Companion to the "Shocker" Thread


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Jon Brazer Enterprises

Watcher wrote:
I wouldn't mind engaging you in discussion on why you won't be switching.. in a different thread.

Your wish is .... well, I made a new thread. Really difficult I know ;)

The following reasons are why I will not be upgading to 4E (in no particular order):

1) Removing traditional Races/Classes from the PHBI (and by traditional, I mean 1E). Removing traditional monsters from the MMI.

2) Scrapping of the OGL. This is a big one for me. The OGL was, IMO, a legal recognition of my belief that D&D is MY game. The GSL, the little info we have on it, sounds to me like WotC saying, "Well, yea we can't go into your home and make you play our game, so we're going to stop just short of that. Oh and ignore the guys working on 5E that will be a paid licence only." It feels like WotC asserting control over a game that IMO is not theirs to assert control over.

3) "Dragonborn are a major race in the nFR." I don't have a personal conneciton to the FR that some people have. My first FR game started 6 months ago and I've never read a single FR novel. But saying, "Dragonborn are a major race in the nFR," is an easy way of bringing reality to the Slaughtering of Sacred Cows (SoSC). SoSC is an abstract concept that some associate with the parts of D&D they didn't like anyways. Its easy to forget about the SoSC that are done for the sole purpose of asserting their control over what is not theirs (see #2).

4) Tieflings and Warlocks are an assumed major part of 4E. Religious Objection. Please don't give me the partronizing line of, "If you don't like this, done use them. Problem solved." I'm not the DM in every game I play (heck, right now, I"m not even a DM.) So I have no control over a setting that assumes infernal interaction enough to produce Tieflings/Warlocks as a major part of it. I'm fine with them being in supplements/MM's. Done that way, they are at best a minor part of the setting. Having it rarely happen in a setting is fine. Having it happen on a daily basis and a regular occurance is not.

5) Cinematic feel. I don't play D&D to feel like I am in a movie. I play D&D for the feel of being an average person that, through a long series pain and trials, becomes a major world changer. That's a book, not a movie. If I want cinematic, I have d6 Star Wars and Exalted 2E.

6) Wizards are now primarily illusionists and evokers. Yes, the WotC boys have stated that they will still retain some spells of all the old major schools. But I have yet to hear of wizard spells that would really allow the wizard to be anything but "artillery". In a campaign I just finished up, I played a necromancer that hated undead. His signature spells were ones that dropped ability scores. Ability score loss is gone so its an easy guess that those spells are gone too. In a campaign that started recently, I'm playing a battle field controller. Signature spells: Baneful Transposition and Inhibit (we're still low level). You'll note: neither of those spells do damage. There's more to being a "controller" then doing damage to lots of people. 4E wizard is artillery, not a controller, despite what the role name is.

7) Misc. Narrowing of Classes. Movement in squares (its an RPG, not a minis game with role playing built around it), ... (blanking, I'm sure there's more.)

EDIT:
8) Static XP. While it will make the DMs job easier. You still have have Rogar ("Lift with the legs, Rogar, not the back.") go from Level 1 to 30 by slaughtering nothiing but level 1 Kobolds. If there's something in the DMG that counters this, I'll be glad, but still not enough to make me switch.

9) "Monsters are for killing not interacting." Thank you for announcing that you designed role playing out of a role playing game.

10) (How in the hell could I forget this one?) NO DUNGEON AND DRAGON PRINT MAGAZINES!?!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I think your 'book, not movie' comment hits home.

Sovereign Court

all very good points

Scarab Sages

Ross Byers wrote:
I think your 'book, not movie' comment hits home.

Yep. Ditto for me too.

EDIT: As I stated in another thread, I am getting the feeling that 3e will be my rules of choice for campaigns and 4e sounds like a good one shot sort of adventure rules set. One night games (movie) have their place but I tend to prefer campaigns (book).

Scarab Sages

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
4) Tieflings and Warlocks are an assumed major part of 4E. Religious Objection.

I have to admit that I doubt I will ever want a Warlock to be a playable class in any game I DM. The selling of one's soul in order to be a hero just does not sit well with me.


Hiya

I pretty much agree with your points, with one 'change'; the Tiefling/Warlock religious objection. I don't want them in the game as a 'base race/class' not because of religion (I don't have one, really); I just find it silly to try and rationalize and hipocritize(?) them as 'unique...but common'. Silly. Just plain ol' silly.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Watcher wrote:
I wouldn't mind engaging you in discussion on why you won't be switching.. in a different thread.

Your wish is .... well, I made a new thread. Really difficult I know ;)

Lots of good reasons for not switching...

I agree with all of your points. My reasons for not switching (which mirror yours to a good degree) are:

1] I love D&D because it isn't every other game out there. Certain D&Disms appeal to me because they are part of the game's identity. I feel that 4th edition is attempting to radically change that identity.

The shift away from "classic" core races and classes is part of that. I want D&D to have dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, 1/2 elves, 1/2 orcs and humans. Anything else should be added on a setting-by-setting basis.

Instead, WotC has removed Greyhawk as the core setting, and has developed an implied core setting that impacts upon other settings in order to enforce D&D's "new identity" (i.e. tieflings and dragonborn being included in all other settings, a "points of light" model being forced upon FR, elements of the newly-dead Greyhawk being used piecemeal in various other settings because Greyhawk is an icon of "classic D&D").

2] I enjoy characters who are not superheroic to begin with. D&D, to me, is about the potential to improve through perseverance and determination. 4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men. Rather than rising to the rank of hero through game play, 4th edition characters operate under the assumption that they are "the best at what they do" and that they are pre-ordained to change the world. For me, games like Feng Shui are better for this type of game-play.

