|
Or you could just say that the Feywild doesn't exist in your world and go from there. It's not tough. It involves saying "The Feywild doesn't exist in my world."
Just because you can handwave around a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. Quite the opposite in fact. This is what Justin Alexander calls the "Rule Zero Fallacy."
And if you house-rule that the Feywild doesn't exist, what happens to all the powers that interact with the Feywild? It's kind of like trying to house-rule that there isn't an Ethereal plane -- you have to exclude etherealness and a bunch of ethereal critters.
In any event, the Feywild is just one example. Stripping out true multiclassing is another example; I cannot consistently convert my Rog5/Sor5/Arcane Stalker-4* to the new rules (and I've tried). He just comes out with an almost completely different set of abilities.
* like an Arcane Trickster but with more stabbity stab.
|
4th Edition and 2nd Edition share a number of commonalities that disappeared in 3rd Edition.
I am interested to hear why you think this - not to annoy you. Honesty I am interested in the parallels as you see them as (and I'm coming out of the closet now) I always liked 2nd edition including all but the Combat Options book of the "Options" books. I never had issues with only humans being paladins, and demi-humans could only get to certain levels...
<memories>
S.
Someone was saying that making the switch to 4e is tough because you'd have to retrofit everything to include the Feywild. I'm pointing out that no, you don't have to include the Feywild.No, someone (delabarre) was saying that making the switch to 4e is tough because they'd have to retrofit everything that 4e changed. Delebarre only used the Feywild as one example of that point.
Fine, he used it as an example. It doesn't change the validity of my point; if they don't want to use the Feywild, they don't need to incorporate it. No special work needs to be done to exclude it from their campaign world or the game's rules. In fact, this is true of most elements that have been used as examples in this manner.
And I'm not the one creating the confrontational tone, Mr. Kettle. Perhaps you have such a problem with my posting because it is too much a mirror for you?
Oh, man.
Just because you can handwave around a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Just because it's a problem doesn't mean it's a big deal if you can handwave around it.
Quite the opposite in fact. This is what Justin Alexander calls the "Rule Zero Fallacy."
I'm not going to comment on Justin Alexander or his essays.
And if you house-rule that the Feywild doesn't exist, what happens to all the powers that interact with the Feywild? It's kind of like trying to house-rule that there isn't an Ethereal plane -- you have to exclude etherealness and a bunch of ethereal critters.
No, you just have to make something up.
And if you didn't have etherealness and a bunch of critters in your 3rd Edition (or whatever) game, you probably won't miss their absence in your 4th Edition game either.
In any event, the Feywild is just one example. Stripping out true multiclassing is another example; I cannot consistently convert my Rog5/Sor5/Arcane Stalker-4* to the new rules (and I've tried). He just comes out with an almost completely different set of abilities.
Yes, that is a characteristic of the game's design - converting characters accurately from previous editions is not possible. That's why the developers encouraged groups to end their games and start new ones.
It's at times like these I think of the mantra of Old Geezer on RPGNet:
"Make some s*** up you think will be fun"
4th Edition and 2nd Edition share a number of commonalities that disappeared in 3rd Edition.I am interested to hear why you think this - not to annoy you. Honesty I am interested in the parallels as you see them as (and I'm coming out of the closet now) I always liked 2nd edition including all but the Combat Options book of the "Options" books. I never had issues with only humans being paladins, and demi-humans could only get to certain levels...
<memories>
S.
As I mentioned, one of the defining aspects of 2nd Edition was its exception-based design. A basic system existed (though in some cases was a little haphazardly assembled) and different subsystems "violated" these basic rules in order to produce interesting game mechanics. 3rd Edition is equally defined by its coherent design, where the game was built up of "atoms" of design elements, and each resulting creation (monster, PC, magic sword, prestige class, etc.) could be broken down into its component parts. This made for a coherent world where it was easy to justify certain expectations: monsters and PCs would behave similarly in terms of how they interact with the game world. While this was nice from a simulationist standpoint (because it allowed you to "anticipate" the world around you from a design standpoint) it was difficult to design for because of how precise you needed to be with the "atoms" of design I mentioned - a monster's basic ability scores, along with its class or monster hit dice were extrapolated to determine nearly every element of its design. It was a very "bottom-up" way of building a game world, and a great many people found it unnecessarily tedious for creating an entertaining fantasy game. 4th Edition returns to the "top-down" style of creating game elements. You can say "I need a monster that does this," and then easily construct a monster that does just that in a few minutes. The same holds true for most other design aspects of 4th Edition.
In any event, the Feywild is just one example. Stripping out true multiclassing is another example; I cannot consistently convert my Rog5/Sor5/Arcane Stalker-4* to the new rules (and I've tried). He just comes out with an almost completely different set of abilities.
* like an Arcane Trickster but with more stabbity stab.
Are you seriously saying that you can't play 4E because a character class that you homebrewed for 3E doesn't exist in 4E?
|
|
Are you seriously saying that you can't play 4E because a character class that you homebrewed for 3E doesn't exist in 4E?
Noooo...didn't say that.
What I am saying is that I can't convert my 3E Forgotten Realms campaign over to 4E without retconning the Feywild, retconning the character changes, etc etc. The software doesn't really run on the new OS.
