# When did I stop being WotC's target audience?



## Jeff Wilder

Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."

I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released.  I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets.  I bought the dungeon tiles.

Now I buy almost nothing from WotC.  I'm not interested in 4E.  The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis.  (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)

When did I stop being WotC's target audience?  And why?  Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?  Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us?  Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...

It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience.  How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp?  Is it because I turned 40 in May?

It really seems to me that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't care what you think" has the cause and effect backward.  I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think.  So why and when did they stop caring?


----------



## DaveMage

Jeff Wilder said:


> It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience.  How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp?  Is it because I turned 40 in May?





I can't answer your question, Jeff, since I'm sitting in the same boat with you.  (Although I'm much younger than you at 38.    )


----------



## Crothian

Jeff Wilder said:


> I'm not interested in 4E.
> 
> I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think.




Which is it?  Are you not interested in the game or are you not buying because you think they aren't listening to you?


----------



## avin

What has really changed?

Time flows, new editions will come, 4e will be past...


----------



## Snoweel

I didn't buy much in the way of 3.5 stuff - the Core books, FRCS, Manual of the Planes, Oriental Adventures, Eberron... I steered away from mindless splatbooks and bought a few things from 3rd party publishers.

I enjoyed 3.5 but never felt the need to buy everything.

And now I love 4e. But no way am I going to buy everything. I have the Core books and I bought that piece of crap Keep on the Shadowfell but the next book I'm going to buy will be Manual of the Planes. *Maybe* Draconomicon if I like it after I've flicked through it.

Am I WotC's target audience? Who cares. I'll buy what appeals and use the internet for (free) inspiration.


----------



## Sunderstone

> When did I stop being WotC's target audience?




When Hasbro started dreaming they could tap into the WoW market.





edit* fwiw, they lost me when they made all these crazy splats (imho, the early attempts at WoW- type munchkinism). My WotC buying dropped sharply, but 3rd party publishers picked up more of my money. 
To everyone, try not to take my post as flame bait. Its my opinion.

2nd edit* Im 39 as well in case anyone is keeping track.


----------



## Serendipity

The bottom line, really, is this - if you aren't buying 4e then, no, you aren't WotCs target audience.   Not slinging mud but that's pretty much the facts of it IMHO.  It's naught to do with age or other possible demographics.  
Of course, it's also 5 in the morning here and I might well be missing the point of your post.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Crothian said:


> Which is it?  Are you not interested in the game or are you not buying because you think they aren't listening to you?



Why do you assume they're mutually exclusive, when -- since I wrote both of them -- you should be assuming they're not?

I'm not interested in 4E, because 4E was designed by people who weren't listening to me (or people like me).  I am not saying 4E was designed while listening to nobody ... I'm saying 4E was designed without listening to _me_.  And I'm wondering why, and when, WotC decided to stop listening to people like me.

Why, and when, did WotC decide I wasn't their target audience?


----------



## megamania

I remember when 3x came out the people playing before (long time veterans) felt they were ignored as a "new" audience was targeted.  They went on about the armor becoming more sci-fi and pictures having pierced noses and eye brows.

The game evolves.

That said.... going ditital instead of having magazines I still consider an afront to me but that is another subject.

What I found interesting is I kinda feel the same way and I'm 39.  Is it just a generation thing?


----------



## CharlesRyan

The reasons each of us enjoy D&D are many and complex. The "target customer" isn't a discreet profile; rather, its a spectrum with very fuzzy edges. As WotC makes adjustments to D&D--and hence, to what makes D&D appealing--it's inevitable that that fuzzy zone wiggles one way or the other. Before, you were within that zone; now you seem to have fallen out of it. That's disappointing to you, and, I'm sure, to WotC, but it's inevitable that it will happen as the game evolves.

In other words, it's not that WotC said, "forget those completists who buy every book--there's no money in them!" It's that, for presumably a variety of reasons, they felt the game had to change. And that meant that some customers would inevitably fall away. Presumably it also meant even more would be picked up.

