TheRPGSite

Soon after 4E was announced, Jong started this poll (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7193) to see how we were feeling about it. I was thinking it would be an interesting experiment to post a similar poll, now that the old one's closed, to see if people have changed their minds.

I have added a few more poll options to Jong's model to make it a bit clearer - ISTR in the old thread there were a few people saying "Well, I feel good/bad about it... but I'm not committed yet, so I put myself down as being ambivalent".

I don't have any particularly good reason to "have a bad feeling" but what vexes me is that they seem determined to support their view of the fluff and setting of dnd with the rules themselves. Case in point: the wizard's magic focus objects. What if I don't see wizards like that?
You'd be ight to say "then don't play it like that" but my point isn't so much the changes but the seeming attitude in 4th ed that "we're right and you'll see that we're right".

Your second opinion is almost word for word the response that came to my head when I read the thread title, so...there ya go.

See, I was incredibly disheartened when 3.5 reduced the viability of Command to a list of 5 pre-selected, tactically balanced commands with tactically balanced responses. It ripped the spell's heart out, and I'm worried they'll keep that up.

Quote from: SaskwachI don't have any particularly good reason to "have a bad feeling" but what vexes me is that they seem determined to support their view of the fluff and setting of dnd with the rules themselves. Case in point: the wizard's magic focus objects. What if I don't see wizards like that?
You'd be ight to say "then don't play it like that" but my point isn't so much the changes but the seeming attitude in 4th ed that "we're right and you'll see that we're right".

How is that significantly different from requiring wizards to obtain material components for some of their spells - or, heck, the whole Vancian spellcasting system? Magic systems inevitably involve game designers imposing a particular metaphysical vision on their games by their very nature - you'd never mistake RuneQuest magic or Ars Magica spellcasting for D&D magic, for example.

Really, what do you expect them to say? "We've made some alterations, but chances are some of you will think they're awful?"

Quote from: WarthurHow is that significantly different from requiring wizards to obtain material components for some of their spells - or, heck, the whole Vancian spellcasting system? Magic systems inevitably involve game designers imposing a particular metaphysical vision on their games by their very nature - you'd never mistake RuneQuest magic or Ars Magica spellcasting for D&D magic, for example.

Really, what do you expect them to say? "We've made some alterations, but chances are some of you will think they're awful?"

...
You make a good point.
I completely forgot about the early dnd magic system parallels because to be honest I've never used material components.
I take my specific example back and even tone down my opinion but I still think that attitude is around in the dev team to an uncertain extent. They're doing their best to dustbeat the old dnd carpet but also dyeing it into some odd colours for me.
All in all though, excited and worried at the same time.

I will not know if 4e sucks or not till I play it.

I don't have an option on that poll.

 My reaction?

 I hope enough people like it so that my store and others like it stay in business.
 Where's that option?

 I think a lot of the arguments about it between now and next May might be entertaining.

Best comment I heard related to it is what Zachary the First said at GenCon.


- Ed C.

I went with the second option, which is to say I really like what I've heard so far. Of course there's no way I can call it as a surefire hit or a dead loss until I've read and played it, but so far the omens are good.

Couldn't care less right now. Got too much time/money invested in 3.0 to consider any kind of move until the game is actually out and there are thousands of reviews. Until then - meh.

i took "ambivalent" to equal the "meh" i feel too.  i'm playing other games, and too psyched for BRP and RTT to care about d&d.

The second option. I'm cautiously optimistic. I've not played D&D since 1987 so I'm expecting a lot of it!

But if they want me to buy it, they'd have to do an easy basic version - 4x
- and just one setting book.

strikers, controllers, tieflings, warlocks as PCs, feats - so much to catch up with !

Quote from: KoltarI don't have an option on that poll.

 My reaction?

 I hope enough people like it so that my store and others like it stay in business.
 Where's that option?

If you couldn't care less either way as a player you'd probably want to put yourself down as ambivalent.

On the other hand, if as a gamestore manager you're thinking that they are going the wrong way about it (or, conversely, that they're going the right way about it) in order to win customers for you then you should probably put your opinions down accordingly.

I'm so willing to be won over it's silly.  But I've noted my hesitation in several threads here, so...yeah...there ya go.

I hate the wording on your last choice, but I went with it anyways.

For me, it's more like...
4e could end up being pretty good, mechanically, but still don't think it will be good enough to encourage me to play it over 3.5. I'll play with my friends if need be, but for games I start, it will be 3.5.

(I used to add "I'll pick up the core books" before "I'll play with my friends", but the whole "parse 4e core books out over the years" nixed that plan.)

I like much of what I've seen, and I like most of SWSE (which should be a mechanical precursor of sorts).  They could screw it up, mind you...  But I'm optimistic.  The changes that rub me wrong are mostly fluff, as it stands.  I have yet to see anything mechanical that I think sounds awful.

My main concern is, "Even if I like it, when am I actually going to play it?"  I have an SWSE game that's going strong, after all, and Wilderlands & Arcana Evolved games on the back-burner.

-O

What we need is a poll that doesn't run along the lines of "How often do you beat your wife..."

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat we need is a poll that doesn't run along the lines of "How often do you beat your wife..."

Concur.

Quote from: SeanchaiWhat we need is a poll that doesn't run along the lines of "How often do you beat your wife..."

Well, shit dude, it's only a click of a button to make a poll...

I do have the slim hope that if enough people don't like the new version I can maybe get them to try GURPS 4/e.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarI do have the slim hope that if enough people don't like the new version I can maybe get them to try GURPS 4/e.

Gurps has a 1.4715 version?

Quote from: James McMurrayGurps has a 1.4715 version?

Thats the way its abbreviated over on the Otrange and Fluffy.

 GURPS 4/e = GURPS 4th Edition.



- Edmund C.

There's no rational way to know this project is going to be great unless you are on the inside designing or at least playtesting it.

I'm cautiously optimistic. Most of the changes I've learned about are decent to great. But there's still areas I need to know about before making a decision.

Option 2 all the way, hesitant optimism. There are so many things I do like, that the few things I don't kinda throw me for a loop.

I'm ambivalent, but it's a pretty strong ambivalence.

On the one hand, there are a lot of things about 4e that make it sound like a pretty decent RPG, especially for players. I might even enjoy it.

On the other hand, it's probably the final nail in the coffin of the thing called 'D&D' that I loved and grew up with and hoped one day would last forever.

Really, that thing had already started to die by the eighties, but the hardest fantasy in roleplaying for me to get over has been the fantasy that the adventure would last forever. Good or bad, 3e at least held out the hope of a rebirth, and not just for me. The best 4e can be is something new and good; there's no buzz like there was last time even among the new version's most ardent boosters.

New and good is an honorable thing to be, of course, but D&D was something far more than that.

My ambivalence really has nothing to do with the new edition.  It has more to do with my ambivalence to 3.5.  I can run the same type of adventures using the boxed sets, RC, or Labyrinth Lord.  The only reason I switched from 3.0, that I barely used, to 3.5, that I barely use, is to have the same references as the people I play D&D with.

I'm gonna echo Koltar, here, in a way -- I hope it's lots of fun for a girl or a boy.

I want more gamers, period.  They can develop a taste for old school on their own, if they wanna, but let's get 'em in the hobby first.

There isn't an entry for laughing my ass off.

I want new stuff in my toolbox.

The completes were starting to repeat themselves. (Complete Adventurer... Complete Scoundrel?... What?)
Races of the Dragon, Draconomicon, Dragon Magic... enough already! Savage Species and the half-dragon template are all we ever needed of draconic PCs.
We've got Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, and Expanded Psionics... enough new rule sets.

Honestly, 3.5 could have been finished when they got through with the completes, the races books, the environments series (sandstorm etc), and the books focusing on specific monsters (libris mortis, draconomicon, the fiendish codices... others concerning fey and giants are missing). That plus Unearthed Arcana is all I ever really needed.

A new edition is all they could sell to me at this point and, if anything, I'm hoping to see something new and interesting.

At this point, neither excitement nor apprehension describe my feelings accurately. "Impatience" is a better fit.

No feelings at all. My interest stopped at 2nd edition and my experiences with 3rd and 3.5 have not encouraged me to buy them in anyway.

That said I have really been enjoying the D20 Campaign Settings that have been released by various companies and enjoy Adapting them to my System of choice.

Good luck with 4th

QM

Quote from: KoltarI think a lot of the arguments about it between now and next May might be entertaining.

June. D&D4 will be out June.

http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=209661

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.

Quote from: jgantsInitially, 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).

That's pretty much the way I feel. I'm no fan of 3xE, and 4E sounds different enough that I'll give it a look. And while the whole sensibility of fantasy RPGs has left me in the dust, I may give the system a whirl if 3rd party publishers like Necromancer Games can use 4E to provide game content with a 1E sensibility.

Quote from: PeteThough 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.

Frankly, I don't get this attitude.

My impression is that 4E will be a lot closer to 3E than 3E was to 2E. So there's less reason for today's 3x gamers to feel sleighted by WotC's improvements of 3x than the the millions of 1/2E had to feel sleighted about the move to 3E.

If pointing out the flaws in an earlier edition was such a customer-alienating gaffe, then 3E would have crashed and burned.

But 3e has been widely adopted and its success is ongoing, wherease 2e was really falling apart and losing customers (for many reasons).  So it was okay to bash 2e a bit, but that doesn't work so well with 3e.

Quote from: HaffrungFrankly, I don't get this attitude.

My impression is that 4E will be a lot closer to 3E than 3E was to 2E. So there's less reason for today's 3x gamers to feel sleighted by WotC's improvements of 3x than the the millions of 1/2E had to feel sleighted about the move to 3E.

If pointing out the flaws in an earlier edition was such a customer-alienating gaffe, then 3E would have crashed and burned.

You'll note that I did vote for the strongly positive option, so discussing all the good that D&D 3.5 and prior isn't for my benefit.  But there is a strong internet contingent (that may mean fuck-all in real numbers) who feel that 3e to 4e is as big a departure as 2e to 3e was.  

As a backer of all things 4e, I'll readily admit they stumbled out of the gate with some questionable antics -- such as "only major announcements at Winter Fantasy," and that lame video presentation at the GenCon unveiling to name a couple.  WotC still has some face-saving to do and I think talking about some positives can help.  I suppose you can make a case of "whatever we don't talk about changing is super-fantastic," but something clearly stated than merely being left as assumptions can only benefit the designers, no?

Quote from: Caesar SlaadConceptual 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.

...and if you did that , you could join one of my games quicker.


- Ed C.

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

No, I'm not, especially considering that what you posted is precisely the kind of 4e designer statement I'm talking about. A "conceptual" conversion means nothing, really. Yeah, I realize I can take a character from one game and convert the concept to another game. That I get. There are very few fantasy RPG concepts that wouldn't translate "conceptually" from one fantasy RPG to another. I'm saying that after spending the past 7 years or so creating and collecting stat blocks for a specific game, I don't want to have to toss them all out and start from scratch "conceptually" just because a game goes to another edition, but supposedly uses the same basic framework (the d20 system, in this case).

I wish them all the luck in the world.  I've got my 1st/2nd Edition system developed over the last 25+ years and enough adventures to level a group to 20th level over 3 or so years.  Too bad the new stuff isn't backward compatible.  Guess they don't want my money.

Quote from: SpazmodeusI wish them all the luck in the world.  I've got my 1st/2nd Edition system developed over the last 25+ years and enough adventures to level a group to 20th level over 3 or so years.  Too bad the new stuff isn't backward compatible.  Guess they don't want my money.

Given this post, I can't imagine a product they'd produce which you would buy.

I'm going to bet their cash-from-Spazmodeus account has been running on empty for a good long time, as it is.

-O

In the end, I suppose I'm just disappointed that D&D 4e didn't revert back a bit to be more like AD&D and is instead moving even further away from what I like.

D&D can now join things like comics, music, anime, etc where I only really like stuff that came out prior to the late 90's.  I'm not saying the new stuff is objectively bad, but it just isn't to my tastes anymore.  Yep, I'm definately getting old.

"Not my kind of D&D." :what:

As it happens I played D&D this weekend with my 'once a month' GM at the helm. Not my regularly irregular bunch. These guys have between them just about every single D&D book that has come out in 3E up.

I mention this because one of the other players (the munchikined mage o'doom) brought up 4e. The general tone of conversation? Inevitable. That is, when 4e comes out they will be replacing those massive libraries and switching systems. Not 'Should We?'... just will. These are all guys in their 30's and 40's.

Me? I know there is something I've heard I like, and a few things I've heard I'm abvilent too. That makes it a plus in my book. (Like: Less dependency one magic items. I have had more underpowered characters due to crap magic items than I care to mention (typically, I join mid level games and get nothin'...)

Also: I picked up the drow book, which is gorgeous and a horrid waste of money at the same time... and the monsters within get multipage entries, complete with roles. A sign of how 4e will do it?  Probably.  There are three seperate 'versions' of the Draegoloth, for example.

Quote from: obrynGiven this post, I can't imagine a product they'd produce which you would buy.

I'm going to bet their cash-from-Spazmodeus account has been running on empty for a good long time, as it is.

-O

Actually, I bought a ton of their minis in the last few years.  If they want my money for books, all they have to do is publish adventures and settings with stats for previous editions, but I guess that's too much work for them or something.:confused:

Anyway, sorry about the threadjack.  I hope D&D will be around for a long time in whatever form.

Quote from: SpazmodeusActually, I bought a ton of their minis in the last few years.  If they want my money for books, all they have to do is publish adventures and settings with stats for previous editions, but I guess that's too much work for them or something.:confused:

I wouldn't say it's too much work - it would just implement development hours they don't have, confuse the market by releasing stuff that's wildly incompatible with their current games, and try to make money off something for which there's a small market.