3] The DDI and GSL, and the poor treatment of 3rd party publishers by WotC, have all undermined much of my goodwill towards WotC. I used to enjoy going to the Wizards' site for errata, free materials and use of their forums. I also used to subscribe to Dungeon magazine and/or buy issues of that magazine and Dragon right off of the shelf. Now, in order to have access to what was once free or freely browsed and then purchased on an issue-by-issue basis is now bundled together in a pay-to-use monthly service that does not appeal to me.

The GSL severely undercuts with OGL which, in turn, led to the development of lots of great gaming material (as well as some crap) and bolstered the strength of the d20 system. Mutants & Masterminds, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades and OSRIC all were born from the OGL. To see that catalyst for game creation not being carried over to 4th edition is a big disappointment. Furthermore, seeing how 3rd party publishers like Paizo are being left in the dark by WotC during this already difficult transition period reinforces my ill will towards WotC and Hasbro.

So, that's my 2 cents on the topic and the reason why I've been encouraging my group not to switch over to 4th edition.


i agree with the OP . theres a lot i dont like and he hit most of it 4e may be a fun oneshot but it dosnt look like it fits my game style.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

pming wrote:
I just find it silly to try and rationalize and hipocritize(?) them as 'unique...but common'. Silly. Just plain ol' silly.

that's another good way of putting it too.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Thanks guys. Its good to know that I am not alone in my reasons. I mean yea we all know that us non-4E lovers are kinda common here, but each of us have our own reasons for not liking it. Glad to here that I am not the only one that feels the same way for the same reasons.


well im with ya most the way man sept 4 Religious Objection. dont have one i have an isssue with new races being core and them useing the name for whats really a new race. as for warlock thats cool if they haddnt cut classics out for it i just rolled it and the sorc to gather myself but other then that spot on


I share a lot of your objections to 4E, DMcCoy.

I would also add as one of my objections the forced use of minis and battlemats. I was on a crusade to eliminate them from my game. Now it seems that with 4E, WotC is trying to force them further into the game. The exact opposite of what I want from my games.

I especially have an objection to the inclusion of Tiefling and Dragonborn into the PHB. In other threads, people have objected to the arbitrary denying of splatbook material by DMs. I think this is a mistaken notion, as I feel no obligation to let material into my campaign just because you purchased a splatbook. However, the argument holds a lot more water when you are talking about material in the PHB. It's THE basic book.

This is not to say I haven't forbidden stuff from the PHB before, but it's harder to do. And let me tell you, I hate the idea of dragonborn. I would never allow one in my game. And thanks to 4E, that forces me to houserule from day one. Except I won't be playing 4E, so it's not really an issue.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:

The following reasons are why I will not be upgading to 4E (in no particular order):

1) Removing traditional Races/Classes from the PHBI (and by traditional, I mean 1E). Removing traditional monsters from the MMI.

I can appreciate that. We probably agree that certain races are core playables, and while a particular setting might remove them or alter them significantly (Dark Sun for example), we wouldn't want them taken out of a "Core" book so that they're not supported by third parties, or not supported until a future date.

I'm afraid I don't know what monsters have been taken out of the MM1, but certainly I can see that there are certain classics that should be there. Especially given there is to be 500 of them?

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
2) Scrapping of the OGL. This is a big one for me. The OGL was, IMO, a legal recognition of my belief that D&D is MY game. The GSL, the little info we have on it, sounds to me like WotC saying, "Well, yea we can't go into your home and make you play our game, so we're going to stop just short of that. Oh and ignore the guys working on 5E that will be a paid licence only." It feels like WotC asserting control over a game that IMO is not theirs to assert control over.

:) I won't join you in the sarcasm about a 5th edition. That's your anger speaking.

Yes, it is kinda troubling, this new GSL. Though in fairness, the OGL troubles me when the full power of it is levied. I got back in the hobby right when Paizo lost the magazines and came out with Pathfinder Number #1 (and missed my charter tag by weeks). I was surprised to learn that not all the monsters were in the SRD. It seemed just wrong that mind flayers were off limits, and that I'll never see one in Pathfinder products.

There are some mixed messages about the GSL. I read (or watched on the seminar videos) that they're publicly stating they want "strong third party partners" to be out there producing campaign material. They added they hoped 3rd parties would have different campaign settings, but they were prepared to accept the likelihood of overlap.

I am concerned that the GSL will be so tricky that it will preclude concepts in an already existing campaign setting like Pathfinder.

I am going to skip Number 3 if you don't mind? I don't have anything Forgotten Realm related. Though I assume that this retconning of a new race has been done as arbitrarily as you describe?

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
4) Tieflings and Warlocks are an assumed major part of 4E. Religious Objection. Please don't give me the partronizing line of, "If you don't like this, done use them. Problem solved."

Lol.. you thought I was going to put you on trial for your opinions? No, no.. I merely wanted to understand. So often all I get is these little 'snippets' why people don't like it, with a side order of satire. I just wanted to go over the whole enchilada, so I could see where you're coming from.

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
I'm not the DM in every game I play (heck, right now, I"m not even a DM.) So I have no control over a setting that assumes infernal interaction enough to produce Tieflings/Warlocks as a major part of it. I'm fine with them being in supplements/MM's. Done that way, they are at best a minor part of the setting. Having it rarely happen in a setting is fine. Having it happen on a daily basis and a regular occurance is not.