As Scott said, the R&D people at WOTC recommend shelving an existing campaign (even one that used the WOTC rules in a WOTC campaign setting) and starting over fresh with new characters (and in the case of FR, decades later after a cosmic catastrophe).
Or I can stay with 3E, which is OOP.
Or I can convert to Pathfinder.
If I and my players have a strong personal investment in our characters, then they've essentially lost me as a customer. Whether it was a valid business decision I leave to the accountants at WOTC, but I know how much money I used to spend on WOTC books, which company has been getting that money for the last 18 months.
|
|
Yes, that is a characteristic of the game's design - converting characters accurately from previous editions is not possible. That's why the developers encouraged groups to end their games and start new ones.
Scott, I'm an old school guy, but I don't dislike 4e out of hand, and I think it is a good RPG system.
Having said that, I think you're missing the point that a lot of old school guys have regarding the changes in 4e. My homebrew world of 25 years survived the changes through the editions, characters could be converted easily and still be, basically, the same character (yeah, you'd have to add skills and feats converting to 3x, and other mechanical changes affected character conversion, but you didn't have to "start over").
But with 4e, WotC changed the whole paradigm. Characters cannot be easily converted over to 4e if they deviate from the "single core class" build. Even a single class build would take more effort to convert than, say, going from 2e with the "options" splats to 3x.
Spiritually, 4e is the successor to the Moldvay/Cook basic, which is a good thing, imo, as it does make it easier to draw new players in as it isn't nearly as complex or daunting as 3x for new guys and gals. Mechanically, however, it breaks the chain of AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 3X D&D. If you strip everything down to basics in those three editions, they aren't actually that dissimilar. The cosmology, monster fluff, core classes and races (well, 2e did drop a couple of classes, but you could still use the 1e version with little to no conversion).
So, despite 4e being a good system, it really isn't meant for old school guys. From what I can tell from reading the various 4e/3e threads over the net, most of the experienced players who love 4e weren't the biggest fans of earlier editions (Vancian magic being one of the bigger beefs). Nothing wrong with that, but if they, along with new blood, are the target audience, then WotC has to live with a decent percentage of people who have bought products with "D&D" on the cover for decades freaking out and feeling left behind.
I guess all I'm asking is that you understand why some people say "it isn't D&D". Until now, they haven't HAD to "start over", they just had to make some mechanical changes. The new game is a different game with a lot of common points to earlier editions, but it is still, effectively, a whole new thing.
|
|
blah, blah , blah...
Sorry about the "blah, blah" didn't have the bit I actually wanted to quote houstonderek, and I wanted to make sure I credited him with the comment.
But I found you statement that us "some" (as not to raise the ire of ALL) old time customers of D&D products do indeed feel left behind by the latest version of D&D. This in no way makes 4E bad, just not an obvious successor to the previous editions, and in such feels not quite like "home". Well to at very least houstonderek and I. However, if you forgot the D&D of old and give 4E a go not with any previous D&D in your mind its a fun game for sure. The tricky bit is giving yourself a RPG lobotomy to forgot all the previous D&D's!
S.
blah, blah , blah...
Sorry about the "blah, blah" didn't have the bit I actually wanted to quote houstonderek, and I wanted to make sure I credited him with the comment.
But I found you statement that us "some" (as not to raise the ire of ALL) old time customers of D&D products do indeed feel left behind by the latest version of D&D. This in no way makes 4E bad, just not an obvious successor to the previous editions, and in such feels not quite like "home". Well to at very least houstonderek and I. However, if you forgot the D&D of old and give 4E a go not with any previous D&D in your mind its a fun game for sure. The tricky bit is giving yourself a RPG lobotomy to forgot all the previous D&D's!
S.
I've found this kind of lobotomy helpful myself, especially when it comes to particulars of the rules. It took a couple months for me to stop accidentally using 3.5 definitions for certain rules. In some cases it can be helpful to bring past knowledge into a new game. In other cases, it's not.
|
|
I've found this kind of lobotomy helpful myself, especially when it comes to particulars of the rules.
Yep, it really does help your 4E to play 4E and not some sort of hybrid 3.x/4E game. Gone from spending half the game saying "why the hell is that not like that any more" to "ok what does the rule say" then applying.
My advice play 4E as 4E, play v3.5 as v3.5 and you'll have a much easier time of it.
S.
Scott, I'm an old school guy, but I don't dislike 4e out of hand, and I think it is a good RPG system.
Having said that, I think you're missing the point that a lot of old school guys have regarding the changes in 4e. My homebrew world of 25 years survived the changes through the editions, characters could be converted easily and still be, basically, the same character (yeah, you'd have to add skills and feats converting to 3x, and other mechanical changes affected character conversion, but you didn't have to "start over").
But with 4e, WotC changed the whole paradigm. Characters cannot be easily converted over to 4e if they deviate from the "single core class" build. Even a single class build would take more effort to convert than, say, going from 2e with the "options" splats to 3x.
Spiritually, 4e is the successor to the Moldvay/Cook basic, which is a good thing, imo, as it does make it easier to draw new players in as it isn't nearly as complex or daunting as 3x for new guys and gals. Mechanically, however, it breaks the chain of AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 3X D&D. If you strip everything down to basics in those three editions, they aren't actually that dissimilar. The cosmology, monster fluff, core classes and races (well, 2e did drop a couple of classes, but you could still use the 1e version with little to no conversion).
