TheRPGSite

And 4e appears to be here.

Tell me where to send the money for the new books, fuckers. And quick, because I was just starting a new campaign.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

Quote from: CalithenaAnd 4e appears to be here.

Tell me where to send the money for the new books, fuckers. And quick, because I was just starting a new campaign.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

I can confirm that large announcements are in the works. Tomorrow, 6:30Pm Sagamore Ballroom.

Ok, I'll take a polite guess: Winter Fantasy 2008 release?

It's a 4d - Venture. Clever bastards. I think it's their talked about digital initiative. An interactive d&d ORPG? (i left out massive multiplayer). Sign up to Gleemax, get a group together and play online at any time you want with whoever you want. Dunno about the technicalities of that though.

Whether that intiative is a new d&d edition, dunno. If it's a pen & paper new edition, i can't wait to see pundit splutter.

Quote from: One Horse TownIt's a 4d - Venture. Clever bastards. I think it's their talked about digital initiative. An interactive d&d ORPG? (i left out massive multiplayer). Sign up to Gleemax, get a group together and play online at any time you want with whoever you want. Dunno about the technicalities of that though.

Whether that intiative is a new d&d edition, dunno. If it's a pen & paper new edition, i can't wait to see pundit splutter.

4D Venture? Hmm... *ponders*

Quote from: One Horse TownIt's a 4d - Venture. Clever bastards. I think it's their talked about digital initiative. An interactive d&d ORPG? (i left out massive multiplayer). Sign up to Gleemax, get a group together and play online at any time you want with whoever you want. Dunno about the technicalities of that though.

Perhaps it's Ryan's MM on-again off-again resource-leveraging community-building TOTALLYSUPERFUCKINGPERSISTENT story telling thing.

A man may dream.

From the WotC boards:

QuoteHello All.

The announcement of 4th Edition is a pretty big event for all RPG fans. It's a huge event for all of us at Wizards of the Coast, including WotC staff and our WizO support team. We understand that this is something many of you are going to feel very passionate about in a number of ways.

We've created this forum for few reasons. We want everyone to have a single discussion forum where they can get answers and information directly from the D&D staff. We also want to prevent the other forums from being overwhelmed with 4E posts to the point that it drowns out any of the natural discussion in those areas. Additionally, I want to have a single forum where our community can post their hopes, fears, concerns, and dreams about 4E. This will make it easier for the D&D staff to read community feedback, and to (hopefully) provide a lot of answers to your questions.

The WizOs will be moderating this forum and others. They are acting on the direction of Wizards of the Coast, so if you're upset with their moderation, please don't take it out on the WizOs. Their goals will be clear: Keep 4th Edition discussion in the 4E forum. This might mean locking threads and/or moving posts.

If you have concerns, questions, or issues about the forum moderation taking place after the 4th Edition announcement, I've created a thread here where you may discuss your concerns.

Finally, please try to be respectful in your posts and comments. Be nice to other posters, the WizOs, and WotC staff. The WizOs will be enforcing all Code of Conduct rules on all forums as usual.

If you have any suggestions or ideas on how I can do a better job of helping to facilitate communication between the D&D Staff and the Community, I've created a thread here.

Thanks!
-Mike
__________________
Mike Lescault
Online Communities Manager
Wizards of the Coast
Host of Gamer Radio Zero

Jesus motherfuck cunt shit. Well, there it is.

Exciting times!

What do you think they will do?

Mearls was talking on their podcast about the worst thing wrong with DnD being that you are at your best just after you have rested - so a total revamp of spell recovery?

Much streamlined monster management?

Something even more radical?

http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686 (http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686)

Apparently, the forums where not supposed to be available to the public yet (it's on a private subforum). It could be an Easter egg rather than a mistake, though.


EDIT: Whoa, I can't access the subforum now! Good thing that I have my browser's cache... :D

(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c220/rvilliers/RPG/4E.jpg)

Some of us managed to post before the lock.

Uh-oh... someone screwed up and leaked it to the Interwebs by posting to a (supposedly) private forum before they were ready.  The WOTC web staff are busy pruning the forums of any links to the 4E sub-forum.

This will be interesting. :)

It would've leaked anyway, most likely. Morrus of EN World and some of the d20/OGL companies had been invited to a meeting with WotC tonight.

Bounce Bounce Bounce Bounce I DEMAND SPECUALTION!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: WOTC SiteCountdown to Fourth Edition

    Following on the heels of its successful, yearlong "Countdown to Third Edition" promotion for the new version of its Dungeons & Dragons game, Wizards of the Coast announced today that it would begin the "Countdown to Fourth Edition," which is due out April 1, 2011. A Wizards spokesperson, citing continuing strong sales of third edition D&D, said the company decided that "ten times the countdown," should result in "ten times higher" sales of Fourth Edition. Though initially reticent on the issue, former D&D Brand Manager Bryan Rancey admitted (after we poured salt on his wounds) that the Fourth Edition countdown was beginning. "Yeah. Sure. Whatever," said Rancey. "Let me go." Sources say that the new edition will use the revolutionary d30 system, but this is, as yet, unconfirmed.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010401a

Quote from: Stuarthttp://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010401a

Yeah, that's an old April Fool's joke they did a few years back. Apparently one of the few things accessible on the D&D pages at WotC.

Quote from: Erik BoielleBounce Bounce Bounce Bounce I DEMAND SPECUALTION!!!!!!!!!

I speculate that 4th Edition books will be available tomorrow.

Quote from: StuartI speculate that 4th Edition books will be available tomorrow.

Oooooooooo.......

There was a 4th edition wish list forum on that thing there though.

Well, more money spent at GenCon...

I've been pretty critical of 3e and haven't played D&D for a few years now... and yet I still find this news amazing.  I'm speechless... really, I'm literally without speech.

I've got some 3.5 books - anyone want to buy 'em, cheap?

Quote from: James J SkachI've got some 3.5 books - anyone want to buy 'em, cheap?

I'm SO hoping that the price falls out on some of that stuff...I could always use it for C&C.

Oh, and of course I'm going to buy 4th ed...it's part of being a gamer.

Quote from: James J SkachI've got some 3.5 books - anyone want to buy 'em, cheap?

I'd recommend holding off until we find out of the 3.x haters who seem to have driven SAGA's development have similarly influenced a future 4e.

I am rather apprehensive about the whole thing, and can only hope that Wizards is smart enough to listen to the millions of people who're quite happy with 3.x, rather than the screeching monkeys that inhabit many of the popular internet forums.

Can you imagine how much of a difference it would make if they decoupled spell recharge from resting so you go in to every fight fully tooled up!

Quote from: J ArcaneI'd recommend holding off until we find out of the 3.x haters who seem to have driven SAGA's development have similarly influenced a future 4e.

I am rather apprehensive about the whole thing, and can only hope that Wizards is smart enough to listen to the millions of people who're quite happy with 3.x, rather than the screeching monkeys that inhabit many of the popular internet forums.

Given Dancey's recent lunatic frothings, I'm not optimistic.

Quote from: J ArcaneI'd recommend holding off until we find out of the 3.x haters who seem to have driven SAGA's development have similarly influenced a future 4e.

Whats your issues with it?

I like 3.x, and I'm quite happy with what I've seen of SAGA. I don't get J Arcane's comments either.

This is why what Dancey says about the RPGA is "interesting" from a certain perspective.

See, they use the RPGA to drive sales of new rules systems/splat books.  If you want to play in and RPGA campaign - say, Living Greyhawk - you have to play by the rules of that campaign.  And, of course, those are the latest and greatest (with some delay for the volunteers to sort out the impact on the game).

So anyone who wants to play Living Greyhawk will have to upgrade regardless of whether the rules shift significantly enough (cause, ya know, one of the rules is you have to have the books at the table adn all). People in home games, of course, are not so constrained.

Which is why I'd really like to find a good, solid, consistent home group here in the area.

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I'd really like to find a good, solid, consistent home group here in the area.

If you lived closer to Joliet, I could actually help you with that.

Anyone else notice the d20 is smaller andin the background and the d10 is the large one in the foreground?

I predict either:
[LIST=a]

• percentile resolution - d100
• 2d10 for non-liner resolution
• EDIT: d10 - for simpler resolution (I mean, they use +/- 2 as DM's friend anyway, right?)

How's that for SPECULATION!!!!

I've heard that to make kills you have to find a bum and stab them.

AND they are finally gonna include the real magic...

I'll probably stick with 3.5 for a while. I like the new Tome books, and haven't gotten to play with them at all. Besides, I can't really afford a whole new set yet.

If it's sufficiently different, I'll eventually buy books. If it's not, I might just wait until 5th Edition. But I'll probably get them eventually. They just need to do something different then 3rd.

:rolleyes: Wait for it, children....

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachWhich is why I'd really like to find a good, solid, consistent home group here in the area.

Ahem...Just sayin' ;)

Bill

Pundy, notice I didn't say "Told you so" just yet.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineJesus motherfuck cunt shit. Well, there it is.

That was pretty much my reaction.

Within the hobby it's like the announcement of a new Star Wars movie. Even if you have zero interest in the D&D ruleset you still can't help but sit up and take notice. I predict much bitching and hollering over the next x months, with numerous individuals quietly retconning their opinion-stated-as-facts screeds in the light of hard data. There'll be fan-generated "leaks" that confirm everyones worst fears. Pet houserules will run wild, desperately looking a home by claiming to have been ripped directly from source. It should be a fun time.

Personally I hope they do down the SAGA route. I'd like to see a faster paced, streamlined game that focusses as much on reducing GM prep time as it does presenting the players with options. Still, in the absence of anything concrete I'm content to sit back and watch the reactions snowball for a while.

Neat!

Right as I'm thinking about buying a load of 3.5 stuff, too. Well, in a couple checks, once the dust from new laptop time settles.

I mean, I'll have to take a look at 4E, naturally...but it looks like a good time to be a completist.

Quote from: James J SkachI predict either:
[LIST=a]

• percentile resolution - d100
• 2d10 for non-liner resolution
• EDIT: d10 - for simpler resolution (I mean, they use +/- 2 as DM's friend anyway, right?)

[/LIST]From a purely personal point of view, I'd love 2d10 because I prefer non-linear probabilities.  But given how much Wizards have invested in the whole "d20" brand, it seems pretty unlikely.

There's this:

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/


I just want to say that all the folks complaining about having to sell off their 3.5 books can send 'em my way. I've never quite understood this "New edition causes my old books to burst into flames" reaction, honestly.

Quote from: A Memorex for the KrakensThere's this:

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/

I just want to say that all the folks complaining about having to sell off their 3.5 books can send 'em my way.  I've never quite understood this "New edition causes my old books to burst into flames" reaction, honestly.

Ugh.  And hitting all the favorite buzzwords of the 3.x hater crowd too, just like SAGA did.

Well, looks like I'll be sticking with 3.5.

All I'm gonna say is if Wizards is busting out 4th edition...they better have some bad ass idea, or I'll stick with 3. It's a gsme that doesn't really need a new edition yet.

Well, nobody is a bigger D&D fan than me. If it's a better game, then it will be embraced! You guys are too cynical.

It's exciting news, really...

I will be talking to various key people (if I can) and reporting back here.

Quote from: Drew...
Personally I hope they do down the SAGA route. I'd like to see a faster paced, streamlined game that focusses as much on reducing GM prep time as it does presenting the players with options. Still, in the absence of anything concrete I'm content to sit back and watch the reactions snowball for a while.

I agree.

Quote from: J Arcane... rather than the screeching monkeys that inhabit many of the popular internet forums.

:rolleyes:

Go screeching monkeys go!     :highfive:

I´m totally excited, too!
New gamebooks, yeah!
Revitalization of the market, yeah!

But I´m totally sceptical of anything with the words "DI" and "subscription" in it.

Hmmm, I wonder how the announcement's going to affect Koltar's charts. Maybe we'll see a big drop in D&D sales as people are put off buying soon-to-be-outdated material, maybe we'll see a spike as stores slash prices to clear 3.5 material off the shelves.

Quote from: RPGPunditDUDE; its not a fucking opinion. WoTC made a formal announcement that from now on all major releases and announcements are going to be done at the D&D Experience con, NOT Gencon; and at that con this year they made it clear that they were not releasing 4e for at least two years.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs for you, Calithena, someday, sometime, there will be a 4th edition of D&D. It will at a MINIMUM not be till 2009; probably not till sometime long after that.

So you'd have plenty of time to enjoy your D&D books before having to make any changes to them.

LOL, pundit my ass.

My interest is casual -- rubbernecky, you might say. It's more like, "Oh, hey, lookit the new D&D, eh?"

I'm kinda finding my niche with FRPG.

All I'm interested in is whether it is OGL or a replacement license of some kind. If they fuck over the OGL producers trying to squeeze too hard they'll do themselves a fair whack of damage.

On one hand, I wouldn't be massively surprised if Wizards was more restrictive about licencing with 4th Edition.

On the other hand, with the OGL already out there, I don't see how they can stop people making material based on 3.X rules... and I don't see how they can stop people making 3.X-derived material that doesn't look a lot like 4th Edition stuff.

Even though I go to the old Basic D&D for my dungeon delving needs, I have to admit that I am intrigued by the mention of integrating the Internet into this new edition.  It makes sense, certainly, to make the barriers to playing as low as possible, even if one of the barriers (the inconvenience of scheduling a face-to-face meeting) is also one of the core elements that makes tabletop RPGs distinct from its computer gaming cousins.

As someone with rapidly shrinking free time I am attracted to any means that makes it easier to game with my friends, but at the same time I wonder if this move to be more like MMORPGs is really a good thing?

For that matter, maybe this impending development is what prompted Ryan Dancy's odd rantings...



TGA

It's the first step on the long road to integrating the computer as a tool in TTRPGs. Instead of calling them Pen & Paper, we're going to be calling the Tablet & Stylus RPG's in 10 years' time.

If they are smart, that is...

I have my rules preferences, but they don't matter. I do hope it's OGL of some kind because this time around I'm ready to publish stuff. But even if it's not, it doesn't matter how much I like or hate the changes, I'll play it because it's D&D. Hence the thread title.

Quote from: The Good AssyrianEven though I go to the old Basic D&D for my dungeon delving needs, I have to admit that I am intrigued by the mention of integrating the Internet into this new edition.  It makes sense, certainly, to make the barriers to playing as low as possible, even if one of the barriers (the inconvenience of scheduling a face-to-face meeting) is also one of the core elements that makes tabletop RPGs distinct from its computer gaming cousins.

THIS, I think, is the real advancement -- changing the social aspects of the game as played by people.

I am looking forward to 4e. I hope it will be good game with lots of fun. :D

Quote from: James J SkachIt's the first step on the long road to integrating the computer as a tool in TTRPGs. Instead of calling them Pen & Paper, we're going to be calling the Tablet & Stylus RPG's in 10 years' time.

If they are smart, that is...

I agree with your assessment.  I also suspect that this is what was *really* behind Ryan Dancy's odd meltdown.  The timing of the two is probably not coincidental.  Perhaps Dancy, who almost certainly knew that this was coming and Wizards' strategy behind it, is railing against the move towards making TTRPGs more like MMORPGs.

Now as a business decision, I think that Wizards had very little choice, but I do wonder whether this move to become more like MMORPGs is a good one for the "hobby" (if that is tightly defined as people sitting around a table and having fun).  

I have mixed feelings on this one.  On one hand I think that reducing the barriers to gaming is a good thing, as I do precious little of it in my current circumstances, but on the other hand I wonder if the real magic of the game is the actual sitting around the table with friends.  I suspect that it is, and that making this less personal (if more convenient) will diminish that magic.


TGA

Thanks for the reminder, mhensley. Pundit, you can send $45 to calithena at gmail dot com to make it up to me. :haw:

I'd sure love to playtest this thing...probably they've been doing it internally at Wizards, but if any of you Famous Wizards Game Designers who cluster anxiously about therpgsite dissecting all our opinions wants to give me something to do, I'll do it. D&D forever!

The streamlining stuff mentioned on TMP is probably meaning 'in the SAGA direction', but it might mean 'feint in the SAGA direction but really provide lots of computer tools which might or might not help people do things more efficiently'. I think a streamlining of skills (really, that's the main thing that bugs me about 3e) would benefit my DM and prep style personally, but the main benefit of such a change in the end would be getting to watch J Arcane stew for the next 3 years (until 4.5/5.0).

Only problem is, now there's no reason to buy anything until next year, and I've got misgivings now about starting my new campaign with 3.5.

TBH, I think all of this internet stuff could be useful even for old-style face-to-face games. Think about having all of your player's character sheets available to you online, updatable in-game so that when they go home they can boot up their computers, look up how much experience they had, and level up between sessions... think about having your adventure notes online, so you can run the game anywhere there's an internet connection without having to lug around a binder full of notes... think about having a computer display of a combat sequence to help with positioning and measuring, with terrain features all put in. It'd be worth a try, that's for sure.

Quote from: CalithenaOnly problem is, now there's no reason to buy anything until next year, and I've got misgivings now about starting my new campaign with 3.5.

Thats no reason not to play. You cant always convert/reboot to 4.0 later. (Or heck, wait till 4.5 comes out and they have all the bugs worked out.:p :D )

Quote from: Calithena... Only problem is, now there's no reason to buy anything until next year, and I've got misgivings now about starting my new campaign with 3.5.

Well, you could run a decent campaign until next May (when the 4e PHB will be released).  My best campaigns tend to last about a year or so.

OTOH, you could spend the time before 4e running a game that you genuinely like.
:p

Quote from: The Good AssyrianI also suspect that this is what was *really* behind Ryan Dancy's odd meltdown.  The timing of the two is probably not coincidental.  Perhaps Dancy, who almost certainly knew that this was coming and Wizards' strategy behind it, is railing against the move towards making TTRPGs more like MMORPGs.

I was thinking the same thing this morning.  The timing can't be coincidental.

Quote from: One Horse TownIt's a 4d - Venture. Clever bastards. I think it's their talked about digital initiative. An interactive d&d ORPG? (i left out massive multiplayer). Sign up to Gleemax, get a group together and play online at any time you want with whoever you want. Dunno about the technicalities of that though.

Whether that intiative is a new d&d edition, dunno. If it's a pen & paper new edition, i can't wait to see pundit splutter.

What a fool i am. When going through my e-mails this morning i came across one from a game company i was going to do some d20 freelancing for. The guy was just on his way to Gencon and said we'd have to discuss it when he got back and it would depend on d&d 4th edition and when wizards would release it. He knew something was up dammit and i ignored it as a brush-off. The e-mail is a week old...

Quote from: RPGPundit:rolleyes: Wait for it, children....

RPGPundit

Dude, what?

Quote from: GRIMAll I'm interested in is whether it is OGL or a replacement license of some kind. If they fuck over the OGL producers trying to squeeze too hard they'll do themselves a fair whack of damage.

Sorry, but I still don't see how people think WotC making 4ed would do anthing but help them.