[And as for the "I bought everything--surely people like me are valuable?" viewpoint: Every RPG ever published has had some number of fans who bought everything ever made for it. The question isn't whether those fans are valuable--they clearly are!--but whether they are sufficient to sustain and grow the business. One certainly hopes that in D&D's case the answer is Yes, but hundreds of games have died and left behind fans bewildered by the fact that their loyalty wasn't enough to keep the game going.]


----------



## Jeff Wilder

CharlesRyan said:


> The reasons each of us enjoy D&D are many and complex. The "target customer" isn't a discreet profile; rather, its a spectrum with very fuzzy edges. As WotC makes adjustments to D&D--and hence, to what makes D&D appealing--it's inevitable that that fuzzy zone wiggles one way or the other. Before, you were within that zone; now you seem to have fallen out of it. That's disappointing to you, and, I'm sure, to WotC, but it's inevitable that it will happen as the game evolves.



This is getting to the heart of what I'm trying to figure out.  I understand what you're saying, and I'm not exactly disputing it.  But if the edges are "fuzzy," then how did I go from "completist" to "nearly nothing"?

Since I'm not an all-or-nothing gamer, generally speaking (there are many games for which I only have a modest selection of books), doesn't the fact that the demarcation is so extreme kinda call into question the "fuzzy edges" idea?


----------



## Dragonhelm

Maybe it was when you no longer needed WotC.  You've collected an entire edition's worth of material (a hefty feat, to be sure!).  

WotC reached a point to where they put out just about everything they could for 3.5.  It reminded me of the end of 2nd edition.  So when the ideas run out and profits sink, it's time to put out a new edition and get the higher dollar amounts one gets with core books.  Enter 4th edition.

So here you are with everything from 3rd edition and the idea of collecting everything...again...is there in your thoughts.  You may feel like you've been there and done that.  You're not the target audience because you have it already; the target being those who don't.  

I know that I feel that way at times.  I had a pretty hefty 1e/2e collection, and I collected many of the same books in 3e as well (some better, some worse).  Now here's 4e.  I've already got two editions of Draconomicons and class/race sourcebooks.  Now they're doing it again.  It gets worse because of the ever-expanding core.  So now this edition will have more than one Draconomicon, for example.

At some point, you have to ask why you need all this info again.  The answer is that you don't.  Of course, you don't need anything beyond the core three books.  You don't need WotC to give you all the good dragon info (example) because you already have the Draconomicon from 3e.  You don't need WotC to give you all the class options, because you have them already.  And so on and so forth.

I could be off and this is just a guess.  But it's a theory at least.  My advice is to stick with 3e, if that's the game you like to play.  You have plentiful resources which can provide years of fun to come.  Maybe you're no longer WotC's target audience, but you may be the target audience for other companies.  Take a look at what Paizo is doing.  

Don't worry about being a target audience and buying things because it is WotC.  Perhaps now is the time to focus on the fun you're going to have with all those 3.5 books.


----------



## avin

Jeff Wilder said:


> Why, and when, did WotC decide I wasn't their target audience?






megamania said:


> I remember when 3x came out the people playing before (long time veterans) felt they were ignored as a "new" audience was targeted.





That's it. There was AD&D fans thinking Wotc ignored them, now you are thinking you're not their target audience.

Reason is: they need to sell and editions need to be different to sell well.

So far I'm fine, playing 3.5 and 4.0. I hated AD&D silly rules, maybe I'll find 5e a crap too 

Keep playing 3.5, it's a solid and nice edition


----------



## Nebulous

Hmm...i'm 36 and not liking a lot of changes 4e is making, although i'm playing the game and enjoying it (and still buying the hell out of minis).  I wonder when someone officially becomes a "grognard"?


----------



## ExploderWizard

As much as we like to think that its just Hasbro enjoying being evil and stomping on us we can't ignore some basic truths.

1) Hasbro is not out to "get" anyone.

2) Hasbro is a large company with shareholders. Shareholders want profit. Competitive games, especially collectible ones, make more money than roleplaying games.

3) The D&D IP is a source of revenue. Hasbro will want to generate as much revenue from it as they possibly can in the best interest of thier shareholders. 