So, despite 4e being a good system, it really isn't meant for old school guys. From what I can tell from reading the various 4e/3e threads over the net, most of the experienced players who love 4e weren't the biggest fans of earlier editions (Vancian magic being one of the bigger beefs). Nothing wrong with that, but if they, along with new blood, are the target audience, then WotC has to live with a decent percentage of people who have bought...
Lurker here...
I couldn't agree more here. 4e is a solid rule set but, I can't convert my 20 year old campaign world to it. So I won't be supporting 4e pass owning the Core Books. Converting would be to much work, and starting over strips away 20 years of lore me and my players have built.
Eric
|
It's strange but I can't think of any setting which I can't convert.
I have pages of notes for Al-Qadim and Birthright and I am confident that I could run those settings with the full feel and flavour of my players 2e days.
If your close minded and hidebound then yes you'll hit brick walls.....GO AROUND.
Gods but gamers are meant to be a creative and imaginative bunch.
Rule #1: Remove from your vocabulary.
Rule #2: Be in your approach.
A problem or situation is only as difficult as you make it.
My only exception to the above is that I wouldn't convert an existing game, not because I can't but because if I'm already enjoying it why change the formula/feel.
|
It's strange but I can't think of any setting which I can't convert.
I have pages of notes for Al-Qadim and Birthright and I am confident that I could run those settings with the full feel and flavour of my players 2e days.
If your close minded and hidebound then yes you'll hit brick walls.....GO AROUND.
Gods but gamers are meant to be a creative and imaginative bunch.
Rule #1: Remove from your vocabulary.
Rule #2: Be in your approach.A problem or situation is only as difficult as you make it.
My only exception to the above is that I wouldn't convert an existing game, not because I can't but because if I'm already enjoying it why change the formula/feel.
in all fairness it wasn't as easy as all that, what if you were playing a half-orc before the phbII came out or if you were a warforged which I believe still hasn't come out. And many times converting would mean changing a class completely, if you want the full benefit of two weapon fighting and you convert you had to change your level 13 fighter into a ranger. So while it could be done it doesn't make it feel right. this isn't a post against the edition just saying that converting does sometimes require massive changes.
but I know how much money I used to spend on WOTC booksI hear that!
And now virtually all of my gaming dollars go to Paizo as well...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I second that! With 3rd-edition I probably spent thousands of dollars on books over the course of the edition.
With 4e (although its a functional system, there is something a little less D&D about it) I have only bought 4 books, with absolutely NO desire to own more. I have found I don't even use the 4e Monster Manual - instead, building everything from scratch using the monster creation rules on page 184 of the DMG.
My group has decided to play 4e through 10th level to give it a truly fair run, and then we are going to vote to see which system we want to keep playing.
With 4th you have ease of design, which is an awesome feature for DMs, but from a player's perspective one class is just the same as another (at least in terms of the play experience). I mean seriously, what is the difference between an arcane area burst that deals fire damage, and a martial area burst that represents a hail of arrows (and the differences only blur further the higher level you go - when the archer starts miraculously dealing fire damage ??? )?
In 3x when you made a barbarian, it was a total different ride than if you made a wizard or a cleric. You had to be on your toes. Death saves may have sucked to suffer from, but there is something awesome about your 6th-level fighter (local burgomaster and cat-catcher) getting X-ed by an assassin's death attack (and deserving it because he was an a##!!&& that made the wrong enemies).
Another thing that I miss is designing an entire character around an obscure rule like Counterspelling (which is non-existent in 4e). The list is almost endless; Finding that sweet build that you had to wait for 2 levels to achieve. Knowing that you were no match for a beholder. Finding a killer feat combo, or reading that spell description for the 5th time and suddenly realizing how it could be exploited to deadly effect (using Shatter as an area effect to destroy all of the parties potions was a personal fav).
These are the little details that made 3rd edition rock! Yeah it sucked having to spend 4 hours to write up the stat-block of that 12th level wizard, but you know what - that was a small price to pay for the hours and hours of fun I would have as the PCs tried to kill him...
in all fairness it wasn't as easy as all that, what if you were playing a half-orc before the phbII came out
Make up racial stats, or use a comparable race that is already in print.
or if you were a warforged which I believe still hasn't come out.
Warforged is out, and has been out for nine months. You can find the full player-race write-up in Dragon #364. Even before that it had basic player race stats in the back of the Monster Manual.
And many times converting would mean changing a class completely, if you want the full benefit of two weapon fighting and you convert you had to change your level 13 fighter into a ranger.
Tempest fighter, from Martial Power, is a two-weapon fighter class feature, with a complement of two-weapon fighter powers. You don't need to play a ranger.
So while it could be done it doesn't make it feel right. this isn't a post against the edition just saying that converting does sometimes require massive changes.
Your arguments, so far, have been: if you were converting a game a month ago you couldn't have played a half-orc, there's no race write-up for Warforged except for the one in the back of the Monster Manual and the full-length article write-up available free in an online supplement, and there's no two-weapon fighter except for the two-weapon fighter.