Well, from what I've been reading it sounds like you will have to buy a license from WotC to be a 3rd party publisher for 4the Edition.

I suspect the OGL will remain more or less as it is, but the D20 licence will be tightened up a little (perhaps for quality control purposes).

Damnit, I like my binders and backpack FULL of books. I love my bag of many dice sets.

I don't see switching over any time soon. And if it's morphing into a damn MMORPG, then they'll have lost me forever. I want to have people over, I like cooking dinner for everyone, I like sprawling out in the living room and listening to my DM weave a story.

I have great players (even my kids play at 4 and 9) and wonderful DMs (they rarely plan anything - it's all off the cuff! the bastids). I'm keeping 3.0

There's a pretty informative post on ENWorld here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119) which is being regularly updated.

For what it's worth, it really doesn't look like D&D will be morphing into an MMORPG - the web tools seem to be mainly enhancements for the tabletop game, or utilities for the "virtual gaming table" for those who can't get the face-to-face experience - so kind of like a private Neverwinter Nights game, only without the cool graphics and where the computer doesn't handle all the rules for you.

4dventure in l33t is Adventure. You do know that, right? Just sayin'.

Quote from: Werekoala4dventure in l33t is Adventure. You do know that, right? Just sayin'.

That's right, it has at least 10% more adventure than previous versions.

I'm curious, I can see how it's important for RPGs to keep up with the times, re: online or pc assisted play, so I won't be surprised if 4th has such things.  I think it may be necessary to attract those new kids and their fancified Babbage Engines. I just hope they have ways to keep this soon to be minted group of tabletop grognards happy, because my tastes tend in that direction and I surmise a good deal of the present player base still is too.

I wouldn't judge future prospects too harshly just by reading ad material. This slang has been in existance when 3E came out.

I do wonder what will replace/augment dungeonpunk...

Quote from: SosthenesI do wonder what will replace/augment dungeonpunk...

Anime!

:-)

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnime!

You could be right -- WotC just signed a deal with Maple Story (http://maplestory.nexon.net/) to create an online/offline hybrid card game.  Then again the artwork on the countdown site suggests otherwise.

Quote from: Erik BoielleAnime!

:-)

Post anti-anime dungeonpunk! :haw:

Quote from: WarthurTBH, I think all of this internet stuff could be useful even for old-style face-to-face games. Think about having all of your player's character sheets available to you online, updatable in-game so that when they go home they can boot up their computers, look up how much experience they had, and level up between sessions... think about having your adventure notes online, so you can run the game anywhere there's an internet connection without having to lug around a binder full of notes... think about having a computer display of a combat sequence to help with positioning and measuring, with terrain features all put in. It'd be worth a try, that's for sure.

Bingo.

Go search my posts in various threads and the one TGA quoted.

This is the future.  It's not MMORPG, it's a hybrid system wherein the computer only acts as a facilitator to what's going on at the table.  We've had a thread here, I think, about Microsoft's Table Top Computer initiative.  What if you compbined it all?  The computer underneath (not only the table, but the game) to crunch numbers, even provide the set of opitions available to your character; move a miniature on the table, and the computer recognizes it and takes it into account; roll your wifi dice and the computer picks up the signal, accounts for the roll, and provides the resolution to the DM/Players/etc depending on how you like ot play.

Computers are not the enemy of the TPPRPG.  The medium will just change.  We'll all sit down with a stylus - either a specific one tasks for gaming, or a computer with software to emulate it - and "plug in" (probably wireless) to a small local network. Everything will flow from there.

It's the future boys (and girls) - hold on tight.

Quote from: mhensleyLOL, pundit my ass.

Yes, IF this is 4th Edition, then Wizards of the Coast lied to us, and I have a serious beef with them.

That doesn't mean that because I was lied to, it means you were right. Your having GUESSED the wrong answer that happened to be right based on bad information doesn't make you a genius. It still makes you an idiot.

Let me explain: if I have two bales of beans, and tell you that there's 100 beans in the first bale and 100 in the second, and ask you how many that makes; and you answer 300, you're an idiot.
It doesn't matter if it later turns out that there were 150 beans in each bale and thus there were in fact 300 beans in there.  You're still an idiot, the fact that the answer you gave was technically right is pure coincidence, and not a product of your being an "Bean Industry Insider".

I don't know about you, because you're not even on my personal radar, but people like Chris Pramas have been using their supposed "Industry Insider" status to claim that D&D 4th edition was coming for something like FOUR YEARS now.  Does the fact that he ended up getting it right this year suddenly mean that he really IS an industry insider, or does the fact that he got it WRONG for the last 1459 days probably mean that he's just a pathetic irrelevant loser with a personal axe to grind with Wizards of the Coast?

RPGPundit


PS: I have challenged Mike Mearls or ANYONE in Wizards to come to my Blog (http://www.xanga.com/RPGPundit) and justify themselves, explain why they have apparently LIED to the fans faces in February. I repeat that challenge here, and seriously hope someone takes it up, because this is exactly the kind of attitude that ends up losing fans.  For my part, if I don't get an answer (and possibly an apology), I will no longer be able to give WoTC my support.

Quote from: ENWorld4th Edition is Coming
* The big announcement will be made at GenCon shortly.
* Specific 4e forums have been created at the Wizards site: http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686
* Yes, there will be a "Player's Handbook", "Dungeon Master's Guide" and "Monster Manual" in 4e. (Source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905789)
* There will be at least 7 books of D&D 4 on 2008. (source: this post)
* Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 4e (this post by thormagni) in August 2008.
* "One new campaign setting per year"... vague plan. Dragonlance? Ravenloft? Greyhawk?(this post by thormagni)

From theminiaturespage.net:
August 16, 2007 (Renton, WA) – Whether you storm a mad wizard's tower every week or haven't delved into a dungeon since you had a mullet and a mean pair of parachute pants, one thing is certain - millions of D&D players worldwide have anticipated the coming of 4th Edition for many years. Today, Wizards of the Coast confirms that the new edition will launch in May 2008 with the release of the D&D Player's Handbook. A pop culture icon, Dungeons & Dragons is the #1 tabletop roleplaying game in the world, and is revered by legions of gamers of all ages.

The 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons game includes elements familiar to current D&D players, including illustrated rulebooks and pre-painted plastic miniatures. Also releasing next year will be new web-based tools and online community forums through the brand-new Dungeons & Dragons Insider (D&D Insider) digital offering. D&D Insider lowers the barriers of entry for new players while simultaneously offering the depth of play that appeals to veteran players.

The 4th Edition rules emphasize faster game play, offer exciting new character options, and reduce the amount of "prep time" needed to run the game. D&D Insider includes a character creator that lets players design and equip their D&D characters, dungeon- and adventure-building tools for Dungeon Masters, online magazine content, and a digital game table that lets you play 24/7 on the internet — the perfect option for anyone who can't find time to get together.

"We've been gathering player feedback for eight years," said Bill Slavicsek, R&D Director of Roleplaying and Miniatures Games at Wizards of the Coast. "Fourth Edition streamlines parts of the D&D game that are too complex, while enhancing the overall play experience. At its heart, it's still a tabletop game experience. However, D&D Insider makes it easier for players to create characters, run their games, and interact with the rest of the D&D community."

Wizards of the Coast will release two 4th Edition preview books in December and January — Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters. The first live demos of 4th Edition will happen at the D&D Experience gaming convention in Washington D.C. in February 2008. The full scope of 4th Edition books, miniatures, and adventures will be available in the spring and summer of 2008.

Since its first release in 1974, the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons has taken millions of players on imaginary adventures of epic scale. Today, D&D is universally regarded as the original game that created the roleplaying game category, and the inspiration for generations of game designers. D&D is enjoyed by millions of players worldwide, while countless more remember it with fond nostalgia.

Player's Handbook 4e
* May 2008 (source: this post)

Dungeon Master's Guide 4e
* June 2008 (source: this post)

Monster Manual 4e
* July 2008 (source: this post)

D&D Insider
* This is the "D&D Online" section of Gleemax
* It contains a "Dungeon Master's Kit" that includes the following:
- dungeon builder (map tool)
- adventure builder
- PC generator
- other things (Source: Wizards forum post)
* "Character Generator"
- character sheets
- character visualizer (Source: Wizards forum post)
* "My Campaign"
* "My Character" (source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905809)
* "D&D Game Table" (source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905805)
* "Dungeon & Dragon Magazines" (source: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=905804)

The Dungeons & Dragons Insider Package
Quote:
Become a Dungeons & Dragons Insider and gain access to exclusive content designed specifically with D&D players in mind. As part of your monthly subscription, you gain access to features designed to enhance your D&D experience, including:

D&D Insider Magazine, online magazine with new content updated daily, including:

-Product Previews (articles showcasing upcoming D&D products)
-Class Features (articles expanding existing character class options and debuting new character and prestige classes)
-Strategy and Tactics (articles relating to D&D roleplaying combat and spellcasting, and to D&D Miniatures Skirmish play)
-Design and Development (articles and columns exploring the many facets of the D&D experience, written by game designers in D&D R&D)
-D&D Humor (comic strips devoted to the D&D experience)

D&D Product Enhancements (expanded content for D&D products you bought, including interactive content such as searchable indexes, extra features, behind the scenes articles, game designer and developer commentary, and more)

Exclusive Content that expands your favorite campaign world

-Eberron and Forgotten Realms ongoing content
-Interactive maps
-World events and adventure hooks

D&D University

-Rolling six-week course to help make you a better D&D player
-Course message boards
-Player tip of the week from D&D R&D

- MyCharacter.Com pages that you can design and populate, with a Premium Customization Kit that includes D&D art, frames, and icons
- Private Message Boards that give you a direct line to D&D R&D
- Premium RPGA Membership Card mailed to you
- Fast Lane Registration at all RPGA events (online and in the real world)
- The Magic Shop, a virtual shop where you can outfit your D&D character

D&D Character Builder, a program that helps you create and manage your D&D characters. This program allows you to create a character for any D&D game, walking you through the process of rolling the dice and assigning your game statistics, as well as creating a visual version of your character using "paper doll" models and "drag and click" selections of armor and weapons. At the end, you can save your character and print out a character sheet, as well as go to any D&D tournament and call up your character for use, or use the character at the Virtual Gaming Table (see below). With this package, you get to create and store up to 10 different characters or up to 10 different versions of one character (your character at different levels), or some combination of the two.

-Exclusive D&D-related novels and short stories written by your favorite authors
-Real-World D&D Search Engines (find D&D gamers, game stores, tournaments, and events in your area)
-In-Game D&D Search Engines (find feats, spells, magic items, and other D&D-related topics)

Digital Gaming Table, a program that allows you to play D&D using the Internet as your kitchen table, with a viewable play surface, dice rolling, virtual miniatures, and voice chat. Now you don't have to wait for your home gaming group to get together to play a game of D&D. You can still play your weekly face-to-face game, but now you can also play two or three more times a week by finding a game at the virtual table. Or, you might want to reconnect with your old gaming pals who long ago moved away-now you can all play together again on a regular basis! With this package, you get to play at the table 3 times per month.

Source: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.p...referrerid=4046

Open Gaming Licence
* 4th Edition will fall under the OGL, and there'll be a new SRD (this post by thormagni)
* Wizards wants 3rd party publishers to produce 4e-compatible material. (this post by thormagni)
* 3rd party publishers will be able to get licenses to create 4e material from Wizards. (??)(source: jgbrowning This post)
* Fans will be able to publish material on Gleemax under (free) license from Wizards. (This material will be available to Wizards to republish; see discussion on Gleemax TOS).
* The OGL/SRD/d20 Licenses will still exist - details still to come (source: this post)

Linky: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204119

Quote from: RPG PunditYour having GUESSED the wrong answer that happened to be right based on bad information doesn't make you a genius.

Uh, what?  That echo you are hearing is caused by the hole you continuing to be digging for yourself.

Quote from: RPG PunditFor my part, if I don't get an answer (and possibly an apology), I will no longer be able to give WoTC my support.

Shit, man.  They fibbed on you and now they've hurt your feelings, so you're threatening to withdraw your blessing?  For reals?  I mean, I don't disagree that they're liars of the pants-on-fire variety but that doesn't change the quality of their products one bit.

Well, I for one, am relieved to find out that believing a lie makes you right- as opposed to a dupe.

Quote from: jrientsShit, man.  They fibbed on you and now they've hurt your feelings, so you're threatening to withdraw your blessing?  For reals?  I mean, I don't disagree that they're liars of the pants-on-fire variety but that doesn't change the quality of their products one bit.

Poor Pundit, first Dancey and now this. He's had a hard week.

While there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary." Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles. Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier. Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords.

Snipped from a post on TBP.

Lying to your customers doesn't build brand loyalty.  If I'd just spent lots of money on 3.x books based on what they told people in February (no 4th edition anytime soon kids!) then I'd be pretty annoyed at this.  It wouldn't make me want to turn around and give them more money for treating me like that.

Now, I haven't spent lots of money on 3.x... so that's not a personal issue for me. I'm interested in seeing how they handle this.  It's their ball to drop, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how they spin this later today.  This particular question *will* have to be answered... or they'll really be messing up.

It sounds like I'll like their new direction a whole lot. (New direction actually looks like, 20 degree course change, but...) Though, I might put a buying freeze on new product until 4th, then. If I'm going to buy, (and it looks like quality is coming) then I don't want to spend a bunch of money on something that isn't going to be as good as what I want to purchase later.

I can wait. I've got plenty of books for now.

Quote from: StuartLying to your customers doesn't build brand loyalty.  If I'd just spent lots of money on 3.x books based on what they told people in February (no 4th edition anytime soon kids!) then I'd be pretty annoyed at this.  It wouldn't make me want to turn around and give them more money for treating me like that.

Now, I haven't spent lots of money on 3.x... so that's not a personal issue for me. I'm interested in seeing how they handle this.  It's their ball to drop, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how they spin this later today.  This particular question *will* have to be answered... or they'll really be messing up.

They couldn't really say "Heh, wait for Gencon for an announcement." They'd go out of business as people stopped buying stuff. They should just had said that when the announcement comes, expect 6 months before the new edition hits the shelves. Gives nothing away, keeps poeple buying the current edition and doesn't mislead people.

As far as art goes, this article came with these:-

(http://www.icv2.com/images/228685D&D4EDGreen-DragonLG.jpg)

(http://www.icv2.com/images/228799D&D4EDHalfling-MaleLG.jpg)

Are they new?

Relatively inoffensive. Pretty LotR really.

I think I'd have prefered anime...

:-)

Quote from: StuartLying to your customers doesn't build brand loyalty.  If I'd just spent lots of money on 3.x books based on what they told people in February (no 4th edition anytime soon kids!) then I'd be pretty annoyed at this.  It wouldn't make me want to turn around and give them more money for treating me like that.

Now, I haven't spent lots of money on 3.x... so that's not a personal issue for me. I'm interested in seeing how they handle this.  It's their ball to drop, and I guess we'll have to wait and see how they spin this later today.  This particular question *will* have to be answered... or they'll really be messing up.

I am in exactly this position.  I had the three core books and rode on those for a time because I wasn't playing alot - just getting refamiliar with gaming.

When they said 4e wasn't coming out for a bit, I figured I'd dig into 3.5 deeper, bought some books (starting with things for my main LG character) and build from there.  When I was invited to join a group at the FLGS (foiled by my recent hospital 4dventure), I splurged and got the PHBII and FRCS as they appear to be playing that campaign. I was willing to spend that money because I figured they wouldn't be releasing 4e for a while.

So they lied, and I payed. Now the question will be how much really changes. How valid will core books be for what period of time.  What will Living Greyhawk do - my assumption being that as part of the RPGA, they will force everyone to level up, as it were. So I might have to drop out of something I really enjoyed because they fucked this up so badly.

None of which has anything to do with the quality of the product - which nobody has seen (only the SAGA preview). That is a separate issue.

Quote from: StuartLying to your customers doesn't build brand loyalty.  If I'd just spent lots of money on 3.x books based on what they told people in February (no 4th edition anytime soon kids!) then I'd be pretty annoyed at this.  It wouldn't make me want to turn around and give them more money for treating me like that.

Likely, it'll probably go something like this- 'We realized we could bring it to market earlier than we originally anticipated, and we felt that demand was high. There will, of course, be complete set of conversion notes, so you can use all your 3.5 stuff...."
I doubt most people playing were aware of the release schedules anyway, and, for the most part, those that are angry wont stay mad long-

"Didja hear the rumor about 4.5?  It's being released 15 months after 4.0"

-The Evil DM, screwing around on my blog.

If they follow the old addage about Microsoft, the even number version will suck, anyway.

Never buy a .0 release.  Never buy an even number release.

Quote from: James J SkachIf they follow the old addage about Microsoft, the even number version will suck, anyway.

Never buy a .0 release.  Never buy an even number release.

Not worth upgrading until at least the first service pack?

If I owned a game store, I'd be weeping with joy about now.

Beyond this, I think a new edition of D&D is good for the hobby as a whole. Especially if it is hyped and pushed like 3.0 was. I think it is the single best tool for bringing noobs into the hobby and old timers who have fallen out of it back. I never played 3.x (not to my taste) but I bought the phb and dmg, and from there some other (non D&D) stuff, and slowly made my way back into the hobby after a decade out of it. I know at least a couple of other people who fit this profile, as well.

If they're following the Book of Nine Swords version of resource management, I'm happy. Going per-encounter instead of per-day makes it a lot easier to keep the action moving, and avoids "it's 8:15 am, but we're out of resources. Someone crack open the playing cards and let's get camp set up."

(http://bp2.blogger.com/_lpL870wV2A4/RsR5z-R1ThI/AAAAAAAABO4/gwoQh_DeUbs/s400/1134318905_7ceba73e8e.jpg)

The grognard crowd is having a ball watching the meltdowns at EN World.

I can't believe someone's not come up with a "4DWIN" joke yet.

FORWARD...
TO 4DVENTURE!

Other than that:

1) Digital Revolution yadda yadda: zzzzz... The stuff mentioned in that enworld post boils down to a chargen program and a virtual tabletop. That is not exactly news. What IS news is the apparent effort, doomed to fail if true, to build some kind of virtual RPGA from that.

Because nobody* plays in the meatspace RPGA, and nobody* plays virtual tabletop games.

2) Art: Gee. If THAT's what the art will look like (the images above posted by Erik, IIRC), consider me intrigued. Because that looks like a deliberate and not entirely incompetent throwback. It's not stunning, but it might lead to something that is.

3) Less crunchy rules? You have my full attention.

4) In any case, I didn't even buy the 3.5 core rules, so I'm not losing sleep over this. I'll get it only if it's as different mechanically (and in a good way) from 3.5 as 3.0 was from 2E.

*Where "nobody" = not enough people to matter in the scheme of things.

Artwise, I hope we can return to the occasional nipple. That's right; I like elfnipples.

What, as in ElfQuest?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWhat, as in ElfQuest?

I think you just killed my love of topless elves.
Thank you.

