Abandoning the fans?


4th Edition

51 to 100 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cintra Bristol wrote:


I haven't seen the 4E rules yet, so I can't say for certain that high-level play will be more attractive to me than it was in 3rd edition. But from the design philosophy I've seen already, and a couple of the charts shown in previews, it certainly looks like it'll feel more like old-school D&D to me. Even if it's purely 4E, though, with a feel all its own, it looks like it's just plain going to be less like work, and more like fun, for me and my group. And that's a whole group of (mostly) older players who don't feel abandoned or disenfranchised by the new edition.

I'm really sorry that other folks are feeling disenfranchised. But Paizo is going to keep making 3.5-compatible stuff. They're the best publisher in the business (in my opinion), and they'll be supporting the hobby for all the folks who don't like the direction of 4E. And I've made a conscious choice not to let myself feel abandoned by Paizo because of that decision, but to remind myself that they've made the best decision they can for their entire fanbase (if not for me personally), and that there's room for both 4E and Pathfinder RPG. (And that I can still use Paizo products, even if I do have to convert them as I go.)

So it gets really old,...

This is exactly how I (and my group of players who have played together since the 80'ies) feel. Except that I have read and played 4e.

Thanks for saving me the time :)


WOTC could make 3.5 AND 4.0 products. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

The Exchange

Peter Robinson wrote:
WOTC could make 3.5 AND 4.0 products. Why does it have to be all or nothing?

Limited resources and self-cannibalization. Companies need to have disciplined budgets and focus their efforts on moving forward. That is the nature of the game.

The Exchange

crosswiredmind wrote:

I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.

How is that even vaguely possible given the dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions.

1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

2) The goal of the design is to produce a game that would appeal to a broader market. To say that it has sold well, is not to say that the core and old market is not disenfranchised to a certain extent. This is the same challenge faced by TV and newspapers. Everytime they attempt to reinvent themselves to acquire a younger demographic, a percentage of their audience migrates off into competing medium.

3) I would not say that Hasbro has adandoned its fan base. I would say it has refocused on a different audience. It's a business strategy with rewards and risks. Individuals who feel abandoned represent the negative consequence of that decision. Individuals such as yourself who play the role of partisan and activist for the product are the benefit.

Liberty's Edge

crosswiredmind wrote:


I have been trying to be really patient with replies to this thread but this sentiment is just plain wrong on so many levels.

Agreed. I had a longer response to countbuggula's post but I got so nasty that I decided to just drop it and move on. I don't like the reactions this discussion has illicited in me.

******

I am going to be quite honest. I don't see how the Paizo boards really hold anything for me anymore. I am a 4e convert. I wanted to hate the game but I found I truly liked it.

I haven't really been a part of the 4e forums for quite awhile. I came here hoping to discuss the nature of the game in a mature and intelligent fashion. Now all I see is the same old crap just boiling beneath the surface. Disagreements are okay but outright myth making and illogical arguments for subjective ideals is not.

Like others, I am moving on. I am sure a number of people here won't miss another pro-4e poster leave. That's fine. Feel as you like.

As for Paizo, I will continue sending them my money in the form of item cards and the occasional adventure to convert.


(edited)
What have Wizards of the Coast (owners, Hasbro) been doing in recent years which could be considered abandoning of the fan base?

1) They took the Dungeon and Dragon Magazines back ‘in house’ and made them solely (as of the current moment) online content. This could certainly be seen as ‘abandoning’- whether intentional or not- of anyone who either has no internet access, or has a strong dislike for reading content online.
There is also debate over whether or not the current online content matches the quality of the print days. Again, those who feel that it is not, may very well feel abandoned.
On the flip side of this coin, the online content (whether it is quality or not) is currently free if you have internet access anyway, and the inclination to peruse articles in this format. A case could be made that Wizards of the Coast (so long as DDI access does not come only to those with a subscription tag) have been improving their service/catering towards those customers formerly unable to afford the monthly purchase of Dungeon and/or Dragon. This is little comfort to those who feel that they have lost something in the shift however.

2) They have ceased production of OGL/3.5 products, are exercising their option to refuse to renew 3.5 related D20 licenses, and are bringing out a mechanically different system, in instalments, 4E.
Since Wizards of the Coast possess neither Orbital Mind Control lasers nor the physical power to enforce their will of a military dictatorship, they cannot actually compel people who possess products from the systems which they no longer support to throw out their old products. However those who used and loved the old system, and enjoyed seeing/buying new products for it on a regular basis have had their options to do so in the immediate future severely limited- especially if they do not (for whatever reason) see 4E or any other game system as one which they would wish to buy.

3) There has been a 4E rollout campaign of dubious quality. Wizards of the Coast had enjoyed reasonably good relations with many of their customers formerly, but some of the language- in the early stages of the roll out, especially- could be read as being personal insults being directed at readers who held particular opinions or liked certain styles of play. To those who felt insulted by the unfortunately phrased articles, this might seem more a betrayal than actual abandonment, however.

4) Living Greyhawk is being brought to an end, and in theory replaced by a Living Realms equivalent. This could certainly be construed as abandonment, I feel, but I do not have the experience of Living Greyhawk to feel appropriately placed to comment on this further.

5) Wizards of the Coast have abandoned any attempt to build upon decades of accumulated ‘fluff’, but (to save time on designing completely new worlds for their edition, I guess) have cannibalised some of the names, maps, and bits of the history/traditions to fill in parts of their new game worlds and campaign settings.
Whilst this on its own might be an irritation, when this has been combined with an approach of stating that any particular 4E world is in fact an evolution of an earlier edition world, it can interfere with suspension of disbelief- given the continuity errors which that state of affairs may logically entail- and end up provoking much fiercer feelings than mere irritation.

Hmmm. I suppose that any or all of these in combination might leave a feeling that Wizards of the Coast (owners Hasbro) have changed direction in what they are making and how they are selling it, contributing to an overall sense of abandonment.

Edit:
On the ‘4E isn’t a roleplaying game’ front, I have the suggestion that most of the articles previewing/showcasing mechanics have been about combat or combat-related*, whilst some of the ones which don’t (such as Shelley’s ‘confessions’ column occasionally) have by their nature attracted ridicule. Does anyone know if she followed up with a report of her experiences DM’ing a session of 4E yet?