I gotchya. Yeah, I can see where infernal half breeds should probably be seen as supplemental material rather than core. While I don't believe they intend on excluding old players, this does seem to be present for the benefit of mostly new generations.

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
5) Cinematic feel. I don't play D&D to feel like I am in a movie. I play D&D for the feel of being an average person that, through a long series pain and trials, becomes a major world changer. That's a book, not a movie. If I want cinematic, I have d6 Star Wars and Exalted 2E.

I have to reserve judgment on this. If there's no strong role-playing support system I'll concede you this.. But I haven't seen enough of the rest of the game (besides combat) to make an informed opinion.

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
6) Wizards are now primarily illusionists and evokers. Yes, the WotC boys have stated that they will still retain some spells of all the old major schools. But I have yet to hear of wizard spells that would really allow the wizard to be anything but "artillery". In a campaign I just finished up, I played a necromancer that hated undead. His signature spells were ones that dropped ability scores. Ability score loss is gone so its an easy guess that those spells are gone too. In a campaign that started recently, I'm playing a battle field controller. Signature spells: Baneful Transposition and Inhibit (we're still low level). You'll note: neither of those spells do damage. There's more to being a "controller" then doing damage to lots of people. 4E wizard is artillery, not a controller, despite what the role name is.

Yes, 3.5 Wizards have a lot of utility spells, like spider climb and so on.. This is another reason I wish one of these seminars or interviews would get away from combat and discuss other aspects of the game.

Going to take a break there... I'll get back to you on your other points.

Oh.. and that wasn't so painful was it? :) You had a lot of good points, so I didn't have much to say. The ones that tend to not fly so well with me are the ones that sound based upon hurt feelings...

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Watcher wrote:
Lol.. you thought I was going to put you on trial for your opinions? No, no.. I merely wanted to understand. So often all I get is these little 'snippets' why people don't like it, with a side order of satire. I just wanted to go over the whole enchilada, so I could see where you're coming from.

Not necessarily you, but I have gotten that exact line, word for word, from other people (even on these boards). I just figured I'd nip it in the bud while I at it.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Sean, Minister of KtSP wrote:
This is not to say I haven't forbidden stuff from the PHB before, but it's harder to do.

Depends on what you ban. I've banned vorpal from the instant I read what it did. I've never had an issue.

(I'm not disagreeing with your point. People tend to more upset about big chunks of the game like races and classes than one very expensive weapon ability.)

Dark Archive

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chris Perkins 88 wrote:

2] I enjoy characters who are not superheroic to begin with. D&D, to me, is about the potential to improve through perseverance and determination. 4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men. Rather than rising to the rank of hero through game play, 4th edition characters operate under the assumption that they are "the best at what they do" and that they are pre-ordained to change the world. For me, games like Feng Shui are better for this type of game-play.

3] The DDI and GSL, and the poor treatment of 3rd party publishers by WotC, have all undermined much of my goodwill towards WotC. I used to enjoy going to the Wizards' site for errata, free materials and use of their forums. I also used to...

These two hit home for me.

Starting weak and normal leads to really good campaigns. I want wizards that are weak and can't cast much and become powerful, not cannons that "aren't boring because they don't run out of spells". Sorry, choosing when to use your limited capacity really adds to play. Same obviously for other classes etc. We have enough problems teaching powergamers that they ruin roleplaying experiences already without encouraging it in everyone.

The goodwill comment also. They have tried to trample everyone, Dragon and Dungeon for example, and done this carelessly. That's as much my reason for my allegiance to Paizo as is the fact that the latter have demonstrated they care (and released some cracking products!)


Ross Byers wrote:

Depends on what you ban. I've banned vorpal from the instant I read what it did. I've never had an issue.

(I'm not disagreeing with your point. People tend to more upset about big chunks of the game like races and classes than one very expensive weapon ability.)

I was actually talking about banning certain races. I have, at times (but never all at once), banned halfings, half orcs and half elves. There were various in game and out of game reasons each time, and I usually felt the need to replace them with some other option, and usually there was some grumbling from players but not much.

The problem was, I never found it satisfying, and it didn't really produce the results I wanted. I was trying to shake things up, and manipulate the feel of the campaign world, and my players sort of went "whatever" and moved on.

And I think this gets at the very heart of my problems with what I've seen of 4E. The major house rules I'm tinkering with for 3.5 are mostly a result of wanting to overcome certain barriers in the 3.5 RAW to the homebrew campaign world I ultimately want to run. Some of the very fundamental systems in 3.5 work against my homebrew ideas. I think it's fixable, but it ultimately involves an almost complete rewrite of the rules into a new PHB, a la Iron Kingdoms or Game of Thrones.

Every single piece of info I've read about 4E confirms a wild exacerbation of this problem. Some parts of what little fundamental mechanics we've seen for 4E makes me think it will actually be impossible to create the campaign world I have in mind. Okay, not "impossible," but it's made it clear that it will be easier to massively modify OGL rules, or GURPS, or just about any other system on the planet.

I think this is a really important point. It's certainly important to me. I wonder if any of the 4E supporters can formulate a rebuttal to that. (Note: this isn't a challenge or an attempt to pick a fight, I'm just curious. Ultimately, it's a question that can't fully be answered until I've actually read the new PHB, but with all the D&DXP news, I'm now expecting to return my PHB for a refund.)

The Exchange

Solid, rational, reasonable, and I can totally get where you are coming from. We disagree, but it's one of those disagreements where neither of us is wrong and those are the best kind.

The only point that you raised that I do not understand is this little snippet ...