I realize that you probably weren't aware of most of these options, and that yes, there are some portions of previous campaigns that might require making your own things if you wanted to stay faithful to it (heaven forbid!), but the examples you gave are non-examples.
With 4th you have ease of design, which is an awesome feature for DMs, but from a player's perspective one class is just the same as another (at least in terms of the play experience). I mean seriously, what is the difference between an arcane area burst that deals fire damage, and a martial area burst that represents a hail of arrows (and the differences only blur further the higher level you go - when the archer starts miraculously dealing fire damage ??? )?
Having played both (wizards and rangers), I can vouch for how they feel completely different from one another.
That said, could you please explain which power, exactly, causes the archer to "miraculously deal fire damage"? I just searched the PHB and Martial Power, and there wasn't a single fire power for rangers in either of those. Then I went and searched the Compendium, just in case you were referencing some obscure ranger power, and there wasn't one in there either.
Are you just making things up to support your point of view?
Scot being helpful and all but you proved his point, you listed 2 more books to convert a 3.5 char.
So no the warforged 2 weapon fighter can not be converted with just the core 3 books
although to be fair the warforged could not be made with the 3.5 core either, you need to ECS for that.
Still that 4 books, 3 core + a setting vs. 3 core +1 extra + DDI
And many times converting would mean changing a class completely, if you want the full benefit of two weapon fighting and you convert you had to change your level 13 fighter into a ranger.Tempest fighter, from Martial Power, is a two-weapon fighter class feature, with a complement of two-weapon fighter powers. You don't need to play a ranger.
While think this true to extant, it is most definitely not a perfect solution if you need to buy such and such books beyond the PH to make some additional attempt at conversion. While it is certainly a solution, it shouldn't be treated as if it was not an obstacle toward conversion.
I think that this would be similar to one saying that there is no problem converting these characters, because someone posted some set of powers to a website or some 3rd party has made a monk so you could just use that.
Again, I think it is a solution, just as much as converting the fighter to a ranger was.
With 4th you have ease of design, which is an awesome feature for DMs, but from a player's perspective one class is just the same as another (at least in terms of the play experience). I mean seriously, what is the difference between an arcane area burst that deals fire damage, and a martial area burst that represents a hail of arrows (and the differences only blur further the higher level you go - when the archer starts miraculously dealing fire damage ??? )?Having played both (wizards and rangers), I can vouch for how they feel completely different from one another.
That said, could you please explain which power, exactly, causes the archer to "miraculously deal fire damage"? I just searched the PHB and Martial Power, and there wasn't a single fire power for rangers in either of those. Then I went and searched the Compendium, just in case you were referencing some obscure ranger power, and there wasn't one in there either.
Are you just making things up to support your point of view?
Or a flaming weapon.
Still that 4 books, 3 core + a setting vs. 3 core +1 extra + DDI
Actually, you can make it with 1 core book (the Player's Handbook) and a DDI subscription. If you're a player looking to convert your character from 3.5, there's no real reason to own a Monster Manual or Dungeon Master's Guide. And you don't need to buy the extra supplements if you're just looking for one specific rules feature from each - DDI gives you the full, searchable rules text of all supplements for a few bucks a month (which, if you're converting your character, you really only need to pay for 1 month of, getting you access to the Character Builder and Compendium).
While think this true to extant, it is most definitely not a perfect solution if you need to buy such and such books beyond the PH to make some additional attempt at conversion. While it is certainly a solution, it shouldn't be treated as if it was not an obstacle toward conversion.
Again, $8 gets you the Character Builder with all data from all sources released so far, and it stays on your computer, completely usable, unless you decide to delete it. You don't need an ongoing subscription to use it.
That same $8 also gets you a month's worth of access to the Compendium, allowing you plenty of time to convert your previous character however you would like (if, for whatever reason, the Character Builder didn't already do the job for you), and all past and current digital issues of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
All this is less than half the cost of one supplement book.
Does that mean that you can download pdf version of the books you own (with errata included, I would hope)?
S.
No.
Though I've heard the designers say that they're trying to figure out ways to incentivize DDI subscribers to actually buy physical copies of books (one of the ways that this was suggested was to provide PDF version of the books for free or for a nominal charge to people who owned physical copies). The Compendium and Character Builder are so useful that if you really don't want to, you don't even need to own the books.
so I have to have DDI to convert? so I need lets see internet, and a credit card and can only convert while I am at my pc. That is worse off then just buying the book
sorry no, I do not like having to have a pc just to make a char or convent a char. So no DDI we are back to books, I do not use PDF to run a game and will not use an online database to make a pc. Not picking on ya or anything Scott but the DDI is not a fix for any issue you have.
The DDI is just not a option for some gamers and groups
so I have to have DDI to convert? so I need lets see internet, and a credit card and can only convert while I am at my pc. That is worse off then just buying the book
Oh no! You need the internet (which you obviously have access to, along with just about everyone else)! You need a credit card (which, granted, can be an issue for some people, though there's precious little reason not to have a debit card at the very least, and those work just as well for online orders)! You need a computer (again, does not seem to be a harrowing obstacle for you)!
Not to pick on you or anything, but these kinds of "obstacles" remind me of a comic (warning: language).
sorry no, I do not like having to have a pc just to make a char or convent a char.
A lot of people do. I was just offering you a solution which would prevent you from having to buy books.