Seriously, that's why WotC came up with the OGL to begin with - so that companies with smaller overheads can make strange, non-mainstream products.

-O

Quote from: ColonelHardissonA "conceptual" conversion means nothing, really. Yeah, I realize I can take a character from one game and convert the concept to another game.

I think they intended for things to be a little more specific than that.

The point made in the podcast was that is is not realistic for WotC to provide conversion rules for every single class, feat, ability, etc. found in the abundance of 3.x books. Since any attmpt at a conversion guide would necessarily be incomplete they have decided not to waste time producing one.

What they have stressed is that if you currently play a level 12 fighter, then it's a simple exercise to create a level 12 fighter under the new system with the same stats and a similar build adjusted for changes to feats, powers, etc as you would expect of a new edition. The only problem being that the 3.x feat 'uber improved smashing attack' might not directly correlate to the 4E feat 'uber improved smashing attack', if such a feat even continues to exist in the enw edition. Hence the player should review the new class abilities, etc and determine which new abilities fill which old gaps.

You will find it harder to directly convert some obscure Hexblade/Sorcerer/Ur-Priest hybrid and be forced to look at the options initially available, thereby requireing more of a conceptual approach.

I don't see why this is a deal breaker or in any way expected when going from a system with a metric fuckton of source books to a revised system with only the three core books.

Quote from: TrevelyanThe point made in the podcast was that is is not realistic for WotC to provide conversion rules for every single class, feat, ability, etc. found in the abundance of 3.x books.

No it wouldn't. What would have been realistic is to make compatibility a priority so conversions and continued use of existing material would be easy.

That they did not is unsurprising, but still, an error.

Without a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

i look forward to turning undead to be a more streamlined process.  the 3.x version seemed a bit too clunky and "legacy" compared to the general d20 mechanic.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadNo it wouldn't. What would have been realistic is to make compatibility a priority so conversions and continued use of existing material would be easy.

Precisely. And that's why the issue is a deal breaker, or at least potentially so. I also don't expect every single prestige class, feat, etc. to be converted over. But I also didn't expect to hear that I'd have to convert that stuff "conceptually," like I'd have to do if I wanted to use a bit from, say, GURPS in a D&D game. That's something of an exaggeration to illustrate a point, but the point remains - backwards compatibility is important to me. If I wanted a completely different game, I'd either buy one or use one of the many others I already have. It just struck me that the 4e designers were being a bit cavalier about the issue, given that 3.x is still a thriving game and hasn't lain moribund for a few years as 2e did.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat they did not is unsurprising, but still, an error.

I have to admit I did find it a bit surprising, and still do. I figured 4e would be more a smoothing out of rough edges found during the past 7 years of field testing, with stuff like the polymorph revision being among the most major parts of the retooling. I wasn't expecting a revamp in which backwards compatibility was effectively deemed unimportant as a goal.

Quote from: James McMurrayWithout a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

I also feel fun should have been the paramount goal. And a lot of what I've read seems like it's gonna be awfully fun. I just didn't think 3.x was as far from the "fun" goal line as the 4e designers seem to think, at least in some regard.

By the way, it may seem I'm expecting 4e to be something that isn't D&D. I'm not. I fully expect it to "feel" like D&D. I'm just quibbling over a few things that I haven't liked the sound of; I may well find all my fears unfounded once 4e arrives.

The real issue with 4.0 is that the business model is broken, IMO. They have to run through the whole cycle of books, which takes 3-5 years, and then they can't count on new product sales any more. A smaller company willing to have an evergreen product and not beholden to the vicissitudes of corporatization could keep publishing more or less the same version of D&D forever, which I would heartily support; but a company beholden to profits pretty much has to do a new edition every few years, because evergreen sales will not reliably yield a yearly increase in profit, which is the 'growth' model demanded by shareholders in publicly traded corporations.

5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

Quote from: CalithenaThe real issue with 4.0 is that the business model is broken, IMO. They have to run through the whole cycle of books, which takes 3-5 years, and then they can't count on new product sales any more. A smaller company willing to have an evergreen product and not beholden to the vicissitudes of corporatization could keep publishing more or less the same version of D&D forever, which I would heartily support; but a company beholden to profits pretty much has to do a new edition every few years, because evergreen sales will not reliably yield a yearly increase in profit, which is the 'growth' model demanded by shareholders in publicly traded corporations.

5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

QFT.  there lies the major beef i have with the whole thing.  the sooner hasbro loses d&d and it becomes small-press (for lack of a better term) the better.  unrealistic, i know.  but i'm allowed to dream.

Quote from: James McMurrayWithout a major overhaul there'd be a lot of "this is just 3.75" backlash. With a major overhaul the backlash is "we can't convert our old stuff."

Me, I'm glad they opted to choose fun over caring about backlash. Whether theie idea of fun matches mine or not remains to be seen.

QFT.

Calithena is on to something with the issue of both WOTC and Hasbro being publically-traded corporations.  The first duty of the CEO is to do everything that he can possibly do to maximize shareholder value, and that usually means making every quarter profitable through never-ending growth.  This insanity is what leads to short-term, narrow-scope and shallow-minded policies intended to achieve such aims.  A smaller, closely-held business is more likely to look for the long-term, to understand exactly what it produces and how it works, and to dedicate the bulk of profits back into internal improvements- to take those profits and reinvest them into the company to improve its capabilities.  

The more that I look at what goes into publishing a tabletop RPG, the more I see that each game is enough work to merit treatment as a business in its own right- and that companies that have more than one game either makes moves meant to make administration easier or changes its configuration such that it becomes more of a gateway entity.  For the former, we have companies using the same system for all products as well as separating lines by brands that act as separate companies.  For the latter, we have companies that are publisher-only and work with developers to bring products to market- thus fostering a publisher/developer splint in the business organization.

I could even live with the 5-year edition cycle. What gets to me is the yearly corebook cycle one reads about. If they pull that one, I'm out, whether or not 4E is significantly better than 3.x, which is unlikely to begin with.

Quote5.0 will be coming in 2012-3 or so, etc. etc. forever, until this business model goes away.

If 4.0 is better than 3.5, and 5.0 is better than 4.0, and 6.0 is better than 4.0, etc... I'll keep buying and be thankful for their dedication to constant improvement.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf 4.0 is better than 3.5, and 5.0 is better than 4.0, and 6.0 is better than 4.0, etc... I'll keep buying and be thankful for their dedication to constant improvement.

sorry, i didn't get into this hobby for constant "updating".  if they want to keep making money, just keep spitting out random miniatures boosters, map packs, and adventures.  world book supplements are fine.  "new & improved!" editions, every few years?  go to hell, do not pass go, etc.  i'll spend my money elsewhere.  :mad:

I think from what I've seen so far Universalis has more in common with my gaming than this does.

Not that I have anything against Universalis, it's just quite far from a normal rpg setup and so seemed a useful comparator.

I wish 4e well, it matters to lots of folks and may bring people into the hobby, but I think if that had been around when I started out I wouldn't have.  The whole trend under WotC has been more towards figures, merchandise and kewl powerz and less towards anything I would actually find rewarding to play.

I'm wait and see. WQ already does most of the things that 4E would supposedly do.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityI could even live with the 5-year edition cycle. What gets to me is the yearly corebook cycle one reads about. If they pull that one, I'm out, whether or not 4E is significantly better than 3.x, which is unlikely to begin with.

People seem to misunderstand this one too.

AFAIK, the "yearly corebook" model will not produce a revised set of core rules each year with the same classes and a few new rules tweaks. What we will be getting is a book like PHB II, DMG II and MM II-V each year. New classes, new feats, etc. New books will add to but not replace old books.

The exisitng publishing schedule already puts out this material, the proposed "corebook-a-year" model will produce the same sort of material but under a different book structure.

As I haven't played D&D for more than a few sessions here and there since 3.0 came out, and since I haven't run it at all since then, and never will again, this has zero effect on me. I really can't comment beyond that. I'm only saying something here since you asked.

Over on the SJG forums in a thread about RPGs and bullies at a Junior High School, Paraj Mandreker posted this :

 

QuoteRe: The Perils Of Old School Gaming

...................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenmas
A lot of times it is people who have no real interest in gaming, so much as they want to play WoW without a computer. I've had really good GMs, who run d20 games with a great deal of story and role-playing. More often than not, the "hack-n-slash" players quit after a few sessions.
...................
Pmandreker's response:

My friend, who is 18 years old, and is part of my D&D 3.5 campaign, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, indicated that he is going to have no part of D&D 4th Edition, precisely because it is going to emphasize the use of computers to play D&D. So, the closer games get to computer gaming, there is apparently a price to pay there as well.

-P. (Paraj Mandreker)

- Ed C.

It's "going to emphasize the use of computers"? That shows a real lack of comprehension. He might as well swear off watching movies because they get put onto DVD eventually, and those can be watched on a computer.

Quote from: beeberi took "ambivalent" to equal the "meh" i feel too.  i'm playing other games, and too psyched for BRP and RTT to care about d&d.

What he said.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIt's "going to emphasize the use of computers"? That shows a real lack of comprehension. He might as well swear off watching movies because they get put onto DVD eventually, and those can be watched on a computer.

i took his comment to mean that the digital initiative element is being misconstrued by some of the potential audience.  if i "needed a computer" to run a game, i wouldn't play it.  all i should need is a book (or books), dice, pencils, and paper.  

i know the DI stuff is considered optional.  i'm sure there are others like the "friend" mentioned above who are thinking otherwise, and that's another strike for WotC's implementation.

Quote from: TrevelyanPeople seem to misunderstand this one too.

AFAIK, the "yearly corebook" model will not produce a revised set of core rules each year with the same classes and a few new rules tweaks. What we will be getting is a book like PHB II, DMG II and MM II-V each year. New classes, new feats, etc. New books will add to but not replace old books.

The exisitng publishing schedule already puts out this material, the proposed "corebook-a-year" model will produce the same sort of material but under a different book structure.

That is exactly how I understand it too. Where we part ways is in me calling it a steaming pile of shit not worthy of my cash.

I think frankly that it sounds like bollocks, and that I don't understand how anyone who actually liked and enjoyed 3.x could even be looking forward to it at all given what they've said about either edition publicly, and who they've chosen to lead its development.

The whole thing is a fucking fiasco that amounts to allowing someone to hijack the game and rewrite it to suit their own person whims and houserules, and with a hearty dose "fuck off, we don't want you" to anyone who dares criticize it.  

Hiring from the D20 aftermarket for your designers was a mistake, because it's full of swinish cunts with their own little set of pet houserules they like to crow about as being "better than D&D", and now, that's what 4e is going to be.  It's not going to be D&D, it's going to be "better than D&D" in the same way that Iron Heroes, True 20, and Castles and Crusades are:  Not really better except to a handful of bitter, elitist jackholes who like to shit on the game everyone else was having fun just fine with.

But, eh.  I've gone beyond caring at this point.  It's simply the new reality.  The 3e D&D that made me love TRPGs again will still be around, the damn things free now, plus we've got two editions of NWN built on it with massive mod communities behind them to ensure they will continue to be visible for a long time.  I

Quote from: J ArcaneThe whole thing is a fucking fiasco that amounts to allowing someone to hijack the game and rewrite it to suit their own person whims and houserules, and with a hearty dose "fuck off, we don't want you" to anyone who dares criticize it.

Sir, your table at Dragonsfoot is ready.

Actually, they're not interested in  "3tards" over there, hell they closed a thread because it talked about CoC d20- there wasn't even any flaming going on in it.

Quote from: beeberi took his comment to mean that the digital initiative element is being misconstrued by some of the potential audience.  if i "needed a computer" to run a game, i wouldn't play it.  all i should need is a book (or books), dice, pencils, and paper.  

i know the DI stuff is considered optional.  i'm sure there are others like the "friend" mentioned above who are thinking otherwise, and that's another strike for WotC's implementation.

I took the comment the same way, but I'm less inclined to believe that it's WotC's mishandling of the situation that causes the confusion. I think it's simply a matter of people who only do a half-assed job of looking into anything, and simply make a snap judgment based on something they heard from someone else who heard something. :shrug: I mean, there were people still referring to the publisher of D&D as TSR years after WotC bought 'em out, and all it would have taken was for them to actually, y'know, look at any given D&D book to see the Wizards logo to understand that TSR was no longer in the picture. I'd ask Koltar for more info, but he never answers any question I put to him, so I assume I'm on his ignore list.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI assume I'm on his ignore list.

I'm not, and I can't imagine anyone would pay attention to me and ignore you- seriously.

colonel--

tsr ref?  you get used to something, it sticks.  you keep reflexively referring it the same way.  it takes a while to learn the new nomenclature unless you refer to something constantly.

wotc's mishandling it in the sense of constantly (as i've seen or heard it, others YMMV) referring to the DI.  that implies a certain link from comp to game.  it doesn't matter if it's "optional", others will make the connection and simply assume its necessary.  

as far as "a half-assed job of looking into anything", well that's how most things work these days.  and that's also where customer referrals come from, too.  if someone in a gaming group has an unfavorable experience with system "x", then he'll pass that on to his group.  instant negative publicity, right or wrong.  

sorry, didn't mean to be snarky about it.  but the market and the public aren't logical, are they?

I probably already said a version of this - but most of my store's customers that mention it seem a little wary or on edge about it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: HaffrungSir, your table at Dragonsfoot is ready.

No, not really. We don't include 3.x under the "old school" label over there.

Quote from: MelanNo, not really. We don't include 3.x under the "old school" label over there.

Yeah, I know. Just alluding to the bitter attitude in common, where a new edition wounds like a personal attack.

We're all free now. D&D (the game we all play together) is dead, long live D&D (the game we make up for ourselves using something or other with the D&D name on it as a basis).