"its an RPG, not a minis game with role playing built around it"

The reason I do not get it is this - that is how D&D was born. The very DNA of this game is miniatures with a layer of roleplaying. In order to play the original edition you needed a copy of Chaimail. One of the very first supplements was Swords & Spells that contained rules for mass combats in D&D.

So I am not disagreeing when you say its a minis game - I am saying that it has always been that way.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:

Solid, rational, reasonable, and I can totally get where you are coming from. We disagree, but it's one of those disagreements where neither of us is wrong and those are the best kind.

The only point that you raised that I do not understand is this little snippet ...

"its an RPG, not a minis game with role playing built around it"

The reason I do not get it is this - that is how D&D was born. The very DNA of this game is miniatures with a layer of roleplaying. In order to play the original edition you needed a copy of Chaimail. One of the very first supplements was Swords & Spells that contained rules for mass combats in D&D.

So I am not disagreeing when you say its a minis game - I am saying that it has always been that way.

I think what he is saying is that although D&D may have evolved from a minis game, it has become something far greater. And more fun.


I agree with all points (pro and con) While it seems they are finally figuring out a useable format for books (rules compendium rules!) I just cannot understand how the world suddenly is chock full of weirdness.

To me, a world so full of horny demons and dragons that every female with a CHA of 10 or more has to be locked up at night is silly. Seems to me that the majority of these "gifts" would be tossed down the well. Imagine breast feeding a dragonblooded (eewww...) Much less a horned, possibly fanged demon child. What would the grandparents think? Heck, what would everyone else in the village think? Yet enough of these "things" survive to edge out half orcs and gnomes as core playable races? Sounds like passing ludicrous speed and going straight to plaid. But that's just my opinion.

How's about this one. The rules are specifically built around the concept of giving magical items to players at EVERY level. My gamers know to expect nothing but masterwork until around 4th or 5th level. that is usually when the treasure curve catches up to me. I have added a hefty markup to the DMG prices as well as restrictions to keep the party from depending on their christmas tree light assortment of gear for a reason. Now that is being undone because it is not presented as an option...it is a core mechanic!

Seems WotC could save us a lot of time conjecturing if they wouldn't be st damned stingy with the information handouts. They did it so well with 3.0, what happened?


Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
I also used to subscribe to Dungeon magazine and/or buy issues of that magazine and Dragon right off of the shelf. Now, in order to have access to what was once free or freely browsed and then purchased on an issue-by-issue basis is now bundled together in a pay-to-use monthly service that does not appeal to me.

I also used to subscibe to Dungeon magazine. I also am very disappointed with the content which has been published on the DI site since October. With that said, however, I would like to point out that Scott Rouse and Andy Collins have indicated that:

  • they plan to publish 160 pages of editorial content per month (they defined editorial content = Dungeon and Dragon),
  • They also stated during the seminar, the Q&A and an interview with Xath , on ENWorld, that Dugeon and Dragon magazine would be available to non-subscribers for online purchase every month for approximately $3. They also said that they plan on publishing as a hard back a Dragon annual and a Dungeon annual.

    Just thought I should point that out. As for the rest of the points being made here, to each his own. Personnaly, I am keen on trying 4e, but I understand that it might not be for everyone. To those that will not make the switch, I wish you all good gaming. I might still even join you.


  • Donovan Vig wrote:
    To me, a world so full of horny demons and dragons that every female with a CHA of 10 or more has to be locked up at night is silly. Seems to me that the majority of these "gifts" would be tossed down the well. Imagine breast feeding a dragonblooded (eewww...) Much less a horned, possibly fanged demon child. What would the grandparents think? Heck, what would everyone else in the village think? Yet enough of these "things" survive to edge out half orcs and gnomes as core playable races? Sounds like passing ludicrous speed and going straight to plaid. But that's just my opinion.

    If both dragonborns and tieflings were the results of cross-breeds between dragons/demons (or was it devils?) I would agree. But it is my understanding that the way they are presented is that these races are races in their own right resulting of ancient pacts or magical manipulation. They are no longer the result of breeding. As for the elimination of half-orcs and gnomes... It is a decision that disappoints me also.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    crosswiredmind wrote:
    Solid, rational, reasonable, and I can totally get where you are coming from. We disagree, but it's one of those disagreements where neither of us is wrong and those are the best kind.

    :) Glad we can see each other's side.

    crosswiredmind wrote:

    The only point that you raised that I do not understand is this little snippet ...

    "its an RPG, not a minis game with role playing built around it"

    The reason I do not get it is this - that is how D&D was born. The very DNA of this game is miniatures with a layer of roleplaying. In order to play the original edition you needed a copy of Chaimail. One of the very first supplements was Swords & Spells that contained rules for mass combats in D&D.

    So I am not disagreeing when you say its a minis game - I am saying that it has always been that way.

    Oh, yes. D&D definitely has it origins in minis gaming. But, IMO, 1E is the first true verion of D&D as a role playing game, hense why I refer to 1E as "traditional." O/B/E D&D's were definitely moving in that direction, but I feel that 1E is really where Role Playing first hits is stride with D&D. Others may disagree with me, but I'm just stating my opinion.

    I do not have a problem with D&D having a minis component. The minis game is fun. But minis shouldn't be required and reverting the game back towards the minis game and away from role playing is, IMO a terrible mistake for the game.

    Liberty's Edge

    In the spirit of this thread, here are the reasons why I’ve decided to not buy 4th edition. I won’t go into much detail on the ones which have already been mentioned.

    1, Dropping races and classes from the core books is a big one. My first 3.0 character was a half orc Barbarian. I really like that combination.