4) The D&D IP has value, and roleplaying games have a much lesser value (in $$). The splitting of the two was inevitable from the moment Hasbro acquired the rights. Some far seeing individuals saw this coming and created the OGL.

5) Roleplaying games and profit-first motives do not mix. A company can make money producing roleplaying games just not the kind of money that attracts shareholders. 

The whole process is a result of Hasbro having the best of intentions for thier shareholders rather than the worst for roleplayers. We are of course, left hanging by this process but the OGL still exists and small private companies that care about the hobby are still around. 

As a disclaimer I am in no way saying that 4E in its current form is not a roleplaying game. If future editions are purely collectible card and mini based then I will go so far as to say that, even if it says D&D on the package.


----------



## Maggan

CharlesRyan said:


> but hundreds of games have died and left behind fans bewildered by the fact that their loyalty wasn't enough to keep the game going.]




Ouch, I read "game" as "gamers" and thought "harsh world!". 

/M


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Dragonhelm said:


> [Many good points.]
> 
> You're not the target audience because you have it already; the target being those who don't.



But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it?  4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books.  Right?  Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.

I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.

(I want to be very clear that this is not some backdoor into an edition war.  If nobody, including me, ever mentions editions, that's fine with me.  I'm just trying to figure out how I went from buying everything to buying almost nothing, and then being told that my opinions about things don't matter because I'm now buying almost nothing.)


----------



## Crothian

Jeff Wilder said:


> Why, and when, did WotC decide I wasn't their target audience?




They can't listen to everyone.  They have to choose a way for their game to go and that was going to leave some people out of the game.  They didn't decide you weren't their target audience, you did.


----------



## scruffygrognard

Jeff Wilder said:


> Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."
> 
> I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released.  I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets.  I bought the dungeon tiles.
> 
> Now I buy almost nothing from WotC.  I'm not interested in 4E.  The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis.  (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)
> 
> When did I stop being WotC's target audience?  And why?  Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?  Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us?  Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...
> 
> It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience.  How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp?  Is it because I turned 40 in May?
> 
> It really seems to me that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't care what you think" has the cause and effect backward.  I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think.  So why and when did they stop caring?




Ditto for me.  The BIG plus-side to this is that I'm saving a lot of $$$$ that I used to dump into gaming stuff.  I'm guessing that WotC wanted to crush the OGL (as much as it possibly could) and restrict its IP a lot more when it designed 4th edition.  I also think that they aimed at producing more modular books, so that 4th edition customers would have to invest more $$$$ in order to have the same number of options that they had in the core books for 3.X.  The PHB (in my opinion) was deliberately scaled back so that customers who wanted the "core options" they had in the past now needed to buy additional installments of the PHB.  They have also pushed Dragon magazine buy having this e-zine offer previews of these "missing" options.  To me it seems like 4th edition offers less bang for the buck _by design_.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Jeff Wilder said:


> This is getting to the heart of what I'm trying to figure out.  I understand what you're saying, and I'm not exactly disputing it.  But if the edges are "fuzzy," then how did I go from "completist" to "nearly nothing"?




Sorry, what I meant by "fuzzy" wasn't that the slope away from hardcore to nothing was necessarily gradual, but that the factors of appeal are very complex, making the edges of the target customer profile hard to pin down.

Let's take a hypothetical 2E player (since we're all quite old enough to remember them!). There are a million reasons he might like D&D, some of which even he probably isn't fully aware of. Along comes 3E, and he finds he just isn't into D&D as much. He likes the rules OK, and isn't put off by buying new books. So why? Perhaps part of appeal was the imagery--the Elmore/Parkinson/Caldwell look. The look changed, the game just didn't fire his imagination, and his interest fell away. Being a hardcore fan takes some energy, and when the payoff wasn't there, even in subtle ways, he was no longer motivated to put in that energy. (Or dollars.)

By changing the look of D&D, the publisher didn't intentionally refocus on a different target audience. But any pronounced shift in the game's appeal will be enough, I think, to undermine some of fans' enthusiasm--enough for them to drop out completely, even if they were really into it before.

Sad for you, sad for WotC (I'm sure they'd love to keep every hardcore, purchasing fan!), but hopefully offset by even more new fans. . . .