(*suggesting that the emphasis of the game is all about combat)

Liberty's Edge

Cintra Bristol wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The giants series ends up being for higher level parties, but otherwise plays pretty true to the original.

I guess that's the problem. Yeah, I converted plenty of low-level stuff (especially once we figured out that you have to cut way back on the treasure handed out in most of those old adventures). But not the mid-level and higher stuff.

Conversions of the Giants series ends up being for really high level PCs. The Demonweb needs to be for near-Epic or even already-Epic PCs. And running high-level 3rd edition was way too much work for me. It felt like I was running an over-complicated superheroes campaign, with everyone flying around and using contingencies to survive high-level save-or-die effects. And it was just too complicated to be fun for me. YMMV.

I haven't seen the 4E rules yet, so I can't say for certain that high-level play will be more attractive to me than it was in 3rd edition. But from the design philosophy I've seen already, and a couple of the charts shown in previews, it certainly looks like it'll feel more like old-school D&D to me. Even if it's purely 4E, though, with a feel all its own, it looks like it's just plain going to be less like work, and more like fun, for me and my group. And that's a whole group of (mostly) older players who don't feel abandoned or disenfranchised by the new edition.

I'm really sorry that other folks are feeling disenfranchised. But Paizo is going to keep making 3.5-compatible stuff. They're the best publisher in the business (in my opinion), and they'll be supporting the hobby for all the folks who don't like the direction of 4E. And I've made a conscious choice not to let myself feel abandoned by Paizo because of that decision, but to remind myself that they've made the best decision they can for their entire fanbase (if not for me personally), and that there's room for both 4E and Pathfinder RPG. (And that I can still use Paizo products, even if I do have to convert them as I go.)

So it gets really old,...

This post is full of wisdom. I hope more people read this and understand.


tadkil wrote:


1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Cintra Bristol wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The giants series ends up being for higher level parties, but otherwise plays pretty true to the original.
I guess that's the problem. Yeah, I converted plenty of low-level stuff (especially once we figured out that you have to cut way back on the treasure handed out in most of those old adventures). But not the mid-level and higher stuff.

Yep. You do have to cut back on treasure, but 1e was built around the idea that the PCs got a LOT of their XP from recovering treasure AND they needed to spend gobs of it (1500 per week per level) to train up to the next level.

So, yes. Cutting back needed to happen with both XPs and treasure. At higher levels, like the giant series (which I have running 11-12th level for the hill giants, 13-14th for frost, and 15th+ for fire) the XP awards work out much better, though the cash distributed is still too high.

Cintra Bristol wrote:
It felt like I was running an over-complicated superheroes campaign, with everyone flying around and using contingencies to survive high-level save-or-die effects. And it was just too complicated to be fun for me. YMMV.

I'm not sure 4e will fix that for you. The powers are, level for level, weaker in many ways because they don't do the sort of awesome damage. And there seem to be plenty of oddball effects that can happen like giving one ally (but not others) combat bonuses or moving the target around the battlefield. But aside from some ongoing effects like putting the target on fire, most effects just last until the character's next turn, so at least durations are easier to manage... again, aside from certain ongoing effects. The descriptions are also a lot shorter and simpler, which also might help.

My look through the 4e PH has me thinking that a lot of the powers remind me of a gadgeteer in a superhero campaign who has a set number of powers built out of his gadget pool (mostly energy blast, a couple of area attacks, maybe a movement power, etc), each with a very limited focus.
If 3e and 4e were both superhero games, I'd compare 3e with Villains and Vigilantes with such flexible powers as Weather Control and Solid Illusions and I'd compare 4e with Champions but with the powers selectable only from a set list of pre-defined, mid-range powers, heavy on the attack end of things. In the former, the DM may be called up on to adjudicate more heavily (despite many attempts to really lock down the language compared to 1e and 2e) far more than the other, where the powers are far more tightly defined.
I don't know if that made much sense to anyone who didn't play lots of V&V and Champions.


alleynbard wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I am going to be quite honest. I don't see how the Paizo boards really hold anything for me anymore. I am a 4e convert. I wanted to hate the game but I found I truly liked it.

I haven't really been a part of the 4e forums for quite awhile. I came here hoping to discuss the nature of the game in a mature and intelligent fashion. Now all I see is the same old crap just boiling beneath the surface. Disagreements are okay but outright myth making and illogical arguments for subjective ideals is not.

Like others, I am moving on. I am sure a number of people here won't miss another pro-4e poster leave. That's fine. Feel as you like.

Just in case you don't know it, this might be the site for you Enworld Fans of all editions, even 4e, are more than welcome.


alleynbard wrote:


Like others, I am moving on. I am sure a number of people here won't miss another pro-4e poster leave. That's fine. Feel as you like.

While I might throw a party if some people left, you're not among those. Unless I misremember, you've been one of the more pleasant ones.

Bill Dunn wrote:


The real problem comes when they have some "event" to justify the changes in editions like the Time of Troubles in FR with the shift from 1e to 2e. I don't know anybody who thought that was a good idea. And now they're doing the same with some kind of spell-plague.

Realistically speaking, I think it would be fine if the setting stayed mostly the same and you just changed the rules, only calling out changes to the setting when necessary to support the changes to rules.

That was the first big bang for me that turned me away from D&D - even before the (In my opinion) ugly rules details were made known, the fact that they tore the Realms I knew into pieces made me stop supporting wizards.

hogarth wrote:


See, I just don't understand how people can take this so personally. A company made a great product, and then they discontinued it in favour of a product you don't like. They're not forcing you to stop using the first product, they just don't support it

I'd say that's a pretty good definition of abandoning something: No longer supporting me.

I agree that they don't force me to stop using 3e - they just do that to those who want to make 4e stuff...

hogarth wrote:


Some of WotC's business choices seem a little ham-handed (like their "3rd edition sucks, 4th edition rocks" style of advertising or their behaviour regarding the OGL), but why should that make me upset?

By stating that 3e sucks, and the way 3e was played is boring, they insulted me by saying that I'm boring. Not a good move to win over, or keep, customers, unless you target 3e haters specifically.

They totally did not have to go out of their way to invalidate as much of classic D&D as possible and insult those who liked it. They did that of their own free will.

Lensman wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

I can only speak for myself and every roleplayer I know personally, but we all feel abandoned. Wizards certainly fired us.

