Why? My statement is factual. You can tell me that I am wrong and why if you would like to.
I'm not interested in telling you why you're wrong. Nor did I say or imply you were.
The point was that you often don't have to point out when others are wrong -- it starts arguments.
Is being right so important?
Wow, he's still at it...
Go figure.
Wow, he's still at it... Go figure.
:)
I don't get your animus for crosswiredmind, Kruel. I think you're both cool, so it baffles me.
But then I baffle me.
Spock and McCoy were both cool, too. Not to say there are direct parallels from those characters to our friends here, but just as an illustration that two people, each steeped in awesomeness can still have outlooks and communications styles that put them in different parts of the spectrum.
Everyone who posts after me is a hamster!
A miniature Giant space hamster? Go for the eyes Boo!
I'm thinking more Mos Eisley:
POSTER 1: Negola dewaghi wooldugger?!?
POSTER 2: He doesn't like 4e.
POSTER 3: I'm sorry.
POSTER 2: I don't like 4e either.
The big creature is getting agitated and yells out some
unintelligible gibberish at the now rather nervous, young
4e fan.
POSTER 2: (continued) Don't insult us. You just watch yourself. We're
wanted men. I have been banned from twelve messageboards.
POSTER 3: I'll be careful than.
POSTER 2: You'll be flamed.
I can appreciate the OP's niceness. I appreciate everyone's level-headed approach to this 4e thread.
Having said that, let's see 4e for the departure it truely is. 4e is a departure from the history, tradition/continuity, and core elements that comprise 30+ years of game history. IMHO, 4e is not dnd. In makes sense that we've enjoyed all previous versions—because they actually were editions/versions of our game. Just because that was true, does not overlook 4e's gross departure. Had 4e been sold under a different name, or advertised to be an alternative - that might have been true. But its the obvious marketing lie that burns me. How dare they sell incoherent, washed out logic, and call it the newest edition, saying "Ze game remains za same." How freeking insulting!
This has nothing to do with wotc's aweful disregard for its customers. This is not a backlash. This is the plain truth that 4e is ostensibly a different game, and not the game I nor millions of us want to play. Looking for a game that's D&D enough - - Pathfinder RPG is now the dungeons and dragons game.
QFT!
I don't get your animus for crosswiredmind, Kruel. I think you're both cool, so it baffles me.
But then I baffle me.
Yeah, it ain't rational.
Personally, I think he likes the attention, that's why he likes stir up petty disagreements so much.
Since when is BASIC math considered calculus????!?!
I agree. I've seen this come up since 2E and THACo. If addition and subtraction are giving you problems, maybe you should try a game that's a little less cerebral.
Everyone who posts after me is a hamster!
Squeak-squeak!
:P
Everyone who posts after me is a hamster!
Oink?
I agree. I've seen this come up since 2E and THACo. If addition and subtraction are giving you problems, maybe you should try a game that's a little less cerebral.
Since when is BASIC math considered calculus????!?!
Sigh. I'll refrain from insulting you back, but it's sad that you feel you have to demean me to give weight to your statement.
What I was getting at, obviously, is the large amount of crunch a DM has to cope with, especially if his players are not exactly walking calculators.
Of course 3.5's spell durations are simple math. But all that simple math adds up. I want to make tactical decisions, not keep track of when what ends and how what changes.
The Barbarian: "Did my rage end? What round is it? Oh wait, I have two extra rounds because my constitution is higher. Okay, I'll hit the orc. Damn, I miss. No, wait. Since I'm a dwarf I get a +1. And he charged last turn, didn't he? So his AC is down by 2. Still need 1 point. When did you cast Bless? Great! Orc pie!"
The Druid: "Okay, I change into a dire bear. No, make that a dire lion. Wait a sec, gotta update my stats. Next round I'll animal growth myself. What's my fort save now?"
The Cleric: "Damn, so he dispelled my Divine Power and Shield of Faith? But my Divine Favor, Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person are still good? Okay, so now my attack bonus is... wait, are you still singing? No? How many rounds does your song linger?"
