to DM. But if someone else was DMing, and I just had to show up and play, I'd totally try it for a few evenings. I just don't know anybody who's planning on running it. They might even win me over to the new game. But I'm not putting in the work myself. I'm guessing there are a lot of people like me. It takes a lot more effort to run a game than to play in it (even with a published adventure), so you really have to make it worthwhile (and convince people that it's worthwhile).
The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.
And perhaps D&D players have reached their capacity for change...
The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.Wow ... just wow.
What "WoWed" you? The premonition of change in 4e, or “big huge”? :)
|
I don't think players are as scared of change as many think. I think that many players oppose change *for the sake of change*. If something is good (not just not broken, but good) why change it?
If the answer is anything other than 'because we can make it better', it is probably the wrong answer. If the answer is 'that wasn't good, but this is' that would qualify as a wrong answer, since the person stating it obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
I think that I could take a lot of change in D&D. One change I'm not willing to consign myself to, though, is the loss of a physical manifestation of our hobby community in the form of a paper product. For a 'pen and paper' game, it is nice to have something tangible to show people 'this is what D&D is about'.
Magazines are intrinsically less intimidating than a hardbound book. If WotC wants to get players who are interested in games like WoW, they should be showing the wonderful things that WoW lacks - things like published support on a monthly basis might have been one of those things.
I still use the 3.0 DMG more than the 3.5 Edition because it is easier to use. Sure rules and such that changed for 3.5 requires me to run down my 3.5 DMG but for the most part I loved the 3.0 DMG.
Gaming material can be modified, I am using Palladium adventures and part of its game world in my 3.5 campaign. I have modified original Traveller and Space Opera adventures for 3.5. I think alot will translate to 4th.
Most of all I am looking forward to a new springboard for house rules and flavor. I will spend a couple weeks tweeking my gameworld for 4E and cruise on down to the FLGS and start a new game with new players playing new stuff. I am excited about it.
I first found I liked Mike Mearls stuff when I bought Iron Hero's. I considered him a protoge of the great Monte Cook. I am glad he is in on 4E.
What "WoWed" you? The premonition of change in 4e, or “big huge”? :)The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.Wow ... just wow.
Perhaps the irony of it all?
Greg
And isn't it interesting how many of those same arguments you made about the change from 2nd to 3rd are the exact same arguments we hear now from 3rd to 4th?
As a side note, the same article I pulled the above from has Monte Cook quoted as saying that they showed Gary Gygax the rules for 3E and he like them and gushed a bit about the 3E DMG (which made Monte happy as his original D&D book was the DMG that Gary had written... coming full circle).
Sean Mahoney
This from an interview Gygax did for Gamespy in 2004
GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
I recall him saying something similar in regards to releasing his magnum opus Castle Zagyg for Castles & Crusades as opposed to D20. Sure he'd have made way more money if he had made Castle Zagyg a d20 product - the market for d20 products must be 100 times the size of the market for castles & crusades but he felt that Castles & Crusades was much closer to what real D&D was all about.
This sort of thing was having a big impact on me when I was considering converting (which I did sometime in late 2004 or early 2005). I mean Gygax was calling it a crappy super hero's game, I did not at all like the Skills and Powers book for 2nd edition (seemed like an overpowered afterthought to the system) and I owned the 3.0 players handbook, which seemed to support Gygax's contention. I mean the fighter go a super power every 2nd level for heavens sake and at 6th he got 2 super powers! It was obscene.
I'd have never even given the game a try except that I was also rereading A Paladin in Hell around that time. I consider that module to be one of my all time favourites - the guy that wrote that, somebody named Monte Cook, man he was brilliant...
So on one hand I had Gary saying it was crap but Monte made it ... what to do? I decided I'd give it a wirl, We'd play 3rd until the PCs where 5th level - if it was not working after that point we'd convert back.
Well in the end I think Gygax was partly right - it really is kind of like a super hero's game. The fighter gets a lot of moves but somehow by the time the players were 5th they did not really seem like too many any more and if the PCs were pretty heroic...well that was not actually a bad thing.
|
What "WoWed" you? The premonition of change in 4e, or “big huge”? :)The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.Wow ... just wow.Perhaps the irony of it all?
Greg
Yep. Irony.
Either Monte was very very wrong or this place is populated by the least flexible D&D players on the planet.