Seldriss wrote:


4e wasn't produced by a facelss corporation. People like Mike Mearls, Bruce Cordell, and Andy Collins put it together.

They don't have nearly as much contact with their customers as Paizo.

Seldriss wrote:


I don't know for sure but I bet the guys at Paizo don't think the same way that you do. They most likely know and respect the guys over at Wizards just as I would believe that Wizards respects the great guys at Paizo.

I'm not the Paizo guys. I'm allowed to despise wizards and everyone who works there. :P

Kruelaid wrote:


So yes, they have fired some of their customers. But if they keep giving us what we want, they may close the door to new customers. We've bought our books. New customers haven't.

Perhaps what they've done is good for the game. Time will tell.

I still maintain that they went way too far. They could have done it without crap like the lamia.

Seldriss wrote:


That's true. Hmm... Interesting...
Maybe because, corporation or not, WotC is a company producing different things, not only roleplaying games.

So is Paizo. Sure, they don't go that much farther than that, but still.

And if the RPG department of wizards would show the level of dedication Paizo would show, I could happily ignore thair magic:the gathering department and their whatever department.

Seldriss wrote:


On the other side, the area of control of Paizo is more dedicated to RPGs, whether they produce them or just sell them online.

A big difference is that Paizo sees it as an integral part of their jobs to talk to customers, and they come and do it gladly. And not just "I only have 10 minutes before I have to go back and do some real work", either.

The Exchange

Asmodeur wrote:
tadkil wrote:


1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

Excellent! I just didn't know. Does anyone know how that compared to 3.5?


Asmodeur wrote:


Just in case you don't know it, this might be the site for you Enworld Fans of all editions, even 4e, are more than welcome.

Make that Fans of 4e more than welcome. Everything else is just an afterthought.


tadkil wrote:
Asmodeur wrote:
tadkil wrote:


1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

Excellent! I just didn't know. Does anyone know how that compared to 3.5?

I am not sure I understand your question.

If you mean how the supposed 200k of 3.0 compared to 3.5? No, we don't know, except that 3.5 initial print was bigger than the initial print of 3.0 (supposedly 200k-ish) and again that 4e was roughly 50% bigger than 3.5 initial print. So basically you have (with regards to the initial print):

4e > 3.5 +50% > 3.0 (200k?)

Hope it makes sense this time around, if I wasn't clear before.


KaeYoss wrote:
Asmodeur wrote:


Just in case you don't know it, this might be the site for you Enworld Fans of all editions, even 4e, are more than welcome.
Make that Fans of 4e more than welcome. Everything else is just an afterthought.

Too bad you guys don't have emotes, :rolleyes: would certainly be fitting.


alleynbard wrote:


I am a 4e convert. I wanted to hate the game but I found I truly liked it.

Funny, I wanted to love the game but I found that I truly hated it.

Boy, I didn't realize my comments would get people's panties bunched up so much, as most of what I said had already been expressed elsewhere (and earlier in this thread). I thought I was giving 4th edition a pretty fair treatment, and even stated that the ruleset isn't bad, it just, in my opinion, didn't feel like D&D anymore. So much of this discussion is just about personal preference anyways - and I stated the things that I liked and disliked, which are obviously going to differ from other people's own opinions.

Anyways, most of what seems to have been "fixed" in 4th edition was a problem of DMs giving in to pressure (or catering to) players who wanted to min-max and throw convention out the window to make the most uber powered character possible. If the DM put his foot down and didn't allow a player to make a Barbarian/Monk/Rogue/Ninja/Paladin or whatever ridiculous combination there wouldn't be a problem. 3.5 edition even had its own checks and balances in place (though they were largely ignored) against people who wanted to abuse the rules like that - they'd quickly find themselves several levels behind the rest of the players in their group (unless everyone did it together...ugh).

It just seems like so much of what made its way into 4e was a direct result of DMs not having a spine.

Dark Archive

Really, I have heard these arguments before. Every time a new Transformers toy line comes out, someone yells that Hasbro is destroying the product line. All that this really means is that it is not what they envision the product to be. This is the same with D&D. When third edition came out I really did boycott it for a while. Honestly I was afraid that it was going to be like Saga. I will not be switching to 4th edition right away, mostly for financal reasons than anything else, but I will decide if I want to use it once I have had a chance to read the 4th edition SRD.


crosswiredmind wrote:

I have heard from a more than a few people here that Wizards has abandoned their fans with 4e.

How is that even vaguely possible given the dramatic pace of sales - outstripping even WotC's predictions.

The implication that 4e does not appeal to existing players is not born out by the sales figures an the general enthusiasm on many online fora (Paizo being a clear exception). Heck - my FLGS has a long preorder list even though they are not discounting the books.

This remids me of the Dilbert cartoon where the pointy haired boss goes to see Ming the web designer to tell her that everyone hates the website. She asks if he talked to the monks in Tibet. He says no - well he does not like it. Ming replies - so you confused one person for everyone on the planet.

Just because a number of individuals here on these boards believes that WotC has abandoned its fanbase does not mean that they have. Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.

I think your analogy of the Dilbert cartoon is completely wrong. It was clear to me that the pointy haired boss had a valid "point". He was the boss, after all, and his opinion was the one that truly mattered. In that situation, he was "everyone on the planet."

What we think here at Paizo truly matters. I don't care about the sales figures, because I am not a greedy bastard. 4E D&D sucks. You know it, I know, and the true fans at Paizo know it. I will wait faithfully for the Pathfinder RPG.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Here's the problem as I see it and the fundamental problem for HOW (not why) 4E was marketed and released, and it all goes to human nature.

4E is being presented as a "better" alternative, to the point that WotC has lambasted 3.5E as being old and curmudgeonly. Fans of 4E are switching because it is absolutely in human nature to move on to the next best thing if we enjoy it. Fans of 3.5E are sticking with it, and are frustrated that WotC is abandoning what is regarded a perfectly good system. Of course there are people in the middle (those silent on the issue typically), but and the end of the day, month, or year you're likely going to be playing either 4E or 3.5E (yes there will be people that play both, but it's not going to be a significant crowd). Rather than giving us the option between vanilla and chocolate it's as if Bryer's Ice Cream has determined that Vanilla is too "old school" and should be discontinued using a marketing campaign of "why eat our old crap, here's something better!", regardless of the fact that chocolate makes some people sick.