Well ,all I can say is the changes had best be huge, impressive, and a true IMPROVEMENT, not just a change, for me to buy the new books. I've got alot of money invested in nice expensive 3.0 hardbacks which will suffice for decades more use. See, making expensive, sturdy books is not ALWAYS a good idea, because there's little chance of selling later editions "just 'cause its new".

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, IF this is 4th Edition, then Wizards of the Coast lied to us, and I have a serious beef with them.

IIRC, Wizards said that they had 3E stuff for 2008, which is a different (and very open) statement. So no, they didn't lie.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat doesn't mean that because I was lied to, it means you were right. Your having GUESSED the wrong answer that happened to be right based on bad information doesn't make you a genius. It still makes you an idiot.

Whomever puts blind trust in statements made by a soulless corporation is the idiot here.  The signs for a new edition coming soon were all there for anyone to see.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf they're following the Book of Nine Swords version of resource management, I'm happy. Going per-encounter instead of per-day makes it a lot easier to keep the action moving, and avoids "it's 8:15 am, but we're out of resources. Someone crack open the playing cards and let's get camp set up."

I hope they do a whole lot more than "Vancian + 20-minute rest instead or 1-night sleep".  You could house-rule that.

QuoteWhomever puts blind trust in statements made by a soulless corporation is the idiot here.

This is truth.  I am continually baffled by the number of idiots who will put a near-religious faith in a corporation that does not give two shits about them, and would as soon abandon them completely if it though it would make more money.

What- people who sell things lying to people who buy things? It can't be!

As long as 4e is OGL, I got nuthin' to bitch about.

Quote from: One Horse TownWhile there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary." Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles. Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier. Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords.

If this is true then with it being OGL I'm 98% sold already. I'll grab some of the fun bits from 3.5 and it should be a snap to convert.

Here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=75881&postcount=19) is Maw's post, when he was live at the D&D Experience 2007:

QuoteThe 4th Edition Question gets a lot of laughter.

"I'm surprised it took this long for someone to ask that"

"Its going to come at some point. It's a long ways away. You'll get an announcement when that happens, but it's a long ways away. We have a lot of good stuff coming out through 2008"

A little over a year is "a long ways away"?  That seems dubious.  And the clear implication is that it would not be out in 2008.  Sure there's room for backpedaling from that statement, but the fact that there needs to be backpedaling suggests deception.

All I have to say is if its Saga D&D, I'm back on board the D&D train.:o

Quote from: jrientsA little over a year is "a long ways away"?

It is for me. :p

Well, if it's any consolation to those annoyed about splashing out on the new edition books, this announcement will probably cost me somewhere in the region of $1600 in lost work. Fingers crossed that it won't, but i expect it will. :deflated:

From icv2.com (http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/11123.html)

QuoteWhile there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary."  Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles.  Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier.  Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords.

What the company does describe as revolutionary is the method of product delivery, which will incorporate online play for the first time. WotC is incorporating online components into the game through a new Website, DnDInsider.com.  Each paper product will include codes to unlock digital versions on the site for a "nominal" activation fee.   Players will also be able to use DnDInsider tools and access regular new content similar to the material that was previously released in Dragon and Dungeon magazines (see "Interview with Liz Schuh") for a monthly fee (as yet undetermined) greater than the old subscription price, but less than a MMORPG subscription.  Magazine-style content will be added to the site three times a week and compiled into digital "issues" monthly.

I'll be surprised if large numbers of people  sign up for a monthly subscription that's *higher* than a Dragon mag subscription to get the same content but not in print form and access to some web tools they could find elsewhere on the web, and usually for free.

Edit:  Look to all the unsuccessful pay-for-content webcomic sites (http://www.pvcomics.com/) as an example of how willing people are to pay for content online.  Most newspapers have given up on the idea as well.  Most sites have moved to an advertising or affiliated merchandise model to generate revenue.

This doesn't sound like a revolutionary idea at all.

Quote from: jrientsA little over a year is "a long ways away"?  That seems dubious.  And the clear implication is that it would not be out in 2008.  Sure there's room for backpedaling from that statement, but the fact that there needs to be backpedaling suggests deception.

If i were the person responsible for the spin on this, I wouldn't backpedal. I would just ignore the controversy, because it isn't going to last, not in any big way, anyway. A few people who have some sort of ego investment in the whole release date/ WOTC honesty thing will remain bitter- an even smaller number of those people will actually be angry enough to not by WOTC product for a while; a really, really small number of angry people will turn their back on WOTC forever, but that is going to happen anyway with the release of a new edition, regardless of the release strategy.

Funny, I just returned here from the icv2 page you quote.

The more tidbits of info are released, the l4mer the entire digital aspect of 4E sounds to me.

Even so, there's still the, well, actual game.

Except that in addition to buying a book -- people are being asked to sign up for a monthly subscription for virtual content.

Quote from: jrientsA little over a year is "a long ways away"?  That seems dubious.  And the clear implication is that it would not be out in 2008.  Sure there's room for backpedaling from that statement, but the fact that there needs to be backpedaling suggests deception.

I am not disagreeing with you. However lets turn it on its head. Suppose that Wizards was sincere with its February announcement. Supposed WoTC was working on a SAGA like D&D since 2005 but planning a more leisurely pace.

What could have changed it mind?

This is an interesting question because it could indicate some type of rush job in progress. And rush jobs have an impact on quality.

However I feel the snarky corporate attitude has some merit. Given the wierdness of this whole Gleemax thing. The fact they were withdrawing licenses mere months after the February announcement.

My final theory on the whole matter rest on what the D20 publishers know. If it turns out that the major D20 publishers were informed in late spring/early summer. Then perhaps it was an attempt at avoiding the 3.0 to 3.5 problem. This has some support from the behavior of Necromancer and other companies in terms of their release schedule. Looking at the various company message boards after Gen Con might be illuminating.

Quote from: estarI am not disagreeing with you. However lets turn it on its head. Suppose that Wizards was sincere with its February announcement. Supposed WoTC was working on a SAGA like D&D since 2005 but planning a more leisurely pace.

What could have changed it mind?

Perhaps SAGA was a greater success than they anticipated?  I don't know, or couldn't, as numbers aren't available, but it's a possible explanation.

The rules "improvements" in SAGA were met with a reception good enough to convince them that it would offset any "bad blood" based on the release-date-announcement-issues or the I-just-bought-3.5-books (like me)?

Just a guess...

Or the company could be in such financial straights that the only possible improvement could be to release the new version earlier to generate revenue - complainers be damned.

Just another guess...

Quote from: jrientsA little over a year is "a long ways away"?  That seems dubious.  And the clear implication is that it would not be out in 2008.  Sure there's room for backpedaling from that statement, but the fact that there needs to be backpedaling suggests deception.

What they said, as I recall basically amounted to "it's not imminent".

From the time they said that until the 4e PHB will be 18+ months.

I don't think they lied.

I think people just wanted to believe that meant it was several years away, and so they did.

A 10 year edition cycle is leaving money on the table in today's market. Star Wars, GURPs, Hero and NWOD have all proven that.

Quote from: StuartI'll be surprised if large numbers of people  sign up for a monthly subscription that's *higher* than a Dragon mag subscription to get the same content but not in print form and access to some web tools they could find elsewhere on the web, and usually for free.

I'm pretty leery of this concept as well.  A sub to Dragon and Dungeon cost what per year?  $80?  A year's worth of WoW costs $156.  So they'll charge higher than $80 but less than $156.  So maybe $120 per year or $9.99 per month.  I don't really like using pdf's, so this will be a hard thing to sell to me.  Especially since I didn't like the content of Dragon at all and Dungeon only a couple of times per year.

Quote from: StuartExcept that in addition to buying a book -- people are being asked to sign up for a monthly subscription for virtual content.

Sure, but then I'm a core books-only (or nearly so) guy. I'm assuming the core books will be as complete and functional as 3.x.

If not, no 4E for me. But I don't believe that.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckA 10 year edition cycle is leaving money on the table in today's market. Star Wars, GURPs, Hero and NWOD have all proven that.

I agree. It was getting close to the end of 3x's cylce in the first place. The announcement may be on the early side, but it still jibes with what I expected; before 3x turned ten years old there would be a new edition out. As some have said this does not invalidate everyone's old stuff if they want to keep it, hell if it's close to SAGA/D20 Modern/D&D 3x, then it should be pretty easy to convert and mess with to boot.

Quote from: mhensleyI'm pretty leery of this concept as well.  A sub to Dragon and Dungeon cost what per year?  $80?  A year's worth of WoW costs $156.  So they'll charge higher than $80 but less than $156.  So maybe $120 per year or $9.99 per month.  I don't really like using pdf's, so this will be a hard thing to sell to me.  Especially since I didn't like the content of Dragon at all and Dungeon only a couple of times per year.

No kid, I also think it's a gonna be a tough sell at any price point that will make them a profit. I wonder if it would be a lot easier to go back to a print model. The margin would be narrower, but they could count more on individual sales as well as subscribers.

Quote from: JamesVI agree. It was getting close to the end of 3x's cylce in the first place. The announcement may be on the early side, but it still jibes with what I expected; before 3x turned ten years old there would be a new edition out. As some have said this does not invalidate everyone's old stuff if they want to keep it, hell if it's close to SAGA/D20 Modern/D&D 3x, then it should be pretty easy to convert and mess with to boot.

There's going to be an OGL and a SRD as well from what I'm hearing.

Quote from: jrientsShit, man.  They fibbed on you and now they've hurt your feelings, so you're threatening to withdraw your blessing?  For reals?  I mean, I don't disagree that they're liars of the pants-on-fire variety but that doesn't change the quality of their products one bit.

The quality of their products? No. Their Professionalism as a company? Oh yes. And when I've gone out of my way to defend their professionalism in the face of the likes of Chris Pramas and all the other assholes who hate Wizards either because its #1 or because its not theirs, it is quite a personal issue.

It means from now on, I won't be able to defend their professionalism anymore, I won't be able to say "Wizards is a serious company that wouldn't lie to their customers".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFORWARD...
TO 4DVENTURE!

Jesus Christ you're right! They stole my idea!

RPGPundit

Quote from: JongWKIIRC, Wizards said that they had 3E stuff for 2008, which is a different (and very open) statement. So no, they didn't lie.

The statement was in ANSWER to a question about whether they would announce 4th edition, and it was pretty clearly implicit in their answer that they would NOT release 4e till at least the beginning of 2009.  So they LIED.

RPGPundit

Quote from: mhensleyWhomever puts blind trust in statements made by a soulless corporation is the idiot here.  The signs for a new edition coming soon were all there for anyone to see.

I see, and you've been saying that since what? Mid-2003?

Stupid cunt.

RPGPundit

To be fair WotC said

QuoteWe have a lot of good stuff coming out through 2008

They did not say anything about that "good stuff" being 3ed, but I may have missed something. :D

OTOH, if it just could be that something businesswise changed that required them to release it earlier.

Quote"Wizards is a serious company that wouldn't lie to their customers"

See the error in this statement is in making the initial assumption that a "serious company" doesn't lie to their customers, when in fact, corporatiosn and businesses large and small do it all the fucking time.

Man, this is entertaining stuff!
:popcorn:

Quote from: AkrasiaMan, this is entertaining stuff!
:popcorn:

You mean the Pundit's worldview being savaged by Dancey AND WOTC?

Lord Hobie

Quote from: Lord HobieYou mean the Pundit's worldview being savaged by Dancey AND WOTC?

Lord Hobie

that, and this whole "4" thing

i'm playing other games at the moment.  my group never switched to 2nd, let alone 3rd.  i have a bunch of 3.x stuff that's not doing anything.

however it turns out, i'll look a-plenty.  no buying interest, tho.  a lot of borders/b&n browsing in my 2008, it seems. . . .

Some more details from an interview with Bill Slavscek, whose initials I note are BS:

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm

Here's the part I was fearing:

QuoteAnd yes, Wizards does recommend you begin new campaigns with Fourth Edition. "It's not going to be as huge a jump," as from Second Edition to Third Edition, said Slavicsek, "but there's enough changing in the core system of how we are doing classes and races and characters that we're not even gonna attempt it—we're just telling you it's better to start over."

Bill, are you saying it's actually just 3.75, but don't let that keep me from buying the books?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe statement was in ANSWER to a question about whether they would announce 4th edition, and it was pretty clearly implicit in their answer that they would NOT release 4e till at least the beginning of 2009.  So they LIED.

Show me something, anything, that clearly states that they wouldn't do that. "Implicit" doesn't cut it.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySome more details from an interview with Bill Slavscek, whose initials I note are BS:

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm

Here's the part I was fearing:



Bill, are you saying it's actually just 3.75, but don't let that keep me from buying the books?

To me that states that it will be similar to SAGA edition in many ways, which means converting will be more of a hassle than it's worth.

Quote from: JongWKShow me something, anything, that clearly states that they wouldn't do that. "Implicit" doesn't cut it.

Yeah, they never said anything of the sort. All they said is "we have good stuff through 2008" not mentioning 3ed as any of the "good stuff".

They also never said 4ed would be released in 2009, the just said it would be "a long time". just looking at that statement you can tell that they were not entirely sure at the time when 4ed would be released.

All you have to do is look at the vague statements: "long time" "good stuff".:pundit:

Quote from: RPGPunditI see, and you've been saying that since what? Mid-2003?

Stupid cunt.

RPGPundit

Ah, more of your rapier wit.

Quote from: mhensleyAh, more of your rapier wit.

:D

Jesus. Pundit has gone off the rails.

I guess this spoiled the good mood he was building up thinking about being able to bombast "another GenCon has come and gone and everyone who predicted 4e would EVER COME has once again been proven to be DUMBASSES".

But now his feelings are hurt and he's lashing out.

Awwwww.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckJesus. Pundit has gone off the rails.

I guess this spoiled the good mood he was building up thinking about being able to bombast "another GenCon has come and gone and everyone who predicted 4e would EVER COME has once again been proven to be DUMBASSES".

But now his feelings are hurt and he's lashing out.

Awwwww.

yeah, pretty much.

funny thing is he's mad that they lied, yet, they did not. They may have been vague, but they didn't lie.:D

Back in february, when the announcement was made, there was not ONE person who interpreted it as meaning that they were going to do anything other than 3e till the end of 2008.  It shut up all the critics, and obviously all the fans felt vindicated.

NOT ONE OF YOU stood up then and said "their statement can be interpreted to mean 4e is coming out in 2008".  NOT ONE OF YOU.  Some of you said "they're lying", which is a very different thing, and it appears that those of you who said it then were right, I must concede, they were being dishonest.

But those of you who are now spin doctoring and trying to claim that the statement was wide open to interpretation, where the fuck were you back in February to say that? You bitches with 20-20 hindsight sure are a brilliant fucking lot, for sure.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBack in february, when the announcement was made, there was not ONE person who interpreted it as meaning that they were going to do anything other than 3e till the end of 2008.  It shut up all the critics, and obviously all the fans felt vindicated.

NOT ONE OF YOU stood up then and said "their statement can be interpreted to mean 4e is coming out in 2008".  NOT ONE OF YOU.  Some of you said "they're lying", which is a very different thing, and it appears that those of you who said it then were right, I must concede, they were being dishonest.

But those of you who are now spin doctoring and trying to claim that the statement was wide open to interpretation, where the fuck were you back in February to say that? You bitches with 20-20 hindsight sure are a brilliant fucking lot, for sure.

RPGPundit

I disagree.

I've been predicting 2008 for a couple of years now.

My only question was whether 3.5 reset the armageddon clock or not

It seems to me as though Wizards may have had a rethink and hastened the release. Now it could be that they're nothing more than a bunch of money-grabbing bastards who like nothing more than pointing and laughing at the dolts who swallow their corporate spiel. On the other hand it could be due to any one of a dozen other reasons-- their place in the market, their relationship with Hasbro or the perceived necessity of kickstarting an online gaming community more swiftly.

Once again, with so little to go on all we can do is speculate, and I really can't envision any definitive answers being offered by their marketing people. The bald fact of the matter is that 4E is here. It may be early. It may be unanticpated. It may cast some Wizards employees in a terrible light. It may make some of the more strident industry commentators look like frothing goons. What it won't do is give anyone clairvoyance enough to understand the workings of WotC's top-level decision makers.

Pundy commands more respect than the corporate bitch brigade.

Quote from: Drew. . .their relationship with Hasbro . . . .

that's where my money is.  corporate overlords and their business plans throwing directives to the guys lower on the ladder.

Quote from: RPGPunditBack in february, when the announcement was made, there was not ONE person who interpreted it as meaning that they were going to do anything other than 3e till the end of 2008.  It shut up all the critics, and obviously all the fans felt vindicated.

NOT ONE OF YOU stood up then and said "their statement can be interpreted to mean 4e is coming out in 2008".  NOT ONE OF YOU.  Some of you said "they're lying", which is a very different thing, and it appears that those of you who said it then were right, I must concede, they were being dishonest.

But those of you who are now spin doctoring and trying to claim that the statement was wide open to interpretation, where the fuck were you back in February to say that? You bitches with 20-20 hindsight sure are a brilliant fucking lot, for sure.

RPGPundit

Well, know one asked the question. But just looking at exaclty what the statement said you could not read that it would be 2007,2008, or 2009 that 4e would be released. WotC never said that they will be publishing 3ed through 2008, period. I don't know, " good stuff though 2008" doesn't read 3ed to me.:deflated:  

I can see where people might have taken that as they are publishing 3ed through 2008, but that's not what they said. Simple as that, that's not spin it's looking at exactly what was said.

Honestly, they could have worded it that way knowing people might take it as 3ed though 2008 because they really weren't sure when they planed to publish 4ed for sure. Most likely because they wanted to only have a 6 month sales slump instead of nearly a year.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckI disagree.

I've been predicting 2008 for a couple of years now.

My only question was whether 3.5 reset the armageddon clock or not

That wasn't my statement. Obviously many of you said 2008, for your own varied reasons (usually bad ones).

The point is that NO ONE took what they said in February, that particular statement in the D&D experience, and said "its a spin, they're playing word games, and this means they'll bring D&D out in 2008".

Some of you might have said "They're lying" about that statement, but that's very different from saying "they're playing word games".  Those of you who are basically re-interpreting that statement to now claim they weren't technically being dishonest are basically all talking out of your collective asses after the fact.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBack in february, when the announcement was made, there was not ONE person who interpreted it as meaning that they were going to do anything other than 3e till the end of 2008.  It shut up all the critics, and obviously all the fans felt vindicated. . . .

Waaaaaah!!! Why didn't my mommy love me?!?!? Is it because I'm so often wrong?!??!?!?

RPGPundit

Ok, it's not what he said, but it sure is what it sounded like. :rolleyes:

Face it Pundy, corporate spokepersons speak in vague terms for this exact sort of situation. You heard what they said, ran it through your own filters, and latched onto what you thought it should mean. Now you're bitching and moaning because you hate to be wrong. So obviously you weren't really wrong, you were betrayed and lied to. :rolleyes:

The simple point of the matter is that it's impossible to connect what has been quoted here to what they've done and pull a lie out of it.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat wasn't my statement. Obviously many of you said 2008, for your own varied reasons (usually bad ones).