Would Monte have said the same thing had he known that D&D4 was a mere five years down the road? This being the same guy that supposedly had problems with rereleasing D&D3 as D&D3.5 .
|
|
"The differences between First Edition and Second Edition were not very big, and I think that came from a level of conservatism, and maybe at that time that was the right choice to make. I don't know. I think my advice to a Fourth Edition designer is 'do what will make a good game.'"
Okay. But that doesn't translate into "go hog ass wild and change whatever you can for the hell of it" either. Tons of changes are being made not to make a better game, just a different game.
-DM Jeff
The big huge things that we learned was that D&D players want a really good game and are willing to change and accept change more than we even thought.Yep. Irony.
Either Monte was very very wrong or this place is populated by the least flexible D&D players on the planet.
You do realize there is at least one other, perfectly valid, option right?
No, you probably don't. Let me explain.
Monte Cook claimed that D&D players are willing to change and accept change in the search of a good game.
Maybe several of the posters on the Paizo boards haven't seen anything about 4th Edition to convince them, or even give them hope, that 4th Edition will be a good game?
If something is good (not just not broken, but good) why change it?
My Art History professor in undergrad always used to tell us: "If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it!"
As ever,
ACE
Okay. But that doesn't translate into "go hog ass wild and change whatever you can for the hell of it" either.
I'm just taking it as proof that even Monte is wrong from time to time.
Monte Cook claimed that D&D players are willing to change and accept change in the search of a good game.
Maybe several of the posters on the Paizo boards haven't seen anything about 4th Edition to convince them, or even give them hope, that 4th Edition will be a good game?
You know what, I agree with this more then my above statement. I am certainly willing to accept changes if the game is good. Everything I am hearing about 4E makes it sound like a soulless minis game and not a RPG.
Everything I am hearing about 4E makes it sound like a soulless minis game and not a RPG.
I would like to submit a hypothesis:
The "soul" of any game, originates completely from the people playing it.
Any game can be played as "soulless" or "soulful" depending on the predisposition of the people involved.
Discuss.
Greg
Monte Cook claimed that D&D players are willing to change and accept change in the search of a good game.
I'd be willing to accept sweeping changes to the game if I thought those changes didn't change the spirit of the game too much.
That's why I was willing to adopt the 3rd edition rules and made the switch to 3.5 without much consternation. That's also why I enjoy playing Castle & Crusades from time-to-time.
With what I'm reading about 4th edition, I really am not impressed with the changes I'm seeing. It's not the quantity of changes that irks me, it's the quality of those changes.
Yep. Irony.Either Monte was very very wrong or this place is populated by the least flexible D&D players on the planet.
I am not going to get all defensive on behalf of the Paizo community, but I think what you're noticing is that Paizo has a culture where the patrons feel involved in the entire process, within a reasonable limit.
This is in contrast to WOTC, where they develop and present a product that they (in good faith) think is good, and hope that their customers will like and buy. Nevertheless, they're developing the product that they feel is best, and then persuading the consumer base to try it. (Note the lack of sarcasm)
I am patently not saying that Paizo doesn't do the very same thing, they do... But once their product or brand is established they go out of their way to accept feedback, discuss, and generally involve their customers as much as logistics will allow. And they're not perfect, but the effort is made. Please give Erik, James, Mike, Jason, Wes, (and Lisa, Vic, Gary, and the Customer Service Team), their props in creating a community where your voice counts for something. It makes people feel good and creates loyalty.
Paizoans are much better salesmen.
Fans may seem to have a sense of entitlement, but that has been encouraged; and if handled with respect, Paizo has shown that sense of entitlement can be turned around into repeat business for them. Yeah, their fans can be demanding, but they also keep buying! (Quality also plays it's part as well obviously).
I personally don't actually think WOTC is rude or unpleasant, but they remind me of a television network. They hope that I will enjoy their programming, but I'm free to change the channel if I don't. It's an assumed comfort level of being a much larger corporation.
This community resents the fact they feel they haven't been listened to by WOTC, because that is something they've grown accustomed to and come to place a high premium on.
|
|
This community resents the fact they feel they haven't been listened to by WOTC, because that is something they've grown accustomed to and come to place a high premium on.
Good point. But is that a reasonable expectation? The larger a corporate entity the less likely it is to be able to keep an intimate relationship with its customers.
I am not going to get all defensive on behalf of the Paizo community, but I think what you're noticing is that Paizo has a culture where the patrons feel involved in the entire process, within a reasonable limit.