    2, The GSL, I am a big fan of the OGL for many reasons.

    3, Cinematic feel. This can be fun sometimes, but should only be an option, not the core of the system.

    4, Cost, I just can’t afford it right now.

    5, Lots of 3.5 material, and the confidence that I can convert what I want to use even if it means re-building important NPCs from the ground up.

    6, Tieflings and Warlocks are also an issue with me. This one I will go into more detail on. I wasn’t around for the huge religious debates over D&D, however, I have felt the after effects. There is a lot of misinformation out there about D&D regarding the belief that people who play it are Satan friendly cultists who delight in slaughter and the sacrificing of animals and virgins. This viewpoint hasn’t gone away. Thankfully there has been enough positive press about the game, and great movies like the Lord of the Ring trilogy, which have helped bring the true nature of the game to light.

    Putting these two options into the core book is asking for trouble. It is simply deliberately adding fuel to the fire and giving the religious fanatics a really good handle to use with the public when they want to talk about how horrible the game is. I come from a rather religious family, and while I am willing to accept that this racial template and the class exist in the world, I’ve used them in games myself, it is dissapointing that their heavenly counterparts haven’t been given equal space in the Core Rules. This means that people can’t point and say that the game explores the battle between good and evil simply because it appears to the reactionaries that evil has already won, or at lest gotten the stamp of approval from the game creators.

    I view this change as foolish and short sighted on the part of WoTC.

    7, The lack of the utility of magic. I am currently playing a sorcerer who uses only enchantment spells. It is a lot of fun. If all a wizard can do now is identify magical items and lob artillery like spells that just kills the interest in the class for me. Also, necromancers are excellent villains.

    8, The loss of the magazines didn’t hit me that much, and I’m glad that Pathfinder is out. Still, the apparent lack of organized communication with 3rd party publishers is a hard thing to ignore. If the product wasn’t ready to share with the publishers, including the license, then they shouldn’t have announced it and offered it to the publishers. That just strikes me as bad business. I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been better for Wizards to simply have waited a few months, or even another year, before publicly announcing 4th ed so that they were finished with the majority of the play testing and had a solid license and core rule set that they could send out to publishers right away after the conference where they announced their intention to do so.

    The Exchange

    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    But minis shouldn't be required and reverting the game back towards the minis game and away from role playing is, IMO a terrible mistake for the game.

    I guess that is the part I don't get - why are minis and roleplaying seen as mutually exclusive?


    crosswiredmind wrote:
    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    But minis shouldn't be required and reverting the game back towards the minis game and away from role playing is, IMO a terrible mistake for the game.
    I guess that is the part I don't get - why are minis and roleplaying seen as mutually exclusive?

    I'd like to see them take my role-playing away from me. Heck, I did Warhammer 40000K campaign with three players and they all played generals in enemy armies. They had like NO real stats, we just made it up. We played out battles, they did solos against me, against each other, used email to work out political matters in the background, negotiated territory, tortured spies....

    As far as minis being required. THIS IS a problem. You can't take the roleplaying out, but you can make it tough to take the minis out.


    crosswiredmind wrote:
    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    But minis shouldn't be required and reverting the game back towards the minis game and away from role playing is, IMO a terrible mistake for the game.
    I guess that is the part I don't get - why are minis and roleplaying seen as mutually exclusive?

    i guess it comes down to can i play without them from what i have saw no. minis should be a tool to help speed the game if u wish them not a componet that removeing will make the game harder. its looking like i'll be trying to play monoply without something to make your spaces . i could be long time will tell.

    The Exchange

    Kruelaid wrote:
    As far as minis being required. THIS IS a problem. You can't take the roleplaying out, but you can make it tough to take the minis out.

    I tried 3.0 without minis once and I was lost. Seems to me that they have always been required. Maybe 2E didn't need them? I skipped that edition.


    Kruelaid wrote:


    As far as minis being required. THIS IS a problem. You can't take the roleplaying out, but you can make it tough to take the minis out.

    what he said


    Lewy wrote:
    Starting weak and normal leads to really good campaigns. I want wizards that are weak and can't cast much and become powerful, not cannons that "aren't boring because they don't run out of spells". Sorry, choosing when to use your limited capacity really adds to play. Same obviously for other classes etc. We have enough problems teaching powergamers that they ruin roleplaying experiences already without encouraging it in everyone.

    That speaks to me as well. When I started running RotRL, I couldn't get anybody to play a Wizard or a Sorceror. The players backed away from it like poison, and none of them have particularly struck me as powergamers over the last months.

    But, I noticed RotRL, at least in Chapter One, as a good balance of wizardly support. There's a good couple wands in there and a fair number of scrolls that can be used to support a low level mage until they get a few levels under their wings. And since then, they've expressed some regret that they were all so unwilling.

    It makes me wonder if that hasn't been an underlying issue in how 3.5 has been run in the past, which is now being "fixed" in 4th Edition.. in such a way as to be overcompensation.

    Lewy wrote:
    The goodwill comment also. They have tried to trample everyone, Dragon and Dungeon for example, and done this carelessly. That's as much my reason for my allegiance to Paizo as is the fact that the latter have demonstrated they care (and released some cracking products!)

    I can't fault WOTC for business decisions, but I do see this as careless as you mention. I want to play in the campaign setting I want to play in, and if WOTC does things to elimination competition, my purchasing dollars will go elsewhere.


    crosswiredmind wrote:

    I tried 3.0 without minis once and I was lost. Seems to me that they have always been required. Maybe 2E didn't need them? I skipped that edition.

    ive been playing 3e sence it came out never have used minis . same with 2e dont need em . a small mape for the dm and good comunication is all u need . it has never been an issue.