The point is that NO ONE took what they said in February, that particular statement in the D&D experience, and said "its a spin, they're playing word games, and this means they'll bring D&D out in 2008".

Ahhh. You are correct about that.

In fact I took that announcement to mean I was likely wrong about my 2008 prediction.

I'm in the "they were dishonest in their dealings with the public" camp. Any statements I've seen by WotC spokespeople (mostly over at ENWorld, not counting the stuff in the last week or two) gave me the impression that they were saying "No D&D 4th announcements at Gencon". Especially after all the "Major D&D announcements will be made at Winter Fantasy" crap.

My first reaction to the news was - "Wow, I can't believe they really lied to us this blatantly all this time". My second reaction was - "4E is going to rock!"

I'm sure if I went back and looked at every single WotC post on various message boards the actual statement made could be interpreted to allow a 4th edition announcement at GenCon, but as a reasonably intelligent person with a decent grasp on the English language, that's not what was being implied up until now.

Quote from: GoOrangeI'm in the "they were dishonest in their dealings with the public" camp.

Management of the D&D brand has changed between that statement and this announcement.

It's quite possible that the inability to pull the trigger on the new decision was the REASON for the change in management.

It's also possible that when the new brand manager came in, he took stock of everything from top to bottom, and made a decision that now was the time.

There's plenty of possibilities other than "WOTC are SOB's who lied to us".

When managers change, a new direction is usually the desired result.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckManagement of the D&D brand has changed between that statement and this announcement.

It's quite possible that the inability to pull the trigger on the new decision was the REASON for the change in management.

It's also possible that when the new brand manager came in, he took stock of everything from top to bottom, and made a decision that now was the time.

There's plenty of possibilities other than "WOTC are SOB's who lied to us".

When managers change, a new direction is usually the desired result.

blame hasbro, not WotC, then?  if blame one must, that is.  sounds right.

Quote from: beeberblame hasbro, not WotC, then?  if blame one must, that is.  sounds right.

Actually I'd say no one is to blame in a situation like that.

When management changes, a new direction is what SHOULD happen.

Otherwise, why make a change?

Quote from: James McMurrayOk, it's not what he said, but it sure is what it sounded like. :rolleyes:

Face it Pundy, corporate spokepersons speak in vague terms for this exact sort of situation. You heard what they said, ran it through your own filters, and latched onto what you thought it should mean. Now you're bitching and moaning because you hate to be wrong. So obviously you weren't really wrong, you were betrayed and lied to. :rolleyes:

The simple point of the matter is that it's impossible to connect what has been quoted here to what they've done and pull a lie out of it.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckAhhh. You are correct about that.

In fact I took that announcement to mean I was likely wrong about my 2008 prediction.

Hey Jimbo...apparently Pundit is not the only one who thought it meant that.  I know I thought the same.  Chuck, here, obviously felt the same - so strongly that he thought he was wrong about his predictions.  In fact, IIRC, most people, both here and elsewhere, took the statement exactly as Pundit did.

So take your I-think-I'm-clever-by-changing-quote-text humor someplace where it's more appropriate. He was wrong because he was lied to - sure it was a lot of nice marketing mumbo-jumbo that could be taken now, in hindsight, as a dodge.  But back then? And being lied to is a legitimate reason for being upset.

Quote from: James J SkachHey Jimbo...apparently Pundit is not the only one who thought it meant that.  I know I thought the same.  Chuck, here, obviously felt the same - so strongly that he thought he was wrong about his predictions.  In fact, IIRC, most people, both here and elsewhere, took the statement exactly as Pundit did.

So take your I-think-I'm-clever-by-changing-quote-text humor someplace where it's more appropriate. He was wrong because he was lied to - sure it was a lot of nice marketing mumbo-jumbo that could be taken now, in hindsight, as a dodge.  But back then? And being lied to is a legitimate reason for being upset.

But again, it is possible that statement was 100% at the time it was made.

Management has changed extensively since then.

I'm not saying they didn't lie. Just that there could have been a change in direction since the statement.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuckBut again, it is possible that statement was 100% at the time it was made.

Management has changed extensively since then.

I'm not saying they didn't lie. Just that there could have been a change in direction since the statement.

Oh no - don't think I'm saying you are in the "they are lying" camp.  I'm simply stating that it's not out of the realm for people to have claimed to interpret their previous statements as no 4e until probably 2009.

Jimmy is claiming Pundit is being a whiny baby because he was somehow foolish to believe that, or interpret thos previous statements that way.  If that's the case, he's calling you, me, and a lot of other people whiny babies.

Look, I like your take on it.  New management comes in and say "Why the fuck are we waiting?" or "We need the revenue now or heads will roll!" or a thousand other possibilities. I think they saw the success of SAGA and thought, as you alluded, "why are we leaving this money on the table?"

None of that changes the common interpretation of those statements from February that seemed to strongly indicate that 4e was a long way off (like, 2009).

Quote from: James J SkachLook, I like your take on it.  New management comes in and say "Why the fuck are we waiting?" or "We need the revenue now or heads will roll!" or a thousand other possibilities. I think they saw the success of SAGA and thought, as you alluded, "why are we leaving this money on the table?"

Yep.

Not to mention:

3.5 came out 5 years after 3.0 completely and utterly killed it. You couldn't sell 3.0 books for firewood after 3.5 came out.

How many editions of Star Wars have there been? 3?

In like a 6-7 year span?

And they sold like crazy.

If you are looking for someone to blame for this decision, the enemy is us.

Maybe not you, but plenty of folks bought enough stuff to convince them we would roll with a new edition much more quickly than we have in the past.

But of course, after the WoD edition churns of late, everyone with an eye on the market already knew that.

Quote from: James McMurrayOk, it's not what he said, but it sure is what it sounded like. :rolleyes:

Face it Pundy, corporate spokepersons speak in vague terms for this exact sort of situation. You heard what they said, ran it through your own filters, and latched onto what you thought it should mean. Now you're bitching and moaning because you hate to be wrong. So obviously you weren't really wrong, you were betrayed and lied to. :rolleyes:

The simple point of the matter is that it's impossible to connect what has been quoted here to what they've done and pull a lie out of it.

No, I admit I was wrong. I was wrong in thinking that Wizards wouldn't be so stupid as to be so dishonest toward its fans.

Those people who are claiming that they somehow knew all along what Wizards really meant by their statement at the D&D Experience? They're the ones that can't admit they were wrong.

RPGPundit

I think it's a bit rich, considering that sixteen years passed between the publication of GURPS 3rd and GURPS 4th, to accuse SJGames of pulling an "edition churn" with GURPS.

Quote from: WarthurI think it's a bit rich, considering that sixteen years passed between the publication of GURPS 3rd and GURPS 4th, to accuse SJGames of pulling an "edition churn" with GURPS.

Yeah you're correct there. And I played GURPs 3e lol. Anyway, I edited my statement to remove my mistake. :o

The WotC site?
"Service unavailable?" The Fuck?

Does anybody get a response?

No response here in middle America.

zip in NJ

Quote from: James J SkachJimmy is claiming Pundit is being a whiny baby because he was somehow foolish to believe that, or interpret thos previous statements that way.  If that's the case, he's calling you, me, and a lot of other people whiny babies.

Not at all. I'm not saying he's a whiny bitch because he was wrong, I'm saying he's a whiny bitch because he's acting like a whiny bitch. You and others who also feel lied to are not acting like whiny bitches, so I'm not calling you on it.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, I admit I was wrong. I was wrong in thinking that Wizards wouldn't be so stupid as to be so dishonest toward its fans.

Your assumption is that they were dishonest. Better posters than I have given plenty of explanations for how they might not have been.

QuoteThose people who are claiming that they somehow knew all along what Wizards really meant by their statement at the D&D Experience? They're the ones that can't admit they were wrong.

Who are these people? I see people saying "those statements can be construed in different ways" but I've yet to see anyone say "I knew all along they were being vague because they were coming out in 2008." Perhaps I missed some posts somewhere? Or did you imagine them?

Quote from: SettembriniThe WotC site?
"Service unavailable?" The Fuck?

Does anybody get a response?

I'm sure the site's overwhelmed. Too many people hitting refresh every 30 seconds.

Wizards changed their mind. People do that.

Get off the WOTC server, you fucking nerds, I want to see teh webiste!!!!

:haw:

(hits "refresh")

Able to connect to the main page, but unable to follow links.

New look to the website with a D&D Insider login in the upper right corner.

Downloading teaser video...

Zach's gencon report thread has some info from the ongoing announcement in it.

Quote from: mythusmageWizards changed their mind. People do that.

Indeed. Everyone had pretty much accepted the inevitably of 4E, the only question was when. It's hardly the seismic event people claim when a company decides to move their production schedule forward.

In the six months between February 2007 and now a multitude of variables would have contributed to the release date decision, most of which we will never be privvy to. In the meantime the conspiracy theorists will have their field day, the rumor-mongers will disinform, and come next Summer all will be forgotten as we get to discuss the ACTUAL GAME, which is a far more interesting prospect to me than all this bone-picking and self validation.

I won't deny it's fun to watch though. Man alive, you'd think there was something important at stake here...:D

Quote from: PseudoephedrineJesus motherfuck cunt shit. Well, there it is.

And thank god, too. All the conspiracy bull was getting old.

Seanchai

at least it's coming after RTT/T5, and BRP deluxe

maybe

Quote from: J ArcaneUgh.  And hitting all the favorite buzzwords of the 3.x hater crowd too, just like SAGA did.

Well, looks like I'll be sticking with 3.5.

Welcome to the grognard club J, welcome aboard.

As long as the OOP books are on your shelf you can still have fun with them and don't matter what new stuff comes out.

Quote from: RPGObjects_chuck3.5 came out 5 years after 3.0 completely and utterly killed it. You couldn't sell 3.0 books for firewood after 3.5 came out.

How many editions of Star Wars have there been? 3?

In like a 6-7 year span?

And they sold like crazy.

Interesting.  Do you think that perhaps the reason the Star Wars versions sold is that the game wasn't good te first two times around?  I'm betting now that SAGA hit, it will stabilize for your 8-10 year (ok, maybe 6-8...ok, 5-7) period.

In the case of D&D, the reason 3.0 became relatively irrelavant so quickly was because the next ruleset, 3.5, was the SAGA of D&D.  It's been able to sustain a market because the quality was such that it could, whereas earlier versions were ripe for the picking.

Just a thought.

Quote from: Zachary The First, from his GenCon threadSeveral folks just walked past, bitching about how WotC had told them 4e wouldn't be out for 2 year at the D&D convention.

Whiny bitches.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J SkachInteresting.  Do you think that perhaps the reason the Star Wars versions sold is that the game wasn't good te first two times around?  I'm betting now that SAGA hit, it will stabilize for your 8-10 year (ok, maybe 6-8...ok, 5-7) period.

Well, I think all three SW games were pretty good.

But following your logic, the fact that people would continue to go to the well for a new game every two years whether it was good or not, I'm sure wasn't a deterrent to doing a new edition now.

Hell, if anything, it says the market is fine to pony up some cash to be a beta tester, work the kinks out, then pay again for a better version.

Quote from: BalbinusWelcome to the grognard club J, welcome aboard.

As long as the OOP books are on your shelf you can still have fun with them and don't matter what new stuff comes out.

But it's the grognards who drove this shift in the first place!

I think the impulse to forgive or explain Wizards' behavior is a mistake. I had the idea that it might have been the big success of SW: Saga that caused them to bump it up a little - "hey, the fanz love this shite!" - but it doesn't matter. They said something that conveyed to almost everyone it wasn't coming, and it's here.

I think I'll probably still buy and play the game though. Like the thread title says...

The video promo at the WotC site, while more than a tad bizarre, does provide a couple of hints of what's to come - one, the online aspect is rather pointedly highlighted but not directly mentioned (though maybe I missed it due to inattention), and two, "the game is staying the same!" (say that over and over for emphasis in a really odd sorta-French accent). The latter indicates, I hope, that the game is gonna be essentially 3e with the biggest problems addressed that have been squawked about consistently. EDIT: The video directly mentions the complexity of 3e, and specifically uses the grapple rules as an example of stuff that slows the game down. That comforts me. I just wanna know how much of my beloved collection of NPC statblocks will be rendered obsolete...

Plus they seem to be releasing some kind of...I don't know what...stripped down version or overview beforehand. Maybe a "basic" version of the game?

Quote from: James J SkachWhiny bitches.  :rolleyes:

Now, now. You're jumping to conclusion. He said they were bitching, not whining. :p

I came here to see some discussion of the announcement that wouldn't be full of little girl crying. You know, something different than what's going on at ENWorld (when it loads), WotC, and RPG.net.

You guys aren't going to disappoint me, are you?  

Quote from: GoOrangeI'm in the "they were dishonest in their dealings with the public" camp.

Christ on a crutch. Maybe they weren't planning on releasing it, but word came down from on high to speed things up. Shit happens.

Quote from: SettembriniThe WotC site?
"Service unavailable?" The Fuck?

I can only imagine the strain the server is under from all the gamer angst.

Quote from: danzig138You guys aren't going to disappoint me, are you?

For what it's worth, I'm looking forward to 4e.

Hasbro told people there would be no new edition coming soon so that they'd continue buying the current edition of books. Whether they changed their mind or not doesn't change the fact that surprising everyone with a 4th edition announcement makes them somewhat dishonest with their consumers.  The RPGPundit might be wrong about other things, but calling out a corporation for misleading consumers isn't one of them.

This doesn't mean you can't buy an enjoy their products -- but unless you're on the payroll you shouldn't be doing the job of their PR office in trying to apologize for or justify this.  That's crazy.  

Someone said earlier what they should have said back in February:  "We'll make sure that any new edition gets announced X months before it ships."

Quote from: Wizard Entertainment ArticleAs always, the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide will be the core of the new edition, and you'll see them in May, June and July of 2008 respectively, just in time for everyone to get new campaigns up and running for next year's Gen Con. And yes, Wizards does recommend you begin new campaigns with Fourth Edition. "It's not going to be as huge a jump," as from Second Edition to Third Edition, said Slavicsek, "but there's enough changing in the core system of how we are doing classes and races and characters that we're not even gonna attempt it—we're just telling you it's better to start over." Conversion went over like a lead balloon with Third Edition anyway.

So... what happens to Living Greyhawk?  Everyone starting at 1st level again with 4th edition?

Quote from: SettembriniThe WotC site?
"Service unavailable?" The Fuck?

Does anybody get a response?

Everyone: at least right now, you can browse the site using this mirror:

http://www.wizards.com.nyud.net:8080/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

I don't seem to be having much trouble with

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

at the moment.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, I admit I was wrong. I was wrong in thinking that Wizards wouldn't be so stupid as to be so dishonest toward its fans.

Those people who are claiming that they somehow knew all along what Wizards really meant by their statement at the D&D Experience? They're the ones that can't admit they were wrong.

RPGPundit

Pundit, I'm often on your side on things, but dude, you were dead-wrong on this issue. Corporations lie. It happens all the time. Getting into a semantic argument with people on what they or WoTC did or didn't precisely say is pointless. People sensed the arrival of 4e, and you didn't. Just let it go, and move on. You'll feel better if you do. :keke:

This is a done deal. The real question is: are you on board for the new edition or what?

Because the truth of the matter is, the majority will forgive or forget about Hasbro's and WoTC's lies. Or should I say "mistruths"? ;)

A few years ago, I'd be ripshit about this lack of ethical behavior, but now I'm more philosophical about it. I'm like, do they make stuff I like? If the answer is "yes", then I become a valued customer. If they don't, then I spend my gaming dollars on something else.

Now granted, I can't behind that "Digital Initiative". A more expensive online version of Dungeon and Dragon? No paper magazine? Uh, no thanks, I'll pass. Plus, the Gleemax site makes me cringe. It is visually ugly :( , so therefore, I refuse to invest my time at that site. :raise: I'll still get the 4e core books though. :)

Quote from: SigmundI don't seem to be having much trouble with

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome

at the moment.

 Disregard, back to overload status :(

Not a very graceful way to launch the "digital initiative"... should have planned better to keep their web servers online.

EDIT: Wow. ENWorld is having trouble too.

More details on the actual game:

Quote from: RacesRaces will grant abilities at levels other than first - most of the abilities will be gained in the first 10 levels, but there will be some gained at higher levels.

"In the final version of 4th Edition, most of your racial traits come into play right out of the gate at 1st level—dwarven resilience, elven evasion, a half-elf's inspiring presence, and so on. As you go up levels, you can take racial feats to make those abilities even more exciting and gain new capabilities tied to your race. You can also take race-specific powers built into your class, which accomplish a lot of what racial substitution levels used to do: a dwarf fighter with the friend of earth power can do something that other 10th-level fighters just can't do."

Wizards has really impressed me with one decision regarding 4e:

There is going to be a new SRD for 4e that falls under the OGL.

And yeah, I'm biased.

Still, I'm glad Wizards realizes we're good for them.

Quote from: StuartMore details on the actual game:

I like that.  I did feel in the current version that the races were insufficiently differentiated.

More info

Quote from: ClassesThe fighter is the only current 4th Edition class with capabilities that depend on the weapon they have chosen to train the most with. Even at 1st level, a fighter who uses an axe has a different power selection than a fighter who relies on a flail or a rapier or a pick. In the long run, fighters can diversify and master powers related to a few different weapons, but most will opt to focus on the weapon that suits their personal style, helps their interactions with the rest of the PCs in the group, and carries all the magical oomph they’ve managed to acquire.

All good and well. But what I can't see is how this helps to "simplify prep time" (one stated 4E goal) as opposed to extending it even further? More customization = more prep for the GM, no?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAll good and well. But what I can't see is how this helps to "simplify prep time" (one stated 4E goal) as opposed to extending it even further? More customization = more prep for the GM, no?

That assumes that every last damn NPC needs a write up.  The Monster Manual is there for a reason.  The NPC tables are there for a reason.  Fucking use them.  It's not the game's fault that you decided to do more work than intended.

This is what pisses me off.  Because all the whining about "complexity" is mostly bogus misrepresentation by people who don't understand how the game is supposed to work.

And that's why shit like SAGA and 4e make me nervous, because it sounds an awful lot like they've been listening too much to people who're deliberately misrepresenting the game as it is played and as it is written.

Yeah - they will have systems for NPCs and monsters that are different from PC ones - so only the PCs will have the added complexity.