I guess this is what they call "spoiling the curve". Ever have one of those university classes where everyone does horribly bad, historically, and the prof generally curves up the marks to make the normal distribution "reasonable"? And then someone comes along, scores 90%+ on all exams and everybody else is left holding their sub-70% grade?
This is how I see Paizo. They've "spoiled the curve". They are great at listening to their patrons, but really, they're an anomaly, at least as far as I can see. And their ability to responds to their relatively small community means WotC is going to be held to a higher standard than they normally would be.
I think WotC is in stuck in between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". Their fan base is too large and too wide to listen to everybody. So those that are not listened to feel slighted.
Just a thought.
Greg
|
|
Okay. But that doesn't translate into "go hog ass wild and change whatever you can for the hell of it" either. Tons of changes are being made not to make a better game, just a different game.
-DM Jeff
Thats exactly it. Change for change sake, or taking a chainsaw to everything. It just feels they did so to make the game different in alot of areas. Fluff and other.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Wow. I did indeed conduct that interview five years ago. I didn't remember it at first and had to pull the issue in question (Dungeon # 96) out of my archive.
I definitely think that Monte's answer speaks to a lot of what we've seen so far with 4e.
I worked at Wizards of the Coast in the year 3e launched and for a few years after, and the "take away" of the entire R&D staff was that they could have pushed the game further and killed more sacred cows than they did. I think they also took away the lesson (right or wrong) that playtesters don't often see the whole picture, and are largely worth paying attention to when they confirm your own suppositions and biases.
For example, around the time this interview was conducted, the prevailing wisdom in RPG R&D was that playtesters were to blame for the multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, and that that was a bad thing and a "comfort blanket" artifact of older editions that soon wore out its welcome in the new era. The lesson, then, was to be very careful with playtester feedback.
That staff has turned over at least 50% since then, so it's not entirely fair to assume that the prevailing wisdom of 5 years ago holds strong today, but I'm willing to bet that "we can push harder and further than we think" and "don't get too worried about playtesters complaining about slaughtered sacred cows" were two of the major design principles that went into the design of the new D&D.
This seems obvious on its face, given what we know about the new edition.
As Monte suggests to his successors in that interview, I think the folks over at WotC are trying to do whatever they can to make D&D a _better_ game, both in terms of playability and in terms of making it a more profitable business.
It will be interesting to see what degree of success they achieve with these design goals in mind.
--Erik
For those who believe that the chnage of the 4E doest not reflect those Monte Cook could have done to make DnD a better game, take a look at The Book of Experimental Might, the collection of Monte's own house rules his been using in is own games... and you will see more than a few similarities with 4E that we have seen so far (20 spells level, Discipline, more hit points, one feat per level)...
Wow. I did indeed conduct that interview five years ago. I didn't remember it at first and had to pull the issue in question (Dungeon # 96) out of my archive.
I definitely think that Monte's answer speaks to a lot of what we've seen so far with 4e.
I worked at Wizards of the Coast in the year 3e launched and for a few years after, and the "take away" of the entire R&D staff was that they could have pushed the game further and killed more sacred cows than they did. I think they also took away the lesson (right or wrong) that playtesters don't often see the whole picture, and are largely worth paying attention to when they confirm your own suppositions and biases.
For example, around the time this interview was conducted, the prevailing wisdom in RPG R&D was that playtesters were to blame for the multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, and that that was a bad thing and a "comfort blanket" artifact of older editions that soon wore out its welcome in the new era. The lesson, then, was to be very careful with playtester feedback.
That staff has turned over at least 50% since then, so it's not entirely fair to assume that the prevailing wisdom of 5 years ago holds strong today, but I'm willing to bet that "we can push harder and further than we think" and "don't get too worried about playtesters complaining about slaughtered sacred cows" were two of the major design principles that went into the design of the new D&D.
This seems obvious on its face, given what we know about the new edition.
As Monte suggests to his successors in that interview, I think the folks over at WotC are trying to do whatever they can to make D&D a _better_ game, both in terms of playability and in terms of making it a more profitable business.
It will be interesting to see what degree of success they achieve with these design goals in mind.
--Erik
That's an interesting insight, not only into gaming R&D but into my own opinions. Not going far enough was one of my complaints about 3E when it first came out, though I liked a lot of the stuff they were doing and made the first switch no problem. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the wide and sweeping changes hinted at in 4E get me so excited. It looks like they're going to do what they can to make the game the best that they can (from their perspective) and aren't being held down by old preconceptions that are still floating around.