Quote from: HaffrungYeah, I know. Just alluding to the bitter attitude in common, where a new edition wounds like a personal attack.

A new edition is not a personal attack.  

Actual personal attacks are.  David Noonan made it pretty plain the game they're playing over there, and I want no fucking part in it, or anything to do with such a condescending asswidget.

Did my part in spreading my disdain for the 4e marketing model at the D&D gameday yesterday. Nuturing that "future installed player base". :win:

Yesterday I asked my co-worker Noelle this same question based on how our customers reacting. What has she noticed from the shifts that she works when 4th edition D&D gets mentioned in conversation. Her answer?

 "Annoyed, they seeme annoyed." she continued, "They just spent all this money on 3.5 3.o D&D books for the past several years, and now Wizards expects them to spend money replacing all of that. "

Don't remember her exact words after that, but she also some of them are a bit angry about it.

She's been with our store since this past June.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar"Annoyed, they seeme annoyed." she continued, "They just spent all this money on 3.5 3.o D&D books for the past several years, and now Wizards expects them to spend money replacing all of that. "

Bizarre.

Quote from: DrewBizarre.

It's pretty much the reaction that a lot of people had about 3.5.  The important question is whether they are annoyed enough not to buy 4E.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's pretty much the reaction that a lot of people had about 3.5.

Yep. I found that bizarre, too.

QuoteThe important question is whether they are annoyed enough not to buy 4E.

Most strange of all is that the majority of them probably will. They'll bitch, they'll moan, and a year from now will be quietly playing it regardless.

It's an attitude I've never really sympathised with, to be honest. It implies that Wizards are casting some kind of preternatural compulsion to update. Either you buy it or you don't, and that's cool, but please stop telling me that your arm is being twisted.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's pretty much the reaction that a lot of people had about 3.5.  The important question is whether they are annoyed enough not to buy 4E.

This is a drop in the bucket compared to the outcry raised by 3e. People bitched, then switched. Shrug.

Personally, I don't care who is bitching or how many. I care about what kind of game 4e is - I won't be playing it angry geeks on the intraweb, I'll be playing with my own group.

Seanchai

Quote from: Koltar"Annoyed, they seeme annoyed." she continued, "They just spent all this money on 3.5 3.o D&D books for the past several years, and now Wizards expects them to spend money replacing all of that. "

WotC/Hasbro is really only interested in you, the gamer, spending your money on their products.  They are not interested in pleasing you as a gamer.  They are interested in creating the perceived need to buy more of their products at whatever price they set.

Make no mistake -- theirs is a business, not a hobby.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWotC/Hasbro is really only interested in you, the gamer, spending your money on their products.  They are not interested in pleasing you as a gamer.  They are interested in creating the perceived need to buy more of their products at whatever price they set.

What flummoxes me is how many people this strategy actually works on. I suppose the call to conformity mixed with the shininess of the new is too much for some.

QuoteMake no mistake -- theirs is a business, not a hobby.

Agreed.

Quote from: DrewWhat flummoxes me is how many people this strategy actually works on. I suppose the call to conformity mixed with the shininess of the new is too much for some.

Because it couldn't be that tons of people are actually having fun with WotC's games. Right?

Quote from: James McMurrayBecause it couldn't be that tons of people are actually having fun with WotC's games. Right?

I'm not talking about them.

Quote from: James McMurrayBecause it couldn't be that tons of people are actually having fun with WotC's games. Right?

Someone's out there having fun with 4e?  I don't recall seeing it on the shelves anywhere, and even my pathetic LGS would at least stock a few copies of that I should think.

I said WotC's games, not 4e. Nobody is buying any 4e, shiny or not, so if we're only allowed to talk about that you can nullify the post I was replying to as well.

But apparently there are people having fun with it, since we're getting playtest reports from people who sound really excited.

Quote from: James McMurrayI said WotC's games, not 4e. Nobody is buying any 4e, shiny or not, so if we're only allowed to talk about that you can nullify the post I was replying to as well.

But apparently there are people having fun with it, since we're getting playtest reports from people who sound really excited.

I'm sure there are plenty of people liking the products, and that will like the new product.

That said, I think Drew's point was there are a lot of people who say things like "Well, I don't really like the direction they are heading but it's the new edition of D&D so I'll probably still buy the core books"  OR  "I just spent a ton on 3.5 and am still having fun with it, but now that 4e is coming out I guess I'll have to re-buy everything".

Clearly there are a not-insignificant number of people out there who feel compelled to buy the new edition, regardless of whether or not they actually think they'll like it or really even want it right away.

I imagine that what tends to happen is that a large number of people who claim that the current edition of any game is fine and that they hate the mere possibility of a new version actually find the new version quite appealing when it comes out. They don't buy it because they feel compelled, they buy it because, by and large, they realise that all of their prior objections were knee-jerk, reactionary whining and they have more sense than to feel bound by them. The real question is how many of them will have the balls to admit this after the fact, how many people will refuse to play a game that they might enjoy on siome twisted principle, and how many people will try a new edition with an openmind and genuinely find that it doesn't suit them?

Quote from: jgantsClearly there are a not-insignificant number of people out there who feel compelled to buy the new edition, regardless of whether or not they actually think they'll like it or really even want it right away.

At least part of what makes people compelled to upgrade is the same thing that makes people feel compelled to upgrade various software that they use.  First, when a new version comes out, the old version eventually loses support.  Second, as other people start to use the new version that is incompatible with the old version, a person with the old version will become cut off from the people using the new version (the whole "network externality" thing).  So even someone who is quite happy with 3.5 might feel compelled to upgrade if they want to use the new source material and adventures coming out for 4E and to play with other people in their area who have switched.  Further, if the DM of a group insists on going 4E, they can often drag their players along for the ride, even if they are pretty happy with what they have.

Quote from: TrevelyanI imagine that what tends to happen is that a large number of people who claim that the current edition of any game is fine and that they hate the mere possibility of a new version actually find the new version quite appealing when it comes out. They don't buy it because they feel compelled, they buy it because, by and large, they realise that all of their prior objections were knee-jerk, reactionary whining and they have more sense than to feel bound by them. The real question is how many of them will have the balls to admit this after the fact, how many people will refuse to play a game that they might enjoy on siome twisted principle, and how many people will try a new edition with an openmind and genuinely find that it doesn't suit them?

Fuck you too.

Quote from: jgantsThat said, I think Drew's point was there are a lot of people who say things like "Well, I don't really like the direction they are heading but it's the new edition of D&D so I'll probably still buy the core books"  OR  "I just spent a ton on 3.5 and am still having fun with it, but now that 4e is coming out I guess I'll have to re-buy everything".

Clearly there are a not-insignificant number of people out there who feel compelled to buy the new edition, regardless of whether or not they actually think they'll like it or really even want it right away.

The main thrust of my point was criticizing the people whom complain about being strongarmed into updating and then go ahead and get it anyway.

Personally I'll be buying 4E, mainly because I really like what I've heard of it so far. If others dislike like the stuff outlined in the previews and decide not to purchase then I can respect that. Just don't whine about being coerced. There's always a choice, especially when it comes to something as ephemeral as what games you decide to play.

Quote from: jgantsI'm sure there are plenty of people liking the products, and that will like the new product.

That said, I think Drew's point was there are a lot of people who say things like "Well, I don't really like the direction they are heading but it's the new edition of D&D so I'll probably still buy the core books"  OR  "I just spent a ton on 3.5 and am still having fun with it, but now that 4e is coming out I guess I'll have to re-buy everything".

Clearly there are a not-insignificant number of people out there who feel compelled to buy the new edition, regardless of whether or not they actually think they'll like it or really even want it right away.

Define "not-insignificant" and I might agree.

My opinion: the vast majority will switch to 4.0 because that's where the action will go, support for 3.5 will instantly fall to insignificant, the local stores will quickly jump ship to stay with the gravy train, and those left will either fall away from the community (if not the hobby) or suck it up and switch to stay in the game.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerMy opinion: the vast majority will switch to 4.0 because that's where the action will go, support for 3.5 will instantly fall to insignificant, the local stores will quickly jump ship to stay with the gravy train, and those left will either fall away from the community (if not the hobby) or suck it up and switch to stay in the game.

Alternatively a small but thriving 3.5 community may spring up, keeping the home fires burning with sites similar to Dragonsfoot.

Quote from: DrewAlternatively a small but thriving 3.5 community may spring up, keeping the home fires burning with sites similar to Dragonsfoot.

Like...say...//www.d20haven.com - or something. :D

Man I wish I didn't have so much work so I could get back to that site and finish up the unification process....

"So, you can be a half-demon ninja warlock or a swashbuckling hobbit chaos druid"

"What, is this Rifts? Can't I just be a fighter ?"

"Sorry but that's not k3wl or buffed enough for 4e - you'll be up against dragon-blooded half-orc spider-cultists with obsidian apocalypse knives. It's totally hardcore."

"Does this mean I have to read stuff?"

"Don't be silly, there's a podcast. Oh and by the way the other players are online, so you can stay at home. They're in Sardinia, Ramsbottom and Belize"

"Oh"

That staying at home part is a big turn-off right there.
Can't get a back rub from nice looking gamer girl if she is at a different location.

Quote from: Sean"So, you can be a half-demon ninja warlock or a swashbuckling hobbit chaos druid"

"What, is this Rifts? Can't I just be a fighter ?"

"Sorry but that's not k3wl or buffed enough for 4e - you'll be up against dragon-blooded half-orc spider-cultists with obsidian apocalypse knives. It's totally hardcore."

"Does this mean I have to read stuff?"

"Don't be silly, there's a podcast. Oh and by the way the other players are online, so you can stay at home. They're in Sardinia, Ramsbottom and Belize"

"Oh"

that's it!  that's what was bugging me about 3.x, reading dungeon adventures!  it came off as rifts-esque, with all the templates and huge statblocks, and k3wl p0w3rz that required tons of books to understand!

thank you, sean!

one rifts in the gaming world is quite enough, thank you very much.

Quote from: Sean"So, you can be a half-demon ninja warlock or a swashbuckling hobbit chaos druid"

I bet the adventures written for such characters don't take the badass beginners into consideration:-

"So my psionic Eladrin battlemage enters the cavern"

"Whereupon an Ogre, 4 Orcs and a Chaos Smurf burst from the shadows from different directions. You are surrounded. "

"Big deal, I draw the fabled fiery runesword of Minguz while summoning the demon bound within my mithril codpiece to add his blessing. Potentially how much damage would I do if I attack."

"Er, anyone got any more dice ?"

(or maybe the published adventure will require your character to be a total full-metal badass at Level 1 in order to play it)

Hell, with a bit of thought you can probably do a servicable job of converting Rifts to D&D 3.5.  (Lots of templates and use of corner-case materials like Magic of Incarnum required.)

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerHell, with a bit of thought you can probably do a servicable job of converting Rifts to D&D 3.5.  (Lots of templates and use of corner-case materials like Magic of Incarnum required.)

nah, i'd convert it the other way, keeping things all old-school with obscure tables and arbitrary power delineations.  balance schmalance!

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI love the Warlock, and think it fills the Sorcerer's role better than the Sorcerer.

Lots of people love the Warlock, just like lots of people loved playing superheroes, psionics, Jedi, etc. for decades before the Warlock came to D&D.

The pop-culture notion of a paranormal power is something that doesn't run out of ammo in the first five minutes and leave the user useless and bored for sixteen hours.  The pop-culture notion of a wizard is not somebody who's useful from 09:00 to 09:05 and a burden on his friends for the rest of the day.

Gygax had unusual talent to be able to sell people on glass-cannon, low-ammo wizards, but the basic idea is quite contrary to the general notion of a wizard.  As long as people have known about Gygaxian wizardry, most of them have been trying to get away from it, back to something that resembles folklore and fiction.

The trick is that as long as 3.x has existed, I've been interested in how to fix the problem, how to make wizards useful.  The Warlock and the reserve spell feat both do a lot.  If they had given me the reserve spell feat in 2000, I'd still be playing 3.x and teaching it to others.  They didn't, I got GURPS in the meantime, and it's easier to emulate any fun aspects of D&D in GURPS than it is to buy D&D books and figure out how to use them and teach them to my players.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaWotC/Hasbro is really only interested in you, the gamer, spending your money on their products.  They are not interested in pleasing you as a gamer.  They are interested in creating the perceived need to buy more of their products at whatever price they set.

Make no mistake -- theirs is a business, not a hobby.

I think there is definitly a difference between how WotC operates and how a small company operates.

That being said, I think these differences are overstated. At the end of the day, WotC/Hasbro (so far) have offered roleplaying games that aren't much different from other RPGs, at prices that aren't much different from other RPGs and under a model that's not much different from other RPGs.

They were also a leader as far as open content/free licensing in this smallish industry.

They're definitly bigger than the competition but they aren't very different from other companies.

Quote from: riprockThe pop-culture notion of a paranormal power is something that doesn't run out of ammo in the first five minutes and leave the user useless and bored for sixteen hours.  The pop-culture notion of a wizard is not somebody who's useful from 09:00 to 09:05 and a burden on his friends for the rest of the day.

The pop culture idea of a wizard assumes a reasonably powerful individual which first level D&D characters are not. A wizard, started at about 6th or 7th level, has an arsenal of spells which could replicate, or out-perform a "TV show" type spellcaster without breaking a sweet. It is funny how many of D&D's supposed "flaws" just aren't there if you don't start the party as apprentices.

OTOH, I must commend you for doing the right thing and choosing another game when you discovered D&D wasn't for you.

Quote from: Sean"So my psionic Eladrin battlemage enters the cavern"

"Whereupon an Ogre, 4 Orcs and a Chaos Smurf burst from the shadows from different directions. You are surrounded. "

"Big deal, I draw the fabled fiery runesword of Minguz while summoning the demon bound within my mithril codpiece to add his blessing."