:eek:

An interesting thing to me that hasn't gotten a lot of attention was that Dragon and Dungeon, in their new electronic incarnations, will begin in October right where they left off, numbering-wise. That is, the first electronic issues of Dragon and Dungeon will be 360 and 151, respectively. For some reason that makes me feel optimistic. However, the main thing I'm waiting to see is how much the subscriptions will be. The way WotC sells pdfs of books at the same price as the print versions doesn't bode well. I can't imagine them charging what the print mags went for, but I've been thinking about what my limit will be. I might pay what one of the mags charged for a subscription for both electronic mags, but even then, I really need to see more about what the mags will be comprised of, and who will be working on them.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHowever, the main thing I'm waiting to see is how much the subscriptions will be. The way WotC sells pdfs of books at the same price as the print versions doesn't bode well. I can't imagine them charging what the print mags went for, but I've been thinking about what my limit will be.

They will cost more as part of the overall monthly subscription fee to DNDInsider .  I think $10/month was suggested.  That'll give you access to all the web tools as well...

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAll good and well. But what I can't see is how this helps to "simplify prep time" (one stated 4E goal) as opposed to extending it even further? More customization = more prep for the GM, no?

Well, I for one am hoping for mook rules, like in SW: Saga.  Seriously, prep time in Saga is way, way less than 3.5.

-O

What was wrong with 3.5 that they need a 4th?

Or rather, what do they think was wrong with it that a new edition will fix?

I mean, I wouldn't know, I've not once played 3.5. I've still got AD&D1e on my shelves :D

Presentations:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07

In case Wizards goes down again:

Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs

Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZ2WdeTo1M

Gleemax: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5CvxV4lhNY

Virtual Table: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m20AJvdzAdo

Sizzle Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbbqMoEwDqc

Quote from: StuartThey will cost more as part of the overall monthly subscription fee to DNDInsider .  I think $10/month was suggested.  That'll give you access to all the web tools as well...

Yeah, I just slogged back through this thread and found yours and mhensley's posts about possible prices. Damn, I dunno. That's way more than I was hoping for. I guess if they offer month-to-month subscriptions I'll at least give it a go for a while to start.

Thanks Stuart!

I'd like the generic human NPCs put back into the MM. They stripped them out of the 3.5 MM (they were in the 3.0) and put adventurer generation tables in the DMG instead that took much longer to get through. That would speed up prep.

I'm also hoping that fighters don't suck in 4e.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm also hoping that fighters don't suck in 4e.

If the fighter "powers" mentioned earlier are similar to the maneuvers and stances in The Book of Nine Swords then they won't.

Fighter maneuvers "like in the book of nine swords" was specifically mentioned in the presentation by Bill Slaviscek as being a feature of the new D&D. Nearly everything in the early part of the presentation was about making it "easier" and "less referenced". I have no idea how theyre going to do that, but I'm signed up as a playtester. So I guess we'll see!

We just got in. Zach is staying with other friends. (Sorry Zach!) We had some missed calls and stuff, but it was nice to meet.

I have a couple of other observations and experiences to talk about  but probably after I get back. This was a great first day at the con! I got some sweet dice, picked up some Mutants and Masterminds books, completely got hammered in the D&D Open (I think I was knocked down to something like -30- I was the first to die!), then we saw this crazy D&D thing, and I ran a kick-ass Expedition Adventure.

I saw Koltar, but I was in a hurry and couldn't stop. he looks like his user picture but more knobbly and klingonish..

Speaking of Koltar... I think he's on TV.

Check this out--Klingon alert halfway through.

http://www.gencon.com/2007/indy/events/Thursday.aspx

Is that him?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat was wrong with 3.5 that they need a 4th?
 
Or rather, what do they think was wrong with it that a new edition will fix?
 
I mean, I wouldn't know, I've not once played 3.5. I've still got AD&D1e on my shelves :D

That's an interesting question.  I don't like 3.5, but I don't think there is anything specifically wrong with it.  As has been mentioned, prep time is a bitch and combat is way too slow... but again, these are more my personal views.  Judging by the vast number of D&D fanbois and the (supposedly) healthy level of sales, there can't be anything specifically broken in the game.
 
A cynical grab for cash?
 
Probably.  But I can't be too critical because I'll buy it.  Sometimes it's fun to be part of the crowd, even if it is only temporary.  :)

Quote from: StuartThey will cost more as part of the overall monthly subscription fee to DNDInsider .  I think $10/month was suggested.  That'll give you access to all the web tools as well...

You know, I'm wondering if they're not half-expecting a lot of groups to pool their money to pay for DNDInsider subscriptions. With the sort of web tools they have, it'd make a lot of sense for a group to buy the GM a DNDInsider subscription which he/she can share with the others as needed.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkThat's an interesting question.  I don't like 3.5, but I don't think there is anything specifically wrong with it.  As has been mentioned, prep time is a bitch and combat is way too slow... but again, these are more my personal views.  Judging by the vast number of D&D fanbois and the (supposedly) healthy level of sales, there can't be anything specifically broken in the game.
 
A cynical grab for cash?
 
Probably.  But I can't be too critical because I'll buy it.  Sometimes it's fun to be part of the crowd, even if it is only temporary.  :)

You da man! :)  I'm in the same boat. The basics of d20 are cool, but 3e and 3.5 are too slow and cumbersome for my tastes. However, the game has obvious strengths, people are diggin' it, and the rules work. My curiousity is piqued, so I'll buy it too. ;)

P.S. I'll buy the Core Rules, at least. After that, I make no promises... :D

Quote from: Tyberious FunkAs has been mentioned, prep time is a bitch and combat is way too slow...

I assumed those were features, not bugs. Prep time gives you something to do between sessions, and if you don't like combats why are you playing D&D?

And if these things are problems, then why have so many people bought the game over these years?

My theory is that they're tired of writing splatbooks and want something to do :p

Another thing to remember with this announcement (and the possible bringing forward of the release date) is that there are a couple of big licenses coming out next year. Although probably not on the d&d scale, they could have taken a sizeable chunk out of WotC sales (say 5-10%?) if they got on the ground and running before 4e. 40k is a big release and so is Traveller (although that's only just been announced, so take my ponderings with a grain of salt). Now, 4e will be in direct competition with those games and not coming out 6 - 12 months later with a possible loss in ground.

Quote from: One Horse TownAnother thing to remember with this announcement (and the possible bringing forward of the release date) is that there are a couple of big licenses coming out next year. Although probably not on the d&d scale, they could have taken a sizeable chunk out of WotC sales (say 5-10%?) if they got on the ground and running before 4e. 40k is a big release and so is Traveller (although that's only just been announced, so take my ponderings with a grain of salt). Now, 4e will be in direct competition with those games and not coming out 6 - 12 months later with a possible loss in ground.

Unless they were UNBELIEVABLY more successful than anyone could possibly imagine, neither of these would be even of any statistical significance to Wizards, D&D is just so vastly above anything else in terms of sales that there's no conceivable way any other license or RPG could possibly affect them in such a way that they'd feel the need to release their product earlier than originally planned.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditUnless they were UNBELIEVABLY more successful than anyone could possibly imagine, neither of these would be even of any statistical significance to Wizards, D&D is just so vastly above anything else in terms of sales that there's no conceivable way any other license or RPG could possibly affect them in such a way that they'd feel the need to release their product earlier than originally planned.

RPGPundit

You might be right, but even taken conservatively, these things could very much matter to wizards. No release of 4e next year and lets say (conservatively) that the new licenses take 2% of wizards market share away between them. Release of 4e next and an increase of 5% (conservative) market share for wizards next year. That's a 7% swing. Nothing to sneeze at for a company of wizards size.

'Course, it's all speculation, but 7% matters even to wizards.

Edit: Also, the real money will be in the DI, if it's any good.

Quote from: RPGPunditUnless they were UNBELIEVABLY more successful than anyone could possibly imagine, neither of these would be even of any statistical significance to Wizards, D&D is just so vastly above anything else in terms of sales that there's no conceivable way any other license or RPG could possibly affect them in such a way that they'd feel the need to release their product earlier than originally planned.

RPGPundit

Not just that, only a handful of other companies have access to the mass market like WoTC. So if by some miracle some new product starts hammering D&D in game stores and the internet there will still be the problem of finding space within the mass market.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd if these things are problems, then why have so many people bought the game over these years?

A popular game can still have problem areas. From being involved in writing several RPG products, 3.X Stat blocks are a total pain in the ass to deal with. It is one of the worst things I had to do in 20 years of technical writing. For a DM just doing this for fun, I doubt many are making up stats blocks by hand. Probably uses one of several shortcuts to avoid this. (Computer, re-use, store-bought module, abbreviated stats, etc)

Rob Conley

P.S. Yes writing and laying out an adventure module is a form of technical writing.

From the point of view of a company whose purpose is to make money, if a product has problems but still makes money, then the product does not have problems.

And if they're genuine problems, why are they only being looked at now? Even Mongoose puts out a second edition within a year when its first edition is a fuckup.

Quote from: One Horse TownAnother thing to remember with this announcement (and the possible bringing forward of the release date) is that there are a couple of big licenses coming out next year. Although probably not on the d&d scale, they could have taken a sizeable chunk out of WotC sales (say 5-10%?) if they got on the ground and running before 4e. 40k is a big release and so is Traveller (although that's only just been announced, so take my ponderings with a grain of salt). Now, 4e will be in direct competition with those games and not coming out 6 - 12 months later with a possible loss in ground.

4e will not be in competition with anything as I understand the word. Wizards will have its usual crazy market share.

THe fact that 4e will fall under the OGL again will prevent any "lesser" licenses* from gaining a serious foothold.

Chuck

*I dont mean lessser in terms of quality.

4e is gonna be great for brick-and-moarter stores.

Not so good for online retailers. I wish we had a flgs around here. I don't want to give my money to B&N or Borders.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat assumes that every last damn NPC needs a write up.  The Monster Manual is there for a reason.  The NPC tables are there for a reason.  Fucking use them.  It's not the game's fault that you decided to do more work than intended.

Are you seriously suggesting that the game was designed with the idea that the DM do less exacting prepwork than in earlier editions?  The fact that NPCs are built out of the same set of moving parts as PCs surely suggests otherwise.

More details...

Quote from: James WyattAnd it is a rise, let me tell you. I'm so excited about Fourth Edition I can barely contain myself. Running the Delve in our booth yesterday was awkward—I saw so many of the things I have grown to dislike about 3E come into play. Oh, the poor rogue's useless against all these plants and elementals. Oh, the poor dwarf didn't confirm his crit. Oh, look at all the people forgetting about attacks of opportunity (especially at reach) and getting pummeled as a result. I can't say too much about it, but you can be sure it's not just grapple that got an overhaul.

I'm playing a ranger in Bill Slavicsek's weekly game. I'm not sure I've played a ranger since the one who stood on top of a pile of gnoll bodies while my magic-user friend killed Yeenoghu in the early days of AD&D. I'm having a blast.

I'm playing a paladin in Andy Collins' monthly game. I love paladins—I seem to keep writing about them in my fiction. (Check out "Blade of the Flame" in the Tales of the Last War anthology for a concise example, or read my other novels!) But I've never liked playing a paladin. At one point during the design of this game, I made a paladin for a game where we were testing out Dungeon Tiles, and it made me so sad. I could smite evil once. Then I was done—down to swinging my sword once per round. I wasn't sad when I died. I love my new paladin.

Interesting Stuart. Looks like maybe it's the Bard and Sorcerer that has been gobbled up by feat trees then. All the other classes seem to be present and correct (actually, i haven't seen mention of the Druid or Monk yet either).

Sounds suspiciously like SWSE...

Quote from: One Horse TownInteresting Stuart. Looks like maybe it's the Bard and Sorcerer that has been gobbled up by feat trees then. All the other classes seem to be present and correct (actually, i haven't seen mention of the Druid or Monk yet either).

I dunno, I think the Ranger and Paladin could very easily be modelled under 4E as special instances of the Fighter - just pick the relevant set of options at character gen and whenever you level up and you're on the way.

Alternately, they might be specialised Fighters who don't get to pick from the full range of Fighter powers but have special power lists of their own to pick from.

Quote from: WarthurI dunno, I think the Ranger and Paladin could very easily be modelled under 4E as special instances of the Fighter - just pick the relevant set of options at character gen and whenever you level up and you're on the way.

Alternately, they might be specialised Fighters who don't get to pick from the full range of Fighter powers but have special power lists of their own to pick from.

Well, Ranger is definitely in. Seen a screen shot of the DI character page with a Ranger on it as well as 2 Fighters.

Ranger is a "legacy" class, I think it will stay.

Barbarian too, both because it has something of a long history (back to the 1e Unearthed Arcana) but also just because it's an archetype people still want to play, thanks to my man Conan.

I could see Bard and Sorcerer going though. Has anyone ever been truly happy with these classes in 3e?

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, Ranger is definitely in. Seen a screen shot of the DI character page with a Ranger on it as well as 2 Fighters.

Hmm, interesting. I suspect there'll still be overlap between the Fighters and Paladins and Rangers - especially in terms of the special fighting powers. The Wizards team seem to have a big emphasis on tightly defining each character type's role in the party, and characters like Paladins and Rangers combining aspects of fighters and clerics would seem to go against that.

My guess: Paladins and Rangers are going to be fighters first, clerics/druids second, and will be closely based on the fighter class. They'll be special options, with special picks on the various Fighter power lists (and perhaps some special lists just for them) rather than 100% distinct classes with completely distinct power lists. Similarly, Bards and Sorcerers will be special instances of magic-users and speciality priests will be special instances of clerics.

Then again, I'm not putting too much emphasis on the DI screenshots - with 9 months to go until the release there's still time for an awful lot of changes in the 4E rules.

Quote from: SosthenesSounds suspiciously like SWSE...

If by that you mean Star Wars Saga Edition, it should. They've said that Saga was one of the testing grounds for the rules in 4e.

QuoteI could see Bard and Sorcerer going though. Has anyone ever been truly happy with these classes in 3e?

Me, although I prefer the bard to the sorcerer.

Quote from: WarthurHmm, interesting. I suspect there'll still be overlap between the Fighters and Paladins and Rangers - especially in terms of the special fighting powers. The Wizards team seem to have a big emphasis on tightly defining each character type's role in the party, and characters like Paladins and Rangers combining aspects of fighters and clerics would seem to go against that.

My guess: Paladins and Rangers are going to be fighters first, clerics/druids second, and will be closely based on the fighter class. They'll be special options, with special picks on the various Fighter power lists (and perhaps some special lists just for them) rather than 100% distinct classes with completely distinct power lists. Similarly, Bards and Sorcerers will be special instances of magic-users and speciality priests will be special instances of clerics.

Then again, I'm not putting too much emphasis on the DI screenshots - with 9 months to go until the release there's still time for an awful lot of changes in the 4E rules.

Yeah, there's still plenty of time for things to change. Still, with wizards saying they are concentrating on roles within the party, i tend to think that if there are going to be Rangers, paladins, Monks etc, then there'll be as little overlap with fighters as possible. They'll be Rangers/Paladins/Monks 'turned up to 11'. Well, that's what i hope anyhow.

Edit: In fact, one radical change that could work IMO is to drop the cleric and have the Paladin take over the role. A true 'warrior priest' in the adventuring sense of the word. Have clerics as an NPC class and roll more stuff into the Adept.

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah, there's still plenty of time for things to change. Still, with wizards saying they are concentrating on roles within the party, i tend to think that if there are going to be Rangers, paladins, Monks etc, then they'll be as little overlap as possible. They'll be Rangers/Paladins/Monks 'turned up to 11'. Well, that's what i hope anyhow.

That's the thing, I'm not convinced that a Ranger or a Paladin or a Barbarian really fills a different niche in the party than a Fighter. The Barbarian especially - he's a hit-soaking combat tank, the fighter's a hit-soaking combat tank. The Paladin and Ranger are there mainly to fulfil the same function, but also to occasionally tread on the cleric/druid's niche.

Historically speaking, the Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin have always been subclasses of the Fighter. I think in 4E we'll be presented with the four basic classes, along with guidelines and optional rules for creating our favourite subclasses from them if we especially want to go that route. So in the PHB you'll see:

FIGHTER (Core Class)
(Details on Fighters go here, as well as references to the lists of powers that fighters can choose from as they level up.)

Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger (Subclass)
(Details on these guys go here, with guides on how to make them using the Fighter rules.)

Heck, "Paladin" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" might end up being special quirks you take at first level, along the lines of the following:

PALADIN (Fighters only)
You are a Paladin, a special fighter sworn to uphold Lawful Good values. You may not take powers from Fighter lists A, B, and C, but may instead take powers from Cleric lists X, Y, and Z, as well as the Paladin-only lists 1, 2 and 3.

Quote from: WarthurHeck, "Paladin" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" might end up being special quirks you take at first level, along the lines of the following:

PALADIN (Fighters only)
You are a Paladin, a special fighter sworn to uphold Lawful Good values. You may not take powers from Fighter lists A, B, and C, but may instead take powers from Cleric lists X, Y, and Z, as well as the Paladin-only lists 1, 2 and 3.

Yeah, if that route is taken, i'd prefer this kind of approach. I would still prefer distinct classes though. With all the splat books, there's got to be enough options out there (as well as new stuff) to put together distinct classes for these guys that highlight their roles more than being sub-classes.

I've never been quite happy with the sorcerer mechanically, but it fills an archetype that was sorely needed.  I hope, whether they keep the class or not, that they still have some means of playing a magic-y character that's not studystilskin.

Quote from: One Horse TownYeah, if that route is taken, i'd prefer this kind of approach. I would still prefer distinct classes though. With all the splat books, there's got to be enough options out there (as well as new stuff) to put together distinct classes for these guys that highlight their roles more than being sub-classes.

Maybe, but the PHB is going to be 288 pages, and that's got to cover character gen, combat and action resolution (presumably), all the spells and all the nifty race, class, and race-and-class-specific powers that PCs can pick up. Coming up with distinct skill and power lists for every single class and still fitting it in 288 pages would be one hell of a difficult task.

I think the sub-class approach for things like rangers and bards and so forth is entirely sensible if you want a game which emphasises niche protection, as they claim 4E is going to. You have your four basic classes covering the major niches, and then you introduce the sub-classes which blur the boundaries between them a little in case (for example) you're running with a three-player group and nobody wants to be the Cleric.

Quote from: BrantaiI've never been quite happy with the sorcerer mechanically, but it fills an archetype that was sorely needed.  I hope, whether they keep the class or not, that they still have some means of playing a magic-y character that's not studystilskin.

IF there's a distinction, I'd expect it would be Wizards vs. Warlocks for prepared/spontaneous casting.

I'm predicting, though, a cleaner spellcasting system where all casters have some per-encounter abilities, and also have per-day or per-character-level resources.

-O

Quote from: obrynIF there's a distinction, I'd expect it would be Wizards vs. Warlocks for prepared/spontaneous casting.

I'm predicting, though, a cleaner spellcasting system where all casters have some per-encounter abilities, and also have per-day or per-character-level resources.
-O

And it's about damn time to see that.  And as long as there's still spontaneous casting I'll be peachy. :D

Quote from: WarthurI think the sub-class approach for things like rangers and bards and so forth is entirely sensible if you want a game which emphasises niche protection, as they claim 4E is going to. You have your four basic classes covering the major niches, and then you introduce the sub-classes which blur the boundaries between them a little in case (for example) you're running with a three-player group and nobody wants to be the Cleric.