----------



## TerraDave

I _almost _agree with snoweel. Interesting. 

JW: if you have all of the many books and minis released for an edition that is the best for you, its not surprising you have little interest in the new one.


----------



## Halivar

The problem with RPG's is that any profit you might derive from a gamer is only once-per-product. You buy one (maybe two if it's core) book, and the revenue stream begins and ends with that purchase. In order to keep the stream flowing, you have to keep printing new books. Eight years later, you've got complete market saturation. The only people buying your previous books are new gamers, and new content for old gamers is hard to come by.

Think of it like a book or a video game; you put it out, and millions enjoy it. After a while, everyone that wants to enjoy it _has_ enjoyed it, and your revenue stream declines. What do you do? You put out a sequel. It's new! People don't have it, yet! They give you money. The metaphor breaks down, though, because RPG's don't have diminishing consumer value like books and video games. This makes the situation even harder on RPG publishers. WotC _must_ make drastic changes per edition because they are competing with their own previous edition. They can't just say, "well, 3.x was good enough, so we'll stick with that." Good for the consumer? Possibly. Good for the grognard? Heck, yes. Good for WotC? If all they cared about was supporting the target market _as it currently existed_, they would have simply folded shop long ago; work's done.


----------



## xechnao

ExploderWizard said:


> As much as we like to think that its just Hasbro enjoying being evil and stomping on us we can't ignore some basic truths.
> 
> 1) Hasbro is not out to "get" anyone.




 It is out to "get" people that find value in the products it can produce. People have needs and people get caught up by their needs. Because people can not produce by themselves as efficiently as Hasbro can arguments among people and Hasbro are guaranteed.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

TerraDave said:


> JW: if you have all of the many books and minis released for an edition that is the best for you, its not surprising you have little interest in the new one.



You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*.  I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all.  I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game.  That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.

* Note that, like another poster upthread, I'm becoming a little concerned about Paizo's vision for changing, uh, the the second most-recent edition, too, however.


----------



## Halivar

cperkins said:


> The PHB (in my opinion) was deliberately scaled back so that customers who wanted the "core options" they had in the past now needed to buy additional installments of the PHB....To me it seems like 4th edition offers less bang for the buck _by design_.



Disagree completely. The number of classes may have been scaled back, but each class has gone from a two-page write-up to twenty pages (or whatever... it's _a lot more_). Fewer classes, more content per class. If you like playing paladins or fighters, 4E offers much *more* bang for the buck.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it?  4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books.  Right?  Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.



I think here is one major point - the WotC designers and many 4E players probably thinks the changes are an evolution of 3E. 
But you don't. Could Wotc or its designers predicted this and find a different route? (And both is required - if they knew the "Jeff Wilders" of this world will be lost to us but couldn't come up with a way to keep them, this couldn't change their course of action.)

WotC put out "test samples" of 4E - did you enjoy the Bo9S? Did you like the Warlock or the Reserve Feats? Did you look into Star Wars Saga Edition? How did you feel about the skill system?
I suppose WotC put these out and saw that people liked this. And so they eventually they felt safer with the system ideas they had in mind.

But each of these individual aspects might have been a subset of what you didn't like in WotC material. Maybe you bought Bo9S, but found it one of WotC weaker products. Maybe you didn't like Reserve Feats or the idea of "always available magic". But you still bought these products because before you personally saw them, you wouldn't have guessed that these rules weren't to your liking - or because other aspects were.



> I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.



I don't know how much this was a conscious decision on WotC, but I suppose they decided to create products that turn out not to appeal to you. 
It wasn't a decision of "Let's no longer appeal to gamer type X" but more "Let's appeal to gamer type Y" or "the market is changing to more gamers of type Y". If we were to create Venn diagrams, there is an overlap between "Gamers of Type X" and "Gamers of Type Y" and 3E covered a little of both (but not all), and now 4E covers a little more of Y and less of X. 

I suppose WotC hope is that the extra part of Y is larger then the part of X that got lost...


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

WotC and I parted ways pretty early on.  