And that's not to say that those who hold on to certain preconceptions are "wrong" to have that opinion. Many people agreed with the (for example) Monk and Paladin multiclass restrictions in 3E and understood why they were there. I just leaned in the other direction. If I'm paying for new books than show me what you can do, don't sell me basically what I already own.
Thanks for the post Erik. :)
|
And that's not to say that those who hold on to certain preconceptions are "wrong" to have that opinion. Many people agreed with the (for example) Monk and Paladin multiclass restrictions in 3E and understood why they were there. I just leaned in the other direction.....
Yeah; I can see why someone might turn up their nose at a Paladin/Sorceror/Bard, since it doesn't fit their idea of the archetypal 'shining knight', but I don't have a problem with a player freely multi-classing between Paladin/Fighter or Paladin/Cleric.
Being able to pick up your paladin levels where you left off might stop some of the egregious 'cherry-picking' of 2 paladin levels, just to get Divine Grace...?
My Art History professor in undergrad always used to tell us: "If it ain't Baroque, don't fix it!"You stole that joke off Cogsworth the Clock, in 'Beauty & the Beast'.
But I won't tell...
If i had heard it from a clock, i would have quoted it!
As ever,
ACE
They also had to change enough things to get D&D off the 3rd edition OGL/SRD. Whether they like killing sacred cows or not, it has to be changed for no other reason then to seperate itself from the open entity of 3.x .
They also had to change enough things to get D&D off the 3rd edition OGL/SRD. Whether they like killing sacred cows or not, it has to be changed for no other reason then to seperate itself from the open entity of 3.x .
I think you underestimate just how much the designers over at WotC are probably driving this. I suspect that we have a new edition less because Hasbro thinks that killing D&D cows is important and more because the designers at WotC have been chomping at the bit to make a new edition. Its the best job in the industry - every day you come in and play and talk D&D on the clock.
I recall reading an interview where Monte stated that playing and designing 3.0 on the clock was probably the most fun he ever had while working. Putting Ptolus out was no doubt deeply gratifying, but gratifying in the way writing a really good essay for school or university is gratifying. Its not really 'fun' per se where as making a new edition is actually fun. Talking D&D, discussing rules or class concepts or the place of magic items or lower planar monsters in the game etc. is inherently entertaining - at least for the kind of people who end up with the top slots in this kind of a job. Its a lot like what many of us do in the OGL/D20 section but even better because these guys get to do this in person in conference rooms while they drink lattes and run bouts of play tests to see if their latest cool idea would actually work at Joe Schmoes a game table.
You just don't get this kind of entertainment when your coordinating your freelancers and putting out a splat book. They come out too quickly, and there is too much layout and editing. Sure eventually the fun part of making a new edition gives way to the part where you actually have to do the hard work of layout and editing. This parts not really fun anymore (though it might be gratifying) but this is just the last six or so months of a process that took a couple of years - and the first 18 months where an absolute blast - with a pay cheque.
For example, around the time this interview was conducted, the prevailing wisdom in RPG R&D was that playtesters were to blame for the multiclass restrictions on paladins and monks, and that that was a bad thing and a "comfort blanket" artifact of older editions that soon wore out its welcome in the new era. The lesson, then, was to be very careful with playtester feedback.
And yet when Andy Collins had the opportunity to put in whatever changes he felt like in 3.5 with no playtester feedback, he left those restrictions in. And when Mike Mearls redesigned things for 4e he explicitly made classes even narrower.
Last we heard, a Paladin won't be able to "multiclass" at all - he can just spend a feat to take a skill or power off some other class's list.
-Frank
...
Last we heard, a Paladin won't be able to "multiclass" at all - he can just spend a feat to take a skill or power off some other class's list.
-Frank
I do believe that has been implied as the new multiclass mechanics for everyone, not a specific multiclass limitation for Paladins in particular, so cheers! :)
Would Monte have said the same thing had he known that D&D4 was a mere five years down the road? This being the same guy that supposedly had problems with rereleasing D&D3 as D&D3.5 .There is a quote floating around where he predicted 2008 as the 4E release date.
I can't find the article at the moment. Monte's point about 3.5 was that it was too close to a new edition and it was issued too soon after the release of 3.0. I'm sure that's fueling a lot of the grumbling behind Fourth. Also, Monte's point about 3.5 was in relation to the WotC business plan begun with Third Edition to release a new edition every 8-10 years. He's written more than once about having been in on those meetings.