Damn! I think you just sold me on 4e! Teh gonzo rulz!

Quote from: Sean"So, you can be a half-demon ninja warlock or a swashbuckling hobbit chaos druid"

"What, is this Rifts? Can't I just be a fighter ?"

"Sorry but that's not k3wl or buffed enough for 4e - you'll be up against dragon-blooded half-orc spider-cultists with obsidian apocalypse knives. It's totally hardcore."

Dude, exactly. This is what I already despised about 3.x, and its only been ramped up to 11 with the new edition.  Nothing is just a fighter anymore; no, a fighter has to have psionics, cast "battle spells" and eventually must multiclass as a Ninja-warlock or something or else he'll get his ass kicked.

That's why my own FtA! is archetypal. Classes are classes. I'm SICK TO FUCKING DEATH of prestige classes and of classes being ramped up.

To me, the minute that D&D started to suck was when some fuckface decided that every class had to have magic (or spell-like abilities, or combat maneuvers that worked like spells), and that every class had to get some kind of kewl power at every single level.  That immediately meant the death of the regular thief, the regular fighter, and even the regular wizard.

RPGPundit

Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 4e have both humans and a 30 level base class fighter? Sure, it may offer the option to play a half-illithid chaos smurf psionic warrior, but nothing I've seen forces it.

Chaos smurfs are teh hot.

Quote from: AosChaos smurfs are teh hot.

Nah, chaos smurfettes are teh hot. Although once you cross a certain chaos threshold it gets kinda hard to tell the difference.

I just listened to the most recent D&D podcast where Merles and Noonan interview a couple of their playtesters about their characters.

It sounds like they have a World of Warcraft inspired "Aggro" system in the game.

Actually, there are frequent WoW comparisons and references that continue to pop up...

I read one of the R&D blogs where the dude says they tried out that Aggro malarky in playtesting but have dismissed it since.

That WOTC form FREAKS ME OUT - all those bitter tears from 22 yr old grognards

If there is an aggro system it'll almost certainly be dropped if I run. I can't picture one that would work well for a tabletop game. If it's complex enough to cover lots of scenarios it's probably too clunky to use. If it's not very complex, it's not going to be useful outside of "does the orc care if his door just opened" and I don't need a rule to tell me that.

wtf is an Aggro system?

I just had to find the same thing, Haffrung. Seems it's a system that determines how the enemy will react - say, focusing attacks on the one seen as the greatest threat.  At least, that's what I drew from the couple of things I looked at....

so I'm all ears for a definition from someone in the know....

Quote from: James McMurrayCheck me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 4e have both humans and a 30 level base class fighter? Sure, it may offer the option to play a half-illithid chaos smurf psionic warrior, but nothing I've seen forces it.

Well, let's look at 3e. In 3e you had humans, and you had the Fighter class that went up all 20 levels.

However, what stopped you from playing it was the fact that you'd be pathetically weaker than someone who was a multiclass fighter/shadowknight/Gladiator/Assasin/Guardian of Oa.

At first glance, it appears that 4e's intended "solution" for this will be that they'll have a class called "Fighter", but it will feature spell-like attacks and superpowers at higher levels. So, not really a fighter at all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartI just listened to the most recent D&D podcast where Merles and Noonan interview a couple of their playtesters about their characters.

It sounds like they have a World of Warcraft inspired "Aggro" system in the game.

Actually, there are frequent WoW comparisons and references that continue to pop up...

WTF is an "aggro"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Haffrungwtf is an Aggro system?

In most MMO combat systems, player actions generate "threat", based roughly on the amount of damage they do, or heal, as well as other actions, plus the rrelative levels of the mob and a given party member.  Generally speaking, an enemy will go towards the party member with the most threat.  

However, there are usually abilities in the domain of the fighter/tanker type characters, that allow a character to generate threat directly, thus ensuring the mob pays attention to him, and only him, keeping the heat off the squishier guys like rogues and healers and mages and so forth.  

It's essentially a very simple AI system designed to make up for not having a real GM at the table.  

There are actually abilities similar to this already in a few of the 3.x classes, as well as some 3rd party material, and in theory, it's actually not a bad ides, though I wouldn't actually codify them in the form of an actual "threat system" or any such thing like that, because that would be an utter mountain of extra paperwork for no use whatsoever.

But I have found myself in combat scenarios in large open spaces where there really wasn't any way to control the battlefield enough to ensure the orcs don't just walk aroudn the fighter and start beating the sorceror about the head with his own limbs.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's essentially a very simple AI system designed to make up for not having a real GM at the table.  

Sounds like WotC's ideal D&D system is a game that plays without a DM.

Quote from: HaffrungSounds like WotC's ideal D&D system is a game that plays without a DM.

As I've said before, I think that's true from the perspective that 4e is a step in a long process wherein the end result is a computer-facilitated game (not MMO, people).

To do that, you have to start considering the parts of the game that are, in play, still DM controlled - like how opposition will react. In the end, the GM will set up the adventure/setting and let the software do the rest (refereeing when necessary).

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

You know what I'm actually pretty bothered by?

Eladrin as a playable race. Why? I mean... what does an Eladrin bring to the table? "I'm an elf, only elfier!" I dunno... just kinda bugs me.

Quote from: RPGPunditAt first glance, it appears that 4e's intended "solution" for this will be that they'll have a class called "Fighter", but it will feature spell-like attacks and superpowers at higher levels. So, not really a fighter at all.

As long as they stick to maneuvers instead of spells (and in more than just name), they'll be fighter enough for me. I love Tome of Battle, so won't be in the slightest bit upset to see ideas from there pour into the core rules.

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, exactly. This is what I already despised about 3.x, and its only been ramped up to 11 with the new edition.  Nothing is just a fighter anymore; no, a fighter has to have psionics, cast "battle spells" and eventually must multiclass as a Ninja-warlock or something or else he'll get his ass kicked.

That's why my own FtA! is archetypal. Classes are classes. I'm SICK TO FUCKING DEATH of prestige classes and of classes being ramped up.

To me, the minute that D&D started to suck was when some fuckface decided that every class had to have magic (or spell-like abilities, or combat maneuvers that worked like spells), and that every class had to get some kind of kewl power at every single level.  That immediately meant the death of the regular thief, the regular fighter, and even the regular wizard.

RPGPundit

I don't like most prestige classes. :( The whole point of taking one for most people is so they can be more powerful than a "non-prestige" character of equal level, and yet only pay the same amount of xp when leveling up.

Also, I'm fine with warrior-type character classes having supernatural powers, as long as it's understood that said characters with such classes are rare as NPCs. As far as I'm concerned, most sword-jockeys should be renegade fighters, rogues, and barbarians with NO supernatural powers.

Paladins, rangers, monks, and psychic warriors should be rare. That's the way I see it.

Quote from: beejazzYou know what I'm actually pretty bothered by?

Eladrin as a playable race. Why? I mean... what does an Eladrin bring to the table? "I'm an elf, only elfier!" I dunno... just kinda bugs me.

What are eladrin? I googled it, and I'm still confused. I probably read about them in some sourcebook somewhere, but I'm just not remembering....:confused:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambWhat are eladrin? I googled it, and I'm still confused. I probably read about them in some sourcebook somewhere, but I'm just not remembering....:confused:

Thus far they've been celestials on the CG planes, and kinda elf-themed. Now they're in the feywild, might be fey, and are a playable race. I'm just stuck wondering why, myself.

"Aggro" is short for "aggression".  It's a term of jargon meant to succinctly say that a given MMO player is the target of a NPC.  As noted above, this is due to technical difficulties in current MMO design--things that also include players and NPCs being to run through each other, making area denial tactics or terrain control tactics difficult or impossible to implement--and the use of this mechanic is a means to work around the issue.

When in combat, a NPC maintains a Threat Table.  This is a dynamic table and on that list are enemy NPCs and players; the character at the top of the list is also the NPC's target.  Different actions generate different threat values; in WOW (and other MMOs) this can be tracked through a third-party UI add-on.  For WOW, various classes have class abilities that can directly alter the place on the threat table for that character; this can be up or down, permanent or temporary.  Warriors have Taunt, meant to take the warrior to the top of the table immediately--"gaining Aggro"--and thereby attract the NPC's attention; other Warrior abilities can then come into play to build on this quickly so that others don't supplant the warrior (i.e. "rip Aggro").  Priests have Fade, which removes the priest entirely from the table for a few seconds before return to his former position; this is meant to allow a Warrior, Druid (Bear form only) or Paladin to move in and supplant the priest on the table quickly.  There are also modifiers to threat generated (+ or - X%, innate to the class or gained by Talent point expenditure).

This sort of thing is entirely unnecessary for a tabletop RPG, which is why I do not expect that such a thing would ever become part of 4.0's final version.

In fact, they rejected an aggro system for 4e rather quickly. And referred to it as an 'aggro system' in direct response to someone asking about 'aggro systems'.

Now, don't let me interrupt you gentlemen describing the elephant or anything.

Quote from: Christmas ApeIn fact, they rejected an aggro system for 4e rather quickly. And referred to it as an 'aggro system' in direct response to someone asking about 'aggro systems'.

Got a link? I'd be interested to see how that discussion went.

Quote from: beejazzThus far they've been celestials on the CG planes, and kinda elf-themed. Now they're in the feywild, might be fey, and are a playable race. I'm just stuck wondering why, myself.

probably to balance against the tieflings.

Quote from: beeberprobably to balance against the tieflings.

Tieflings I'm meh about*, but if you wanted to counterbalance them, why not use aasimar?

I'm just kind of nonplussed by their selection of new races overall, now that I think of it.

*"Evil" PCs that aren't really evil? Don't we now have the warlock as core already? Wouldn't drow have more appeal to fans? Wouldn't eschewing half-orcs in favor of... you know... orcs be a better idea overall? Hell, instead of a new goodie and a new baddie, let's just include the warforged... coolest playable race added to 3.x that didn't appear previously.

I suppose that I'm one of those gamers who likes shiny and new regardless of past preferences.  I just don't have any game loyalty even if I've invested lots into a particular game.  I am really looking forward to what the designers are talking about delivering.

It's not like the mass of 3.5 is just going to disappear.  The game is incredibly successful - I would guess that it's one of the most, if not the most, successful incarnation of the game yet.  Do you really need WotC's constant support to have fun with it?

That being said, I still picked option number 2.  Overall I'm optimistic, but I have this funny feeling that they're going to do something that'll turn me off of the game.  Don't know what, but there's been that something in every incarnation of DnD that eventually gets my dander up and I'm off looking for a game more to my tastes and I don't expect that to change.  But you never know... this could be the DnD that actually gets me to play DnD for a long period of time.

Bring on 4e!  Bring on the new blood.

i don't mind the shiny and new thing.  i guess i'm just being cranky.  to me, and some very important formative memories in gaming, d&d means certain things, relating to moldvay B/E and later ad&d 1.  i skipped 2e, and played other games like traveller.  when 3.0 came out, i tried it.  it was neat, but to me it was "like" d&d.  there were similarities to stuff i remembered, some neat new stuff, some "i don't know. . . :raise: " stuff.  as i migrated to .5, i became more disillusioned with the whole thing.  it was a new thing, a game called "d20" that i could follow, and "get," but it wasn't d&d to me, so i stopped.  

this new version is appearing to be even less like d&d to me.  no one in my group is expressing any interest, so it's highly likely that i won't play it either.  hell, if i end up leaving borders, i probably won't even buy the new PH, even if they do the $20 intro version like they did with 3.0.  

that said, i hope it does well.  i hope it brings new folks into the hobby.  i hope it brings new blood to gaming tables, face to face.  but if someone wants to play D&D, they'll have to go back many years.  i'll pull out my moldvay stuff, and we'll do it the old way.

So, eladrin are High Elves and elves are Wood Elves now?

Quote from: James McMurrayGot a link? I'd be interested to see how that discussion went.

Wizards Thread (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14289274#post14289274).
Mearls' Post. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14289274&postcount=15)

Mmmm. Actually this is were I leave the bus. The way they discuss aggro is showing of how much they are looking into WoW.

But I might even DM this. For newbies and converts. So I hope they really pull this off and make a game that is attractive to teenagers and WoWers (which are older, mind you). Because it already sucks as D&D, it better be good at being the big Converter and bringer of new players.

Frankly, I'm vaguely unsettled by 4e because not only are they changing the rules for the game, but it sounds like they're changing the D&D meta-setting and cosmology as well.

If the rules are significantly different, and the implied setting is significantly different, then it isn't D&D any more, aside from the brand. The core rules of 3e were drastically different from previous editions, but the important basics were intact. The planar cosmology was essentially intact, Vancian magic was alive and well, the nine-level spell system continued chugging on, we still rolled our saving throws, it was never taken for granted that core campaigns were thickly populated by PCs taking the form of quasi-Judeo-Christian earthly representatives in the form of eladrin and tieflings, and of course, we had our precious class, level, ability score, and hit point system.

It sounds like 4e will drastically change this to the point that's it's just some random fantasy game, rather than D&D. I never thought I'd say or even think something like this, and thought I'd accept a new edition wholeheartedly, but frankly, the bits I've seen make me feel disappointed. :(

At this point, Warhammer almost feels more like D&D to me than 4e. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambFrankly, I'm vaguely unsettled by 4e because not only are they changing the rules for the game, but it sounds like they're changing the D&D meta-setting and cosmology as well.

I assume that for "D&D" above we should read "Planescape", since the whole metasetting/cosmology bit was a Planscape invention that jars badly with several other settings and is explicitely ignored in others.

Quote from: TrevelyanI assume that for "D&D" above we should read "Planescape", since the whole metasetting/cosmology bit was a Planscape invention that jars badly with several other settings and is explicitely ignored in others.