The Rogue: "I attack with my shortswords. My attack bonus on my first attack is... with Bless, singing, Cat's Grace, flanking, two-weapon fighting, miss. Next attack is with the same hand. Hit. Then another. No, wait it's with the off-hand. Damn, miss. Wait, is Haste still up? Okay, so then I did have an extra main hand attack. That's a hit then."
You do not have to be cerebrally challenged to think the way 3.5 does certain things is overly complicated. Rage should just last for one combat and that's that. Mage armor should last all day. Wild shape should be restricted to specific shapes (like the excellent PHB II druid variant).
I'm not saying 4E is going to make it all better. But at least it will address a lot of these issues. Not everyone will feel those changes necessary, but I and my players do.
Feed me!
|
Crosswiredmind already addressed these, so let me just add that you forgot to mention a lot of other "gonnees", like:
- The 15-minute work day: gone
- Spell duration calculus: gone
- Polymorph/Wild Shape calculus: gone
- Charisma as a dump stat: gone
- Two rolls for one and the same thing (Hide/Move and Spot/Listen): gone
- Class disbalance: gone (well...)
- Cleric as a healbot: gone
- High level NPCs with spell lists longer than your arm: gone
- Flipping through a gazillion books to check what every feat, spell and race/class ability does: gone
- Dipping into ten different classes: gone
- Levels where you gain nothing: gone
- Death at level 1 because an orc crits you: gone
- Death at level 10 because the monster's penultimate attack leaves you at 1 hit point: gone
- Death at level 15 because you rolled a 1 on your save: gone
- Casters that suck if they multiclass: gone
- Magic items that do nothing but give you a bonus: gone
Let me address a few of these.. in my view...
- The 15-minute work day: gone
By this I assume you mean.. a Game session where mostly only thing you accomblish is combat which only really covers a few seconds to afew minutes in game time... That would be a good thing if in 4E Combat time has been reduced.
- Spell duration calculus: gone
I do love the new spell durations in 4th
- Polymorph/Wild Shape calculus: gone
DO not know enough to comment
- Charisma as a dump stat: gone
Chr was not a Dumb Stat for many classes... Never saw it as a dumb stat in 3.5
- Two rolls for one and the same thing (Hide/Move and Spot/Listen): gone
I think that making those skills one thing in 4E is good to
- Class disbalance: gone (well...)
That is still to be seen
- Cleric as a healbot: gone
Aren't they still healers in 4E?
- High level NPCs with spell lists longer than your arm: gone
DO not know enough to comment
- Flipping through a gazillion books to check what every feat, spell and race/class ability does: gone
Just one thing to say here......wait for it.......
- Dipping into ten different classes: gone
Not sure what you mean here
- Levels where you gain nothing: gone
Another good thing in 4E
- Death at level 1 because an orc crits you: gone
- Death at level 10 because the monster's penultimate attack leaves you at 1 hit point: gone
- Death at level 15 because you rolled a 1 on your save: gone
All three of these I am Upset about in 4E... what is the point if you do not fear death?...Specially at low levels!!
- Casters that suck if they multiclass: gone
IMO Multi CLass caster should be less powerful then full class... that is what they get for multiclassing..it is what you give up by putting time into learning something new..
- Magic items that do nothing but give you a bonus: gone
eeehh could not care either way..
My Big problem with 4E.. Is mostly thier chose in CLasses in the first PhB.. I would have preferred if they use the same from 3.5 to help smooth the transtion of ongoing campaings.
Edit: edited to reduce length
|
|
Stuff about math
As a DM or player..it takes a only a few moments..if that to add that up... It is SImple...
THe problem with most players with this is thier inability to track it.. THey don't have down on thier sheets how long a certain thing lasts and have to look it up.. that is what takes time.. not the math itself.
This is easily solved by knowing beforte hand how long thing takes..and have it on your sheet.
The math is still...5+1+1-2+3..like stuff...
Simple math..
Let me just ask you this then: why is 4E a gross departure to its predecessors and 3E not?