I hope that's where they're going with 4th ed, because a month or two ago, I was working on tweaking the game to do just that. Four basic classes backed up with plenty of Talent trees to give them variety.

High level 3e sorcerers are extremely effective characters IME.

Related news: according to Robin Laws' blog, the 4E design triad is composed of Mike Mearls, Rob Heinsoo, and James Wyatt.

Lord Hobie

If Book of 9 Swords is one of the products that sets the tone for 4e, I can't help but wonder if every class won't have some option for per day/per encounter/per session/etc. resources.

Quote from: jrientsIf Book of 9 Swords is one of the products that sets the tone for 4e, I can't help but wonder if every class won't have some option for per day/per encounter/per session/etc. resources.

I think the 'per encounter' model fits the D&D paradigm perfectly. Far better than the 'per day' approach, in fact.

Wow, I haven't been this stoked about D&D since I discovered Order of the Stick. :D

It makes sense, doesn't it Drew? Almost everyone from WotC and WW to the Forge would agree with you, too.

I remain unconvinced.

Quote from: WarthurThe Paladin and Ranger are there mainly to fulfil the same function, but also to occasionally tread on the cleric/druid's niche.

That's why they should probably be prestige classes (for Fighter + Cleric and Fighter or Barbarian + Druid).

Quote from: CalithenaIt makes sense, doesn't it Drew? Almost everyone from WotC and WW to the Forge would agree with you, too.

I remain unconvinced.

I agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI assumed those were features, not bugs. Prep time gives you something to do between sessions, and if you don't like combats why are you playing D&D?

D&D 3.5 has prep time in a bad way.  It's mind-numbingly boring stuff that you have to slog through and prepare because if you don't, then your combats will be slow, also in a bad way (everyone watching the GM look up lots of rules and stats).  If the prep time were drawing dungeons and picking monsters, it would be cool.  It's not.  It's figuring out stat blocks and feats and trying to figure out how they'll interact during an encounter.  If the combats were long because the players were fiddling around with details, it would be cool.  It's not.  It's people flipping through their PHBs trying to figure out how the Grapple or Disarm rules work.  That little history video they made had it pretty dead-on accurate.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd if these things are problems, then why have so many people bought the game over these years?

They are annoyances that people can often live with.  But I'd be very reluctant to run a long-term D&D campaign ever again using the 3.5 rules, not because my game wasn't fun but I think I spent more time prepping for some sessions of that game than I spend prepping for entire campaigns that I'd run in other systems.  Not something I'd way to take on again.

I could live without the Monk, they always seemed out of place except in oriental settings. I'd miss the Bard though, they are always fun for me to play and the jack-of-all-trades niche they fill rounds out PC parties nicely.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

Well, maybe the new system is designed with that in mind and deals with it. I'm not against resource management, but a spell recharge time of one day seems pretty damn arbitrary. How is, say 3 burning hands a combat rather than 3 a day going to rock the world aside from making a mage less useless?

Quote from: RPGPunditUnless they were UNBELIEVABLY more successful than anyone could possibly imagine, neither of these would be even of any statistical significance to Wizards, D&D is just so vastly above anything else in terms of sales that there's no conceivable way any other license or RPG could possibly affect them in such a way that they'd feel the need to release their product earlier than originally planned.

RPGPundit

I think the Pundit is right. D&D is so vastly above the rest that WotC can afford not to care at all.

There were times when some other games were near, but this is not one of them.

Quote from: jrientsAre you seriously suggesting that the game was designed with the idea that the DM do less exacting prepwork than in earlier editions?  The fact that NPCs are built out of the same set of moving parts as PCs surely suggests otherwise.

What the goddamn hell does this have to do with anything?  The previous editions had Monster Manuals right?  I sure as hell recall them having them.

The Monster Manual and the NPC tables exist as tools to allow the absolute minimum of prep work desired by the DM.  You just pick and choose from the book, slap them in your dungeon, and you're good to go.  That's why they're there.  

If the DM decides to ignore those tools and instead do everything from scratch, of course it's going to take a long fucking time.  It'd take a long fucking time in any game if you went and wrote up every last piece of cannon fodder up like a full PC.

I mean seriously, do you really do that?  Because I can't even imagine GMing, like that, I'd never have time to do anything, in D&D or anything else for that matter.

Quote from: J ArcaneWhat the goddamn hell does this have to do with anything?  The previous editions had Monster Manuals right?  I sure as hell recall them having them.

The Monster Manual and the NPC tables exist as tools to allow the absolute minimum of prep work desired by the DM.  You just pick and choose from the book, slap them in your dungeon, and you're good to go.  That's why they're there.  

If the DM decides to ignore those tools and instead do everything from scratch, of course it's going to take a long fucking time.  It'd take a long fucking time in any game if you went and wrote up every last piece of cannon fodder up like a full PC.

I mean seriously, do you really do that?  Because I can't even imagine GMing, like that, I'd never have time to do anything, in D&D or anything else for that matter.

J, do you somehow get off cursing on forums?

Lord Hobie

It's a show of his ire; and perfectly acceptable on this forum.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's a show of his ire; and perfectly acceptable on this forum.

I've read J's posts on several fora, and they usually make a lot of sense, but it's like his keyboard has Tourette's or something.  I've got nothing against cursing, but jeez.

Lord Hobie

For that matter, Pundit's keyboard must have contracted it too.  :D

Lord Hobie

Quote from: ghost ratWell, maybe the new system is designed with that in mind and deals with it. I'm not against resource management, but a spell recharge time of one day seems pretty damn arbitrary. How is, say 3 burning hands a combat rather than 3 a day going to rock the world aside from making a mage less useless?

Because most combats won't need more than 3 burning hands but most days will have more than 3 encounters, thus making the magic user have to choose when to use their 3 burning hands.  Per combat?  Let's start by using those burning hands.  Per day?  Should I be using those burning hands now or saving them for later?

Perhaps the latter isn't fun for a lot of people, but it's a pretty big difference.

More insight into combat powers/feats for fighters:

Quote"I thought about going high Con and using a hammer, but I wanted to start with the chance to make a couple of attacks, so I'm using rain of blows as my good weapon attack (with a Longsword), and I went with high Wis so that I can switch to the better oppy powers later."

"My elf fighter uses a spear. I like the speed and the option to go past AC."

Quote from: Lord HobieJ, do you somehow get off cursing on forums?

Lord Hobie

If you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

"Dear Jesus, let armour provide DR."

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

My question stands.

Lord Hobie

Quote from: John MorrowBecause most combats won't need more than 3 burning hands but most days will have more than 3 encounters, thus making the magic user have to choose when to use their 3 burning hands.  Per combat?  Let's start by using those burning hands.  Per day?  Should I be using those burning hands now or saving them for later?

Perhaps the latter isn't fun for a lot of people, but it's a pretty big difference.

The problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.  

A fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

This is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

Quote from: J ArcaneIf the DM decides to ignore those tools and instead do everything from scratch, of course it's going to take a long fucking time.  It'd take a long fucking time in any game if you went and wrote up every last piece of cannon fodder up like a full PC.

I used all sorts of tools when I ran my D&D 3.5 game, including the Monster Manuals, computer NPC generators, and the http://www.d20srd.org/ (I was the one who suggested the JavaScript in the Monster listings so that you could click on any roll and get a result, allowing a GM to run an counter from the monster page on that site).  I also ran quote a few spontaneous encounters.

A big tool that was missing was a good wandering monster table by environment.  I wound up adapting a database that I found to sort the monsters by environment and CR.  

The Monster Manual also didn't help all that much if you wanted an encounter with an NPC with a class.  There, the automated NPC creator helped a lot, but the quality of the results was still such that I often had to adjust them to make them fit.

Finally, running a monster in an encounter required reading quite a bit of information over carefully, with lots of loaded key words, to understand exactly what a monster could do during the encounter.

Was it unbearable?  No.  Did it seem a lot more difficult than it needed to be?  Yes.

And with respect to doing things from scratch, that also seemed much more difficult than it had to be.  The problem there was that everything interlocked so tightly that I never felt comfortable just fudging changes on the fly.  

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, do you really do that?  Because I can't even imagine GMing, like that, I'd never have time to do anything, in D&D or anything else for that matter.

I didn't write up every piece of cannon fodder like a PC but I think it's noticeable if none of the NPCs have feats (which are hard to fudge because there are rules to when a character can take feats and feat combinations).  I often just gave my NPCs "Improved Initiative" or the extra HP one because those were the easiest to deal with, leaving me to explain that to my players when they complained about the spectacular initiatives that my monsters always got (partially due to good die rolls, too).  I also gave them individual HP.  Spreadsheets helped with that.

Did I cope?  Yes.  Did I wish it was easier.  Yes.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

I happen to agree with you about the difference between the encounter vs. long-term models. Both can work; Champions largely works on the encounter model (since body damage is rare), and comic books are full of fights with basically fresh heroes taking each other on. Yes, there are sometimes fights with worn-out, beat-up heroes, and sometimes you take Body damage in old Champions: the model works well there.

Old D&D though worked on a model of attrition over time that in the right hands could make for very interesting challenges. Sure, your fourth level party can kill these orcs dead in melee combat, but you might take five or ten hit points damage in the process; can you spare those hit points more or do you want to use a spell that might be more valuable later instead? That's a good challenge.

But that's actually not what I was posting about. I was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

(That doesn't change the valid criticism made of old games that time bookkeeping can be a pain in the ass. One needs to find a way to make it less painful or move to different modes of refreshment; I just would prefer that if the different modes are taken they're pegged to imaginary units rather than game ones).

Quote from: J ArcaneThe problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.

Correct.  There are ways to deal with that.  For example, give the magic users bigger guns so that the matter more when they are used, like they are at upper levels, and then give them unlimited cantrips that do things that support the other party members, like helping them avoid AoOs (of they still exist), +1 to hit, +1 to AC, etc.  I suspect that might be what they are actually doing, which would make some sense.

Quote from: J ArcaneA fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

Correct.  But is that really all we want a magic user to be?  A fighter who shoots magical bolts instead of arrows?

Quote from: J ArcaneThis is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

But also bear in mind that the fighter will never get to swing their sword and kill half of an army standing 300 feet away.  So there is a flip side to this parity issue and you'll notice there are plenty of complaints about how lame fighters are at the higher levels that match the complaints about how lame magic users are at the lower levels.

QuoteA big tool that was missing was a good wandering monster table by environment. I wound up adapting a database that I found to sort the monsters by environment and CR.

I wound up dusting off my 1e DMG, which remained useful throughout my 4 years of intensive 3e play.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you wish to address my point, feel free.  Otherwise, there is a thread on the subject of profanity in the off-topic forum I'm sure would be glad to have you.

I will utilize the language in whatever fashion I desire, thank you very much, and you'll find it goes poorly for you here if you attempt to dictate otherwise.  This isn't that kind of place.

Just to be clear, I think J is doing that whole "excluded middle" thingy where the only options he is offering are use the shortcuts in the book or build a full PC entirely from scratch, but I have no problem with him swearing like a goddamn sailor when he does it.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe problem with that is, that for a caster, that burning hands, or whatever other spell, are his only real tools.  

A fighter with a greatsword can keep swinging those massive power attacks all damn day, the wizard on the other hand can't keep slinging spells all day, and is bloody useless at doing anything else.

This is why I've always preferred sorcerors (much better spells per day, more flexible in how they can use them), and why I fell in love with the warlock (can keep casting all damn day long if he likes), and even why I like clerics so very much (still decent in melee combat if built right, main spell is spontaneous cast).

Given the snippets we've learned, i suspect that all of this will be covered in feat trees. Want to cast spontaneously? Get a feat that allows you to with a *certain number* of spells. Want to cast per encounter rather than per day, get a feat that allows you to cast *insert spell here* that number of times per encounter. I really doubt that all spells will reset between each encounter, 'cos when you get to higher levels, it'll get silly. Therefore, you can build your spellcaster around certain abilities, rather like the Fighter gets a feat tree depending on what type of weapon he uses.

Could be wrong of course! Wild speculation is fun though.

Quote from: J ArcaneI mean seriously, do you really do that?

Not every monster, of course, but I do it quite often.

Did you miss the parts of Underworld and Wilderness Adventures and the Holmes-edited Basic Set that exhorted us to make up our own worlds, rules, monsters, and so forth? What the hell game are you playing, anyway?

This is part of why internet debate about D&D is basically hopeless unless people are willing to take the time to listen to each other. Too many books, too many editions, too many expectations, all of which are potentially defensible.

Mea culpa.  I was taken aback momentarily.  I have recovered.  Thank you.  :D

Lord Hobie

Quote from: CalithenaI was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

Ah, yes.  Very good point.  I do agree with that, too.

Quote from: ghost ratWell, maybe the new system is designed with that in mind and deals with it. I'm not against resource management, but a spell recharge time of one day seems pretty damn arbitrary. How is, say 3 burning hands a combat rather than 3 a day going to rock the world aside from making a mage less useless?

I'd expect casters will have two main types of abilities.

(1) Abilities that refresh per encounter.  This will probably include your basic blammies & abilities reminiscent of Reserve Feats from Complete Mage

(2) Major abilities that either refresh per day, or require an even more limited resource like Action Points (or SW: Saga force points) to use.

This would of course make wizards and sorcerers more or less redundant, and may even obviate the need for warlocks.

-O

obryn, I am amused by the fact that the spellcaster you envision for 4e dovetails quite nicely with the Warlock class from Encounter Critical.

Didn't JAGS split mana points into two pools, one for the combat stuff, one for the rest?

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

I think thats fine - it means every encounter can be balanced as an exciting fight.

Although it does occur that this only works in WoW because the penalty for failing is low - if you suffer a TPK it just means everyone has to spend a bit of time running back to the dungeon.

Incidentally, I'd swear I heard somewhere about an idea for allowing 'in character' respecing of your dude - swaping your feats and stuff around to try something else out. I think that would be very useful.

Quote from: J ArcaneThe Monster Manual is there for a reason. The NPC tables are there for a reason. Fucking use them.

Inspiration and a skeleton to work off of for me.  A couple of common examples with a creation method that generates CRs for monsters and NPCs would be more useful to me.  Same principle for spells.  Instead of spending 30 pages listing "common" spells, give me generation rules for developing my own leveled spells for characters.  I want a D&D that teaches me how to use the system to craft my campaigns all in one book (how to build classes, how to create races, how to create feat and talent trees, etc...).  

Otherwise, the new mechanics are slight variances of color mechanics to me.  Instead of beating a THACO to hit someone for 1d8 damage + strength, you beat the armor rating to great cleave with a possilbe crit for 1d8 + strength + cleave mod + crit multiplier minus the DR of the persons armor just to cause damage.  Principles are the same but the crunch is just fluff to me.

Quote from: John MorrowI agree.  The problem with limiting resources to a single encounter eliminates any need for long term planning and it invites you to always start out using your biggest guns, since you'll get them back for the next encounter, anyway.

Well it largely depends on the type of encounters and situations faced, doesn't it?

A wizard who loads up on Fireballs may be a great combat caster, but when it comes to situations that require more finesse, or that simply can't be solved via blowing shit up then he's next to useless.

I like the idea of styles, stances and maneuvers. A style would be the umbrella type of magic available (elemental, divination etc.) and its stances (call them rituals, procedures, gifts or whatever) would provide long-term reusable powers like read language, detect magic etc. Manuevers (ie. spells) would be the one-shot effects that are prepared and refreshed on a per encounter basis.

Of course there's nothing to stop a character loading up on the big gun equivalents, but IME that's what wizards tend to do anyway if given the chance. It also lends itself to a 'signature style' approach, with different characters emphasising different combos of aggressive and defensive spellcasting via their chosen styles.

This is all Book of 9 Swords stuff of course, but I can easily see it mapping on to the core classes with relative ease.

Quote from: CalithenaBut that's actually not what I was posting about. I was posting about the difference between game-units of refreshment (encounter, session, period of real time, adventure defined in one way or another) and imaginary units of refreshment (per period of time passed in the game, when certain actions are undertaken in the game, etc.). Almost everyone designing now, mainstream or indie, thinks that the former are better, and from the viewpoint of 'it's a game' it makes perfect sense. But I am developing a stronger and stronger preference for the latter, because I'm more and more convinced that what makes RPGs fun for me is keeping the imaginary world primary.

I can understand your preferences but let's be honest, gamist conceits are a cornerstone of the D&D paradigm. From hit points to levels to saving throws, a huge amount of the foundational material emphasises system management first and immersion second.

The thing is it's not too difficult to wrap a coherent metaphysical explanation around these things. In my own campaigns I've often used the idea of spirit summoning and pacts in place of memorisation when it comes to spells. The mechanics are identical, it's just a way of me visualising the fire and forget approach in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion. You could apply a similar sort of approach to the "powers" system that's been hinted at by Wizards.

For a game like D&D part of the fun (for me at least) is inventing semi-plausible reasons for how all this wacky stuff works, and I look forward to doing exactly the same with 4th edition. All I'm hoping for is a system that's more mechanically user-friendly at all levels, and the talent trees and reusable power options seem to be just that.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine"Dear Jesus, let armour provide DR."

I hope thats how it will work too.

Quote from: RoninI hope thats how it will work too.

I wouldn't have guesses so, as Star Wars Saga actually ditched that rule from the revised edition. But then again, this isn't as armor-focussed as D&D.

The D&D mentions that a fighter chose a spear for the chance to penetrate armor. That isn't easily done when armor provides a straight bonus. It could be done with different crit results (and possibly feats to change that). So a spear would ignore armor, an axe would just do extra damage...

Quote from: jrientsJust to be clear, I think J is doing that whole "excluded middle" thingy where the only options he is offering are use the shortcuts in the book or build a full PC entirely from scratch, but I have no problem with him swearing like a goddamn sailor when he does it.

I don't see how it's a fallacy to talk about the game as it's written, and as every group I've played with has used it.

The books are there to alleviate prep work.  That's how the game is designed.  It's what the monster manual is for.  It's what the NPC tables are for.  As someone described upthread, you go through the book, you pick out monsters, draw up NPCs, and put them in the dungeon.  Contrary to what that person said though, it's just as possible in 3.x as it is in any other D&D, unless you're deliberately ignoring the tools as given.

 It's not a "shortcut" to use the fucking book that is there, and it's ridiculously insulting to phrase it that way when it's how the damn game was designed to be played, and how most people play the game.  

If anyone's engaging in fallacy here, it's people who're deliberately choosing to ignore the tools presented by the game and then attacking it based on their ignorance.

Quote from: DrewA wizard who loads up on Fireballs may be a great combat caster, but when it comes to situations that require more finesse, or that simply can't be solved via blowing shit up then he's next to useless.