In one fell swoop, WotC's desire to grow their business by focusing on a new target demographic has alienated (great word by the way to the person that suggested it) a large portion of the fans, and more importantly has divided the community into the 4E-files and 3.5E-files. Just like the great Mac vs. PC debate, it's largely polarized and a a result they have likely damaged the D&D playerbase permanently.

That's why I have a problem with things. It has less to do with the fact I think 4E is a steaming pile of horse manure, and far more to do with the WAY the formerly loyal fans of the system and company are being treated at this time. I have no issues with people who love 4E, just like ice cream it's all subjective; people enjoy what people enjoy, and I can't fault you for liking something I don't, but I can fault the company for making us fall into a mindset of "you're with us or against us" in the first place.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Asmodeur wrote:
tadkil wrote:


1) Cite your sources. How do you know it is outstripping sales projections? How do you have this data?

Several WoTC people (Mearls, as in Mike Mearls, in his private blog for example) have stated that the first print sold out (this has also been documented other places (was it forbes?).

Logic would dictate that if they have sold out before the release, 4e sells better than their sales projections.

In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

Or it could mean that they targeted their initial run to sell out, for the marketing value of being able to say so. This is isn't exactly unheard of as a marketing tactic. It is unlikely that at the volume they print, they would have saved anything by printing more, so why not?

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
Really, I have heard these arguments before. Every time a new Transformers toy line comes out, someone yells that Hasbro is destroying the product line. All that this really means is that it is not what they envision the product to be. This is the same with D&D. When third edition came out I really did boycott it for a while. Honestly I was afraid that it was going to be like Saga. I will not be switching to 4th edition right away, mostly for financal reasons than anything else, but I will decide if I want to use it once I have had a chance to read the 4th edition SRD.

Friend, don't hold your breath for the SRD. The 4E SRD will not have any rules for you to peruse, its a glorified index of the corebooks. You'll need to view the books themselves.


Russ Taylor wrote:


Or it could mean that they targeted their initial run to sell out, for the marketing value of being able to say so. This is isn't exactly unheard of as a marketing tactic. It is unlikely that at the volume they print, they would have saved anything by printing more, so why not?

Yes. It is indeed true that the fact that 4e initial run has sold out doesn't necessarily mean that 4e is exceeding WotC's projections. But based on the other info that I have provided, it does tell us that 4e initial run has sold more than 50% more than both 3.x initial runs. Which is probably good.


I have been reserving my thoughts for a while, but I figure I will chime in here as well.

1) To those that say this isn't a role playing game:

Remember that the original D&D was forged out of a war game rule set known as Chainmail. It was designed to give the players control over an individual to perform basically the same things they were doing with their hordes of monsters and fighters. Instead of working against one another in the war game, they now worked together to fight off those hordes of monsters. The rules were not really designed to create role play, but were designed to give an individual a chance to make a difference against a horde.

Not much different than what we have now with 4E.

Basically, it seems to me that 4E has gone closer to the roots of the D&D game than most of the editions since, and has done so by clearing out a few of the stickier and more annoying rules from 1E on. The rules do not define the role play opportunities of a game. That is up to the players and the GM. Players make the stories, not the rules.

2) WotC have abandoned their fan base.

Actually, this is far from true. They attempted a half-hearted fix with their 3.5 line that irritated many people, but they listened to their fans and tried to sort out some of the problems. I know I was one of those irritated people, but I got over it and moved on to 3.5. 4.0 is a grounds up rebuild that is a MAJOR change from what we have seen with D&D, and this is coming from an old "Red Box" player from the 70's.

This game is closer to the MMORPG style of gaming. I admit that. Instant heals between battles, fancy attacks and powers, flashy battles meant to play fast. I agree that seems to cause some older RPG fans like me to shudder and mumble prayers of "Save Us" to the old guard. However, as many of you may know the RPG hobby as a whole has a tendency to stagnate. This is a new way to bring more people into the hobby.

I don't think WotC is abandoning anything. It sounds more like the fans don't want change when change is necessary for the survival of the hobby. If anything, WotC is trying to make things more accessible, for both the fans (many who said the game was getting out of hand with rules) as well as new players (who were so intimidated by the rules they were afraid to try).

3) ...

You know, there are some problems with trying to get all your thoughts on paper when you are closing in on forty and work with computers as both a livelihood and hobby; you run out of memory, both personal and mechanical. I actually had another topic to post. I'm sure I'll think of it soon, but I'll leave you with this.

I have read the player's guide pretty much from cover to cover, skipping over the things like the long list of spells and rituals. I can see from my experiences as a GM how much easier it would be to run some of my games if I decide in the future to go the 4E route. Character creation is easier, skill and feat distribution seems simpler. Spells, powers, etc. are much more organized, and they've removed a lot of the sticky subjects to combat that seemed to slow down the game and actually take away from the role playing. Combat moves faster, so your group can actually get back to the role play moments much sooner. Everything is still there, but it has just been 're-organized' in a way that seems different.

Honestly, 4E is not that much different from any other RPG. To paraphrase a saying from my time in MMORPGs where people complained that no one was roleplaying.

Roleplay does not begin with the rules...

Roleplay begins with you.

Think about if folks.


Charles Evans 25 wrote:

(edited)

What have Wizards of the Coast (owners, Hasbro) been doing in recent years which could be considered abandoning of the fan base?

1) They took the Dungeon and Dragon Magazines back ‘in house’ and made them solely (as of the current moment) online content. This could certainly be seen as ‘abandoning’- whether intentional or not- of anyone who either has no internet access, or has a strong dislike for reading content online.
There is also debate over whether or not the current online content matches the quality of the print days. Again, those who feel that it is not, may very well feel abandoned.
On the flip side of this coin, the online content (whether it is quality or not) is currently free if you have internet access anyway, and the inclination to peruse articles in this format. A case could be made that Wizards of the Coast (so long as DDI access does not come only to those with a subscription tag) have been improving their service/catering towards those customers formerly unable to afford the monthly purchase of Dungeon and/or Dragon. This is little comfort to those who feel that they have lost something in the shift however.