I bought the three 3.0 core books.  I bought one WotC splat book, and two WotC adventures.  I liked 3.0, but I wasn't impressed with the splats or the adventures.  Most of my 3E purchases went to third-party companies.  By the time 3.5 came out, I was realizing that 3E wasn't my cup-of-tea.  I didn't buy any of the 3.5 books.  I checked out 4E (but didn't buy); interesting game, but not what I want out of D&D.


----------



## Noumenon

> 4) The D&D IP has value, and roleplaying games have a much lesser value (in $$). The splitting of the two was inevitable from the moment Hasbro acquired the rights. Some far seeing individuals saw this coming and created the OGL.




That's sure an interesting assertion -- that WotC employees hoodwinked the company to ensure the survival of the game.  It might have worked out that way, though!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

cperkins said:


> They have also pushed Dragon magazine buy having this e-zine offer previews of these "missing" options.  To me it seems like 4th edition offers less bang for the buck _by design_.



This is an idea I've heard before. 

The fanboy in me doesn't want to consider this possible, but I think it might be true.

In a way (I am still a fanboy).

If I look at the "splats" and other supplements I bought for 3E, most of the material found in them was never used by me. I really just didn't care for it most of the time. At least half of the PrCs are too specific to my taste or just plain underpowered, many feats to fiddly or too hard to qualify for, and the core book spells cover most of my needs when creating an interesting spellcaster. Most of the monsters were unused by me, since I build a lot of classed NPCs in my own campaigns and preferred that to monster-fighting.
Yet I bought all this stuff that never was really useful to me.

It might be too early to tell, but I tend to believe that the "extra" material that I can now find in supplements or the Dragon are worth it far more. And they are even easier to add into the game (gain a level, retrain a feat or power!) then ever before - by design.

I don't know if WotC is intentionally reducing the "content" or if it's just intentionally building only well-tested and useful content, and thus needs more time to get it done. Maybe that is a little to idealistic.

But it seems to me I thing the signal to noise ratio has gone better - but the volume might have gone down, too.


----------



## rounser

> WotC must make drastic changes per edition because they are competing with their own previous edition.



Don't make out that it had to be this way.  They could have just come out with a refined new edition of D&D (refinements being what new editions are generally about), rather than a mostly new game mislabelled as a new edition.  Mechanics overhauls would have been enough, but it's not even thematically similar, they had to have their way with that as well.  No campaign of mine will feature "dragonborn warlords".


----------



## scruffygrognard

Halivar said:


> Disagree completely. The number of classes may have been scaled back, but each class has gone from a two-page write-up to twenty pages (or whatever... it's _a lot more_). Fewer classes, more content per class. If you like playing paladins or fighters, 4E offers much *more* bang for the buck.



I wasn't trying to start an edition war... just stating my opinion.  I've played 4th edition and feel that, even with their powers, each class seems more restricted... more pigeon-holed than before.  I don't care for the design choices made (what is core and what isn't... both races and classes, how class powers scale/work, the emphasis on battle-mats/shifting squares, the look of the books, and how the game scales over time).

Overall I find 4th edition to be less bang for *MY *buck... though I realize that opinions vary widely on this and respect that I'm the odd-man out.  It just bums me out to be "left behind" after 26 years of playing and enjoying every iteration of D&D.


----------



## Brutorz Bill

Jeff,
 I'm right there with you.  I've been buying gaming products from Wotc/TSR regularly since '79.  I like alot of different games.  Play alot of different games. BUT...I don't buy Wotc products anymore.  They just don't appeal to me. Now I'm not a 4e Hater, it just doesn't appeal to my gaming tastes and my groups gaming tastes and we play everything from 3.x to C&C to Rifts to d20 Modern.  
Maybe it is an age thing.  I'm 39.  I still buy gaming products.  Interested in Pathfinder and I just bought some more True20 books.  But I haven't bought a WotC product in quite awhile.  My FLGS even offered the whole 4e set for 50% off, I looked at the books and sat them back down on the shelf. 
If Dragon was still available in print form I'd probably still be buying it, instead I've switch to Kobold Quarterly. But even with those purchases I'm not spending nearly the money I once was on gaming product, and these days I've got a bit more spending money than I used to.  So I guess I should thank WotC for saving me some money.  
So you are not by yourself in the way you are feeling.   
Regards,
 Bill


----------



## BraveSirRobin

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it?  4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books.  Right?  Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.
> 
> I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.
> 
> (I want to be very clear that this is not some backdoor into an edition war.  If nobody, including me, ever mentions editions, that's fine with me.  I'm just trying to figure out how I went from buying everything to buying almost nothing, and then being told that my opinions about things don't matter because I'm now buying almost nothing.)