    Even if 4E turns into the second coming and manages to pull kids (my nieces and nephews worry me) away from their video games a bit for some social interaction with friends--in person--WotC has one blunder under their belt that can't be fixed:

    They took Dungeon and Dragon magazines away from Paizo, who quite literally brought them back to life in the first place.

    If they would have avoided that and STILL done their nifty whatevers with their DDI then I would be much happier.

    You don't shoot yourself in the foot the day before the big race.

    Contributor

    Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
    The shift away from "classic" core races and classes is part of that. I want D&D to have dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, 1/2 elves, 1/2 orcs and humans. Anything else should be added on a setting-by-setting basis.

    Half-orcs were introduced as a core player character race just in 3rd Edition, right? That doesn't make it classic, does it?

    Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
    Instead, WotC has removed Greyhawk as the core setting

    It's effectively not the core setting now. I have almost no information from the core books about Greyhawk at all, let alone enough material to use it as an actual setting. Not even a map.

    Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
    4th edition characters, on the other hand, enter the game as heroes with abilities that far outstrip those of common men.

    So do 3e PCs, IMO.

    Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
    4th edition characters operate under the assumption that they are "the best at what they do"

    I don't see how this is different than 3e. In fact, I could swear I remember reading that very phrase back in my 2e days.

    Chris Perkins 88 wrote:
    I used to enjoy going to the Wizards' site for errata, free materials and use of their forums.

    Yup. So did everyone, alas.

    Contributor

    Watcher wrote:
    I couldn't get anybody to play a Wizard or a Sorceror. The players backed away from it like poison, and none of them have particularly struck me as powergamers over the last months.
    Watcher wrote:
    It makes me wonder if that hasn't been an underlying issue in how 3.5 has been run in the past, which is now being "fixed" in 4th Edition.. in such a way as to be overcompensation.

    I don't see making people excited to play a wizard from level 1 as being overcompensating... ;)

    We'll have to see when the rules come out if it's too much too soon, but considering what's been revealed so far in D&DXP I doubt it.


    I agree with your reasons. Those are my reasons, also, and I have many of my own to share as well. I'll share a few:

    1) The destruction of D&D's "mythology" and spitting on its 30+ years of history makes things very unappealing to me.

    2) The fact that in order to play and enjoy 4E, you MUST abandon your old campaign. Everyone, by now, has tailored their D&D to a certain way of playing and a certain style. 4th Edition doesn't offer a lot to keep your game, well, close to the same.

    Example, a campaign that heavily involves battles between Law&Chaos, Good&Evil and Neutrality in ones setting. This person has painstakingly made a fun campaign where Archons, Celestials, Devils, Demons, Yugoloths, Guardinals, Modrons, Slaads, Rilmani and Eladrins are a big part in the Material Plane and attempt to side with mortals to aid in altering the world more to their liking.

    With the alignment system gone, Law and Chaos destroyed, this sort of campaign cannot exist. Summoning magic is gone in 4E, and such a campaign like this obviously would rely heavily on it. With Archons, Eladrins, and others ommitted from D&D because the designers feel it's not right for the game (who the hell are they to say this?), you're left with a horrible choice. You like the new rules for 4E, but you cannot play it without starting over a whole new campaign and abandoning the one you and your players have been so heavily invested in for years. At least, not without causing some sort of catastrophe in your world, but why should it come down to that?

    Apply this same logic to other campaigns. I run a Realms game. I cannot continue my Realms game if I switch to 4E without destroying everything I've worked on for my Realms game.

    3) The obvious fact that WotC doesn't care about its original fan base, they want to attract a new one and the 4th Edition system clearly shows this.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    crosswiredmind wrote:
    I guess that is the part I don't get - why are minis and roleplaying seen as mutually exclusive?

    Eh, poor phrasing on my part.

    Nick Logue did say that the role playing section of the DMG is the best he's ever read in a DMG. I hope it is true. But frankly, every playtester that went into great detail has talked about one thing and one thing exclusively: combat. I have yet to hear one single thing about how the game encourages role playing. Yes, its about what the players bring to the table. But it sounds like 4E has less role playing support then Dora the Explorer Candyland. At least there, you're playing either Dora, Boots, Diago, or Backpack (my favorite).

    For us old timers, this isn't a problem; we know how to role play and don't need a new edition to tell us how to do it. But this is D&D, the gameway game for roleplayers. Is there anything on building a character's identity or on developing a background or anything else on how to differentiate character a from character b? We here how a dwarf fighter is going to be different from a dwarf wizard in combat, but is there anything on how to develop the story as to why said dwarf went wizard over fighter?

    We've heard from one playtester on how 4E is the XBox of RPGs. Someone at XP said that it is heavily inspired by MMOs. That's great and all, but they are not known for quality role playing, at least when compared to tabletops.

    If 4E is moving away from role playing, it has to be moving towards something. Its moving towards combat. Its moving towards tactical play. ... Its moving towards minis. Are minis and role playing mutually exclusive, no. They can advance together. But the information we have so far suggests that that 4E is moving away from role playing and towards minis.


    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    ive been playing 3e sence it came out never have used minis . same with 2e dont need em . a small mape for the dm and good comunication is all u need .

    Ditto.