So far, the reasons presented for not putting in the effort to convert your characters has been a) I don't want to come up with new abilities, b) I don't want to spend money on books, and c) I don't want to make a character in front of a computer.
Wow.
So no DDI we are back to books, I do not use PDF to run a game and will not use an online database to make a pc. Not picking on ya or anything Scott but the DDI is not a fix for any issue you have.
DDI doesn't poach eggs, either. It's still one of the most useful, worthwhile suites of gaming tools in existence. You owe it to yourself to at least download the demo version of the Character Builder and see if it really is so much of a pain to have to sit in front of a computer while you create your character.
The DDI is just not a option for some gamers and groups
You're right. Those gamers and groups that hate putting in extra effort to make their own abilities, hate using computers to make characters and hate to (or can't afford to) buy new books probably won't see DDI as a solution.
so I have to have DDI to convert? so I need lets see internet, and a credit card and can only convert while I am at my pc. That is worse off then just buying the book
sorry no, I do not like having to have a pc just to make a char or convent a char. So no DDI we are back to books, I do not use PDF to run a game and will not use an online database to make a pc. Not picking on ya or anything Scott but the DDI is not a fix for any issue you have.
The DDI is just not a option for some gamers and groups
Last night I had three players with character sheets on their laptops. One using an iPhone as his dice roller. A fifth player with traditional pencil and paper, and myself as DM, using a stack of books, a few dice and my imagination.
I really can't see paying $8 a month for a subscription to an electronic accessory that requires me to both have a laptop with me and wireless service where I'm at. It's annoying and inconvenient, and if twenty four years of using computers has taught me anything, it's that they'll crash at the least convenient times.
I really can't see paying $8 a month for a subscription to an electronic accessory that requires me to both have a laptop with me and wireless service where I'm at.
Guess what! Neither of these is required by DDI! Hooray for you!
The Character Builder is designed for creating characters prior to playing. They can then be printed out with a full complement of power cards with all the math filled in for you. The Character Builder can be used at the table if you have a laptop, but that is by no means the primary purpose of the program let alone a requirement.
The Compendium is largely a DM tool for game prep, allowing for quick look-up of monsters and treasure when planning for an upcoming game. While I do use the Compendium at the game table, it's only because I own a laptop, have access to a wireless connection, and keep all my campaign data on my conversion website anyway. Most of the use I get out of the program is easily finding appropriate monsters for upcoming encounters.
You can get full use out of your DDI subscription with a desktop computer and a wired internet connection, both of which you clearly already possess.
I really can't see paying $8 a month for a subscription to an electronic accessory that requires me to both have a laptop with me and wireless service where I'm at.Guess what! Neither of these is required by DDI! Hooray for you!
The Character Builder is designed for creating characters prior to playing. They can then be printed out with a full complement of power cards with all the math filled in for you. The Character Builder can be used at the table if you have a laptop, but that is by no means the primary purpose of the program let alone a requirement.
The Compendium is largely a DM tool for game prep, allowing for quick look-up of monsters and treasure when planning for an upcoming game. While I do use the Compendium at the game table, it's only because I own a laptop, have access to a wireless connection, and keep all my campaign data on my conversion website anyway. Most of the use I get out of the program is easily finding appropriate monsters for upcoming encounters.
You can get full use out of your DDI subscription with a desktop computer and a wired internet connection, both of which you clearly already possess.
Not all my games are at my house, and while I do plan adventures out somewhat beforehand, I mostly set up the world and let the players go out and find their own trouble. Yesterday I made great use of the 1st ed DMGs wandering monster chart for when the players decided to explore the next valley over.
But more than anything, I probably just prefer books to printouts.
So far, the reasons presented for not putting in the effort to convert your characters has been a) I don't want to come up with new abilities, b) I don't want to spend money on books, and c) I don't want to make a character in front of a computer.
Wow.
Heh again that was the point man...just the core 3 books
A. In other editions this was never really called for, or not often and not as much just to use something made from core booksB. Again thats the point core only book..normal core not extended core
C. I never do, my players do not. Pen, paper, books.
Some making stuff up is a players and DM normal stuff, however thats a mark against 4e when ya have to make stuff up thats been core for 20+ years.
While think this true to extant, it is most definitely not a perfect solution if you need to buy such and such books beyond the PH to make some additional attempt at conversion. While it is certainly a solution, it shouldn't be treated as if it was not an obstacle toward conversion.Again, $8 gets you the Character Builder with all data from all sources released so far, and it stays on your computer, completely usable, unless you decide to delete it. You don't need an ongoing subscription to use it.
That same $8 also gets you a month's worth of access to the Compendium, allowing you plenty of time to convert your previous character however you would like (if, for whatever reason, the Character Builder didn't already do the job for you), and all past and current digital issues of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
All this is less than half the cost of one supplement book.
But that doesn't really contest my argument rather than advertising the DDI. It is ridiculous to me, this seems more like a sales pitch than a discussion. You went from "Martial Power" to "DDI", but the point is the same. There being an option spend money to solve one's problem doesn't mean that they don't have a problem, and it may not be an option for every person like you have been assuming.