I think in a way you are better equiped to answer your own question more then we are.  Ask yourself what you don't like about 4.0 that 3.5 had.  Ask yourself what you liked in 3.5 that 4.0 has.  You stopped being the target audience when WOTC decided that there were more buyers that liked the first rather then the second.  That being said, you are probably still the target audience.  Its just that their product doesn't satisfy you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Jeff Wilder said:


> You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*.  I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all.  I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game.  That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.
> 
> * Note that, like another poster upthread, I'm becoming a little concerned about Paizo's vision for changing, uh, the the second most-recent edition, too, however.




This is a _very_ hypothetical question, but what if the "fixes" would still require you to leave most of the rules stuff of the last behind? 
That's essentially what's 4E is forcing us to do. You might be able to keep the fluff (screw POL, Bael Turaeth, Nerathi and Tieflings!), but the crunch is lost. Maybe a change to the way BAB and skills works, maybe a total overhaul of the spell system (imagine going to caster level = spell level approach)

Another question is - how would I feel about a Pathfinder-like approach (if it wasn't for 4E). In a way, I think I would be a lot more draconic with it then I was. My ideals for backwards compatibility haven't really been achieved. And just ramping up the power of some classes and adding a lot of subsystems wouldn't have covered it to me, either. For a short-term change, it was fine, though. Getting new toys is fun, especially if you know that any consequences to imbalances or playability can be forgotten once the "real" new edition came. But it would be harder for me to accept otherwise.


----------



## Ximenes088

Jeff Wilder said:


> You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*.  I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all.  I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game.  That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.



Except that they did.

They just didn't fix it in a way that satisfied you. They fixed it in a way that they presumed would pull in the optimal number of old hands and new players. Whether they're right or wrong about that is something that still needs a couple years to shake out, but for me at least they've got me spending more on 4e stuff already than I spent on 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 combined. I'm back in the game in a way I haven't been since Erol Otus was doing covers. This is small consolation for those left behind by the shifts in design priorities, but it's the sort of calculus that any business that wants to stay viable has to make. If the ROI on X buy-all loyalists can't justify the work while the ROI on 3X new players can, then there's not much question where the business has to go.


----------



## Janx

I started in 1990 on 2. I bought just about every 2e book that was non-world specific.
2e ran until 2002 or so, when 3e came out (don't recall exact year).  That got me over 10 years on 1 edition.

3e came out with what I saw as good idea to clean up the game.  I bought the core books new (at$20 original price), and the splat books used.  I saved some money, and only bought the books when I had a PC to use them.

When 3.5E came out, I waited a year, then traded in my 3e books and rebought the core books.  I bought a single 3.5 splatbook.

I have not bought a single 4e book.  Oddly enough, my group and I were going to buy into 4e before it released.  Then it shipped, and I didn't like what heard about it.

This means the art had no impact on me.  I didn't like the summary of the rules as implemented.

So WotC lost a customer and a sale.

WotC's target demographic is people who like games and have money to buy them.  If WotC thinks differently, they need to fire their market research staff.

Therefore, if I like games, and I bought other games besides 4e, 4e must be a product that I don't want.

Now its entirely possible that WotC has made more sales to NEW people.  But failing to retain EXISTING customers is also a failure.  And the sudden influx of cash to WotC for sales of the new books may be misleading.  A large number of D&D folks will buy a new edition, just to check it out.  That can look like a huge success (and from the goal of selling books, it is).  However, the point is to continue selling books (customer retention again).  So the real test is how many folks buy expansions.

I have no doubt that I am WotC's target demographic.  As is everyone on this forum.  If WotC fails to make a product that appeals to us, that is WotC's failure.  It may take some time to see if that failure is significant or not.