There was another public who WotC attended when they made Dragon/Dungeon online: non-U.S. residents, like me. I don't see a printed Dragon magazine here in Brazil for more than 10 years.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
2) They have ceased production of OGL/3.5 products

That's more than expected. TSR stopped making 1E when it started 2E. WotC stopped making 2E when it started 3E. And 1E and 2E were not "open" by any means, so there was no hope of a 3rd company to continue to support these editions - unlike 3.5E which has Paizo.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
are exercising their option to refuse to renew 3.5 related D20 licenses

They are not doing that. The 3.5 OGL is irrevocable. WotC can't "refuse to renew it". They are not renewing only the d20 Trademark, which is merely a logo.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
and are bringing out a mechanically different system, in instalments, 4E.

Well, the point of a new edition is to be a mechanically different system, isn't?

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Since Wizards of the Coast possess neither Orbital Mind Control lasers nor the physical power to enforce their will of a military dictatorship, they cannot actually compel people who possess products from the systems which they no longer support to throw out their old products. However those who used and loved the old system, and enjoyed seeing/buying new products for it on a regular basis have had their options to do so in the immediate future severely limited- especially if they do not (for whatever reason) see 4E or any other game system as one which they would wish to buy.

See previous comments.

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
In the ‘4E isn’t a roleplaying game’ front, I have the suggestion that most of the articles previewing/showcasing mechanics have been about combat or combat-related*, whilst some of the ones which don’t (such as Shelley’s ‘confessions’ column occasionally) have by their nature attracted ridicule. Does anyone know if she followed up with a report of her experiences DM’ing a session of 4E yet?

Actually... as far as I remember, when 3E was being launched, almost every preview about it was also about combat.

And that's something expected. The changes between D&D editions are mechanical, and D&D mechanics traditionally cover more combat than anything else. WotC wouldn't advertise that the "new edition has more role-playing than the previous", or that "characters will now have more personality" because that will be, well, a lie.

There is a good emphasis on role-playing on the 4E core books - certainly more than on 3.5E core books. There is a full page about making a character's personality in the 4E PHB, against 3 paragraphs of the 3.5E PHB. There is a full example of a conversation with NPCs on the 4E DMG, against none in the 3.5E DMG. For us, experienced players, such things are unnecessary, but make a huge difference for new players unfamiliar with what a "role-playing game" is.


countbuggula wrote:


Funny, I wanted to love the game but I found that I truly hated it.

Boy, I didn't realize my comments would get people's panties bunched up so much, as most of what I said had already been expressed elsewhere (and earlier in this thread). I thought I was giving 4th edition a pretty fair treatment, and even stated that the ruleset isn't bad, it just, in my opinion, didn't feel like D&D anymore. So much of this discussion is just about personal preference anyways - and I stated the things that I liked and disliked, which are obviously going to differ from other people's own opinions.

Anyways, most of what seems to have been "fixed" in 4th edition was a problem of DMs giving in to pressure (or catering to) players who wanted to min-max and throw convention out the window to make the most uber powered character possible. If the DM put his foot down and didn't allow a player to make a Barbarian/Monk/Rogue/Ninja/Paladin or whatever ridiculous combination there wouldn't be a problem. 3.5 edition even had its own checks and balances in place (though they were largely ignored) against people who wanted to abuse the rules like that - they'd quickly find themselves several levels behind the rest of the players in their group (unless everyone did it together...ugh).

It just seems like so much of what made its way into 4e was a direct result of DMs not having a spine.

While some of the issues (such as the ridiculous class-stacking and prestige class shopping) were certainly no issue with a decent DM, a lot of the other things that people don't like about 3.x wasn't just fixable by a DM. Stuff like unbalanced classes/spells, a less than stellar encounter system, extremely swingy combats come to mind, and last but not least, short duration combats that last hours.

Sovereign Court

crosswiredmind wrote:
Sales of 4e are set to surpass 3e and the game has not even been released.

Hello CWM,

Nice bluff roll here, but you only just won initiative, the fight has only begun.

A lot of people are conditioned into thinking new=better. Including the shopkeeper of my FLGS, who was very disappointed I was not buying into his arguments.

Nice job of WOTC brainwashing him though, rarely saw someone change opinions so thoroughly. Or else, he needs more ranks in bluff as I was still not convinced. Or he is very worried about his job if 4e does not sell.

Of course the initial sales are going to be good. They always are. And then what ? That's the follow-up that matters in the long run.

Anyways, what kind of celebrations are you planning for the release ? you've been waiting on this for months now, don't be cheap.

Now, roll your D20 and ...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pax Veritas wrote:
CWM - I'm not sure who exactly pays you to be wotc's stoogemonkey, but why are you always trying to defend that company?

It's the Kool-Aid. He's been the poster child for 4th Ed. since the announcement was made. Got to hand it to him though; he's tenacious, and obviously believes what he says. Just check out some of his posts from the past. Too bad. We grognards could use a guy like him on OUR side.

WOW, that was kind of a compliment. Maybe, there's Kool-Aid in my Diet Dr. Pepper...


dmchucky69 wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:
CWM - I'm not sure who exactly pays you to be wotc's stoogemonkey, but why are you always trying to defend that company?

It's the Kool-Aid. He's been the poster child for 4th Ed. since the announcement was made. Got to hand it to him though; he's tenacious, and obviously believes what he says. Just check out some of his posts from the past. Too bad. We grognards could use a guy like him on OUR side.

I am a grognard from way back and I excited about 4E. ;)


Belirahc wrote:


Remember that the original D&D was forged out of a war game rule set known as Chainmail. It was designed to give the players control over an individual to perform basically the same things they were doing with their hordes of monsters and fighters. Instead of working against one another in the war game, they now worked together to fight off those hordes of monsters. The rules were not really designed to create role play, but were designed to give an individual a chance to make a difference against a horde.

Not much different than what we have now with 4E.

There's two big differences: Time and experience.

Sure, the oldest editions didn't have that much roleplaying support built in, either, but, as everyone says: They were the oldest editions. And the first D&D was the very first game of its kind.

But between that and today lie a great a mount of time and experience. There have been a lot of other RPGs that handle the non-combat part of roleplaying a lot better than original D&D, and that lot includes 3e.

Belirahc wrote:


2) WotC have abandoned their fan base.

Actually, this is far from true. They attempted a half-hearted fix with their 3.5 line that irritated many people

I can't remember anyone saying back then "what is this crap? The worlds are still the same, the monsters are still the same? Why not turn lamias into something completely new that has even less to do with the original lamias than the current incarnation? Oh, move the Realms forward a hundred years so all those cool NPCs I read about and came to like are dead (and find something to kill off those who don't die from a hundred years worth of time. Doesn't have to be anything original. Soap opera quality writing is more than enough)".