As of 3e, there is no officially supported PS, and the great wheel predated Planescape.

Setting is a different kettle of fish than metasetting, however. They are changing things in the metasetting that have been pretty much accepted in the variant settings of FR and Eberron, like what's a demon and what's a devil.

I see where sacrificial limb is coming from. Specific settings diverging from the metasetting is of little consequence to me, because support for prior metasetting elements is not compromised in the base of the game. If I play Eberron, I accept that there are certain things in the metasetting that will not be used, just like I accept if I make my own setting that diverges from the metasetting, has my own inventions instead of creatures like demon and illithids and beholders, then I have to do the work to create them myself.

But if I make my own setting wherein the metasetting I have been using since 1e suddenly changes, all the sudden support for creatures and conventions that have existed for some time suddenly vanishes, my succubi villains becomes devils, tiefling PCs wander the streets, cats start sleeping with dogs, and I'm left with the task of either scrapping my setting (which is what WotC expects you to do) or do the work yourself to bridge the gap.

Or, you know, just not upgrade because the apparent benefits are outweighed by the costs. Which is where I am sitting.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut if I make my own setting wherein the metasetting I have been using since 1e suddenly changes, all the sudden support for creatures and conventions that have existed for some time suddenly vanishes, my succubi villains becomes devils, tiefling PCs wander the streets, cats start sleeping with dogs, and I'm left with the task of either scrapping my setting (which is what WotC expects you to do) or do the work yourself to bridge the gap.

Or, you know, just not upgrade because the apparent benefits are outweighed by the costs. Which is where I am sitting.

Or... you COULD just keep playing in your setting with the old metasetting and declare that the old metasetting HAPPENS to be The Truth for the setting you are running.

Just like if I run Eberron, I don't have to allow 'Drow of the Underdark' books to be used, because quite frankly, Eberron Drow live on the surface and worship scorpions.  Presto! And no need to do any of that pesky 'work' in converting over.

Quote from: SpikeOr... you COULD just keep playing in your setting with the old metasetting and declare that the old metasetting HAPPENS to be The Truth for the setting you are running.

You're missing the whole "mechanical support" thing and the whole "player expectations" thing. Which are very real factors when it comes to running a game.

Quote from: SpikeOr... you COULD just keep playing in your setting with the old metasetting and declare that the old metasetting HAPPENS to be The Truth for the setting you are running.

Just like if I run Eberron, I don't have to allow 'Drow of the Underdark' books to be used, because quite frankly, Eberron Drow live on the surface and worship scorpions.  Presto! And no need to do any of that pesky 'work' in converting over.

If all they did was add a couple of races, it'd be easier.

The tough stuff is fixing up wizards. Yeah, I don't think I'm going to much miss Vancian magic... but having to use a crystal ball/staff/wand to empower spells... and schools that work differently... or whatever it is they're up to...

...anyway, changing how magic (or anything in the core classes) works is going to have a bit of a ripple effect.

Quote from: TrevelyanI assume that for "D&D" above we should read "Planescape", since the whole metasetting/cosmology bit was a Planscape invention that jars badly with several other settings and is explicitely ignored in others.

That's not true. No single D&D campaign ever existed in a vacuum, even outside of Planescape. All D&D settings influence and connect to each other. For example, you ever read those "Wizards' Three" articles in Dragon, or whatever they were called? You had three wizards from Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, and Dragonlance hanging out, eating junk food, and trading information and arcane lore. :keke:

The planar cosmology and implied setting of D&D had more importance than immediately obvious, because many of us were creating our own shit in our homebrew campaigns. We didn't care what "core D&D" was, as we ran Greyhawk Clone Number 52. When there were oddball campaign settings, like Dark Sun and Spelljammer, it was generally acknowledged that they were considered "atypical". Oh, and honestly, Planescape was only alien and strange on the surface. It really only codified and built onto the planar cosmology and metasetting that was already there.

Anyone ever read AD&D 1e's Manual of the Planes? I haven't read it in a while, but is the information contained therein drastically contradicted by the Planescape stuff? I don't think so. Granted, I haven't read it in a while, but the basics are the same.

* And the Inner Planes are this:

1.) There are Inner Planes, like the Elemental Planes of Fire, Water, Earth, and Air.

2.) We have those Negative and Positive Energy Planes, as we all know.

3.) There are the Quasi/Para-Elemental Planes which tend to be some bizarre hybrids of the Planes above.

4.) Last, but not least, are the Astral and Ethereal Planes. They're like the "spiritual glue" that holds the various Prime Material Planes together.

* Yes, Prime Material Planes! :haw: Those are the campaign settings we know and love. This stuff was acknowledged in many sources outside of Planescape.

We know these settings. Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Birthright, Dark Sun, etc. The list goes on. Your homebrew probably resides on a Prime Material Plane.

* And the Outer Planes. These are the "alignment planes" where you can go to Asgard, Heaven, Hell, Limbo, and many others. Each Outer Plane corresponds to an alignment.

If you've played for a long time, then this stuff is old hat. I'm probably not telling you anything new. So why am I yapping on about it? I'm yapping about it because this cosmology has been a part of D&D's implied setting for decades, and now it sounds like they're gonna toss it out the window.

See, here's my argument. If they change the core cosmology of the game, it's a big deal, as it changes the implied setting for the game. They're going to alter our perception of D&D reality. Maybe it won't be as big a deal to visit a tribe of fire elementals any more. Before, we'd have our hands full just breathing, and enduring the overpowering heat. We'd also need powerful magic just to get there. Wasn't it mentioned on ENWorld that all this stuff is gonna change? Good or bad, the makes the game into...something else.

Also, if they drastically change the way magic works, it can drastically change the implied setting for the game. If they change the core races around, that's a big deal too. If you were playing Star Wars, and they replaced some of the aliens and some of the ships with aliens and spacecraft from Star Trek, would the game still be Star Wars, if it still said "Star Wars" on the cover? I don't know.:raise:

So let me see if I got this right. They're gonna change the rules, we don't roll saving throws any more, Vancian magic will be mostly gone, the nine-level spell system will be a relic of the past, gnomes are getting the axe, while part-demons, and part-angels will be core PC races, the D&D cosmology will be radically changed, and more. They're going to radically alter the (meta) setting, and radically alter the rules. How is this D&D again? :rolleyes:

If they want to create a new fantasy game, then they should just do it, and not trample on the legacy of the game. As much as I might have problems with 3e/3.5, I believe that it kept the LEGACY alive. 3.x is not my favorite edition, but I can still acknowledge it as D&D. Is 4e still D&D? I don't know. The jury is out, and it isn't looking good. I'm willing to be convinced though, so I'll pick up the Player's Handbook when it's on the shelves. :cool:

I forgot to add:

The planar cosmology was not an "invention" of Planescape. This metasetting was always around in some form outside of that campaign setting. If you have enough issues of Dragon, and supplements from the 1e/2e era, you'll see that Planescape didn't create the D&D cosmology. It just gives more detail, more flavor, and more life to it. It reminded us that sentient life actually exists on those myriad planes, but that's all it did. It gave us that reminder. :cool:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambIf they want to create a new fantasy game, then they should just do it, and not trample on the legacy of the game. As much as I might have problems with 3e/3.5, I believe that it kept the LEGACY alive.

Quoted for painful amounts of truthiness.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambThe planar cosmology was not an "invention" of Planescape. This metasetting was always around in some form outside of that campaign setting.

Planescape did not create the metasetting, but it did codify it and formalise the nature of interactions between planes, in particular the various Primes. Even so, there were several setting which had no place in the "Planescapesque" metasetting and in noe of those were some connection was implied was there any need to incorporate wider planar assumptions.

Quote from: TrevelyanPlanescape did not create the metasetting, but it did codify it and formalise the nature of interactions between planes, in particular the various Primes.

Not really, it took all of that from the 1E Manual of the Planes.

'Stories, myths, and legends; people build their identities upon narratives that describe their past. Is it any wonder that humans, with their vague, ambiguous, and often demonstrably false origin myths, are the most changeable race of any who stride the world?
      When the dwarves speak of being chiseled from the bones of the earth, and the elves sing of their leafy birth in the untamed Feywild, humans can only wonder. From what mold did humans spring? What god or primordial fashioned them, then abandoned them to the world without guidance or supervision? Or did they arise, as some learned sages claim, from the clay of the world itself, over millennia of slow variation from lesser beasts?
      With no true knowledge of their beginning,  lacking any familiarity with a creator, and absent a defined higher purpose a parent deity might provide, humanity claimed for itself the right to determine its own purposes'

- Bruce Cordell, preview intro to 4e Races and Classes

I don't know what pisses me off the most about this:

- The elves and dwarves are definitely RIGHT in their knowledge of their origins.

- Woo, no place for a human fundamentalist culture - who might be RIGHT - Who's proving it all to be false ? ah-the true pantheon who bestride the earth but the humans haven't noticed yet. The gods told the dwarves but didn't want the humans to know ? or did the Elves just KNOW ?

Bane: "I'm right happy to let MILLIONS OF HUMANS worship that odd-shaped tree or false god rather than me."

- Does Bruce get paid by the word, cause this didn't grab me (in a good way) ?

- Maybe I'm reading too much into nothing

Meh. It's just a fancy way of saying Dwarves and Elves have prescribed deities, while humans gods and religion are more varied.

Quote from: HaffrungMeh. It's just a fancy way of saying Dwarves and Elves have prescribed deities, while humans gods and religion are more varied.

Yes, but it throws up a really weird paradox: the elves and dwarves know precisely where they came from. They can go up to the gods and ask if they really want to. And yet, apparently, not only does mankind not know its own origin story, the gods aren't telling.

On the face of it, the implications are interesting: it would suggest one of two things:

- Humanity is the eldest race, older than the elves, older than the dwarves, older than the gods. That's why the elves, dwarves and gods don't know where mankind came from.

- Humanity's creation was the product of a great and terrible secret: the elves and dwarves were never allowed to find out, and the gods swore themselves to secrecy.

This is cool, but on the other hand most D&D campaign settings don't have that particular mystery inherently hardwired into them. Hardwiring it into the implied setting makes the implied setting start to take on the aspects of... well... an actual, non-implied setting (much in the same way having a canonical list of gods does).

I'd prefer them to be more vague about things like gods and planes and what not.  It makes the game world seem less interesting, rather than more, when they let you know all the secrets.

Reading Sean's post, I don't really understand the concerns but I guess some people care about that stuff.

They could write that baby humans come from flowers and feed on roasted elven poop for all I care. The core books are usually generic enough that:

1-You can go crash down doors, kill shit and take its stuff and just have a general idea of what these races and classes are.  

2-You can use another setting (commercial or homemade) that will most certainly further flesh out, twist those assumptions or even scratch some and make new ones.

In this case, I came to a conclusion similar to Haffrung. The meta-implication is that humans are the generic race while others follow stronger archetypes. Ain't that much different from any other edition of D&D. It's just the latest lame-ass way of doing it, out of a 30 year-old tradition of lame-assness.

And likewise, I never cared for planes or the alignment of some monster or whether some species are demons or devils or how old the core books say an elf lives. Most of that information I ignore or modify all the time. It's still good that this information is there, especially for newbies, as some sort of reference. But I don't personally care about it.

I don't want to make it sound like all this stuff should be irrelevant to everyone as well. There are lots of people who seem to care about that stuff that I respect (like Caesar Slaad on this board) but I suspect there are many gamers who, just like me, don't care much. So WotC is just recodifying what are essentially the core generic assumptions of the game. I suspect all the fundamentals will be there (dwarves won't be evil cannibals, and baby humans probably won't eat elven poop and things with horns will be demons, devils or whatever fancy name they throw this week and there will be different planes) but the specifics will be recodified and as usual, many gamers will homebrew this stuff or ignore it the minute the books are out.

What really matters to me are the rules. The stuff that is used in play and is more difficult to homebrew. Ignoring the Greyhawk pantheon or deciding elves should have a natural lifespan of exactly 7777777 days is trivial for me. Changing the way armor class or spellcasting works is less so.

I'm pretty sick of hearing about the cosmology/gods/irrelevant setting.

I want crunch.  I want mechanics.

On the upside, I think it's safe to say that nothing the devs say or do about the implied setting will kill 4e for me.  On the downside, I really don't give a damn about it.

-O

Quote from: obrynI'm pretty sick of hearing about the cosmology/gods/irrelevant setting.

I want crunch.  I want mechanics.

On the upside, I think it's safe to say that nothing the devs say or do about the implied setting will kill 4e for me.  On the downside, I really don't give a damn about it.

Given that the development and design articles so far have been scrupulously, meticulously mechanic-less, I suspect the designers are under strict instructions not to discuss the mechanics at this point. Which is possibly sensible, considering that there's still playtesting happening and there may be a few final system changes in the light of that, but it does mean that they're having to make vague statements about what's changed without a) showing us how they've changed and b) showing us what's staying the same.

If they drastically change the meta-setting and game mechanics for core D&D, how is it D&D? Think about this for a minute. They're not only making Vancian magic virtually irrelevant, or ditching the nine-level spell system. And they're not just making it so you stop rolling saving throws. And they're not just making part-demons and part-angels as "core" races. They're changing the entire cosmology for "core" D&D.

I mean, honestly, changing all that stuff above is already a HUGE change, in ways I can't even think of yet, but the planar cosmology stuff is MAJOR. Some of you here might think it doesn't much matter, because you can say:

"Hey, we didn't go to the planes that much ANYWAY".