----------



## Tigerbunny

I gotta say, I don't buy the "factor of age" thing one bit. If there's one thing I've noticed about those who I know who are the biggest converts to 4E, we tend to be of two demographics: 

1. Old-timers like me (vintage 1980!), who drifted away from the game since Red Box/RC era, find 4E a nice mix of robust rules with improvisational freewheeling attitude, and welcome the lack of setting focus and loss of decades of rules-cruft.

2. Young players and casual players who were intimidated by the formidable learning curve and mechanical complexity of 3E, but unsatisfied by the lack of options in Neo-OldSchool. I have more kids and casual players interested in the game than I've seen in 20 years.

These are GROWTH markets. The 3E hardcore are not. The old-timers who are set in their ways and attached to their own particular Golden Age are not. Is it any wonder that Hasbro wants to pursue market segments that have growth potential?


----------



## CleverNickName

Tigerbunny said:


> 1. Old-timers like me (vintage 1980!), who drifted away from the game since Red Box/RC era, find 4E a nice mix of robust rules with improvisational freewheeling attitude, and welcome the lack of setting focus and loss of decades of rules-cruft.



Well, not *all* of us.


----------



## Toben the Many

Jeff Wilder said:


> When did I stop being WotC's target audience?  And why?  Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?




I think the answer to this is pretty simple. Mike Mearls has said directly that 4th Edition was in response to a number of issues that players had mentioned they had with 3rd Edition. For example, "prep-time takes too long", "stat blocks are large and confusing", "Christmas Tree effect with magic items", "a narrow sweet spot from levels 5 to 12", etc. 

4th Edition is a response to many of those criticisms of 3rd Edition. However, Jeff Wilder, you are 3rd Edition complete-ist. So, for you, 3rd Edition either didn't have those issues, you found a way to circumvent them, or something else. 3rd Edition was already good enough for you. When 4th Edition arrived, you were already using a game system that was sufficient for you. There was not need for a new edition. And thus, you were not WotC's target audience.


----------



## HelloChristian

I think Tigerbunny makes some good points. Wizzo is a business owned by a publicly-traded corporation. It is their job to sell a product and make money. While they value the opinions of their customer base, they need to explore avenues of income that might grate on the nerves of some. DDI, the new minis packaging, and an entire new edition itself are all examples of this. Fortunately, we all own and are playing the games we want to play, be it 3.5, 4e or a retro-clone.

And in conclusion, Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Drkfathr1

I feel a little like the OP, but I can see how I'm not the target audience. I used to be a completist, but haven't been for years. I realized I don't have to buy everything that comes out. Don't know if that's because I'm getting older, or if I'm just getting more practical in terms of what I'll use out of a library of 50+ rule books. 

I'm 35 by the way, and have been playing since 1ED AD&D. 

I think they had to switch their focus to younger players and had to try to catch the same folks that are into WoW, and that's not a bad thing, just natural progression. The game has evolved alot over the years, and will continue to do so. 

I do wonder how badly the gaming community has fractured over the new edition though. It may not be as bad as many think, but I would love to see some accurate figures on how many "new players" will be brought into D&D vs. how many "existing players" will leave (by not buying into the new line). 

Growing the game/hobby requires keeping the players you already have in addtion to adding the new ones. That's an important factor that I think many of us fear WOTC may have lost sight of. Although that's probably just a matter of perception, its still a very real concern.


----------



## Cadfan

Halivar said:


> The metaphor breaks down, though, because RPG's don't have diminishing consumer value like books and video games. This makes the situation even harder on RPG publishers.



I agree with most of what you said, but not this bit I've quoted.  I think RPGs do have diminishing consumer value, almost exactly like books and video games.  It diminishes at a lesser rate, but it still diminishes.

I think this is a big part of what drives new editions (1), and also what drives grognards away from new editions (2).

(1) tastes change, and a product is less valuable to gamers who are more in tune with modern trends.
(2) after doing the same sorts of things so many times, older gamers become unable to realize the same sense of wonder and enthusiasm they had when the game (and gaming) was new to them, causing bitterness and a tendency to blame younger gamers and new editions rather than a recognization that the change was internal.