I think that one of the best choices I made with the NPC Wizard in my D&D game was to make her a specialist who couldn't do Evocations or Necromancy.  I originally did that to keep the NPC from stealing thunder from the PCs but it also prevented filling up all of her spell slots with Fireballs and Magic Missiles.

Drew - it was less like that when there was less system - I started before AD&D1. I agree with you that resource management is a big part of the game; less sure that that's not immersive (you can only do so many spells, and you can only take so many wounds, are not at all distant from the imaginative material for me).

This is really a subject for another thread, though. Come to think of it, a thread I started on TBP just yesterday...

Quote from: CalithenaDrew - it was less like that when there was less system - I started before AD&D1. I agree with you that resource management is a big part of the game; less sure that that's not immersive (you can only do so many spells, and you can only take so many wounds, are not at all distant from the imaginative material for me).

I've never found it to be a hindrance to immersion, but like I said I enjoy creating backstories for quirky systems. My response was to what I thought was you were saying about finding the per encounter method less immersive. I may have misread though-- it wouldn't be the first time.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that one of the best choices I made with the NPC Wizard in my D&D game was to make her a specialist who couldn't do Evocations or Necromancy.  I originally did that to keep the NPC from stealing thunder from the PCs but it also prevented filling up all of her spell slots with Fireballs and Magic Missiles.

Cool. I've always preferred wizards with a more esoteric bent myself.

Personally I'd like to see a system where each style or school has it's own distinctive list of aggressive and defensive spells. Someone schooled in divination could hurl a handful of raw fate in an opponents face, or cut the ties that bind them to future, resulting in instant death. If every magical tradition had it's own set of combat orientated stuff then we'd probably see much more diversification in play.

This of course is assuming that magic will be even remotely like the styles, stances and maneuvers of BO9S. It's more likely that I'm vastly overinterpreting the scant information we've been given thus far. Fun, though.

Ripped directly fron an RPG.net thread:

QuoteMike Mearls is the lead developer for 4th edition.

How many core classes - this question was repeatedly avoided until it was admitted there would be fewer than the current number (11). How fewer and who was cut wasn't discussed.

Character classes which haven't been classes before now have resources to manage similar to spells.

Character Powers are to be sorted into at will, per encounter and per day.

Vancian 'spell slots' will be reduced in how much they control a caster's total ability.

Encounters are going to be wholly redesigned

Monsters will have roles outlined in the MM. Monster design will be more open ended. Not all monsters will have information necessary to make them playable characters.

Monster Manual is 288 pages and the DMG 256 pages

Assumed world that will be "points of light in a dark world."

Question of whether Greyhawk will be the the default world was avoided, however Greyhawk proper names will remain.

To the question of whether XP will be required to make magic items Andy Collins replied, "No, Hell No." How magic items will be made in character wasn't discussed beyond a vague statement that you wouldn't be burning a feat on it, and out of character the structure of magic item creation will become more loosened.

And...

QuoteI attended the 4e seminar at Gencon today. I admit that I'm not a luminary in the hobby or otherwise a known person to many gamers - while I know I went to the seminar, I won't be offended if people don't trust me. JohnC's post, and a lot of posts in this thread, have covered a lot of what I heard at the seminar. Here's some more tidbits:

The 30 levels are organized into three tiers. 1-10 is called the "Heroic" tier, which is similar to 3e at low to mid levels. 11-20 is called the "Paragon" tier, where characters become more powerful and can begin to take on greater threats (small dragons, etc.) - it's similar to low to mid teens in 3e. 21-30 is the "Epic" tier, where characters now tackle issues of planary and cosmic importance. One thing WotC mentioned was that the game will play similarly at all tiers, it's just that the scope of the stories will change.

Level advancement - for both PCs and monsters - will be a little more "linear," meaning DMs should be able to throw a wider array of critters up against the PCs.

Each class will have a clearly defined role in combat. I don't exactly know what this means, but it appears WotC will go to great lengths to spell out what a class should do and how to do it.

A Tiefling is on the cover the 4e PHB, suggesting it's a core race, but WotC didn't explicitly say it was. WotC said to expect the old standbies (human, dwarf, elf, and halfling) but also to expect a few surprises. And, as mentioned, race will have an effect beyond providing bonuses at first level. According to WotC, a dwarf fighter should feel different in play from an elf fighter.

I think a bit of Iron Heroes has bled into the game. Not things like Tokens and what not, but the idea of islands of civilization surrounded by a sea of lawlessness and savagery will be big in the "assumed" setting. "Points of light in a dark world," as JohnC said. There will be no great and powerful kingdoms of goodness and justice to bail civilization out. The average Joe doesn't stray far from the path, venture out onto the moors, are walk through the fog - there are Bad Things out there.

The setting sounds like it won't be Greyhawk, or, if it is, it will be much reduced. However, lots of names with strong assocations to GH or D&D - Mordenkainen, Tiamat, Evard, Orcus, etc. - will be carried over. As far as gods go, WotC talked about how players like to play clerics of "Thor, Odin, or Zeus." I'm not sure what to make of that - it might have just been picking out random names or it might mean that real world gods will make an appearance of some kind.

As people have said, the importance of magic items will be reduced. While they'll still be nice to have, WotC says that what makes a 28th level fighter cool will be the fact that he's a 28th level fighter.

Some classes are gone while others will receive more distinguishing. For example, the Scout's role will be largely subsumed by the Ranger. However, the Sorcerer and the Wizard will receive some further distinguishing. WotC didn't specify in what ways these two classes will be different from each other, but it suggested it would be more than the amount of spells they can cast per day.

Multiclassing is going to be significantly changed or possibly even removed. The example WotC gave was, if you want to be a Fighter who dabbles in arcane magic, you'll be able to do that without multiclassing as we know it. But while the 4e "Fighter/Wizard" won't have as many Fighter or Wizard tricks, he'll be as effective with his suite of abilities as a pure Fighter or pure Wizard would be with theirs.

The encounter is going to be the basic unit of play and encounter design will receive some sizeable revamping. One thing WotC is looking at having DMs decide how much total xp an encounter should and then "buying" monsters with that xp. In addition, there will be several types encounter, including chases and social encounters. There are going to be some actual mechanics to back these up.

Alignment is also going to different, and probably have a much reduced role. It will still play a role, but Andy Collins expressed a great deal of dislike for the current system.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Well, colour me excited!  I like everything I've heard so far, and if they can bring in some of the ideas and energy from SW Saga I'll be a happy camper (not that I'm a "3.X hater" by any means... but I like Saga even better).

KoOS

Quote from: DrewRipped directly fron an RPG.net thread:
...
Sounds pretty good to me.

Yeah, almost all of that sounds rather promising.  :cool:

Quote from: DrewNot things like Tokens and what not, but the idea of islands of civilization surrounded by a sea of lawlessness and savagery will be big in the "assumed" setting. "Points of light in a dark world," as JohnC said. There will be no great and powerful kingdoms of goodness and justice to bail civilization out. The average Joe doesn't stray far from the path, venture out onto the moors, are walk through the fog - there are Bad Things out there.

This, more than anything else, makes me interested in the game, though it will be interesting to see how they square this with 30th Level characters (Why don't a handful of good ones go out there and clean up the moors?).

Quote from: John MorrowThis, more than anything else, makes me interested in the game, though it will be interesting to see how they square this with 30th Level characters (Why don't a handful of good ones go out there and clean up the moors?).

It's the eternal question posed by D&D's level scaling. Maybe they're all busy keeping one another in check, or maybe they're off fighting the extra planar threats that want to eat the entire world.

I rarely include ultra-high level npc's in my campaigns, so it's not an issue. I do like the Iron Heroes implied setting though-- tiny beacons of civilisation built on the bones of fallen empires is exactly the sort of thing that gets my creative juices flowing. That's why I'm running with Wilderlands right now, S&S flavoured settings are too attractive for me to ever truly give up.

Who wants to bet on how long it will be until they come out with rules for 31st+ level play (the "Really Epic Levels"!)?

RPGPundit

I don´t understand why it is that they didnt go to the canonical 36 levels. Thirty, that´s...six short.

2 millionth level play, how to create an NPC in less than a year.

QuoteMulticlassing is going to be significantly changed or possibly even removed. The example WotC gave was, if you want to be a Fighter who dabbles in arcane magic, you'll be able to do that without multiclassing as we know it. But while the 4e "Fighter/Wizard" won't have as many Fighter or Wizard tricks, he'll be as effective with his suite of abilities as a pure Fighter or pure Wizard would be with theirs.

Archetype reinforcement??? That would get rid of my biggest hate-on for 3.x.

I believe it when I see it.

Also, the overall project leader is Rob Heinsoo. Not sure what this tells us, except that Robin Laws says it's a good thing because RH (who was involved in Chainmail IIRC) apparently has the mechanics stuff down pat.

Quote from: mythusmage2 millionth level play, how to create an NPC in less than a year.

Heh. On a slightly more serious note the E-tools will allow you to do just that. You feed in the stats, and it crunches all the modifiers and bonuses. All you need to do is select what feats, talents and powers apply, and I've heard rumor of a template selection menu that will remove the grind of that, should you wish. Thus a completely statted 30th level evil wizard can be whipped up in minutes.

Not sure if it goes up to 2 million, though. ;)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityArchetype reinforcement??? That would get rid of my biggest hate-on for 3.x.

I believe it when I see it.

Me too, but if it was true it'd be the greatest improvement ever. Get rid of fucking multiclassing, and everything else that allows for minmaxing at the cost of archetypes.

Note that, again, if its true, its yet another similarity to Forward... to Adventure!, where multiclassing is not allowed.  ;)

RPGPundit

Viral marketeer.

Did I mention, and I'm honestly not sure if I'm actually joking here, that I kinda like the FtA cover image BETTER than the profoundly lame 4E PHB, MM and DMG?

I know they're by Wayne Reynolds. I don't care. They look like 2E garbage.

I would have commissioned Michael Komarck. A gamble, but an interesting one.

They have been way more audacious with 3rd edition. I think that was refreshing and innovative.
Now they look like a Music-Magazine Cover.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDid I mention, and I'm honestly not sure if I'm actually joking here, that I kinda like the FtA cover image BETTER than the profoundly lame 4E PHB, MM and DMG?

I really like the cover art. Less dungeonpunk without sacrificing the epic quotient.

The MM cover neatly corresponds with the new Orcus mini (or should that be maxi? The thing looks fucking HUGE!) which is cool, but I'm a sucker for that kind of thing.

I liked that faux-tome design too. It didn't force a vision of the game on you, as a cover image always will, which in the case of a bad one is absolutely fatal. See HeroQuest.

If there absolutely has to be a new look, I would have commissioned the Cadwallon artists. But I know that makes me a minority of 1. :D

Do you know the german version for the hero quest and glorantha books?

(http://www.die-sns.de/SchattenSeiten/Glorantha/Glorantha-deutsch.jpg)
(http://www.die-sns.de/SchattenSeiten/Glorantha/Einfuhrung_Glorantha/WeltVorstellung/Hero-Wars-deutsch.jpg)

I'm fine with archetype reinforcement as long as they offer more fucking archetypes.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf there absolutely has to be a new look, I would have commissioned the Cadwallon artists. But I know that makes me a minority of 1. :D

I love what I've seen of the Cadwallon art, but I think it would be considered a little too idiosyncratic for D&D.

A setting that employed the art direction team would be all kinds of cool, though. Imagine Greyhawk seen through the Cadwallon lens...

Quote from: SettembriniDo you know the german version for the hero quest and glorantha books?

So much better. I really have to wonder what they were thinking with US/UK edition. It's just crap.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityDid I mention, and I'm honestly not sure if I'm actually joking here, that I kinda like the FtA cover image BETTER than the profoundly lame 4E PHB, MM and DMG?

I know they're by Wayne Reynolds. I don't care. They look like 2E garbage.

I would have commissioned Michael Komarck. A gamble, but an interesting one.

Is there a link to the cover images?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there a link to the cover images?

RPGPundit

The pics are a bit murky, but they're the best copies I've seen so far:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204278

Quote from: SettembriniDo you know the german version for the hero quest and glorantha books?

Yes, and words fail me to describe the sheer awesomeness of them all.

But--they're the covers for the French edition, right? I guess the Germans then went on to use them for theirs?

Brantai: good point. Funny, this is where Rifts has a leg up over D&D. 30 or so core classes, 25 of which are butt kickers, each with its own flavor of awesome and subsystems to implement it. That's partly what makes Rifts clunky and front-loaded, but it's also why nobody ever complains about niche protection in that game... and why only true perverts would want to multi-class.

Quote... and why only true perverts would want to multi-class.

Quite a lot of the NPCs in various sourceboosk for the Palladium games, particularly Rifts and Palladium Fantasy, are multiclassed.  Though oddly, I can't recall ever seeing multiclass rules in the books.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there a link to the cover images?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs

Starting at minute 1:10.

Quote from: BrantaiI'm fine with archetype reinforcement as long as they offer more fucking archetypes.

I agree. If archetype reinforcement means I can't make a tribal shaman who found an ancient library and learned dark magics within (i.e. Barbarian 1 / Cleric 3 / Necromancer x) then it's a bad thing. If it curtails of min-maxing at the expense of creativity I'll be disappointed.

Quote from: Dirk Remmeckehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs

Starting at minute 1:10.

Thanks, i rather like those.

Quote from: James McMurrayI agree. If archetype reinforcement means I can't make a tribal shaman who found an ancient library and learned dark magics within (i.e. Barbarian 1 / Cleric 3 / Necromancer x) then it's a bad thing. If it curtails of min-maxing at the expense of creativity I'll be disappointed.

The way I understood it, youll have just the Barbarian (or whatever, maybe they dumped him and made him a Fighter path or something) with some funky abilities borrowed from a spellcasting class.

Quote from: Dirk Remmeckehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ3J8t2-RVs

Starting at minute 1:10.

Holy shit, they're asstastic.  You're right, FtA!'s cover is better, and production-values isn't exactly our strongsuit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditHoly shit, they're asstastic.  You're right, FtA!'s cover is better, and production-values isn't exactly our strongsuit.

You are mistaken if you think that I dislike the cover designs. Quite the contrary!

When I first saw those covers in that tiny, blurry Youtube video I knew WotC has a winner.
This, finally, is book design aimed at a mainstream audience*, while still being true to D&D's roots.

I like it a lot.

No...

I like it that much that I want to buy those books immediately.**

* as mainstream as heroic fantasy can ever get, that is
** and I don't want to be rude but FtA!'s cover does not stir that reaction in me

I think they are pretty cool.

The per-encounter design paradigm lends itself to shorter gaming sessions, about an hour or so, which is great for all those adult gamers out there that--for whatever reason--just don't play for the usual length of time that commonly goes with tabletop RPGs.  Shorter sessions are more convenient, more casual-friendly, and thus can be done more frequently; with the online tools, it's also friendlier to doing it on the ad-hoc basis that's usually said of children and college students- hop online, play for an hour, log off and go do that other thing you do.  It also means you don't have to prepare more than one encounter ahead of the players.

They're a busy junky mess, too full of stuff, and trying too hard to show off the images that are supposed to represent their new rules system.
The only one that's bearable is the Monster Manual.

Note that FtA!'s cover is no work of genius or anything, but its better than the PHB if that's really their final product.

RPGPundit

QuoteMike Mearls is the lead developer for 4th edition.

This is good news.  I don't always agree with everything the man says, but as far as I can tell he's the most competent mechanic in the industry.

Quote from: James McMurrayI agree. If archetype reinforcement means I can't make a tribal shaman who found an ancient library and learned dark magics within (i.e. Barbarian 1 / Cleric 3 / Necromancer x) then it's a bad thing. If it curtails of min-maxing at the expense of creativity I'll be disappointed.

Or a fighter-mage that actually works.  I think Monte's mageblade from AU/AE actually managed this, but the closest I ever saw WotC come was the servicable but bland-as-hell eldritch knight.

Quote from: RPGPunditThey're a busy junky mess, too full of stuff, and trying too hard to show off the images that are supposed to represent their new rules system.

Images are cool. Selling your product is about telling the story of your product. But there's something about them - maybe the big white bar - that puts me off.

Seanchai

Quote from: BrantaiOr a fighter-mage that actually works.  I think Monte's mageblade from AU/AE actually managed this, but the closest I ever saw WotC come was the servicable but bland-as-hell eldritch knight.

Fighter 2 / Wizard 8 / Eldritch Knight 10

is the core-only, by-the-numbers fighter mage.  Ends up with caster level 17 (enough to cast level 9 spells) and BAB 16 (enough for four attacks per round).

If you have access to the Complete Warrior, you replace a level of Wizard or Eldritch Knight with a level of Spellsword.

Quote from: hgjsFighter 2 / Wizard 8 / Eldritch Knight 10

is the core-only, by-the-numbers fighter mage.  Ends up with caster level 17 (enough to cast level 9 spells) and BAB 16 (enough for four attacks per round).

If you have access to the Complete Warrior, you replace a level of Wizard or Eldritch Knight with a level of Spellsword.

Right, which is why I included the caveat about the Eldritch Knight.

Quote from: SosthenesDidn't JAGS split mana points into two pools, one for the combat stuff, one for the rest?

Close: there's a "short term" pool you get back every turn and a long term pool that comes back far more slowly.

This means you can do cheap spells (short term or less in cost) all day long (subject to endurance if you are tracking it)--but capital spells--heavy combat spells--require more points than your short term can handle so you use up your long-term spell pool.

This means, in combat, you usually only get a few of them.

-Marco

Lack of multi-classing does not equal archetype enforcement.  From what I've read, I've seen talk of a fighter having spell casting ability if he takes a certain path and gives up something from his fighting ability.  And IIRC, the quote was that a fighter, a fighter w/spells, and a spellcaster would be equivalent in power in combat.

Let the arguments about the definition of archetype enforcement commence.

More details from WotC's 4e Q+A (via ENWorld):

Changes to (Vancian) Magic

QuoteAll classes have defined roles – a fighter is never penalized for being a "tank", a "healer" is never penalized for curing, a mage is never penalized for "magic missiling"

All characters have at will, per encounter, and per day uses they will have to keep track of.
No more mages pulling out crossbows. You will never be penalized for doing what you do best – your clearly defined roles.

...

Vancian magic system – there's an element of that we held on to, but it's a much smaller fraction of their overall power. A wizard will never completely run out of spells. They can run out of their "mordenkainen's sword, however".

Encounters:

QuoteEncounters will be built differently in 4th edition. There will be much more "situation" and complexity in the environment, swinging bridges, gouts of lava, etc. An encounter is like a scene of a play – could be talking to a town guard, could be defending a town gate, could be traversing the mountainside to enter the shrine of Asmodeus.

Sounds good.

QuoteThere will be many more monsters for PC's to fight. It's more fun that way. There are very few encounters that are built to be all the PC's against one big powerful bad guy. There will be more mechanics built to leverage the monsters and THEY'RE fundadmental roles. An ettin will be talking to itself throughout the encounter. This is the "monster's job on the battlefield" this is how he reacts.