Just some thoughts:
- Multiple base classes eliminated
- Significantly lowered lethality
- Vancian magic gone (while that is arguably one of the more positive changes, we've become attached to it -- some might say conditioned)
- Dramatic change to long-standing content (what's a demon/devil, monster abilities, etc)
- Settings (FR so far) dramatically changed to fit core rules
- Traditionally core material to be spread through multiple supplements
There's more, but I hope the point is made.
D&D has changed -- WotC has, by their own admission, felt no obligation to leave any previous material intact. They've admitted the magnitude of the change, and told us to marvel at it's wondrous perfection. They have changed anything they thought would make the game better, even sacred cows.
I'm not critcizing 4e, but I do think people are not without grounds for disliking the degree of change.
What I do feel like criticizing are people that insist 4e gives us everything we've always had, or (and this is worse) what we didn't know we wanted, or that I'm wrong for disliking the changes. I am skeptical that 4e will satisfy my gaming needs/desires -- for this, I've been criticized, ridiculed, and berated.
I've been drinking Coke for years. Don't give me Diet Coke and tell me it's the same thing. And don't criticize me for saying it's a different product. And if I tell you why it's different, don't rebutt my reasons point-by-point.
In return, I won't do everything I can to discredit your reasons for liking Diet Coke.
And for those that persistently miss the point I'm trying to make, I'm not really talking about Coke. I'm just tired of people always having to be right (or, more accurately, having to prove others wrong).
Squeak!
Let me just ask you this then: why is 4E a gross departure to its predecessors and 3E not?
Chris:
To answer your question more directly (and I wasn't going after you in the last post), I think the answer is this: because WotC wants it to be. Claims to the contrary are just marketing to pacify grumpy grognards like me.
I think WotC set out to be a much better game, not a little better. They wanted to dramatically change the game -- so the product is going to be dramatically changed. Hopefully for the better.
Just my two cents :)
*offers Tatterdemalion a Diet Coke*
Drink it, citizen. It contains all the necessary nutrients and sedati- I mean vitamins, as directed by The Computer.
|
Zavarov,
I agree with Dragnmoon -- the math's still there, and to me it seems even more complex than in 3E. All the bonuses from Marking, Combat Advantage, Racial Bonuses, Feat Bonuses, Class Bonuses, Proficiency Bonuses, etc. (not to mention that keeping track of all those saves, conditions and marks seem a lot of effort and trouble).
And now everyone is staring at their sheets and PHBs trying to look up which power did what and when and why (instead of just the players of spellcasters flipping through PHB in 3E). For example, I doubt that you actually remember how each power works after 11th level.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
|
Zavarov,
I agree with Dragnmoon -- the math's still there, and to me it seems even more complex than in 3E. All the bonuses from Marking, Combat Advantage, Racial Bonuses, Feat Bonuses, Class Bonuses, Proficiency Bonuses, etc. (not to mention that keeping track of all those saves, conditions and marks seem a lot of effort and trouble).
And now everyone is staring at their sheets and PHBs trying to look up which power did what and when and why (instead of just the players of spellcasters flipping through PHB in 3E). For example, I doubt that you actually remember how each power works after 11th level.
Anyway, that's how I see it.
Having played it I can say that the math is there - but it is not done on the fly with the exception of situational modifiers (which actually seem to have been reduced). The real math problem with 3.5 is not the complexity of any given calculation but the ripple effect that happens with things like stat buffs and negative levels.
|
|
Let me just ask you this then: why is 4E a gross departure to its predecessors and 3E not?Just some thoughts:
- Multiple base classes eliminated
- Significantly lowered lethality
- Vancian magic gone (while that is arguably one of the more positive changes, we've become attached to it -- some might say conditioned)
- Dramatic change to long-standing content (what's a demon/devil, monster abilities, etc)
- Settings (FR so far) dramatically changed to fit core rules
- Traditionally core material to be spread through multiple supplements
- The base classes have not been eliminated. They have not been published but they are not gone forever.
- 4e is lethal. I nearly killed three PCs in the very first fight in Keep on the Shadowfell. I actually had to pull a couple punches to keep the party from being wiped out.