But it matters, and I'll tell you why. In 4e, you might be able to reach the tribe of the fire elementals on foot, instead of using plane shift or some kind of jacked-up teleport spell. In pre-4e games, you'd need more magic to protect yourself against the environment of the Elemental Plane of Fire itself. I'm hearing things that imply that this is not the case in 4e. I'm willing to be proven wrong about this, but I have my concerns..... :(

In the past, you'd encounter an elemental because some wizard summoned it to the Prime Material Plane (the campaign setting) for some particular reason.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that the planar cosmology determined what monsters you'd encounter, and where. On ENWorld, they're going on and on about tieflings, and gnomes, and shit, and I'm like, "whatthefuckever, that's annoying, but it's gravy". That's only one small component of the game. They're gonna change the entire meta-setting in addition to the rules that allow us to normally identify the game as D&D. Why do that? Hasbro/WoTC has three rpgs already. Why not create another rpg that does what they actually want? Why trample 30 years of D&D legacy?

In the new edition, there's the saturation of demonic influences that wasn't so obvious before. We have the tiefling and warlock as core now. There will be more demonic opponents. WoTC seems to be assuming a much higher degree of demonic (or devilish) influence in core D&D before. Even 1e didn't feel this saturated by....um....."fiends"? Maybe they should call the new game "Dungeons & Demons". :rolleyes:

But you know what? It's not just that either. It's all the tiny little things, like the fighter magically regenerating/healing himself, the de-emphasis of "save-or-die" spells, which has many far-reaching implications for the game, and more.

If Hasbro wants to create a new game, they should just design an entirely new roleplaying game.  I'm not opposed to some new rules, but when you drastically change BOTH meta-setting AND game mechanics for the game, what do you have left? Damned if I know...:raise:

Quote from: Sacrificial LambGrognardy Rant

You know, I appreciate that you feel so strongly about a lot of this stuff, but I completely disagree.

I'm not going to go into the specific whys and wherefores - there are about 80 other threads for that here - but the whole "trampling D&D's memory" thing is just too much.

It's the same refrain that we heard when 3e was coming out.  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.  Your criteria for what makes a game D&D are not the same as other peoples'.  (Check the fairly recent poll for why.)  They are trashing nothing except in your head.

They are not calling the game by a new name because (1) it's a direct, evolutionary descendant of 3e D&D, and (2) they own the trademark, and it's a very valuable one.

-O

Yawn.  You're ignoring what he's actualyl saying in favor of reading into it shit he didn't say.

He has an actual, really, logical point here, and if you weren't so ready to dismiss it, you might've seen it.  

3e kept the established meta-setting largely intact, so much so that you can (and many companies have) fairly easy port over old modules, usually by simply taking the name of thing X and just upgrading it to the latest version, whether it's a class or a monster or a spell or whatever the hell.  The specific mechanics have changed, there's some new options there now, but by and large stuff stays pretty constant from 3e all the way back, regardless of the what grognards at DF would like to believe.

There is however, a definite trend in the descriptions from the developers, towards muddling with the meta-setting and standard gameplay structures in such a way that this may not be possible.  For fuck's sake, they actually made a statement suggesting that players should restart their campaigns for 4e because it will be easier than trying to convert.

I'm sick and fucking tired of people dismissing any criticism as delusion and speculation, when there's actual fucking evidence for this shit straight from the mouths of Wizards employees and developers.  If anyone's making assinine assumptions, it's the people who are apparently so determined to insult 4e's critics that they fail to realize that their method for doing so amounts to calling Wizards all a bunch of liars.  Nobody's making shit up here, you just don't want to see it, and that's your goddamn problem, not mine, not SL's, not anyone's.

Quote from: J ArcaneGrognardy Defensive Rant

I could give a crap less whether or not he likes 4e, hates 4e, or would rather play GURPS.

In other words, you're ignoring what I actually said in preference of what I didn't say.

I'm saying that this "YOU'RE TRAMPLING ON TEH LEGACY OF D&D!!!1" meme is whiny crap.

-O

Quote from: J ArcaneThe specific mechanics have changed, there's some new options there now, but by and large stuff stays pretty constant from 3e all the way back, regardless of the what grognards at DF would like to believe.

Absolute bullshit. 3E is a substantially different game from earlier editions - in mechanics, in presumed play style, and in tone.

Try running a 3E adventure and ignoring skills, feats, all the tactical combat maneuvers, and the presumed easy access to magic items. Then try to convert the inflated HPs, damage, spells, and overall higher power levels of 3E. Then try to address the whole approach of 3.x D&D as a series of detailed tactical encounters strung together by a cliched plot. Try ignoring all the halfling sorcerors, dwarven clerics, and elf-dragon Mystic/Assassins. Then try to ignore the artwork and overall tone of anime-CRPG-superhero inspired awesome. It's not easy at all. For most old-school D&D players, the Shattered City Adventure Path may as well be a Glorantha campaign book.

Why in fuck do you think edition wars have raged around the internet for the last seven years? Why do you think there's a forum with thousands of members where even mentioning 3E is verbotten? The only people who think 4E is going to be a bigger departure from the game's origins that 3E was are people who like 3E and don't want to change. Their discomfort does not make the transition more substantial, or WotC bigger assholes, than the transition to 3E was.

Quote from: J ArcaneThere is however, a definite trend in the descriptions from the developers, towards muddling with the meta-setting and standard gameplay structures in such a way that this may not be possible.  

You mean like opening up every class to every race, and destroying the archetypes that had been around for 25 years? You mean turning thieves into acrobatic, tumbling ninjas? You mean turning gnomes into tinkering scientists? You mean allowing monsters as PCs? You mean turning magic item creation into child's play? You mean radically altering the levelling scale so as to completely change the pace of the game? You mean making battle-mats and miniatures virtually mandatory? You mean cleansing the game of fatal poison, level drain, deadly traps, and other 'unfair' game challenges. You mean taking much of the authority of game away from the DM by codifying and enshrining every possible action in the rules?

If bringing old school to 3e is so impossible, how come there's reams upon reams of text and modules published that do exactly that?  Hmm?  

I can take a module from the 1e era, and if it says Kobold, I go, OK, and use the stats for a Kobold.  they even fill similar positions in the line up of available monsters, in terms of relative strenght and capability.  I can't do the same thing when suddenly there are no "kobolds", but rather "brutes" and "masterminds" and whatever the fuck, and kobold is just a lable tacked onto a generic "monster type" mechanic.

You guys must play in radically different games than I ever did if the 'CHANGE OF THE COSMOLOGY" is an earthshattering event.

Seriously.

99% of all my gaming occured in what you lovingly call 'the prime Material Plane', and what my characters always just called 'here'.  If we encountered an elemental we didn't always, or even mostly, know if it was summoned or why, we just knew it had to die now, so we could take it's stuff.

I'm not even sure the homebrew setting I'm playing in now even connects to all that shit, and I KNOW Eberron doesn't use the core cosmology... though those damn charts they lay out are utter ass regardless.  Ooh look, a lot of bubbles and lines... pretty.... what's it all mean???

Maybe I haven't played enough high level shit. Maybe I should be more concerned with HOW the ethereal shifting abilities of certain monsters work, instead of just concerning myself with the mechanic of '50% of all 'hits' actually miss...'.

But y'know? I just don't give a damn. I'm not even sure that cosmology was in place when I started playing. The Abyss was some deep hell-pit where demons came from, and that was about it. Oh, and paladins could fight demons in hell and look badass about it.

But the exact relation of various planes to one another? NOT a 'core concept' of any D&D I've ever played.

Quote from: SpikeYou guys must play in radically different games than I ever did if the 'CHANGE OF THE COSMOLOGY" is an earthshattering event...

But y'know? I just don't give a damn. I'm not even sure that cosmology was in place when I started playing. The Abyss was some deep hell-pit where demons came from, and that was about it. Oh, and paladins could fight demons in hell and look badass about it.

But the exact relation of various planes to one another? NOT a 'core concept' of any D&D I've ever played.

What he said.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambAnd they're not just making part-demons and part-angels as "core" races.
Maybe they should call the new game "Dungeons & Demons".

Or "Angels & Demons"?

100 points for anyone who catches the rather obscure reference.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeOr "Angels & Demons"?

100 points for anyone who catches the rather obscure reference.

A really crappy book by Dan Brown? Author of another really crappy, but oddly popular, book about a famous artist gone mad in the old history bit?

Where are me points?

Quote from: SpikeA really crappy book by Dan Brown? Author of another really crappy, but oddly popular, book about a famous artist gone mad in the old history bit?

Where are me points?

Oh. I forgot that this is the original title of the book that is named "Illuminati (http://www.amazon.de/Illuminati-Dan-Brown/dp/3404148665/)" in Germany. I even tried to read it but gave up on page ... 30 or so.

No, I had another reference in mind.

Hint: Two brothers, a directional microphone, and (steam?) tunnels...

Quote from: SpikeYou guys must play in radically different games than I ever did if the 'CHANGE OF THE COSMOLOGY" is an earthshattering event.

Seriously.

99% of all my gaming occured in what you lovingly call 'the prime Material Plane', and what my characters always just called 'here'.  If we encountered an elemental we didn't always, or even mostly, know if it was summoned or why, we just knew it had to die now, so we could take it's stuff.

I'm not even sure the homebrew setting I'm playing in now even connects to all that shit, and I KNOW Eberron doesn't use the core cosmology... though those damn charts they lay out are utter ass regardless.  Ooh look, a lot of bubbles and lines... pretty.... what's it all mean???

Maybe I haven't played enough high level shit. Maybe I should be more concerned with HOW the ethereal shifting abilities of certain monsters work, instead of just concerning myself with the mechanic of '50% of all 'hits' actually miss...'.

But y'know? I just don't give a damn. I'm not even sure that cosmology was in place when I started playing. The Abyss was some deep hell-pit where demons came from, and that was about it. Oh, and paladins could fight demons in hell and look badass about it.

But the exact relation of various planes to one another? NOT a 'core concept' of any D&D I've ever played.

Despite my overall dislike for what has come out about 4e, I have to agree with Spike that the cosmology of the world is less than unimportant for me - at least, in and of itself.  And boy am I tired of the WotC "previews" for this material.

Now, the other changes to the implied setting - Tieflings, Warlocks, free multi-classing, fighter magic powerz, etc - those I do hate with a passion and believe are basically killing off the D&D-ness of the game.

But then, I never liked 3e either, and hated the changes it made - so I will agree with Haffrung that 3e made plenty of changes to the implied setting as well.

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeOr "Angels & Demons"?

100 points for anyone who catches the rather obscure reference.

Love and Rockets?

Quote from: AosLove and Rockets?

Does it feature "two brothers, a directional microphone, and (steam?) tunnels..."?

I am afraid, no. And while I am quite "into" comics, I have to admit that I never got access to Love and Rockets.

Ok, one more try and I'll give the solution...

Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeDoes it feature "two brothers, a directional microphone, and (steam?) tunnels..."?

I am afraid, no. And while I am quite "into" comics, I have to admit that I never got access to Love and Rockets.

Ok, one more try and I'll give the solution...

I meant Love and Rockets the band, which has a song entitled Angles and Demons on some album or other. I have no idea if the band members are brothers or not, nor am I hip to the type of microphone they used.

Quote from: jgantsNow, the other changes to the implied setting - Tieflings, Warlocks, free multi-classing, fighter magic powerz, etc - those I do hate with a passion and believe are basically killing off the D&D-ness of the game.

But then, I never liked 3e either, and hated the changes it made - so I will agree with Haffrung that 3e made plenty of changes to the implied setting as well.

The "fighter magic powerz" is probably the one that would be most edifficult to change. Fortunately for me (and I realize it's not for everyone) I dig what I've heard so far.

But the actual races and classes? I can easily tweak that. In fact, that's what I always did. Never had any Monk in my campaigns and we fitted a Cavalier class in 3e (homebrewed with the help of existing fighter, paladin and noble classes).

Not trying to change your mind. More sharing that what will make or break the deal for me is the way the system works (such as aforementioned figher powers). As well as spellcasting, combat and so on. If this stuff doesn't appeal to me, I'll have to pass. But if it's just stuff like a very few lame side classes, races or odd generic setting choices (like what's a demon/devil or how the gonzo stuff like planes operate) I can live with that.

Of course, even if they are minor details, I could see a point where if there are too many of them not to my liking, I wouldn't be interested anymore. But luckily, I'm not there yet personally. And as I always say, I reserve judgment until I learn more.

One thing I think most people can agree about 4e is that the way they have "revealed" 4e so far is terribly lame and can be summed up as:

"Oh, we're changing X but don't worry. It will be totally awesome. It will be more detailed, less work and much better than it used to be. And faster too. And it will make more sense. And be cooler. Did we mention that it will be totally awesome? And that we rock? Stay tuned for our next installment, when we will report an actual play session while making sure we don't actually reveal any crunch but instead revel in the awesomeness of the game session, so that you can share with us the joy of knowing what was the general vibe of awesomeness we were into without gaining actual useful information on how the game  operates."

Quote from: Consonant DudeOne thing I think most people can agree about 4e is that the way they have "revealed" 4e so far is terribly lame and can be summed up as:

"Oh, we're changing X but don't worry. It will be totally awesome. It will be more detailed, less work and much better than it used to be. And faster too. And it will make more sense. And be cooler. Did we mention that it will be totally awesome? And that we rock? Stay tuned for our next installment, when we will report an actual play session while making sure we don't actually reveal any crunch but instead revel in the awesomeness of the game session, so that you can share with us the joy of knowing what was the general vibe of awesomeness we were into without gaining actual useful information on how the game  operates."

Ah, yes, the olde tyme fear of Gaming Industry Ninjas... it rears its ugly, yet oddly stealthful, head once more....

Oh, this is cute. This is just DARLING. I never imagined I'd reach a point where I'd be labelled a "grognard". :grumpy:  Hell hath indeed frozen over....

Quote from: obrynYou know, I appreciate that you feel so strongly about a lot of this stuff, but I completely disagree.