Very good idea -- same kind of thing I've been working on.

It's High(er) Fantasy:

QuoteIncrease of magic across the board in all aspects of the game.

Not sure if that means Exalted level... we'll have to see... ;)

QuoteSkill system – familiar but truncated. Getting rid of tailor, rope use, etc. Focus on the skills that are really useful in an encounter. Saga edition is a significant stride forward and should be considered a preview. Same for profression, etc. We want characters making acrobatics, bluff, jump, etc. No characters will be stuck at 10th level saying "oh I never invested in that." Hide/Move Silent are brought together. Now an important part of your character, and here's how to apply it to an encounter. It's rarely a check and done, it's now, I make a check, and they react to it. What happens now.

Probably a big part of why they don't advise conversion...

QuoteLiving Greyhawk – will be coming to a triumphant close next year, and they will be starting fresh with a new batch of characters and players. This will be discussed tonight or tomorrow

BURN

Glad I'm just starting. ;)

QuoteMulticlassing – lots of compelling and interesting choices. A fighter who dabbles in wizard or dabbles in cleric is something compelling, Andy's brother is playing a rogue wizard and he's said in the conversion this is the character I wanted to play all along. The choices and powers are good powers on both sides. Backstab, throw chromatic orb across the room, then teleport across the room. There is no more "crappy fighter" attached to a "crappy wizard".

No niche protection...

QuotePlatform compatability? Starting with PC, because there are more.

Pretty wishy-washy... better get on that cross-platform stuff... especially since it's web based.

QuoteDesign philosophies on races. There is a tiefling on the player's handbook. There may also be a changeling (from Eberron). Design philosophies of races. Mike did all the talking, where there will be a very REAL ACTIVE difference within the races that will really make a difference between the Dwarf Fighter and an Elven Fighter.

I hope you can play a gelatinous cube paladin. :)

More details on the D&D Insider stuff:

Quotethe D&DI client applications will be developed for the PC platform. Two of the D&DI applications use a 3D game engine based on DirectX (The game table and the character builder, both demoed in their prototype version at Gencon). The other applications will be designed for windows, but will not rely on this 3D game engine so that they can be used on lower end platforms (possibly including intel based macs with dual boot). Our recommended specs for the PC platform includes Windows XP SP2, 512MB RAM, AMD XP 2400 + or Intel P4 2.6Ghz, and a graphic card with 128 MB RAM and support of shader 2.0.
We have not yet established our minimum specifications at that time.

No support for the Mac.

Quote from: StuartNo support for the Mac.

They should at least make sure it works with WINE (which could get them on to Linux, too).  I might eventually pay $60 bucks for CrossOver (a commercial WINE implementation for the Mac -- I had fun playing around with it during the demo period) or compile a free version of WINE on my Mac but I'm not buying a copy of Windows to run the handful of Windows programs that I have an interest in running and seem to work just fine under WINE.

It's a(nother) bad decision to promote moving stuff to the web, and then cut off at least 10% of your potential customers.  

If World of Warcraft is the competition, they should note that Blizzard releases for Mac + PC at the same time.

The 4e books might be great, but I think they're really dropping the ball with their Digital Initiative stuff.

our next computer is going to be a mac.  

i'll just have to use blizzard for my d&d computer fix, then.  good job, wotc :mad:

the other 4E changes are sounding more intriguing, tho.  

think they'll do the first printing of the cores at $19.99 like they did with 3.0?  i'd totally pick up a PH then. . . .

Well... you can run windows on the new (intel-based) macs.  So it's still just the PowerPC and Linux people left out in the cold.  Given WotC's track record with software, thought, I'm skeptical about how well the DI is going to turn out.

Quote from: StuartNo support for the Mac.

Son of a whore.

On the other hand, I wasn't wild about the idea paying a monthly fee to use a virtual meeting program with less functionality than Neverwinter Nights (which I use right now, for free).  It looks like they just made my decision easier.

Yeah.

Though I reserve the right to change my mind based on the quality of the new edition, all of the signals, so far, have pointed to me ditching WotC for a while.

Then they announce that Living Greyhawk is ending, and that just about seals the deal for me.

But if their idea is anything along this rules-light-story-first thing, not helped by the fact they chose Living (Forgotten) Realms as the next living campaign and using FR Novel authors for adventure authors, You won't see anything of me except the road-runner cloud of dust.

Quote from: James J Skachthey chose Living (Forgotten) Realms as the next living campaign

Wait, really?  That's actually pretty cool.

The only real concern I have at the moment is "magic increasing across the board." I'm hoping they means spells and the like are more powerful and/or accessible. Anything but the superabundance of trinkets that were necessary in 3E. Iron Heroes and True20 have both spoiled me with scarcity - nowadays I don't think have the stomach for a game where every character needs to be dripping with items in order to function beyond a certain level.

Quote from: DrewThe only real concern I have at the moment is "magic increasing across the board." I'm hoping they means spells and the like are more powerful and/or accessible. Anything but the superabundance of trinkets that were necessary in 3E. Iron Heroes and True20 have both spoiled me with scarcity - nowadays I don't think have the stomach for a game where every character needs to be dripping with items in order to function beyond a certain level.

Actually, one of the things I'd read that the designers were saying was that the "Christmas tree" phenomenon would no longer be so important. Given that Mike Mearls designed Iron Heroes and is lead designer on 4e, my guess is that magic isn't as essential to PC power as it was in 3e.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonActually, one of the things I'd read that the designers were saying was that the "Christmas tree" phenomenon would no longer be so important. Given that Mike Mearls designed Iron Heroes and is lead designer on 4e, my guess is that magic isn't as essential to PC power as it was in 3e.

Yeah, I read that too, although the "across the board" comment could be interpreted as contradictory.

I suppose we'll find out in the upcoming months. It would be ideal for me if magic items were no longer a necessity but a matter of preference. That way you could scale your campaign appropriately based on an artifact rating or somesuch.

I think the new edition is going to be a really great game of a certain kind.

Reading these previews, it seems like even more than 3e they're leaving 'low fantasy' behind for good. Pre-3e D&D was able to do low fantasy, all you had to do was limit magic items and you were pretty much there.

This game is going to be near-Exalted level even with no magic items, it sounds like.

It does seem to be getting further and further away from the actual original feeling of D&D, something that will only be good news to games that try to capture that feeling, like C&C and, dare I say it, FtA!

RPGPundit

I suspect the success of C&C and FtA! may be influencing the decision to move further away from the original feeling of D&D. If D&D remains where it is now - half looking back to old editions, half looking forward to something being completely different - then they're in the position of trying to please everybody while actually pleasing nobody. The grognards will dislike the elements which take the game away from old school D&D, while the "new guard" will find the elements still linked to old school D&D archaic and baffling. It looks very much like they've decided to abandon the grognards entirely and let them fend for themselves under the OGL - something which old school fans, as you point out, have proved themselves very capable of doing.

I don't mind too much - my 4th edition books will take pride of place next to RC D&D, 1st edition AD&D and FtA! on my RPG shelf. :)

Viral marketeering!

Quote from: Stuart...No support for the Mac.

:mad:

Quote from: Calithena... Reading these previews, it seems like even more than 3e they're leaving 'low fantasy' behind for good...

That would be rather depressing.  A lot of the proposed changes sound very cool, but the increase of magical powers across the board is a real turn off.

My excitement has definitely cooled ... :(

More info about 4e.

--------------------------------------------------------

From the WotC website:
"Here are some functional roles that monsters fall into:

Mastermind: These are monsters that are capable of being the "big bad" in an adventure—the guys behind the scenes pulling the strings of all the other monsters. They often have mental powers, spellcasting, and more complexity, but there's no reason they can't be absolute terrors in melee. They're usually smart and social. This is a rewarding category of monster to spend some complexity on, but beware! DMs will often use masterminds in conjunction with brutes and mooks, so there might be a lot on the DM's plate already.

Brute: These are the classic D&D monsters: scary, straightforward melee combatant. Despite our nickname for them, "brute," they aren't necessarily dumb or unsophisticated. They can be intelligent and cultured; if they rely on wading into melee and carving up PCs, then they're brutes. The design challenge here is to create a monster that's interesting (not just "another ogre") but is respectful of the DM's limited processing power.

Mook: These are low-level monsters that function well in groups—and their "groupability" is what separates them from the brutes. We want every mook to have a game-mechanic benefit for grouping up (see the minion section below). This can either be an existing mechanic (sneak attack is a good example of something that works better when you're grouped) or something new you make up.

Lurker: A pretty obvious category. These guys use camouflage, stealth, guile, or magical means to ambush the PCs. Making that "Aha! Gotcha!" moment as compelling as possible at the table is the key to making a good lurker.

Decathlete: These are the monsters that can do it all—strong melee attack, strong ranged attack, and often battlefield maneuverability that the PCs of that level can't easily match. Dragons are the classic example.

Artillery: These monsters have better ranged attacks than melee attacks—think beholder. At higher levels, they often exert some sort of terrain control or use other means to keep PCs at a distance. At low levels, they're just archers or what have you.

Special: What's a category system without a catch-all? For our purposes, specials are monsters that have a primary purpose other than "the next room in the dungeon." New familiars, steeds, helpful monsters, and monsters playable as PC races all fall into this category."

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070727a

----------------------------------------------------------

I'm fine with defined roles along these lines, but i would do it differently than this sort of implies. This implies that each monster type/species/whatever will fill one or more of these roles. I would prefer the monsters to be designed and then a template for each of these types that can be applied to any monster to get the roles mentioned above. Whole species filling the same role just seems kinda silly, although i'm sure that PC classes can be tacked onto them like in 3e.

I want 20 Goblin Mooks, 5 Goblin Lurkers, 2 Goblin Artillery and a Goblin Mastermind. I don't want 28 Goblin Mooks, a couple of whom happen to have a class level or two.

7 templates that can be applied to any monster in the book, give them varying powers depending on the base creature's HD and bingo! This template could be as simple as:

Lurker:
Hit die: d6
Special Abilities - HD 1 Sneak Attack +1d6, Hide +5
                        HD 2-3 S.Attack +2d6 or Invisibility 1/encounter
                        HD 4-6 S.Attack +3d6 or blah, blah, blah
Stats: Dex +2

Well, a bit more than that, but you get what i mean. Monster types by necessity, not by species.

Um, that article's talking about Monster Manual V, a 3.5 product.

Quote from: WarthurUm, that article's talking about Monster Manual V, a 3.5 product.

Ha! That's what you get for blindly believing something posted to ENworld! :o

Quote from: One Horse TownHa! That's what you get for blindly believing something posted to ENworld! :o

I'll bet it demonstrates their thinking for 4e though.

Quote from: SettembriniViral marketeering!

Hey, its my website, I'm allowed.  :D

RPGPundit

(pss, buy FtA!)

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349521&page=13

I think I'm out if this is going to be the tenor of 4e conversations.

I think Bradford nailed it: 4E design is exclusively focused on Teh Encounter. That's the basic unit of play and the basic environment of the gameworld. Everything beyond that will be spun off from its implications or tacked on as an afterthought. That's why what we've read and seen about settings and art is so mushy. In any case, 4E won't be a new game, it will be 3.5 to the max.

Quote from: Calithenahttp://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=349521&page=13

I think I'm out if this is going to be the tenor of 4e conversations.

What I find amusing is how many of the 4E threads on TBP descend into 3E system bickering.

The more I mull over what's been revealed, the more I appreciate the amount of thought that went into the sales pitch for 4.0; this time they're actually hitting the buttons of possible buyers who've previously balked in significant ways, and they're doing a lot better at presenting their solutions than in 1999.  While the gears and mechanisms that make this new model of car run haven't been fully revealed yet, knowing that recent 3.5 products acted as test beds allows me (and others) to seek out those products, look them over and make a well-educated guess as to what the 4.0 game engine will look and act like.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe more I mull over what's been revealed, the more I appreciate the amount of thought that went into the sales pitch for 4.0; this time they're actually hitting the buttons of possible buyers who've previously balked in significant ways, and they're doing a lot better at presenting their solutions than in 1999.  While the gears and mechanisms that make this new model of car run haven't been fully revealed yet, knowing that recent 3.5 products acted as test beds allows me (and others) to seek out those products, look them over and make a well-educated guess as to what the 4.0 game engine will look and act like.

Indeed. The "evoloution not revoloution" tagline coupled with specific source citations makes 4E a far better known quantity than its predecessor.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerThe more I mull over what's been revealed, the more I appreciate the amount of thought that went into the sales pitch for 4.0; this time they're actually hitting the buttons of possible buyers who've previously balked in significant ways, and they're doing a lot better at presenting their solutions than in 1999.  While the gears and mechanisms that make this new model of car run haven't been fully revealed yet, knowing that recent 3.5 products acted as test beds allows me (and others) to seek out those products, look them over and make a well-educated guess as to what the 4.0 game engine will look and act like.

Which is why I just purchased The Book of Nine Swords - even though it's 3.x. I figured that if this is one of the sources from which they drew inspiration, I could guess at the direction of the new system (I already have, and have been slowly reading, SWSE).

I have to say, I don't think it's for me.  But that's a post for another thread.

I've followed this and other 4e threads, checked out the buzz on other sites, borrowed copies of Bo9S and SWSE, watched the videos, etc and I have realized something. I, too, am Wizard's bitch :D . I love this shit. I think 4e sounds frickin' awesome so far, and it might even push True20 into the second fiddle position for me. I also love all this hype and speculation. I love that WotC is loving it, and is gonna rake in the bread (been reading Damnation Decade). I'm a complete and utter sucker, and I'm ok with that. Rock on.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt does seem to be getting further and further away from the actual original feeling of D&D, something that will only be good news to games that try to capture that feeling, like C&C and, dare I say it, FtA!

I've been starting to think this way as well.  :D

I've been favorably impressed with enough teasers that I'm willing to give the stuff I'm less-excited about a try.  I'll certainly be buying the 4e PHB, but it will take some time before I'd be ready to give up any 3.5 games.

-O

Quote from: RPGPunditThe statement was in ANSWER to a question about whether they would announce 4th edition, and it was pretty clearly implicit in their answer that they would NOT release 4e till at least the beginning of 2009.  So they LIED.

More about that infamous quote here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13462905&postcount=130):

Quote from: Scott Rouse on the Gleemax ForumBTW that quote attributed to me at D&D Experience that you reference here was wrong. Most was right except I said we have a lot of great products through the end of the year (2007) not through 2008 as it was attributed. I never corrected it on ENworld because it would have dumped a ton of gas on the 4e rumors.

So they still lied about D&D Experience as the only venue for big announcements?

Because that´s the only one I´m really disappointed about.

Quote from: SettembriniSo they still lied about D&D Experience as the only venue for big announcements?

Because that´s the only one I´m really disappointed about.

"Management of the D&D brand has changed between that statement and this announcement." (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=129738&postcount=150)

Ok, this post is directed at the infamous quote, but I seem to remember to the DDX big announcement statement is even older than that, so RPGObjects_chuck's guess/explanation should cover that as well.

Quote"Management of the D&D brand has changed between that statement and this announcement."

So anytime a company, or perhaps government too, wants to lie and be deceptive and have everyone just blithely accept it, all they need to do is shuffle their staff?

You seriously have no problem with that?  

Sign up for your cellphone at $whatever a month, locking in for 12 months -- woops -- they've got a new sales manager and now they can change the deal on you.  Your phone is no longer supported -- time to buy a new one!  

Prepay for 1 year of extended cable because they tell you that you'll get a big discount plus the Horror Movie Channel and the Motor Sports Channel -- then after a month they swap out programming directors and Surprise! -- you get the cross-stitch channel instead.

I'm not saying this is literally the same situation, so let's no pick nits, but the idea that people shouldn't be annoyed and speak out when companies mislead them into buying products they otherwise wouldn't... that is wrong.

WotC should have said:  "We'll be sure to announce any new edition at least 9 months (or whatever) before it comes out."

WotC made a mistake in how they handled this -- all you need to do to find proof of that is look at the number of people grumbling about it.  That's not building good brand loyalty.  This is significant as they're trying to move to a subscription based revenue model. Whether it's a serious mistake or a minor one, only time will tell.

You know how much of Wizards bitch I am?

They announce 4th Edition - cool with me. But then they announce the end of Living Greyhawk - not so cool.  Then I start hearing rumors about how 4th Edition is going to be, causing me some concerns.

So what do I do?

I go buy Bo9S so I can see what is influencing the new design (I already have Star Wars Saga Edition).

I go buy Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk - cause it's likley to be that last Greyhawk stuff published for a while.

I go buy Magic Item Compendium - to further "complete" my 3.5 collection against the possibility that I'll be in the 3.5 crowd instead of the 4.0 crowd.

Yup - I'm their bitch.

Quote from: StuartSo anytime a company, or perhaps government too, wants to lie and be deceptive and have everyone just blithely accept it, all they need to do is shuffle their staff?

You seriously have no problem with that?

Um, that's what new staff is supposed to do.  What would be the point of hiring new staff and not changing direction?

QuoteSign up for your cellphone at $whatever a month, locking in for 12 months -- woops -- they've got a new sales manager and now they can change the deal on you.  Your phone is no longer supported -- time to buy a new one!  

Prepay for 1 year of extended cable because they tell you that you'll get a big discount plus the Horror Movie Channel and the Motor Sports Channel -- then after a month they swap out programming directors and Surprise! -- you get the cross-stitch channel instead.

I'm not saying this is literally the same situation, so let's no pick nits, but the idea that people shouldn't be annoyed and speak out when companies mislead them into buying products they otherwise wouldn't... that is wrong.

No, because these aren't even in the same ballpark.  WotC didn't have a contract with you to provide X for Y months.  It's not nitpicking to say that your analogies are lacking.

QuoteWotC should have said:  "We'll be sure to announce any new edition at least 9 months (or whatever) before it comes out."

WotC made a mistake in how they handled this -- all you need to do to find proof of that is look at the number of people grumbling about it.  That's not building good brand loyalty.  This is significant as they're trying to move to a subscription based revenue model. Whether it's a serious mistake or a minor one, only time will tell.

Well, I know they severely mis-stepped with the 3.0-3.5 transition.  I mean, that made a lot of people mad, and they lost tons of sales.  It completely trashed the company forever...

oh wait a sec...  No it didn't.  That's just what various posters on the web predicted would happen.

I think predictions that 4e will cause WotC to crash and burn are even more far-fetched.

-O

Quote from: obrynUm, that's what new staff is supposed to do. What would be the point of hiring new staff and not changing direction?

Not exactly.

The staff might change... but the company didn't... and the staff are representing their company, not themselves.  So they need to be careful about what they say on behalf of their company, what has already been said, and what the plans are for future announcements.

Just because the old guy left doesn't mean everything he said on behalf of the company is suddenly null and void.

(I work in a Public Relations office -- I'm not making this stuff up)