I can't find the article at the moment. Monte's point about 3.5 was that it was too close to a new edition and it was issued too soon after the release of 3.0. I'm sure that's fueling a lot of the grumbling behind Fourth. Also, Monte's point about 3.5 was in relation to the WotC business plan begun with Third Edition to release a new edition every 8-10 years. He's written more than once about having been in on those meetings.Would Monte have said the same thing had he known that D&D4 was a mere five years down the road? This being the same guy that supposedly had problems with rereleasing D&D3 as D&D3.5 .There is a quote floating around where he predicted 2008 as the 4E release date.
The way I see it is there is more differences between D&D3 and D&D3.5 than AD&D and AD&D2 (essentially). So I'm counting D&D3.5 as a seperate edition (very compatible with 3.0 edition). Ya probably don't agree. But that's just the way I'm seeing it.
I do believe that has been implied as the new multiclass mechanics for everyone, not a specific multiclass limitation for Paladins in particular, so cheers! :)...
Last we heard, a Paladin won't be able to "multiclass" at all - he can just spend a feat to take a skill or power off some other class's list.
-Frank
Yes it has, but I find little to be cheery about there. What they've said is that each class will be locked down into its "role" more than ever. Once you're a Rogue, you stay a Rogue. And since every power is implement based, the ability to take a power off another list is going to be one which you won't take very often. A Cloud Kill requires you to wield an orb, while a Crimson Blade requires you to wield a light blade. So you'd have to switch weapons before you could use an ability from another class list even if you had one.
Essentially what we're looking at is, rather than an expansion of 3e multiclassing into something where people could put together level appropriate selections of abilities from multiple lists by alternating classes - a complete turn around and a move back to the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons material around the time of the Player's Options (minus of course the Multi- and Dual- Classing, which are seemingly gone for good).
---
This is ironic because Erik was saying that conventional wisdom around the office back when he worked there was that 3e multiclassing didn't go far enough and should have been opened up even more. But the 4e crew has come in to clamp down and overturn all the progress of 3e multiclassing to go back to a system where you never get off the rails you land on at first level.
-Frank
I dunno. If you can use a feat to take a power from another class, that sounds much more flexible than having to blow an entire level just to get a class's power. You get your own class's power for the level plus you can cherry pick the things you want from another class.
More flexible at the moment you have the feat available yes. However, cherry-picking the plum class abilities from 9 different classes and PrCs to build a juggernaut is a form of gaming that many enjoy. (I'm not one, but I don't see anything inherently wrong since the DM can just use Power Word: No when it gets to be too much.) For a less extreme example, we'll need to wait until it's out to see how it goes.
Being able to pick up your paladin levels where you left off might stop some of the egregious 'cherry-picking' of 2 paladin levels, just to get Divine Grace...?
You git. Using MY PROFILE as an example of bad character-building, knowing FULL WELL I'd pick up on it, AND knowing i'm not that type of player. For shame, Snorter!
As it happens (in response to the previous poster) in 1st Ed there were Paladin Bards, based on the Arthurian legends (NPC only of course) - but I'll be damned if PCs aren't legends in their own right - NPCs should not be more 'special'! Plus, with inspired character concepts, one could justify any build within campaign boundaries.
In response to my estwhile comrade Snorter's opinion of my build, I have to say that, if I was actually my character, looking for the blessing of my deity to protect me and sustain me, who WOULDN'T stop at getting such 'divine grace' from your deity (basically, what what make you carry on in the class when a cleric provides more of what you originally wanted?)
Don't complain about my build. You've got 'Veils' coming out of every orifice.
- let he without sin throw the first... post
GameSpy: Have you had a chance to play or even look at some of the current Dungeons & Dragons games?
Gygax: I've looked at them, yes, but I'm not really a fan. The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.
lol...now my question is what would he think about 4E, if he thought 3.x was too super-heroish?
|
|
I think Monte Cook is a smart guy. I bought his Ptolus setting. Most enjoyable text book ever. [Just kidding, it only looks like a text book].
One of the things that is obvious with books like his Experimental Might (or whatever) is that 3rd edition is a very flexible framework. You can hang a lot of houserules on it. And while the system is somewhat 'integrated' meaning that some rules can have unintended consequences, mostly by applying the rule 'universally' it takes care of itself. The most difficult part is updating things like monsters (say, if you allow a feat every HD), but much of that can be done pretty easily.