- Vancian magic was outdated and in need of an overhaul. Besides, most spells are still per encounter or per day so your magic is still limited.
- Fluff changes can be reversed quite easily.
- Yep - they messed up with FR, but that does not bother me at all. TSR did it in the switch from AD&D to 2nd and now WotC did it with the 3e to 4e transition. But for me setting has never been all that important in D&D and I can roll with the changes.
- The spread of core material is something that game companies have always done during edition changes. They know what people want so the figure out new ways to get us to buy more stuff.
|
|
Why? My statement is factual. You can tell me that I am wrong and why if you would like to.I'm not interested in telling you why you're wrong. Nor did I say or imply you were.
The point was that you often don't have to point out when others are wrong -- it starts arguments.
Is being right so important?
Being right is not important - being correct is important. I tend to post when people make claims or present opinions that are not based on the facts. For example, 4e detractors say that the game system is not lethal. Having now played the game I can honestly tell you that it may not be as lethal as 3e but you can still kill PCs quite easily. I know because I did.
I do not seek to be right but I do seek to be correct, and if someone posts 4e hate that is based on half truth and speculation, or worse - pure hyperbole - then I will post a rebuttal.
I do not seek to be right but I do seek to be correct, and if someone posts 4e hate that is based on half truth and speculation, or worse - pure hyperbole - then I will post a rebuttal.
Why?
Are you believe you will show them the error of their ways? Do you think others will be led astray by their arguments? Is their ignorance in some way offensive to you?
And have you ever won?
And what's the difference between what you do and always having to prove people wrong?
Having now played the game I can honestly tell you that it may not be as lethal as 3e but you can still kill PCs quite easily.
We are dotted of a great human gift called "empathy". Maybe we could avoid zillions of arguments if we used it to understand what people actually mean rather than how they write it.
That would be, IMHO, a great deal more constructive than bickering about paraphrases, how this or that word is defined in a dictionary, and whether the intent of a previous poster is nefarious, ignorant, stupid or not.
When people say that "4E is not lethal", what they really mean, for instance, is that really 4E is less lethal than 3E/previous editions of the game. Which you just confirm here.
After, whether that is something that hurts the feel of the game for one particular player is something totally subjective. That's something you might not experience yourself, but that is undeniable as a fact as it relates to the player feeling that way.
Post deleted -- what was the point?
:/
But... if someone states something that's factually incorrect, don't you feel morally obliged to provide the correct answer?
Maybe I'm a pedant. Or just a teacher. :D
"All youse need a pint o' Guinness, so."
Let me just ask you this then: why is 4E a gross departure to its predecessors and 3E not?Chris:
To answer your question more directly (and I wasn't going after you in the last post), I think the answer is this: because WotC wants it to be. Claims to the contrary are just marketing to pacify grumpy grognards like me.
I think WotC set out to be a much better game, not a little better. They wanted to dramatically change the game -- so the product is going to be dramatically changed. Hopefully for the better.
Just my two cents :)
I think that its one of 4E's greatest strengths is that they are setting out to make D&D that isnt a rehash of what we've already been playing. I mean, if people want the old D&D reloaded, they already have 3rd Edition. I think they retain a lot of the good concepts and story about elves, dwarves, and whatnot, but arent religiously adhering to the old stuff when they dont think they should be.
Basically, if you want 1000 year elves, Great Wheel, and the other sacred cows, you have 3rd Edition.
I think that its one of 4E's greatest strengths is that they are setting out to make D&D that isnt a rehash of what we've already been playing. I mean, if people want the old D&D reloaded, they already have 3rd Edition. I think they retain a lot of the good concepts and story about elves, dwarves, and whatnot, but arent religiously adhering to the old stuff when they dont think they should be.
Basically, if you want 1000 year elves, Great Wheel, and the other sacred cows, you have 3rd Edition.
You've got a point.
Some would object, however, that if you make another RPG that isn't based on the D&D tropes, then you can do so by just not calling it "D&D" (the reason WotC doesn't do this is because of the IP's value, i.e. the revenue it generates by name only).