    The VERY few times it has come up we have just used my wife's bucket of Star Wars Galactic Heroes toys. I (as DM) get the Storm Troopers and any left over while all the players fight over who gets to be represented by Han, Chewie et al.... ;P

    3.5 was almost too far in the mini/board game direction for my group. The 4th ed. 'turn-offs' for us are the shift towards this type of play (if we wanted all the movement done in squares, we'd play Hero Quest!) and the treatment of the OGL, 3rd party publishers and fans by WotC.

    Peace.


    DMcCoy1693 wrote:


    If 4E is moving away from role playing, it has to be moving towards something. Its moving towards combat. Its moving towards tactical play. ... Its moving towards minis. Are minis and role playing mutually exclusive, no. They can advance together. But the information we have so far suggests that that 4E is moving away from role playing and towards minis.

    This post of yours explains 4th Edition the best. Even the non-combat scenarios in 4E uses a "combat mechanic" rule to handle it.

    Honestly, there's two sorts we can be angry at for such a drastic and unlikeable change with D&D as a whole.

    We can be angry at the 9 million WoW players for being so primitive with gaming that WotC has to create a simpler, combat-heavy Tabletop RPG just to make them happy.

    Or we can be angry at WotC for not sticking to the idealism TSR and Gygax had and being greedy for ever more money and profit by causing such drastic changes in order to attract the MMORPG base for more money.


    Moonlion wrote:

    I don't see making people excited to play a wizard from level 1 as being overcompensating... ;)

    We'll have to see when the rules come out if it's too much too soon, but considering what's been revealed so far in D&DXP I doubt it.

    It might not be, but Lewy (the person I was responding to) thought so.

    It might not be overcompensating Moonlion, and certainly it's a worthy goal.. making them more fun. You did note that I couldn't get anybody to actually play one?

    But I would like see it in practice and not just in theory.


    tallforadwarf wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    ive been playing 3e sence it came out never have used minis . same with 2e dont need em . a small mape for the dm and good comunication is all u need .

    Ditto.

    The VERY few times it has come up we have just used my wife's bucket of Star Wars Galactic Heroes toys. I (as DM) get the Storm Troopers and any left over while all the players fight over who gets to be represented by Han, Chewie et al.... ;P

    3.5 was almost too far in the mini/board game direction for my group. The 4th ed. 'turn-offs' for us are the shift towards this type of play (if we wanted all the movement done in squares, we'd play Hero Quest!) and the treatment of the OGL, 3rd party publishers and fans by WotC.

    Peace.

    ah heroquest that was fun but was in no way an rpg. im glad to see other people dont have this i have to have minis or i cant play 3e mindset. now i never did 3.5 so i cant say how that is i do use some 3.5 books. ok a lot of 3.5 books but still never had an issue.


    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    But frankly, every playtester that went into great detail has talked about one thing and one thing exclusively: combat. I have yet to hear one single thing about how the game encourages role playing.

    BINGO!!!

    I am so glad you brought this up!

    This has been a concern of mine as well.

    So much so that early this morning I created a DnD Insider identity and I went to their community, and I politely and respectfully asked that community to share their thoughts with me.

    I think you need a DnD Insider log-in to view this.. Thus far, it has been enough to really copy and paste over here. They misunderstood me at one point and start talking about freedom from alignment, and then instructing me that you don't need a system in order to role-play. (kindly roll of the eyes) I got them back on track I think, but the answers have not been flowing.

    If you'd like to join me, but I think you need a log in to see it

    At another spot, I've posted it to a section that goes to the Design Team at the event.

    Here, but it has gotten no love, only 80 views thus far

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    Razz wrote:
    Even the non-combat scenarios in 4E uses a "combat mechanic" rule to handle it.

    The rule of thumb in RPG design is that if you do not want to emphasize combat but want to emphasize role playing, you make the combat and non-combat resolution system identical (or as close to identical as possible). This way, players don't have to learn two different systems, one for combat, one for out of combat. 4E is actually the very first instance where this is not true. I don't know how and probably won't until I sit down in B&N and give the books a read, but the fact that no one is discussing role playing in any detail saddens me.


    I've run campaigns in D & D Basic, AD & D 1st edition, AD & D 2nd edition and 3rd edition, and the amount of roleplaying I've seen by the players has remained exactly the same.

    I'm just not seeing how the ruleset you're using really makes much difference at all.

    Roleplaying is created by the DM and the players, not the rules.


    Sigh...

    Eventually I had one of them go off at me and rant in giant letters.

    After yelling at me, an angry WOTC Poster wrote:

    They have told us two things regarding this. First, there will be mechanics that are somewhat optional used for resolving social situations. Second, out of combat abilities will be completely(or nearly completely thanks to skills and feats) separate from non-combat abilities, and you will not be given the choice to sacrifice one for the other.

    Not being able to sacrifice non-combat ability for combat ability and vice-versa is IMO the absolutely best thing to ever happen.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    Niko77 wrote:
    I've run campaigns in D & D Basic, AD & D 1st edition, AD & D 2nd edition and 3rd edition, and the amount of roleplaying I've seen by the players has remained exactly the same.

    As I said before, you may disagree with me that pre-1E D&D was less role playing oriented then 1E was. That is just my opinion. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.


    Niko77 wrote:

    I've run campaigns in D & D Basic, AD & D 1st edition, AD & D 2nd edition and 3rd edition, and the amount of roleplaying I've seen by the players has remained exactly the same.

    I'm just not seeing how the ruleset you're using really makes much difference at all.

    Roleplaying is created by the DM and the players, not the rules.

    Sigh... This is one of those statements that is, while completely and utterly true, is also somewhat obtuse. It really doesn't address the question or the concern, it only serves to dismiss out of hand.