I'm not going to go into the specific whys and wherefores - there are about 80 other threads for that here - but the whole "trampling D&D's memory" thing is just too much.

It's the same refrain that we heard when 3e was coming out.  It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.  Your criteria for what makes a game D&D are not the same as other peoples'.  (Check the fairly recent poll for why.)  They are trashing nothing except in your head.

Could you stop being so casually dismissive, and accept the POSSIBILITY that there's a difference between the release of 4e and 3e? Just humor me for a minute. This is not the same refrain as seven years ago. You're forcing me to repeat myself, and I hate that. I'll try again. :banghead:

If you DRASTICALLY change BOTH the meta-setting AND game mechanics to Dungeons & Dragons, then what is left of the game?

3e is a very different game from previous editions; this is true. BUT....it's still recognizably D&D. Why? Because most of the meta-setting and cosmology is intact. The meta-setting and cosmology affects how campaigns resolve EVERYTHING. It affects religion, magic, technology, monster encounters, the game's economy, and much more.

Quote from: obrynThey are not calling the game by a new name because (1) it's a direct, evolutionary descendant of 3e D&D, and (2) they own the trademark, and it's a very valuable one.

-O

Forget the trademark for a minute. They could say a lump of shit was D&D, and you roll a d20 to determine what you do with it, but this discussion is not about trademark legal bullshit.

Just because you don't consciously acknowledge the meta-setting and planar cosmology of D&D, doesn't mean it doesn't affect your campaign in ways you're not aware of. The meta-setting influences how religion is handled, how magic is handled, and because of that, how magic influences society. Furthermore, meta-setting influences what creatures we encounter, and where. You can CHANGE your meta-setting for your homebrew campaign, and not bother codifying your meta-setting and planar cosmology, but if you're running a campaign, YOU STILL HAVE ONE. It might be inconsistent, or vaguely defined, but it's still there whether we like it or not. You see what I'm saying?

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if certain people don't casually shit on concepts like "legacy" or "tradition". These are not dirty words. With each new edition, there have been changes, but most of the core legacy of the game has remained intact. In 4e, it LOOKS like they're gonna strip that legacy away.

Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong, and will pick up the core books. I'm not such a crank that I'm unwilling to at least be open to the possibility that 4e will rock on toast and still be faithful to D&D's legacy. We'll see. :cool:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb3e is a very different game from previous editions; this is true. BUT....it's still recognizably D&D. Why? Because most of the meta-setting and cosmology is intact. The meta-setting and cosmology affects how campaigns resolve EVERYTHING. It affects religion, magic, technology, monster encounters, the game's economy, and much more.

Apparently, a lot of people (myself included) don't give a shit about the lame cosmology. It's still going to be recognizably D&D because D&D was there before these elements were awkwardly added to it.

Or are you saying that OD&D isn't recognizable D&D?

Quote from: Consonant DudeApparently, a lot of people (myself included) don't give a shit about the lame cosmology. It's still going to be recognizably D&D because D&D was there before these elements were awkwardly added to it.

Or are you saying that OD&D isn't recognizable D&D?

I'll be honest with you. I don't remember OD&D very well. I haven't looked at OD&D in decades, but if I recall correctly, the game suggested resolving combat using Chainmail's rules. That sounds more like a "proto-rpg" than a full-fledged rpg to me. Anyway, you can drastically change the rules or drastically change the meta-setting of D&D and still call it D&D, but you can't do both, or it becomes something else. There's no getting around that. :pundit:

Furthermore, while you "don't give a shit about the lame cosmology", that doesn't really matter. Your campaign (if you have one) has a cosmology ANYWAY. It might be inconsistent or it might be vague because you haven't bothered to codify it, but it still exists.

Does your campaign have spells that allow you to travel to the Astral or Ethereal Planes? There's a component of the D&D cosmology right there. Do your wizards summon fire elementals? If so, they come from somewhere, like the Elemental Plane of Fire. If you have demons and devils, they probably reside on some hellish dimension from beyond, and come forth when summoned by a magic-user wanting to make some sort of infernal pact.

If you play D&D, then your campaign also has a "lame cosmology". What you do with it is up to you. ;)

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI'll be honest with you. I don't remember OD&D very well. I haven't looked at OD&D in decades, so I got nothing. You can drastically change the rules or drastically change the meta-setting of D&D and still call it D&D, but you can't do both, or it becomes something else. There's no getting around that.

Furthermore, while you "don't give a shit about the lame cosmology", that doesn't really matter. Your campaign (if you have one) has a cosmology ANYWAY. It might be inconsistent or it might be vague because you haven't bothered to codify it, but it still exists.

Yeah, I could buy that, I suppose. Just so you know, I'm also pointing out that I don't give a shit about it as a sort of disclaimer. Obviously, since I don't care about it, it's not much of a shock if they change it. Just like I never used Monks. I'll be happy if it is true that they are gone.

Someone who appreciates the cosmology is obviously not going to view 4e from the same angle as me. That's the thing with D&D. Everybody that has played it over time has its own references when it comes to it (me included, of course).

Earlier in the thread, pointed out that they were removing the Gnome as an example that 4e was messing up with the legacy in a way never seen before and I thought that was interesting. Because Gnomes weren't originally in there. That person may see Gnomes as prototypical but I don't. I was playing the game before there were Gnomes. They were what I considered an awkward addition. Plus, other editions have removed or added races and classes so there's nothing groundbreaking about 4e doing the same.

Anyway, I want to point out again I'm not saying 4e will be for everybody but I haven't seen indications that it will not be recognizable as D&D for me.

Oy vey.

The "it is/is not D&D" argument is absolute wankery if you expect it to have any merit beyond trademark. Beyond that, what each of us cares to define as "D&D" is purely a matter of personal experience and opinion.

That doesn't, however, mean I'm not going to make decisions based on that opinion.

Sorry about my edited post, Consonant Dude. I couldn't make up up my mind on what I wanted to say, and kept editing it like a dipshit. So what you quoted from me is slightly different from what I finally posted because I suddenly remembered stuff about OD&D (after I posted). That's all. Carry on... :)

Quote from: Sacrificial LambSorry about my edited post, Consonant Dude. I couldn't make up up my mind on what I wanted to say, and kept editing it like a dipshit. So what you quoted from me is slightly different from what I finally posted because I suddenly remembered stuff about OD&D (after I posted). That's all. Carry on... :)

No problem, man!

While I still find the concept of the importance of the cosmology alien, I think I'm starting to understand what you mean, even though I still don't care. But anyway, I think you said yourself that you weren't exactly sure how much they were changing it. I can only hope it won't fuck up your campaign or that, barring that, you'll be able to revert to 3e's cosmology without much trouble. From what little I know, it's not like the Manual of the Planes is very rules heavy. Or am I wrong.

On the subject of the actual rules going through significant changes: again, a matter of opinion but the changes seem light. I was hoping for a revamped AC system but I don't think it I'm even going to get that.

Hopefully the changes end up being to your (and my) taste. Unless your wallet is thin. In that case, might be preferable for the game to suck :D

Myself, I really can't say one way or another yet. Although I remain optimistic from what I have seen so far.

First off, I'm not calling you a grognard.  I thought your post was grognardy. :)  You could have done a find-replace and change it from OD&D or AD&D to 3e and it would have been essentially the same.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambCould you stop being so casually dismissive, and accept the POSSIBILITY that there's a difference between the release of 4e and 3e? Just humor me for a minute. This is not the same refrain as seven years ago. You're forcing me to repeat myself, and I hate that. I'll try again. :banghead:

If you DRASTICALLY change BOTH the meta-setting AND game mechanics to Dungeons & Dragons, then what is left of the game?

I'm not being casually dismissive - I have given this some real, actual thought.  I agree they're changing both some implied setting and mechanical details.  Where we depart is where you call them drastic.

Quote3e is a very different game from previous editions; this is true. BUT....it's still recognizably D&D. Why? Because most of the meta-setting and cosmology is intact. The meta-setting and cosmology affects how campaigns resolve EVERYTHING. It affects religion, magic, technology, monster encounters, the game's economy, and much more.

I still disagree with this.  I agree that an implied setting is important - up to the point where an actual setting takes its place or builds on it.  Will FR without the same races be different?  Sure!  I just don't agree that it will cease to be D&D or cease to be FR.

Quote...snip...
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if certain people don't casually shit on concepts like "legacy" or "tradition". These are not dirty words. With each new edition, there have been changes, but most of the core legacy of the game has remained intact. In 4e, it LOOKS like they're gonna strip that legacy away.

Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong, and will pick up the core books. I'm not such a crank that I'm unwilling to at least be open to the possibility that 4e will rock on toast and still be faithful to D&D's legacy. We'll see. :cool:

With how much D&D has evolved over the years, I see the core legacy and core tradition as extremely narrow.  I also don't think it's set in stone; things can be added or removed - and have been, every edition.  

4e will be more similar to 3e than 3e was to 2e.  That's probably one of the only things I'll agree with Haffrung on. ;)

-O

Ah, well. The good news about all this is that I can pick up some d20 Thieves' World stuff on the cheap. Maybe all this 4e stuff is a good thing? ;)

4e will eat our children. It must be stopped.

Quote from: Aos4e will eat our children. It must be stopped.

Agreed. It's a child-devouring hybrid of WoW and anime, and must be killed with fire. If left unopposed it will creep into our houses and ransack our gaming libraries before having it's way with our womenfolk.

I know this for a fact. A wizard told me.

A gnomish refugee fleeing the WoTC deathcamp told me about. He only spoke in rhyme, and then, too sweet for this world, he faded away in a magical golden mist.

Who cries for the gnomes?
Who?

Dave Arneson.

Quote from: AosWho cries for the gnomes?
Who?

T_T

Quote from: AosA gnomish refugee fleeing the WoTC deathcamp told me about. He only spoke in rhyme, and then, too sweet for this world, he faded away in a magical golden mist.

Who cries for the gnomes?
Who?

I do, baby. I do. :(

Shamelessly stolen from a thread over at RPGnet, which was in turn lifted from ENWorld:

------------------------------

Dragon #120 -- Editorial:
With the second edition of the AD&D game presently in the works, more complaints and letter expressing confusion arrive each day. Some gamers worry that their favorite classes will no longer be part of the "official" rules, hence they will no longer be able to use them in play. Still others complain that they are displeased with having to buy the second edition — a purchase which will outmode their first-edition rules. These same people are further annoyed that the second-edition rules won't mesh with the first edition, thereby "forcing" them to purchase the second edition. In the end, it all leads up to one thing: a lot of needless worry and unnecessary complaints.

-------------------
Dragon #119 -- Zeb Cook on Character Classes
(which ones to keep, which ones to pitch)

The assassin is a goner — virtually guar-
anteed. It is highly unlikely that any
amount of appeal will save his neck. He is
disruptive to party harmony and, more
importantly, presents the wrong image
about AD&D games. If you really like
assassin characters, I'm sorry, but you can
still use the first-edition character class.

The bard just doesn't work. Too many
confused rules and special exceptions
were created just to make the bard fly.
Some of his powers were seriously unbal-
ancing and dumb (in my personal opinion).
Finally, the way he is described, the bard
really belongs only in a Western European
setting. Whoever heard of an Amerind
bard with a magical harp or a Polynesian
harpist bard? (I'm sure I'll hear from some-
one.) Thus, the bard as he currently exists
will die. But is he gone? I don't know for
sure. It seems like a good idea to heavily
redesign the bard to fit with the rules and
increase his playability. If this happened, it
would probably mean a character class
that specialized in communication and
dealing with people. We'll see what
happens.

-------------------------------

Dragon #121 -- Zeb Cook responding to quotes from letters he's received about the prospect of 2nd Edition

"The best way to avoid edition three is to
make allowance for changes." — Kerry T. Brown

Really, I do want to avoid having to do a
Third Edition —at least having to repeat
what I'm going through on Second Edition!
The only way to do this is to build a set of
core rules that can accommodate the
inevitable changes and additions that will
come. Just as the First Edition was not
perfect, I know that new and better ideas
will surface after Second Edition is done.
Our current plan is that we haven't got a
plan. We are still looking at a lot of differ-
ent ideas. Currently, all of them revolve
around building a core set of rules that
can be used by all players. One thought is
that there would be two hardbound rule
books— the Players Handbook and the
Dungeon Masters Handbook (note the title
change).

"We have spent a lot of time and money
on the game. . . .After buying the present
books, I do not relish the thought of buy-
ing them all over again!" — Bill Aasvanger

As I have said before, TSR is well aware
of the investment you have made in the
AD&D game. We are trying to make sure
the Second Edition will grow and expand
without out-dating the core rules. No one
is trying to arrange the AD&D game sys-
tem so you must buy every rule book we
print. If we do our job right, you and a lot
of new players will want the core rules of
the Second Edition because they are good.
Anything that follows is optional, and
optional means just that — you make the
choice, not us. Certainly, we hope that you
will buy these expansion rule books, based
on the quality and usefulness of the
product. We are not trying to rip you off.

"The first and most pressing comment I
have to make is that revised game remain
100% compatible with the old." — John J.
Strasser

This comment is almost identical to one
of our design standards for Second Edi-
tion, design standards being the guidelines
game designers live by (or try to live by).
One of the big issues of the Second Edition
is compatibility. It's not my intention to
force you to throw away your old rule
books and rush out to buy the Second
Edition. You want to be able to pick up the
Second Edition rules and use them in your
campaign without having to make exten-
sive changes first. That is a perfectly fair
demand on your part.