One could add, moreover, that there are already zillions of fantasy tabletop RPGs exploring many, many different ways of playing these kinds of games (WFRP, RuneQuest, all OGL variants out there, RoleMaster, Exalted, LOTR RPG, Cadwallon, GURPS Fantasy and so many, many others). If you're making a "new" version of D&D, then you might as well stick to D&D's core assumptions and history.
No, really. 4E doesn't come out to make a "better game", nor is it coming to build "something different", just for the sake of it. It's coming out for bottom-line reasons for WotC. Revenues. Marketing.
After, anyone's free to like the changes or not.
Of course they are making 4E to make a better game. You can dispute their definition of better, but surely you don't think they're making 4E to make a worse game do you? (Note, I'm not asking "Do you think 4E is a worse game?". I know what many here would say. This is aimed at the intent of the designers.)
That said, I think our biggest source of disagreement is what makes DnD, DnD? What can be removed and discarded, while retaining the core DnD-ness? What is too central to DnD-hood that, once removed, the game is no longer DnD?
I'm not sure what my answer to those questions would be (although having posed them perhaps I'll devote some time to answering them) but for me 4E has not removed anything I would deem as needed (as far as I know). For many others, however, it has. It is the sum aggregate of the changes? Is there one glaring problem that irks you?
Many seem upset at the loss of the Great Wheel and other aspects of the "default cosmology" that was tied to it. But the Great Wheel WAS the assumed setting to everything in 2E, in 3E only Greyhawk (the default setting) used it. FR had changed to some weird tree structure that I never quite grokked (not being a FR player). Eberron has this cyclical rotating plane business, which seems pretty groovy.
And really, looking back on 2E, most setting there didn't use the Great Wheel either. They just got roped into it when Planescape came out (which caused some pretty heavy complaints from other settings who disliked being lumped into PS's grand over-setting). Did that many people take to the Great Wheel then?
Cheers! :)
|
|
I do not seek to be right but I do seek to be correct, and if someone posts 4e hate that is based on half truth and speculation, or worse - pure hyperbole - then I will post a rebuttal.Why?
Are you believe you will show them the error of their ways? Do you think others will be led astray by their arguments? Is their ignorance in some way offensive to you?
And have you ever won?
And what's the difference between what you do and always having to prove people wrong?
Its all about misinformation. If factually incorrect assertions are not challenged than they take on a life of their own and become difficult to stop. I can't tell if it is purposeful disinformation or simple ignorance of the facts but either way I find it better to address misinformation than it is to let it linger.
It's not about winning. I appreciate being corrected when I am misinformed. How else would I ever learn what the real deal is?
Vancian magic keeps cropping up. Is it really that D&D-defining?
Sadly, I think it is.
If there is a system that is both better for the players and the DM, why not use that for D&D?
The simple answer is: I don't know.
Another answer might be that, given that Vancian magic is so ingrained into D&D, it would be a potentially foolish move (from a business standpoint) to change it. I think that WotC is quite brave (and perhaps foolishly so) eliminating this stupid, clumsy system that is not represented anywhere else in fantasy literature.
My two cents :)
Another answer might be that, given that Vancian magic is so ingrained into D&D, it would be a potentially foolish move (from a business standpoint) to change it. I think that WotC is quite brave (and perhaps foolishly so) eliminating this stupid, clumsy system that is not represented anywhere else in fantasy literature.
My two cents :)
I like the cut of yer jib, kid.
*Offers real Coke*
I do not seek to be right but I do seek to be correct, and if someone posts 4e hate that is based on half truth and speculation, or worse - pure hyperbole - then I will post a rebuttal.
It's not about winning. I appreciate being corrected when I am misinformed. How else would I ever learn what the real deal is?
So, when you were rebutting my claim that 4e is less lethal than 3e, my post is 4e hate, based on half-truth, speculation, and/or pure hyperbole? Because I thought it was a factual statment originally made by WotC.
But you didn't disagree with me -- rather you pointedly stated 4e was lethal, though I had not claimed otherwise. Yet still you were compelled to make some sort of rebuttal.