    Role-playing is created by the GM and the Players, and whenever possible it should be the guiding the rule.

    However....

    1.) Unfortunately, in pretending to be heroic characters, we're not always heroic. We need a system to compensate for our own real world limitations.

    2.) There are times where some objectivity is handy to have. Where there's a system to adjudicate success and failure that is not dependent solely on the discretion of GM, and how well they feel you have 'acted out your role'.

    Now I have role-played for decades with entirely diceless systems that were entirely deterministic. Ergo, I probably won't accept a lecture on what is role-playing. I'm quite comfortable playing diceless, but even I recognize that one of the shortcomings of "pure role-playing" is that it removes the opportunity of great success and failure.. and largely the element of risk. It's no small feat to try to convey those elements in a pure role-playing medium. It requires a lot of trust, and will never completely lose that deterministic quality.

    The best solution, I tell you sir, is to rely on role-playing only as much as possible, but when there is a shadow of doubt, let the dice do their job. The best of both worlds.

    Furthermore Niko, in DmMcoy and I's defense- there is as an entire branch of the game that is not combat, for which there is no other better word for other than 'role-playing.' I think that might be what was actually being discussed.

    For example:

    Skill rolls for interacting with the environment. Library research, searching, moving quietly, acrobatics, tight rope walking... Crafting items..

    Those aren't combat. What are they called? "Environmental interactivity systems"? Gosh that would be cumbersome.

    What about contested social skills? If the GM is a confident talker, should the player never be able to bluff anybody?

    These get lumped into "role-playing" too.. and that might be what we're discussing here. Please bear that in mind.


    Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    Watcher wrote:
    Sigh...

    I would actually be tempted to think that they haven't planned much to support the role-playing aspect of the game in 4E, most likely because this is not really what their target audience seems to expect. (Then again, this might be just an old grognard's misconception that younger players are interested only in flashy combats and not in actually "living an alternative life" in an imaginary world). Fun and flashy combats do not require well-rounded characters who also have a life outside of the battle grid.

    At this point, I am tempted to think that my (our ?) best hope would be for a third party publisher [heck, or maybe even WotC, though it would not really fit in their publishing line] to create a set of alternative/add-on rules that would cover non-combat situations, non-combat skills, and so on. And perhaps also offer altenative lists with less "flashy"/"abstract" powers - I would think that having powers that are more easily interpretable in terms of actions in the imaginary world helps with playing a role.

    Currently, I feel that 4E is a very good game, but not really a role-playing game, more a "rule-playing game" (where you apply rule, have fun, and do not worry too much about what the rules mean). 4E would need some add-on and/or mdifications to be what I would call a real role-playing game (that is, a game where the main theme is to play the role of a character).

    But all that depends mostly on the GSL I guess ... whether it allows or not third party publishers to craft alternative/additive rules.


    Good points Dalvyn...

    I found another little tidbit regarding social skills. It's attributed to a 'Developer' but I can't cite a confirmed source.

    An unknown Developer at DDXP alledgedly wrote:
    The DMG has a lengthily description of “non-combat challenges.” These include social encounters, chase scenes, library research, etc. They aren’t handled by 1 or 2 dice rolls, but instead involve multiple checks over some period of time in the game to see an outcome. Andy Collins says that the closest thing to it is the Complex Skill check from Alternity. Their goal is to have more people at the table involved in social situations. Player 1 might make diplomacy check, as Player 2 makes a bluff check to support him, and Player 3 makes an intimidate check to drive the point home. (If done correctly, these checks should aid each other, not counter.) An NPC might counter with the support of a Knowledge roll, and Player 1 counters with other knowledge and a second diplomacy check. This makes it more of a back and forth between players and GMs. Collins noted that they don’t want to penalize players who’s own ability doesn’t match their characters, but they still want to inject roleplaying into social encounters. The result is a range of results from a social situation instead of a simple pass/fail.

    And...

    A WOTC poster volunteered this when they wrote:
    Also there is a Skills Challenges system where when faced with certain tasks the players can decide on the best method to approach, so which skill to use and choose a 'easy', 'moderate', or 'hard' DC to go for, there seems to be a cost vs. risk benefit to this, but hasn't been fully explained.


    Watcher wrote:
    1.) Unfortunately, in pretending to be heroic characters, we're not always heroic. We need a system to compensate for our own real world limitations.

    I agree. All of my players may not be clever or eloquent speakers, but they may like to play a PC who is. I thought the skills of 3e helped us quite a bit in determining results for role-playing encounters.

    However, are we positive that this aspect will be entirely gone in 4e? I thought I read in a article on "Aint It Cool News" (linked to ENworld) that one could play 4e and gain XP solely from role-playing encounters. I just assumed that information has not been released yet.


    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    "Well, yea we can't go into your home and make you play our game, so we're going to stop just short of that"...It feels like WotC asserting control over a game that IMO is not theirs to assert control over.

    This has been a feature of WotC's approach ever since they acquired D&D. Whether its through the way the elements of the game are designed or through comments regarding "useless" and/or "un-fun" elements, WotC has always implied that there is a right way and a wrong way to play D&D. D&D has become heavily invested with the designers' personal opinions and preferences, disregarding the diversity of styles and tastes that characterize the home game. So, yes, they very much feel that it is their place to dictate how D&D is and isn't to be played. Whether this is arrogance or a sense of ownership for being a D&D designer, its hard to say. But, it is certainly difficult to characterize them as custodians of a tradition when they are so dismissive and cynical towards anyone not on the WotC payroll...

    1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Companion to the "Shocker" Thread All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.