Really, I never heard anything like this.

And the intentional invalidation of 30 years of D&D history and background information are a big part of why many of us feel abandoned.

Those changes are so far away from "back to the roots" that the twigs can't support their weight any more.

Belirahc wrote:


This game is closer to the MMORPG style of gaming. I admit that.

...

This is a new way to bring more people into the hobby.

Actually, I think this works the other way round.

"So this new game here plays just like WoW"
"Yes"
"But I'll have to bother with all those books, and add up the stats ourselves, and either have to get together at one physical place whenever we want to play, or play in that online virtual thingie that isn't nearly as pretty as WoW?"
"....yes."
"Screw that. Let's have a raid. I'll get my gnome druid, can you come with your night elf hunter?"

Belirahc wrote:


I don't think WotC is abandoning anything. It sounds more like the fans don't want change when change is necessary for the survival of the hobby.

Don't give me patriotic speeches.

Belirahc wrote:


I have read the player's guide pretty much from cover to cover, skipping over the things like the long list of spells and rituals. I can see from my experiences as a GM how much easier it would be to run some of my games if I decide in the future to go the 4E route. Character creation is easier, skill and feat distribution seems simpler. Spells, powers, etc. are much more organized, and they've removed a lot of the sticky subjects to combat that seemed to slow down the game and actually take away from the role playing. Combat moves faster, so your group can actually get back to the role play moments much sooner. Everything is still there, but it has just been 're-organized' in a way that seems different.

To you, that might sound nice.

To me, it amounts to this:

Character creation has a lot less options (and even those you get look the same for everything), skills allow a lot less customisation. Spells are totally lackluster, and all the options to make combat more interesting, like disarming someone, pinning him on the ground, and so on, have just been disappeared, so I'm stuck with the option of attacking (and for me, the "option" of targeting a saving throw or AC isn't really something that feels different to me.) Combat lost a lot of its charme, and a lot of things just aren't there any more, or are moved into class-specific powers.

Belirahc wrote:


Roleplay does not begin with the rules...

Roleplay begins with you.

Think about if folks.

Okay.

I have just one question: Why buy 4e at all? I'm sure the D&D Minis rulebook is a lot cheaper to get. Or I'll use HeroQuest or something, and make up my own stories.

To me, 4e just doesn't offer anything over options like these to justify the extra cost. 3e did that. And still does.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Asmodeur wrote:


In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.

I'm about to give up poking this, but saying "on some blog somewhere" isn't a source. Mearls' blog only links to the much-touted "more than 3.5E" comments, not anything about 3.0.


Krauser:
In an effort to contribute to the debate, I attempted to analyse on a step by step basis some of the reasons why some current or former players of the game might be feeling 'abandoned', what I felt to be the topic of this thread.
I am happy for you that you can now get free (for the present) DDI in Brazil.
Possibly I should have emphasised the [b]D20[/i] with bold, like that, to make clear that it was material prodcued under that, related to 3.5 which was being revoked- I gather that there may be a 4E equivalent of D20 licensed, hence my bringing 3.5 up in that context to make clear which edition I was thinking in relation to. I had the impression that the trademark use (and associated permission to use references to some material) had to be licensed, and that it was the licensing agreement which permitted use which was subject to renewal, not the actual trademark as you seem to think. I doubt that Hasbro would ever let a Trademark lapse, such things having value, and control of them being worth money.

Edit:
In my footnote about roleplaying & 4E I was attempting to find a reason for why the arguement might be coming up that '4E is the antithesis of Roleplaying' time after time after time. Possibly I should have been clearer on this count. You would have seen a lot more forceful a comment than this if I had actually been coming down on one side of the issue or another, instead of trying to understand it. I currently have no opinion on whether or not 4E supports roleplaying.


Russ Taylor wrote:
Asmodeur wrote:


In the same blog it was also stated that 4e's initial print was 50% bigger than 3.5's initial print, which again was bigger than 3.0's initial print. There is some debate as to how much 3.0 sold in it's initial print, but, numbers like 200.000 was supposedly mentioned by Dancey back in the day.
I'm about to give up poking this, but saying "on some blog somewhere" isn't a source. Mearls' blog only links to the much-touted "more than 3.5E" comments, not anything about 3.0.

Okay, from Mearls' livejournal, Mearls stated that 4e > 3.5 > 3.0.

Also, if it has any interest, from Le Rouse's blog at Gleemax here

Scott_Rouse wrote:
We knew it was going to be big and we prepared by printing truckloads of books. Here are couple photos from a few weeks ago taken at the factory that made the books. You see cases of Core Rule Books (PHB, DMG, MM, and Gift Sets) on pallets being loaded onto a semi-trailer. This was repeated 39 times and a whole convoy of trucks loaded with nothing but D&D drove across the Southern USA to our Distribution Center where in a matter of days they will be shipping 4e to distributors and stores around the world.

Now I do not know how many books you can cram into a semi-trailer, but the pics suggest there are somewhere between 500k and 2 million books in those 39 trucks. Which makes for a lot of people with a morbid curiosity, if some posters on this board are to be taken seriously.. (hint, they aren't, at least not when they speak about the success of 4e).

Cheers


OK...

First off, just a little humor from a long time WoW fan.

KaeYoss wrote:
"Screw that. Let's have a raid. I'll get my gnome druid, can you come with your night elf hunter?"

No such thing as gnome druids in Wow or 4.0 ^_^.

Now, onto the more serious things....

KaeYoss wrote:
Don't give me patriotic speeches.

Nothing patriotic here. Just making a statement from my point of view. It took me forever to get gaming groups together and many people looked at the complexity that was 3.x and shied away. I went to systems that were simpler to grasp and people had a tendency to want to learn more. Then they were ready for more advanced stuff

Sometimes simpler is better (Savage Worlds is a prime example)

KaeYoss wrote:

Really, I never heard anything like this.

And the intentional invalidation of 30 years of D&D history and background information are a big part of why many of us feel abandoned.

Those changes are so far away from "back to the roots" that the twigs can't support their weight any more.

Ok, so the destruction of worlds is another stepping stone towards the problems of the new system. I remember local issues with the changes to the original Forgotten Realms and the original Greyhawk too.