In fact, the point of that section of my post was nothing more than to point out that 4e is, indeed, a change. There's not the slightest hint of agreement in your response.
Clearly I lack your insight and intelligence. I'll have to settle for the lesser virtues of courtesy and respect for other people.
OK
Maybe it'll be Coke cut with Diet Coke.
:D
|
Let me just ask you this then: why is 4E a gross departure to its predecessors and 3E not?Just some thoughts:
- Multiple base classes eliminated
- Significantly lowered lethality
- Vancian magic gone (while that is arguably one of the more positive changes, we've become attached to it -- some might say conditioned)
- Dramatic change to long-standing content (what's a demon/devil, monster abilities, etc)
- Settings (FR so far) dramatically changed to fit core rules
- Traditionally core material to be spread through multiple supplements
There's more, but I hope the point is made.
D&D has changed -- WotC has, by their own admission, felt no obligation to leave any previous material intact. They've admitted the magnitude of the change, and told us to marvel at it's wondrous perfection. They have changed anything they thought would make the game better, even sacred cows.
I'm not critcizing 4e, but I do think people are not without grounds for disliking the degree of change.
What I do feel like criticizing are people that insist 4e gives us everything we've always had, or (and this is worse) what we didn't know we wanted, or that I'm wrong for disliking the changes. I am skeptical that 4e will satisfy my gaming needs/desires -- for this, I've been criticized, ridiculed, and berated.
I've been drinking Coke for years. Don't give me Diet Coke and tell me it's the same thing. And don't criticize me for saying it's a different product. And if I tell you why it's different, don't rebutt my reasons point-by-point.
In return, I won't do everything I can to discredit your reasons for liking Diet Coke.
And for those that persistently miss the point I'm trying to make, I'm not really talking about Coke. I'm just tired of people always having to be right (or, more accurately, having to prove others wrong).
Squeak!
These are very good points. Another thing I'd like to point out is that everyone is singing the praises of the ease of the 1st level demos they have played. Of course, it's simple and easy. They are 1st level characters! 3.5 characters are dirt simple at 1st level. Show me some combats with 20th level characters with 20 different bonuses from what the warlord and cleric did this round, and all the different marks and dozens of powers to sort through. If you still think it's easy at that point, then you would really have something to talk about.
Of course they are making 4E to make a better game. You can dispute their definition of better, but surely you don't think they're making 4E to make a worse game do you? (Note, I'm not asking "Do you think 4E is a worse game?". I know what many here would say. This is aimed at the intent of the designers.)
That said, I think our biggest source of disagreement is what makes DnD, DnD? What can be removed and discarded, while retaining the core DnD-ness? What is too central to DnD-hood that, once removed, the game is no longer DnD?
I'm not sure what my answer to those questions would be (although having posed them perhaps I'll devote some time to answering them) but for me 4E has not removed anything I would deem as needed (as far as I know). For many others, however, it has. It is the sum aggregate of the changes? Is there one glaring problem that irks you?
Many seem upset at the loss of the Great Wheel and other aspects of the "default cosmology" that was tied to it. But the Great Wheel WAS the assumed setting to everything in 2E, in 3E only Greyhawk (the default setting) used it. FR had changed to some weird tree structure that I never quite grokked (not being a FR player). Eberron has this cyclical rotating plane business, which seems pretty groovy.
And really, looking back on 2E, most setting there didn't use the Great Wheel either. They just got roped into it when Planescape came out (which caused some pretty heavy complaints from other settings who disliked being lumped into PS's grand over-setting). Did that many people take to the Great Wheel then?
Cheers! :)
In your other thread where you talk about a quote Mearls said, I think what you say here exemplifies Mearl's stance: you have mentioned another time the fact that only Greyhawk used the Great Wheel cosmology and the fact that the other two official 3rd Edition campaign settings did NOT, but that still doesnt stop people from complaining about how Wizards created something new. Not that people have to use it either, but that doesnt stop the complaints.
Tab Clear?