If you were trying to get me to reconsider getting a DDI subcription, your post had the opposite effect. I understood the DDI was relatively inexpensive and have considered buying a subscription, but I decided to wait on it and see how I felt about it later. I feel as if you were too pushy with it and all it has done has been to make me less willing to spend money on it.
While think this true to extant, it is most definitely not a perfect solution if you need to buy such and such books beyond the PH to make some additional attempt at conversion. While it is certainly a solution, it shouldn't be treated as if it was not an obstacle toward conversion.Again, $8 gets you the Character Builder with all data from all sources released so far, and it stays on your computer, completely usable, unless you decide to delete it. You don't need an ongoing subscription to use it.
That same $8 also gets you a month's worth of access to the Compendium, allowing you plenty of time to convert your previous character however you would like (if, for whatever reason, the Character Builder didn't already do the job for you), and all past and current digital issues of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.
All this is less than half the cost of one supplement book.
But that doesn't really contest my argument rather than advertising the DDI. It is ridiculous to me, this seems more like a sales pitch than a discussion. You went from "Martial Power" to "DDI", but the point is the same. There being an option spend money to solve one's problem doesn't mean that they don't have a problem, and it may not be an option for every person like you have been assuming.
If you were trying to get me to reconsider getting a DDI subcription, your post had the opposite effect. I understood the DDI was relatively inexpensive and have considered buying a subscription, but I decided to wait on it and see how I felt about it later. I feel as if you were too pushy with it and all it has done has been to make me less willing to spend money on it.
A) Bull.
B) Guilt-tripping like this has no place in this discussion.
C) If you actually are the sort of person who decides his purchases based on how pushy or not pushy a fan is in telling you how cool something is, regardless of the actual usefulness of the product in question, I feel really sorry for you. D&D must be a hard hobby for you to stomach.
My post was not intended as an advertisement for DDI. It was to explain a solution that was being overlooked (perhaps intentionally) by a number of people. You said that you'd need to buy extra books to incorporate the material you were looking for. I explained that no, in fact, you wouldn't need to.
If you choose to view it as a "pushy" attempt to get you to purchase something, nothing I can do about that. I gave you my honest opinion of it and explained that it would be useful. Your reaction to that is, I believe, extreme, willful and disingenuous.
Scott, about 98.5% of the time, you're just trying to clear up what you see as misconceptions about 4e, and I admire that. But that other 1.5%, you gotta admit, the pom-poms and mini skirt sneak out. You're a fan, nothing wrong with it, just own it ;)
I absolutely am.
But the idea that a pretty even-handed explanation of what DDI can offer to address the problem in question could qualify as pushy enough to drive someone away from purchasing the product is, frankly, ridiculous. It's not how a reasonable person behaves. It's far more likely that the individual in question is feigning repulsion for the sake of discouraging the other - pretending that the fan's conduct is harmful to his own "cause" in an effort to stop the fan from continuing to participate. It's a common tactic, and it's seen a fair amount of play even here. While it's phenomenally unlikely that Blazej will own up to it, I think it's worthwhile to explain what's going on here.
|
|
As far as D.D.I. is concerned (and PHB2s, DMG2s, et al), like any other game aid ever offered outside of the core rules (and the first three books are a perfectly playable game in and of themselves, at least for a few years, before it gets stale - that's why they make new books, after all), it's optional. You don't need it. You can play without it.
Tempest in a teapot.
As far as D.D.I. is concerned (and PHB2s, DMG2s, et al), like any other game aid ever offered outside of the core rules (and the first three books are a perfectly playable game in and of themselves, at least for a few years, before it gets stale - that's why they make new books, after all), it's optional. You don't need it. You can play without it.
Tempest in a teapot.
Yep!
I ran or played in three different campaigns before the first splat book even hit the shelves and before the DDI even had useful applications to its name. All of them were a blast. Supplements are absolutely not necessary to enjoy the crap out of D&D.
Now, if you have something specific in mind for D&D you may need to work a little magic (like continuing an older-edition game in the new rules).
|
|
Oh, and as to the pom-pom rah rah stuff? I was a communications major, and your writing style is excellent for ad copy. It just tickles me that I don't think you can see, because it isn't intentional, just the way you naturally use language, that you do have a natural inclination for sharing your experiences in a way that reminds me of someone convincing a friend to check out something they really need to check out. To some, that comes off as "selling" the game to them, or doing P.R. It isn't there in intent, which I can see from your word usage (no "hot" words or hooks), but the tone does some through.
Honestly? I'm just bored and feel like putting on a silly analytical hat on to parse style and what-not. Hope you're not bothered :)
Oh, and as to the pom-pom rah rah stuff? I was a communications major, and your writing style is excellent for ad copy. It just tickles me that I don't think you can see, because it isn't intentional, just the way you naturally use language, that you do have a natural inclination for sharing your experiences in a way that reminds me of someone convincing a friend to check out something they really need to check out. To some, that comes off as "selling" the game to them, or doing P.R. It isn't there in intent, which I can see from your word usage (no "hot" words or hooks), but the tone does some through.
Honestly? I'm just bored and feel like putting on a silly analytical hat on to parse style and what-not. Hope you're not bothered :)
It's okay. I'm well aware of my enthusiasm, and I wouldn't even consider apologizing for it since I believe it's more than merited. If people want to pretend that genuine enthusiasm turns them off, it's really not my problem. ;P
Well, went and explored the free demo, and came across this detail: The D&D Character Builder searches the database for options appropriate to your character. Subscribers can make informed choices by "clicking" on each option and seeing the complete rules text for it.