Now, 100% compatibility is just not
possible. There are things that must be
fixed. There are inevitable improvements
and new ideas, These things are going to
prevent Second Edition from being 100%
compatible. Just what percent compatibil-
ity we wind up with, I can't say. Indeed,
the need to keep things compatible results
in us not making some changes that would
only confuse the issue. Take the armor
class numbering system. To many players,
it does not make sense that the worst
armor classes have higher numbers, and it
would seem simple to change it. However,
reversing the order of the armor class
numbers would invalidate every AD&D
game campaign and product in existence.
For compatibility's sake, it is better to
make no change, since this change is not
worth the trouble it will cause.

"I will refuse to buy any second edition
books if your plan is to change everything
around so that it's based on proficiencies."
— Guy Ellison

There will be a proficiency system, and
it will be presented as an optional rule.
The proficiency system (similar to that of
Oriental Adventures and the two survival-
guide books) is there to give your game
more range and scope. The proficiency
system can be as important or unimport-
ant as you want. The basic abilities of
characters will still be defined by classes,
but other talents will be available to the
character. The AD&D game will be as
playable with proficiencies as without
them. It is yet another area where we are
trying to build and increase your range of
choices that you have in creating a
campaign.

------------------------------------

Dragon # 130 -- Jon Pickens talks about magic

A number of you would like to see a
spell-point system. You will be disap-
pointed. Spell-point systems are more
complex than the current system, and
trying to balance them is a pain. For exam-
ple, in a very simple system in which a
spell costs one point per spell level, a
typical high-level cleric will seldom run
out of cures, which creates severe balance
problems in play.


On the other hand, cantrips will disap-
pear from the core rules (we have to get
space from somewhere). The basic prob-
lem that cantrips were introduced to solve
– that of a 1st-level magic-user trapped in
a 3- to 4-hour adventure with only one
spell – will be dealt with in some other
fashion. The idea of giving magic-users
bonus spells for intelligence has problems;
magic-users with intelligence scores of 9-
15 are driven out of business.

---------------------------------------------

Dragon #139 -- Zeb Cook on Playtesting

As mentioned above, Jon ran the play-
testing of the second-edition rules. This
doesn't mean he was out there running
playtesting games himself (Jon worked
hard), but he estab-
lished and monitored our playtesting
groups. These groups had players just like
you, RPGA™ Network members who vol-
unteered to take part in our work. All
told, Jon worked with about 20-30 groups.
Now, I don't know exact numbers, but if
each group had an average of six players,
that means about 100-200 players actually
did the playtesting. Furthermore, they did
the playtesting for eight months or more.
On top of that, we have 10 years of com-
ments, suggestions, criticisms, letters,
DRAGON® Magazine articles, and two GEN
CON® game fairs (and several regional
conventions) that solicited your views.
Thus, you have the most thoroughly play-
tested and developed game done yet by
TSR, Inc. (I won't be so rash as to claim
that it's the most thoroughly playtested
and designed game in the industry, but I
think there are few games out there that
have received as much attention.)


Original source:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=86867

QuoteTo many players,
it does not make sense that the worst
armor classes have higher numbers, and it
would seem simple to change it. However,
reversing the order of the armor class
numbers would invalidate every AD&D
game campaign and product in existence.
For compatibility's sake, it is better to
make no change, since this change is not
worth the trouble it will cause...

Quote...The idea of giving magic-users
bonus spells for intelligence has problems;
magic-users with intelligence scores of 9-
15 are driven out of business.

Awesome.

QuoteFor exam-
ple, in a very simple system in which a
spell costs one point per spell level, a
typical high-level cleric will seldom run
out of cures, which creates severe balance
problems in play.

This is the one that made me smile.

'We had a fun over-the-cube-wall debate about the unicorn's alignment. We'd like to see most fey move from Good to unaligned and somewhat perilous. First of all, it's mythologically apropriate--many creatures such as centaurs, the Sidhe, the little folk, etc., were not necessarily friendly. Secondly, it makes more of the Monster Manual "usable" if you can fight things like dryad briar witches and amok satyrs, at least every now and then. But I got to unicorn, and I couldn't pull the trigger on that. If there's one creature in the Monster Manual (exceptings solars and such) that epitomizes good, it's the unicorn. Besides, millions of kids who have read Harry Potter know that unicorns are pure good. Maybe we shouldn't swim upstream on making unicorns things that might fight heroes... at least in normal forest adventuring'
- Rich Baker

:raise: at least he's spelling it out who 4e is trying to ensnare in their web of product

'amok satyr'  - yep, we're one step away from Chaos Smurfette !

'I was loving my Level 14 dwarven paladin. I’m a tank. A rock.  I laughed in the face of three opponents as they feebly tried to hit my armor class. I blocked one of the passageways from a pair of giants and several other enemies as my companions did strikes and the like. I may not dish out the damage like them, but there’s definite satisfaction that comes with being able to stand up to many enemies round after round.'
- Greg Bilsland

4e ROCKS !

Dude, he actually has a realyl good point on the mythological connection there.  THe unicorn line comes off a bit lame, sure, but fairies in folklore were often creepy, insane, malicious, and just generally fucked up.  The happy fairy land stuff was usually a later invention.

Oh, I agree with the mythology bit - the reasoning's sound , but the term 'amok satyr' made me wince.

Quote from: SeanOh, I agree with the mythology bit - the reasoning's sound , but the term 'amok satyr' made me wince.

You know, Tolkien once criticised The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe because the first creature Lucy meets in Narnia is Mr Tumnus, a faun - basically a satyr. Tolkien's complaint was that anyone with the slightest grounding in classical myth would expect the satyr to seduce and rape Lucy, and he doesn't; the scene therefore has some incredibly unfortunate (and doubtless unintentional) implications which really shouldn't be there, and wouldn't have been if Mr Tumnus has been any other suitably fluffy fantasy creature.

Satyrs were total psychos in Greek myth.

Quote from: WarthurSatyrs were total psychos in Greek myth.

It's my perception at fault here, you say 'satyr' and I think of some rapacious faun - I see them as wild and willing to sin. You can only trust that they lust. I don't need the 'amok' bit. A satyr is interesting enough in itself.

It's not enough to be a catgirl, you have to be a ninja catgirl space pirate to make it sound cool.

Quote from: SeanIt's my perception at fault here, you say 'satyr' and I think of some rapacious faun - I see them as wild and willing to sin. You can only trust that they lust. I don't need the 'amok' bit. A satyr is interesting enough in itself.

It's not enough to be a catgirl, you have to be a ninja catgirl space pirate to make it sound cool.

I think the "amok satyr" bit is supposed to differentiate 4E satyrs from the "laid-back, peace-loving hippy satyr" of previous editions.

'Then there's the artefact in the Monster Manual; Satyrs (male only) are the counterpart of Dryads (female only) and Nymphs (female only), because when a male is randy he's dangerous and fierce like a barbarian, and when a female's randy she's manipulative and passive like an NPC.' - Tyhm on here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14368025#post14368025)

Yeah, we played them as lotus eaters but I thought they were always horny.

Anyhow, my thoughts on 4e D&D, well I love the spellplague, no I really do. But I've gone from cautiously optimistic to ambivalent in a couple of weeks.

Quote from: SeanSecondly, it makes more of the Monster Manual "usable" if you can fight things like dryad briar witches and amok satyrs, at least every now and then.

My first impression is that it was just a qualifier thrown in the sentence. As if he'd said "we fought big orcs". I'm not saying that's the case, but maybe they're just Satyrs?

Or maybe there are different kinds of satyrs and that's all they could think of?

Otherwise, it's really Amok Satyr for no reason other than to join other lame names and monsters like the jellies, slimes, jams and countless other retarded D&Dism.

Quote from: AosWho cries for the gnomes?
Who?

Add me to the list, anyway.  I love my gnomes.

I like gnomes.  I don't like D&D gnomes.

Gnomes live in the garden and are under a foot tall. :)

Quote from: StuartI like gnomes.  I don't like D&D gnomes.

Gnomes live in the garden and are under a foot tall. :)

Well, sure, if you're talking about Garden Gnomes... :)

My gnomes are about as tall as dwarves, but nowhere near as stocky, and are often master inventors, alchemists, and scholars.  They also frequently blow stuff up--only meaning to do so about half the time.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstMy gnomes are about as tall as dwarves, but nowhere near as stocky, and are often master inventors, alchemists, and scholars.  They also frequently blow stuff up--only meaning to do so about half the time.

That sounds about right.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstMy gnomes are about as tall as dwarves, but nowhere near as stocky, and are often master inventors, alchemists, and scholars.  They also frequently blow stuff up--only meaning to do so about half the time.

Out of curiosity, where did this take on gnomes come from? My recollection of gnomes from AD&D and pop culture were cheery little woodland creatures like the ones featured in the popular illustrated book 'Gnomes'.

Quote from: HaffrungOut of curiosity, where did this take on gnomes come from?

Dragonlance, along with the "Halflings are hyperactive child-like kleptomaniacs" instead of the LOTR "Hobbit" style Halflings.

For a brief history of Gnomes in D&D, I started this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8269).

Quote from: HaffrungOut of curiosity, where did this take on gnomes come from? My recollection of gnomes from AD&D and pop culture were cheery little woodland creatures like the ones featured in the popular illustrated book 'Gnomes'.

Actually, it's been that way as long as I can remember in my gaming groups (and I don't think I'd have it any other way).  We weren't into Dragonlance, though it does sound pretty true to a lot of that take on them.  I'll have to go back and see how 1st Ed. Palladium Fantasy and Rolemaster 2nd handled them.

I see the other thread on gnome progression.  Very cool!

Just a few years ago, D&D turned thirty. If the upcoming game mechanics she promises are any indication, she is much wiser and more mature than she was in the days of her youth. And since those carefree high school years, much has changed in her life: she's moved out of her parents' house; she's raised enough children to populate a small industry; she's even landed a fancy corporate job.

But D&D still daydreams about her glory days as the shiny new game that took the world by storm. She was going to backpack across Europe, hang with all the rock stars, and write the next great American novel. Somehow, that perky young game turned into a soccer mom with a few gray hairs and a hint of wrinkles around the corners of her eyes. But she has decided that maybe, if she tries really hard, she can still hang on to her childhood dreams...

In short, D&D is having a midlife crisis. She's dropped her conservative print magazine and gone recklessly digital. She's traded her trusty half-orc minivan for that sporty dragonborn convertible she always wanted but could never quite afford. She's slicked back her hair, pasted on some tiefling horns, and silently shouted, "Look at me! I'm still hip! I'm still young!"

The soccer mom of the rpg world has become a desperate housewife: she's away partying so much, her old friends, Bard and Druid, hardly know her anymore; she's been spotted at the Faerunian pantheon's house, getting a bit too friendly with the local deities; and every time her kids have their young, virile WoW server friends over to visit, she goes out of her way to show off her most embarrassingly skimpy outfits. Hello, Mrs. Robinson. Are you trying to seduce me?

And unfortunately for her own self-esteem, D&D might end up being very popular with those virile youngsters for all the wrong reasons. Text removed to avoid offending grandma Yet, behind all her offers of a wild ride, there is something sad to be found in D&D's recent behavior: a desperate cry for help from a game that's afraid to grow old and afraid to grow up.- Epic Meepo, WOTC forum

Quote from: SeanJust a few years ago, D&D turned thirty. If the upcoming game mechanics she promises are any indication, she is much wiser and more mature than she was in the days of her youth. And since those carefree high school years, much has changed in her life: she's moved out of her parents' house; she's raised enough children to populate a small industry; she's even landed a fancy corporate job.

But D&D still daydreams about her glory days as the shiny new game that took the world by storm. She was going to backpack across Europe, hang with all the rock stars, and write the next great American novel. Somehow, that perky young game turned into a soccer mom with a few gray hairs and a hint of wrinkles around the corners of her eyes. But she has decided that maybe, if she tries really hard, she can still hang on to her childhood dreams...

In short, D&D is having a midlife crisis. She's dropped her conservative print magazine and gone recklessly digital. She's traded her trusty half-orc minivan for that sporty dragonborn convertible she always wanted but could never quite afford. She's slicked back her hair, pasted on some tiefling horns, and silently shouted, "Look at me! I'm still hip! I'm still young!"

The soccer mom of the rpg world has become a desperate housewife: she's away partying so much, her old friends, Bard and Druid, hardly know her anymore; she's been spotted at the Faerunian pantheon's house, getting a bit too friendly with the local deities; and every time her kids have their young, virile WoW server friends over to visit, she goes out of her way to show off her most embarrassingly skimpy outfits. Hello, Mrs. Robinson. Are you trying to seduce me?

And unfortunately for her own self-esteem, D&D might end up being very popular with those virile youngsters for all the wrong reasons. Text removed to avoid offending grandma Yet, behind all her offers of a wild ride, there is something sad to be found in D&D's recent behavior: a desperate cry for help from a game that's afraid to grow old and afraid to grow up.- Epic Meepo, WOTC forum

One of these days, I'll have to start a thread on how people are way over-scrutinizing the whole thing. I think the main problem with RPG fans is that there's been a lack of games making an impact on this hobby, which is a shame.

D&D is fine. We just need more games making at least a Vampire/WoD kind of impact so that some people will stop obsessing over all of this. We could use new popular titles and also successful experimentations more than what we are seeing now.

Instead, everyone keeps looking at D&D as some sort of paragon. I love D&D, but it's just a fucking game. It has no responsability to hold up to some beard-reeking grognard standards, nor to revolutionize roleplaying, nor save the indutsry.

I don't know what "Epic Meepo", whoever the fuck that is, expects from the game. But if he wants a revelation in gaming, he should be looking elsewhere, just like people expecting a revolution in boardgaming look elsewhere than at Risk, Monopoly or the usual suspects.

Quote from: Sean...Epic Meepo, WOTC forum

Jesus fucking hell.  As a probable early 4e adopter, I do take a lot of the online criticisms seriously and consider them.  But this?

Jesus fucking hell.