From the time of the announcement until now, my feelings have dropped from option 2 to option 3. It's not 'genuine' ambivalence though; i want it to be excellent. More a case of disliking as much as i'm liking what i hear.

As a sidenote: The reaction of all the regulars at the game store has been almost universally negative.
Most of these regulars were around for either the rollout of 3.0 or the switch from 3.0 to 3.5.

 They are just NOT HAPPY about this.

The only people that I have seen that seem to be willing to give it a chance are either fairly young or they got into D&D less than 3 years ago . By-the-way, those two groups are not always the same. A few middle-aged types got into D&D pretty recently or got back into in the last few years.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarThey are just NOT HAPPY about this.

Can you elaborate on the reasons why?

I started out enthusiastic, but became less and less so as time went along. I guess by now I'm ambivalent. On one hand, I'm all for streamlining combat and statblocks (though I do still love statblocks). I like the idea of roles for monsters. I love the Warlock, and think it fills the Sorcerer's role better than the Sorcerer. However, I'm not crazy about the way they've discussed "simplifying" monsters. I also don't like how it seems the designers of 4e make a point of saying that it won't be easy, or even possible, to convert between 3e and 4e. If anything is a deal-breaker for me, it's that right there. Oh, I'm sure I'll buy the initial books, but that last bit is the kind of thing that'll keep me from buying much more.

Quote from: KoltarAs a sidenote: The reaction of all the regulars at the game store has been almost universally negative.

All the regulars, or the regulars that you talk to regularly? I've been a regular at a couple of game shops in the past where I almost never spoke to anyone working there. The reason was often because there were usually a core group of other regulars who stood around and jawed with the staff, and there was never a real opportunity to establish any kind of rapport with any of them, as they seemed more interested in talking amongst themselves. I did happen to notice I was usually actually buying a lot more product than the I saw the jabberjaws buying. And I also happened to notice that the jabberjaws were almost always bitching. One guy that sticks out in memory bitched constantly about how 3e was for munchkins and was for powergamers, but guess what he played? 3e. And yeah, his character was a munched out dual-wielding combat machine. So I tend to take the word of game shop "regulars" with a shaker of salt when it comes to stuff they're "unhappy" about.

WotC's online marketing of 4e has included healthy doses of negativity about 3e and previous editions.  That's not a good way to make people feel positive about a new product.

For example, Apple is releasing the new version of their OS today.  You don't see them saying "Yeah, you remember all those things that were crappy and broken in the last version?  Well we've FIXED them!  YEAH!!!"  They just focus on the positive.  WotC should have done the same -- and still could switch gears.

Does anyone know who WotC has said is the target demographic for D&D 4e?  Is it the same as 3e or have they changed it?  I saw on another site people saying the target was now 10-15 year olds.  Is that true?

Quote from: StuartDoes anyone know who WotC has said is the target demographic for D&D 4e?  Is it the same as 3e or have they changed it?  I saw on another site people saying the target was now 10-15 year olds.  Is that true?

I don't think that's even remotely true.

That sounds like "OMFG THEY DUM DOWN SYSTME!" bitching.

-O

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHowever, I'm not crazy about the way they've discussed "simplifying" monsters. I also don't like how it seems the designers of 4e make a point of saying that it won't be easy, or even possible, to convert between 3e and 4e. If anything is a deal-breaker for me, it's that right there.

I fear you've been misinformed somewhat.

They have stressed that it is perfectly possibly to convert a character form 3E to 4E if you are prepared to undertake a conceptual conversion (i.e. look at what the existing character is capable of doing, what general classes are involved, etc) but that a strict 3E Feat x gives you 4E Feat Y process is doomed to fail since it's simply not feasible to directly convert every 3E Feat in god knows how many sourcebooks into equivalent 4E Feats, etc from day one.

They further recommend that players start with new characters where possible not because it's particularly hard to undertake a conceptual conversion of existing high level 3E characters, but because certain underlying system assumptions have changed, and any conversion undertaken without a decent understanding of the new game balances is likely to be unsatisfactory.

Coversion from 3E to 4E is apparently far simpler than conversion from 2E to 3E which many people managed with little difficulty.

Quote from: obrynI don't think that's even remotely true.

That sounds like "OMFG THEY DUM DOWN SYSTME!" bitching.

-O

Actually, I would have said it was a very smart move.  I think the shift from "Ages 10 and up" to a game primarily targeted at adult gamers was one of the worst things that happened to the game.

Quote from: TrevelyanI fear you've been misinformed somewhat.

They have stressed that it is perfectly possibly to convert a character form 3E to 4E if you are prepared to undertake a conceptual conversion

Conceptual conversion? :confused:

I could do a port to GURPS or Fantasy Hero if I was "prepared to undertake a conceptual conversion". That doesn't sound like it's saying much to me.

This 'conceptual conversion' affair doesn't sound that different from 2e -> 3e to me.

My wizard 12/cleric 12 was potent in 2e, and had been through Dragon Mountain. In 3e, he'd have been eaten alive in there. Splitting your caster levels on a high-level character? Re-tard-ed.

I suspect it's going to be a hodge-podge of primarily internally developed ideas, with little influence from outside the walls of WotC.  It will be almost entirely an evolution of 3.5, with little thought to either the "D&D" on the other side of the equation or what other companies and designers are doing.  

I hope that it will offer satisfying gameplay for 3.5 heads, but my personal agenda is that it be a strong gateway drug.  Sadly, WotC's vendor lock-in marketing strategy doesn't encourage leaving the fold and from what I see so far with 4e, they are continuing down this path.  

I am keeping a closer eye on the digital stuff, because I think that is interesting.  So far, WotC has not demonstrated that they are the company that is going to be making any advances into this field.

Initially, I liked the sound of 4e.  I largely loathed 3e and thought a streamlining would be nice.

Then, the more I hear about 4e, the more it sounds less like streamlining and more like just changing the whole game (sometimes in ways that make sense for the game, other times just to bleed customers for more money).  The 4e I hear being discussed now sounds nothing like what I want out of a D&D game (some of it makes it sound like it will barely seem like a RPG to me).

I realize that opinions will vary and other people like these changes, but for me it's just not what I want in a game.

At the risk of coming across like a semantic asshole, I find the second option, "I still think they might end up spoiling it for me, but in general I have good feelings about the 4E project," to be contradictory for me to vote on.  But I'm comfortable voting for the strongly positive first option.

Though I agree with what Sett wrote in another thread, it would be nice to know what the designers actually LIKE about D&D; current and prior editions.