I think that its one of 4E's greatest strengths is that they are setting out to make D&D that isnt a rehash of what we've already been playing. I mean, if people want the old D&D reloaded, they already have 3rd Edition. I think they retain a lot of the good concepts and story about elves, dwarves, and whatnot, but arent religiously adhering to the old stuff when they dont think they should be.
Basically, if you want 1000 year elves, Great Wheel, and the other sacred cows, you have 3rd Edition.You've got a point.
Some would object, however, that if you make another RPG that isn't based on the D&D tropes, then you can do so by just not calling it "D&D" (the reason WotC doesn't do this is because of the IP's value, i.e. the revenue it generates by name only).
One could add, moreover, that there are already zillions of fantasy tabletop RPGs exploring many, many different ways of playing these kinds of games (WFRP, RuneQuest, all OGL variants out there, RoleMaster, Exalted, LOTR RPG, Cadwallon, GURPS Fantasy and so many, many others). If you're making a "new" version of D&D, then you might as well stick to D&D's core assumptions and history.
No, really. 4E doesn't come out to make a "better game", nor is it coming to build "something different", just for the sake of it. It's coming out for bottom-line reasons for WotC. Revenues. Marketing.
After, anyone's free to like the changes or not.
I dont think that 4th Edition D&D goes so far against the tropes of prior editions to warrant being called something entirely new: I recognize basically every one of the elements in 4th Edition, connecting it to an earlier one. Dwarves still look and act like dwarves, elves are elves, etc. Orcs worship a one-eyed orc god, gnomes I suppose live somewhere else, but I can still see them as gnomes.
Tieflings are still associated with devils in some way, not that I cant say that they are just fiendish half-breeds and make them all look different anyhow (in Eberron, they are more like rakshasa than typical horned devils).The default cosmology is different, I guess (not that I used the Great Wheel in anything BUT Planescape). Its not going to affect my generic D&D, Eberron, OR Forgotten Realms games that I run.
Partially, of course D&D was made for money. Is it the only reason? Of course not. The designers obviously love this game a LOT. They put a lot of time and care into it.
The fact that in some part it was created to generate revenue does nothing to mitigate how I feel about it, just like I dont think less of Blizzard for making StarCraft II or Square-Enix for making Final Fantasy 13.
Partially, of course D&D was made for money. Is it the only reason? Of course not. The designers obviously love this game a LOT. They put a lot of time and care into it.
The question is does Hasbro feel this way? The Answer is no. D&D is a comodity. It is a brand name. If it makes money, they will sell it. If it doesn't they will shelf it. No one seriously thinks that WotC has any say on Hasbro's bottom line do they?
Why should anything be sacred?
Oink...
:(You might not like the new system, but would you be opposed to any change to the holy livestock, even if it was a change that would really make it a better game in your eyes?
Oink! Oink, oink grunt oink! Oink, oink grunt...
<< translation: I wouldn't! Let's make the sacred livestock for 4e the sacred pig! Clearly a change which would make 4e a better game... >>
OK
Maybe it'll be Coke cut with Diet Coke.
:D
I still think my 3.5e = wine and 4e = coke analogy was awesome, even if no one besides me recognizes its brilliance. Someday the grandchildren of everyone posting here will proclaim that I only had one valid insight in my whole stupid life, and this was it.
Just you wait.
Partially, of course D&D was made for money. Is it the only reason? Of course not. The designers obviously love this game a LOT. They put a lot of time and care into it.The question is does Hasbro feel this way? The Answer is no. D&D is a comodity. It is a brand name. If it makes money, they will sell it. If it doesn't they will shelf it. No one seriously thinks that WotC has any say on Hasbro's bottom line do they?
I'm not sure what you are implying, exactly. That Hasbro doesnt care what they do the game as long as it sells? Does it matter what Hasbro thinks? I think that the guys as Wizards have made an excellent game, above and beyond what 3rd Edition was, so what Hasbro thinks/cares about isnt really a concern of mine.
Interestingly, DnD was not mentioned on Hasbro's website. Do they try to disassociate themselves from the brand for some reason?
Ok i see that it is if you look hard enough. Hmmm brought to you by the same people who make Nerf and My Little Pony. Awesome.