Which I believe means, once you are no longer a subscriber--including once it's no longer possible to subscribe, due to D&D moving on to a new edition and the old is no-longer-supported--the program you've downloaded is incomplete and you can't click and see the text because that's on another server you can't access. And even if you are a current subscriber, it still doesn't help you if you can't get the internet at the moment.
Beyond that, some things were fairly straightforward, like the ritual index, and others were rather bizarre, such as the monsters section wanting you to use jargon like "elite controller" and "standard brute" and whatnot and not allowing you to use "fey" as a keyword, which is boggling, since it's listed in the 4e MM as part of a monster's type, and if I'm planning a fey encounter, it might be useful to pick some fey creatures. And going with "elf" as the next closest only brought up two or three creatures.
The character builder demo disk that came in my 3.0 book had a much more user-friendly interface.
Well, went and explored the free demo, and came across this detail: The D&D Character Builder searches the database for options appropriate to your character. Subscribers can make informed choices by "clicking" on each option and seeing the complete rules text for it.
Which I believe means, once you are no longer a subscriber--including once it's no longer possible to subscribe, due to D&D moving on to a new edition and the old is no-longer-supported--the program you've downloaded is incomplete and you can't click and see the text because that's on another server you can't access. And even if you are a current subscriber, it still doesn't help you if you can't get the internet at the moment.
Neither of these is true. The Character Builder functions whether you are a subscriber, aren't a subscriber, have internet access, or don't have internet access.
The only thing that being a continued subscriber gets you is the ability to download monthly updates to the Character Builder containing recently released material. As long as you don't delete your Character Builder data (by uninstalling it, or something similar) you can continue to use it and all the rules data you've downloaded up to that point.
In fact, I just disconnected myself from my router, launched the Character Builder and created a 30th-level Swordmage. Full rules text.
|
It's okay. I'm well aware of my enthusiasm, and I wouldn't even consider apologizing for it since I believe it's more than merited. If people want to pretend that genuine enthusiasm turns them off, it's really not my problem. ;P
From your communications major perspective, houstonderek, what do you see the other camp is trying to prove with their posts against DDI, the latest 4E supplements, etc.? Information?
I merely said what I felt, not an attempt to misrepresent my feelings or such. Like when other posters have gone around just trashing 4th edition have made me want to no play 3rd edition. However, honestly I do not really want DDI, because if I really wanted whatever one poster on a forum says wouldn't stop me. I just am considering buying it and your post was enough for me to stop considering for a while. I'm sorry if you don't like this. I thought it was something that was a mistake in your post so I mentioned it. I just won't mention it again.
Beyond that, some things were fairly straightforward, like the ritual index, and others were rather bizarre, such as the monsters section wanting you to use jargon like "elite controller" and "standard brute" and whatnot and not allowing you to use "fey" as a keyword, which is boggling, since it's listed in the 4e MM as part of a monster's type, and if I'm planning a fey encounter, it might be useful to pick some fey creatures. And going with "elf" as the next closest only brought up two or three creatures.
This sounds like the D&D Compendium, not the Character Builder. Are you sure you were using the right application? The Character Builder doesn't even have any info on monsters or encounters - it's solely for creating Player Characters. The D&D Compendium is the DM's database-searching tool.
By the way, "fey" is an origin, not a keyword, which is why it doesn't appear in the drop-down box you were looking at.
If you do want to search for fey creatures, include it as a search term. I have a feeling future updates to the Compendium will allow for more filter parameters. They added a bunch this last month.
I thought it was something that was a mistake in your post so I mentioned it.
Goodness me, no. Genuine enthusiasm is rarely a mistake, especially since this is the appropriate place for it.
Beyond that, some things were fairly straightforward, like the ritual index, and others were rather bizarre, such as the monsters section wanting you to use jargon like "elite controller" and "standard brute" and whatnot and not allowing you to use "fey" as a keyword, which is boggling, since it's listed in the 4e MM as part of a monster's type, and if I'm planning a fey encounter, it might be useful to pick some fey creatures. And going with "elf" as the next closest only brought up two or three creatures.This sounds like the D&D Compendium, not the Character Builder. Are you sure you were using the right application? The Character Builder doesn't even have any info on monsters or encounters - it's solely for creating Player Characters. The D&D Compendium is the DM's database-searching tool.
By the way, "fey" is an origin, not a keyword, which is why it doesn't appear in the drop-down box you were looking at.
If you do want to search for fey creatures, include it as a search term. I have a feeling future updates to the Compendium will allow for more filter parameters. They added a bunch this last month.
Ah, yes, putting it in as a search term turns up a lot more.
I do not grok the logic behind "giant" and "goblin" being keywords, but "fey" having to be a search term. Obviously this is a work in progress.