I personally think that 20 spell levels is the way to go. There is a lot of difference between some spells of each level (knock and scorching ray, for instance). Having more levels to divide things over may help 'clean up' spell casting. But it also involves a lot of work.
The thing that 4th edition has to do is to prove that it will be a BETTER game than 3rd edition. And considering that those of us still playing 3rd edition are, by and large, happy with the edition. If we weren't happy, we probably wouldn't be playing it. Now, 3rd edition players seems to be the big market (rather than previous edition players, or WoD players, etc) so it is really important to show how much better 4th is than 3rd (unless they're really planning on just finding all new players - crazy in my mind).
WotC's current marketing plan hasn't done that. Telling someone who enjoys the game that something 'sucks', but this is 'better' probably isn't convincing. And I've heard it so many times it is hard to talk about things that COULD be improved. Just because there is room for improvment DOES NOT mean that something 'sucks'. It also DOES NOT mean that any change is necessarily for the better.
Now, I'll leave it to people like Erik Mona to decide if 4th edition is a better game than 3rd edition. But even if it is, I'm not playing 4th edition. Besides the fact that I'm still having fun, the hobby was a better place in 3rd edition (with magazines like Dungeon & Dragon every month, for instance), and I don't feel comfortable 'supporting the hobby' when it is going the wrong way. So, I'm voting with my dollar to make gaming what it was. That means that I won't support 4th edition no matter how much better it is.
It might be different if I wasn't having fun already. But seriously, what's the difference between having 5 units of fun and 7 units of fun? The last thing I want (or my players want) is for me to have multiple orgasms during my game. Sorry about the mental image.
Anyway, my point is that the new edition is coming whether I think it should be here two years from now or today. And it isn't the concept of a new edition I object to - it is everything that has surrounded it. And the fact that I DO object matters. And I wish WotC would recognize that.
...
Now, I'll leave it to people like Erik Mona to decide if 4th edition is a better game than 3rd edition. But even if it is, I'm not playing 4th edition. Besides the fact that I'm still having fun, the hobby was a better place in 3rd edition (with magazines like Dungeon & Dragon every month, for instance), and I don't feel comfortable 'supporting the hobby' when it is going the wrong way. So, I'm voting with my dollar to make gaming what it was. That means that I won't support 4th edition no matter how much better it is.
...
While I appreciate the sentiment, and you're of course free to do what you will with your money, I doubt any level of non-support (or support, for that matter) will reverse the course at this point. Dungeon and Dragon are much more likely to be discontinued from their electronic format and vanish forever than returned back to print, IMO.
---It took 3 years until 3.5E was released after 3.0
---It took 2 years after 3.5e release for them to begin WORKING on 4th Edition.
Total Lifespan of 3rd Edition: 5 years
Why is everyone wondering if 4E will be successful or not anymore? In a few years, you will be seeing 4.5E, as the associate brand manager, Sara Girard (who can't even look at the camera straight and her body language obviously informs us she is just repeating corporate garbage and probably believes 4E is the worst idea ever for D&D), stated in her video answer on WotC website (because she specifically calls 4th Edition as 4.0, corporate slip up it seems)
And then, after 4.5E is released they will start working on 5th Edition in 2 years. Even if there is no 4.5E, they're still going to work on 5E in a few years, and release it when 4E is only six to seven years old.
And then, this circle begins anew. For shame.
Why can't they just keep an edition for 20 years and expand upon it during that era? Why the constant changes?
Heck, why bother with D&D at all when WotC is going to barge right in and tell you,"4E sucked, just like we told you with 3E and that you must play 4E, so here's 5E..."
No. The life of a product is from the time it is released until the next release. Not until the planning for the next release.---It took 3 years until 3.5E was released after 3.0
---It took 2 years after 3.5e release for them to begin WORKING on 4th Edition.
Total Lifespan of 3rd Edition: 5 years
No, it's until they begin working on a new edition. Because any books written after they start working on a new edition is not books written with the current edition at heart, but "playtest" books for the new edition.
As we've seen with Tome of Magic, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle (definitely this one), the Skill Trick system, the Reserve feats, and many others.
Pretty much, I own two years worth of 4E playtest books. Had I known this, I'd have NEVER supported them with my money anymore.
I'd much rather hear WotC do one of two things. Released 4E in 2006, or be honest and say,"We're now working on 4E, the rest of the books you'll see in 3E are playtest books."