Since I don't know or cannot read much on the changes unless I want to go out and get the latest Driz'zt book (and even those are sketchy), I can't judge the new Forgotten Realms setting. Once I get it, I'll pass judgment.

KaeYoss wrote:

Okay.

I have just one question: Why buy 4e at all? I'm sure the D&D Minis rulebook is a lot cheaper to get. Or I'll use HeroQuest or something, and make up my own stories.

To me, 4e just doesn't offer anything over options like these to justify the extra cost. 3e did that. And still does.

Honestly, if you remember back to the days of "Cowboys and Indians" and "Cops and Robbers", we didn't have to have written rules. Of course, there were a lot of fights and arguments, but that was part of being a kid.

Sure, you can use the miniature rules and make stories, but as I said, the mini rules are for groups of characters run by a single player, where the D&D books are for individual characters run against groups.

Either way, you can still role play with either rule set.

I am not really here to convince any one person. I've found that once a person makes up their mind, there is very little anyone can do to change it. I was simply stating my opinions and thoughts, nothing more. I still haven't totally decided whether I will even go the way of 4e. I currently use a system called OVA as well as Savage Worlds.

I was reserved about 4E when I heard about it. However I like to give everything a chance, regardless of how much things change. My thoughts are here simply to show what I am thinking about the new system, and I am sure I will have more as I move through the Dungeon Master's Guide. We'll see what else comes up.


countbuggula wrote:
4e just isn't a game for role-players.
crosswiredmind wrote:
i simply cannot agree with this...

I agree (with CWM) -- very strongly.

For the sake of discussion, I think D&D has changed its tone a bit. Play balance, a fundamental and almost overriding design priority in 4e, means balance in combat. More thought has gone into what characters can and cannot do in combat than ever before; perhaps more than I'd like. Even seemingly peripheral things show this thinking -- the Delve format is designed (IMO) solely around its utility in playing out combat situations.

There's plenty of good to this. High-level combat, in particular, was badly broken -- 4e offers streamlining that was desperately needed (I'd argue this was 3.5's biggest failing, by far and away).

But to say 4e isn't a game for RPers is exceptionally unfair. In some ways it has demonstrably improved some roleplaying-focused rules. In fact, I think you could more easily make the accusation to 3.5 -- which I often said read like miniatures rules.

As always, IMHO (though I'm not that humble) ;)


Pax Veritas wrote:
CWM - I'm not sure who exactly pays you to be wotc's stoogemonkey, but why are you always trying to defend that company?

He's really Mike Mearls.

Just kidding -- I'm feeling goofy :P


Tatterdemalion wrote:
countbuggula wrote:
4e just isn't a game for role-players.
crosswiredmind wrote:
i simply cannot agree with this...

I agree (with CWM) -- very strongly.

For the sake of discussion, I think D&D has changed its tone a bit. Play balance, a fundamental and almost overriding design priority in 4e, means balance in combat. More thought has gone into what characters can and cannot do in combat than ever before; perhaps more than I'd like. Even seemingly peripheral things show this thinking -- the Delve format is designed (IMO) solely around its utility in playing out combat situations.

There's plenty of good to this. High-level combat, in particular, was badly broken -- 4e offers streamlining that was desperately needed (I'd argue this was 3.5's biggest failing, by far and away).

But to say 4e isn't a game for RPers is exceptionally unfair. In some ways it has demonstrably improved some roleplaying-focused rules. In fact, I think you could more easily make the accusation to 3.5 -- which I often said read like miniatures rules.

As always, IMHO (though I'm not that humble) ;)

Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinion, and now have different products we can purchase to cater to our own tastes! Because to me, I read the 4th edition rules and think they read like miniature rules. I'm not saying you're wrong, we just each perceive it differently.

Personally, I liked the way 3rd edition forced groups to rely on teamwork more. In my eyes, excessive self healing (second wind, etc) and a huge negative HP pool diminishes the role and importance of a cleric in the group. Granted spellcasters were very powerful offensively in 3.x, but they were weak enough defensively that they relied on heavily armored friends to protect them, and had limited use before they ran out of spells. The heavies in turn could do slightly less dmg (though still impressive) but had the advantage of lasting indefinitely. Each class had its own unique and individual flavor, and there was a large emphasis on group tactics and working together (and playing smart).

4th edition, in comparison, dumbs classes down to identical templates using different powers. A fighter now casts spells that are called combat feats and use a martial power source instead of divine or arcane. Flat BAB and Saving throws across the board destroys individuality. In an effort to balance and simplify they've destroyed the uniqueness that made different classes excel at what they did - now everyone's exactly as mediocre as everyone else. Yay.


Charles Evans25 wrote:

Krauser:

In an effort to contribute to the debate, I attempted to analyse on a step by step basis some of the reasons why some current or former players of the game might be feeling 'abandoned', what I felt to be the topic of this thread.
I am happy for you that you can now get free (for the present) DDI in Brazil.

DDI won't be free. But at least I can get it, and pay the same amount a U.S. resident pays. I couldn't get a printed Dragon magazined unless I paid a value many times the value of the magazine.

Charles Evans25 wrote:
Possibly I should have emphasised the D20 with bold, like that, to make clear that it was material prodcued under that, related to 3.5 which was being revoked- I gather that there may be a 4E equivalent of D20 licensed, hence my bringing 3.5 up in that context to make clear which edition I was thinking in relation to.

Charles, you are confusing some things. The 3.5 OGL won't be revoked. Pathfinder RPG uses the 3.5 OGL, and Paizo is going to sell Pathfinder RPG. Publishers can still make products using the 3.5E ruleset. They just can't make the same products using the 4E ruleset, due to legal restrictions that are likely to be imposed by the GSL.

That's why I said that 3.5E fans who don't wish to convert 4E are far less abandoned that the 2E fans that didn't want to convert to 3E. WotC won't make 3.5E products anymore, but other companies, like Paizo, can do them.

Charles Evans25 wrote:

Edit:

In my footnote about roleplaying & 4E I was attempting to find a reason for why the arguement might be coming up that '4E is the antithesis of Roleplaying' time after time after time. Possibly I should have been clearer on this count. You would have seen a lot more forceful a comment than this if I had actually been coming down on one side of the issue or another, instead of trying to understand it. I currently have no opinion on whether or not 4E supports roleplaying.