Beyond that, some things were fairly straightforward, like the ritual index, and others were rather bizarre, such as the monsters section wanting you to use jargon like "elite controller" and "standard brute" and whatnot and not allowing you to use "fey" as a keyword, which is boggling, since it's listed in the 4e MM as part of a monster's type, and if I'm planning a fey encounter, it might be useful to pick some fey creatures. And going with "elf" as the next closest only brought up two or three creatures.This sounds like the D&D Compendium, not the Character Builder. Are you sure you were using the right application? The Character Builder doesn't even have any info on monsters or encounters - it's solely for creating Player Characters. The D&D Compendium is the DM's database-searching tool.
By the way, "fey" is an origin, not a keyword, which is why it doesn't appear in the drop-down box you were looking at.
If you do want to search for fey creatures, include it as a search term. I have a feeling future updates to the Compendium will allow for more filter parameters. They added a bunch this last month.
Ah, yes, putting it in as a search term turns up a lot more.
I do not grok the logic behind "giant" and "goblin" being keywords, but "fey" having to be a search term. Obviously this is a work in progress.
Origins refer to where the creature comes from. Typically, this is its planar background. Fey creatures are usually from the Feywild, and Aberrant creatures are usually from the Far Realm. "Natural" is the origin of any creature that belongs on the material plane. Keywords are descriptors that usually describe some of a monster's traits. "Undead", "swarm" and "human" are all keywords. You're probably familiar with the third labeling category: type. It works a lot like it did in 3.5, with humanoids, magical beasts, etc.
It took me a few weeks to get the distinction down, too.
Also, did you figure out if you were actually using the Character Builder or not? The "unfriendly user interface" bit tipped me off, as I can't recall anyone really complaining about the UI of the Character Builder. The Compendium isn't particularly user-friendly, but the Character Builder is pretty intuitive for the most part.
|
|
From your communications major perspective, houstonderek, what do you see the other camp is trying to prove with their posts against DDI, the latest 4E supplements, etc.? Information?
It's okay. I'm well aware of my enthusiasm, and I wouldn't even consider apologizing for it since I believe it's more than merited. If people want to pretend that genuine enthusiasm turns them off, it's really not my problem. ;P
One camp is trying to prove that they can keep beating a dead horse almost a year after the fact, and two years after it started. Most have probably not really given it a try, probably won't, they're not really commenting on the game as much as what they don't like about how WotC went/is going about things. (I've played a couple of times, I'm lukewarm to it as a fantasy game - it seems kind of anime-ish, action-wise, to me, and my flavor is more traditional, I suppose, but I see a lot of possibilities in other applications, dark future, super heroes, it's a good engine) Fair enough, been said before, nothing to see here, move along.
Another is still ticked off that what they were initially promised, and a major centerpiece of WotC's lead-up to the release, the virtual table, still isn't on-line, along with a few other apps that haven't been fully implemented. They also didn't care for the disruption of the basic assumptions about what the core class/race roster for the core book should be. Also, they're put off by the semantics of calling the future three monster/dm/player books "core" instead of "supplements", I suppose. I think WotC actually did the right thing by calling them "core", though, basically saying we're not going to waste your time with optional stuff you couldn't use in a Living Forgotten Realms game*. And that's the big sub-group of this camp: the Faerun fans. A sizable portion of the FR fanbase were quite put off by the retconning of the Realms, including not a few 4e players. Personally, I think they have a legit beef. But this group either has given the game a chance and found it lacking or actively plays but has some beefs, and are proving they have the right to complain about things they don't care for.
The third camp is people that have an open mind, or are relatively new to gaming who have reservations based on things they've heard or read in the books, and are trying to make up their minds on the issue. They aren't trying to prove anything, they just need their questions answered so they can make a more informed opinion on where to spend their gaming time and capital.
I think that about covers it. Thoughts?
*Edit: And from what I can tell, Paizo is taking this tact as well, which is brilliant, imo.
From your communications major perspective, houstonderek, what do you see the other camp is trying to prove with their posts against DDI, the latest 4E supplements, etc.? Information?
It's okay. I'm well aware of my enthusiasm, and I wouldn't even consider apologizing for it since I believe it's more than merited. If people want to pretend that genuine enthusiasm turns them off, it's really not my problem. ;POne camp is trying to prove that they can keep beating a dead horse almost a year after the fact, and two years after it started. Most have probably not really given it a try, probably won't, they're not really commenting on the game as much as what they don't like about how WotC went/is going about things. (I've played a couple of times, I'm lukewarm to it as a fantasy game - it seems kind of anime-ish, action-wise, to me, and my flavor is more traditional, I suppose, but I see a lot of possibilities in other applications, dark future, super heroes, it's a good engine) Fair enough, been said before, nothing to see here, move along.
Another is still ticked off that what they were initially promised, and a major centerpiece of WotC's lead-up to the release, the virtual table, still isn't on-line, along with a few other apps that haven't been fully implemented. They also didn't care for the disruption of the basic assumptions about what the core class/race roster for the core book should be. Also, they're put off by the semantics of calling the future three monster/dm/player books "core" instead of "supplements", I suppose. I think WotC actually did the right thing by calling them "core", though, basically saying we're not going to waste your time with optional stuff you couldn't use in a Living Forgotten Realms game*. And that's the big sub-group of this camp: the Faerun fans. A sizable portion of the FR fanbase were quite put off by the retconning of the Realms, including not a few 4e players. Personally, I think they have a legit beef....
That all sounds pretty accurate, actually. Nicely put.