I understand your argument. I was just pointing out that the marketing of 4E, in the sense of "showing mostly combat improvements", was no different from the marketing of 3E. Because that's what most changes from one edition to another.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have tried to quiz myself about why I feel so unhappy with 4E, and after some self-reflection, I come to the conclusion that much of my internal anger about it is rather about the utter and complete destruction of the Forgotten Realms, which was effected to make it more compatible to 4E and to satisfy the most vocal detractors of how the Realms were until now.

That doesn´t mean that I suddenly like 4E better, I still think it is a rather simplistic system, which if it wouldn´t be named Dungeons and Dragons would make a nice engine for another franchise. And it *clearly* is designed so that your character has kewl powerz from level one. Which for a lot of people is also clearly totally okay as a starting point, but maybe I just like my PCs to start from a bit more humble beginnings.

Over the last decade or so, some of my favorite franchises were destroyed by designers who somehow thought that they needed to get away from how the old setting was set up... BattleTech and Star Wars mostly, to some extent the X-Men, although not as egregious, as comics are far more self-correcting, with multiple creators and such. And Marvel doesn´t really mind bringing back someone they killed off in a dumb way. Most editors for big companies would rather jump out a window rather than admit having made a mistake.

The Forgotten Realms disaster is just the latest in the string of bad things to happen to another favorite setting of mine. Which doesn´t make it easier to swallow at all.


I used to play Warhammer fantasy with three other people regularly and everyone would role play their generals, who were just a few simple stats.

Nothing EVER got in the way of our fun, we never had any trouble abjudicating anything.

Can't role play with 4E = nonsense.

Can't role play with the stat setup YOU want using 4E = very believable.


magnuskn wrote:
... kewl powerz ...

Why is it that everyone who likes 4E gets stereotyped as a punk who uses L337 speak?

Or is it that you guys suddenly can't spell when you think about 4E?

Now I'm going to keep playing 3.5 or PFRPG forever maybe, but I plan on playing some 4E, too. Having a new versions expands the options I have in campaign style and I like options. And I DON'T play computer RPGs - I_think_they_are_ridiculous. I have never made fun of ANYONE on these forums for playing them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When I was still playing Warhammer Fantasy, I prefered roleplaying the troop to the general. But then, I played Skaven- so roleplay pretty much consisted of saying "Runaway- Quick-Quick" and dying theatricaly after having something explode.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Asmodeur wrote:

Now I do not know how many books you can cram into a semi-trailer, but the pics suggest there are somewhere between 500k and 2 million books in those 39 trucks. Which makes for a lot of people with a morbid curiosity, if some posters on this board are to be taken seriously.. (hint, they aren't, at least not when they speak about the success of 4e).

About 25,000 books per truck, assuming 2 pounds per book (the Amazon weight for the gift set is 7 pounds). So a million books, give or take, for 40 trucks (1 + repeat 39 times). I would have expected sales of round about million for the first wave just for the PH given how 3rd ed did. That's actually a lot less books than I would have imagined they'd do if that's for all three.

Not clear if that's a double or a single in the pictures, but double (and triple) trailer setups don't have that much higher a weight limit for the whole vehicle.

Edit: Left out my math, somehow
Truck limit is 80,000 pounds for a single trailer (double/triple setups can get a somewhat higher limit out west), truck + trailer is about 30,000 pounds. 50,000 pounds left, 2 pounds per book...

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
... kewl powerz ...
Why is it that everyone who likes 4E gets stereotyped as a punk who uses L337 speak?

Probably the same reason everyone who doesn't is labeled an aging grognard or an irrational hater.

For the record I'm 25 and sitting for the bar exam.


magnuskn wrote:
Which for a lot of people is also clearly totally okay as a starting point, but maybe I just like my PCs to start from a bit more humble beginnings.

I totally agree! I liked the fact that a lvl one character was kind of an everyman - the risk of dying heightened the excitement, and made the next several levels as we got more powerful that much more rewarding.


Kruelaid wrote:


Can't role play with the stat setup YOU want using 4E = very believable.

Thank you! That's exactly what I meant when I said 4th edition wasn't for roleplayers. Not that it's impossible to do it in the given game engine, but it doesn't lend itself very well to my roleplaying style.

That and the fact that Druids and Monks are nowhere to be found, which are what I prefer playing. That doesn't help either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kruelaid wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
... kewl powerz ...

Why is it that everyone who likes 4E gets stereotyped as a punk who uses L337 speak?

Or is it that you guys suddenly can't spell when you think about 4E?

Now I'm going to keep playing 3.5 or PFRPG forever maybe, but I plan on playing some 4E, too. Having a new versions expands the options I have in campaign style and I like options. And I DON'T play computer RPGs - I_think_they_are_ridiculous. I have never made fun of ANYONE on these forums for playing them.

Oy, don´t be so touchy. I´ve played WoW for three straight years, too and have just quit a month ago. So I still like to use some vocabulary from the forums there.

Also, I am not characterizing the people who play 4E as punks. You inferred that just on your own. I just point out that the *system* seems to want to make the players forget that they are first level characters at first level. In my opinion. Which is not a denigration of 4E players. I don´t plan to have to make this disclaimer every time, btw.


Wow, CWM, you've actually started a civil discussion on the subject. Kudos all around.

I wouldn't say WoTC abandoned me. I'd rather say alienated. Their whole approach to publicizing and branding the new product was pretty insulting to me personally. Kind of like having something, could be chocolate, could be liver, shoved down my throat and being told "It tastes great!" without a real chance to taste it. Apologies to any liver lovers out there.


This isn't about being touchy.

Nobody writes "kewl powerz" when they're talking about PFRPG.

Why?

Because the point of using the L337 vocab is to disparage the game as a table top video game.


Forgottenprince wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
... kewl powerz ...
Why is it that everyone who likes 4E gets stereotyped as a punk who uses L337 speak?

Probably the same reason everyone who doesn't is labeled an aging grognard or an irrational hater.

For the record I'm 25 and sitting for the bar exam.

Ah I see the problem here. You must have reversed your age on your pro/anti 4E application form. You've been filed in the over 30 section, but really you belong with us 4E players over here by the kiddie pool!

Cheers! :P

PS: Don't be too sad. We get cake AND ice cream!

51 to 100 of 638 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Abandoning the fans? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.