I know my tastes have changed since I started gaming.  I've watched the tastes of others change.  Fortunately for me, my two highest priorities are respectively well served by 4e and system independant.  

High priority number one is that there be an underlying game to the RPG.  Too many RPGs just give you rules for simulating things, and assume that you'll just have fun now, because if you're simulating something cool, obviously you're having fun.  This isn't so.  For me, a game requires interesting decisions, so whatever the game focuses upon must include interesting decision making.  3e focused on combat, amongst other things of course, but definitely it focused on combat.  And for all too many classes, there were too few interesting decisions to be made.  4e expanded upon this, and fully integrated a grid, increasing the amount of interesting decisions available.  This wasn't the only solution (Paranoia has a different solution, Feng Shui has a different solution, other games don't really focus on combat in the first place, etc), but it was a good solution.  Games that haven't got a good solution to this problem often end up as glorified sessions of dice gambling.

High priority number two is that I can DM in such a way that my players have fun.  This is system independent.  I get my biggest kick out of knowing that I ran a successful evening.  I find that the best ways to get that rise out of your players are system independent, because they rely on player accomplishment rather than character accomplishment.  This is mostly system independent because it usually involves solving mysteries or coming up with successful plans, although 4e's strong tabletop element allows for player accomplishment of the tactical variety.


----------



## Aeolius

For those keeping track, I’ll turn 43 in a few weeks and I started playing D&D with Basic D&D back in 1979. I’m not sure when I stopped being D&D’s target audience.

   Until recently, I consider myself to be a self-titled leap-grognard, as skipped from 1e to 3e. I bought most of what 3e/3.5e had to offer, unless it pertained to a campaign setting I had no interest in (I prefer GH) or had little information I found useful. With the advent of 4e, a new generation of leap-grognard, those jumping from 2e to 4e, has appeared. 

   Granted, I haven't run a standard dungeon crawl since my 1e days, well into the time others were playing 2e. Did I stop being a member of their target audience at that time? My 3e games are set in unusual settings and I run my games online. Did that disqualify me from being in the target audience?

   I know I am no longer part of WotC’s/Hasbro’s concern as, while I bought the 4e core books the day they were released, I didn’t care for them. I’m not on their radar for the DDI, as I use the Macintosh OS. I am also uninterested in Tiny Adventures on Facebook, but would welcome an official D&D presence on Second Life. I find myself looking over the WotC boards less each day, in favor of sites like Kobold Quarterly, Paizo, Phoenix Lore, and the like. 

   Perhaps I am 5e’s target audience.


----------



## Fifth Element

Ximenes088 said:


> Except that they did.
> 
> They just didn't fix it in a way that satisfied you.



This right here. Everyone has such differing opinions about the good parts of each edition that one player's "fix" is another's "ruin", and another's "meh".

We can't take changes personally. Any changes made were presumably thought to be wanted by the greatest number of players. They may turn out to be wrong, but the designers certainly didn't set out to alienate a particular segment of the player base.


----------



## DaveMage

Toben the Many said:


> 4th Edition is a response to many of those criticisms of 3rd Edition. However, Jeff Wilder, you are 3rd Edition complete-ist. So, for you, 3rd Edition either didn't have those issues, you found a way to circumvent them, or something else. 3rd Edition was already good enough for you. When 4th Edition arrived, you were already using a game system that was sufficient for you. There was not need for a new edition. And thus, you were not WotC's target audience.





Well said.  And this is why Pathfinder has became viable.  

WotC did not do enough with 4E to cater to many of us who are *happy* with 3.5.


----------



## Switchblade

Personally I don't mind that I think 4e is rubbish as 3.5 had a good enough run that there are enough books to keep me going. Even better, when 4e came out I got to pick up lots of books I wouldn't have otherwise bothered with as they were dirt cheap. More that enough to soften 
the blow of wasting money on the 4e players handbook.
(Bit disapointed that they only got 2 fiendish codexes done though. I'd have liked to a Neutral Evil fiends codex but that's neither here nor there)

If you have every 3.5 book is it really worth getting upset over not liking 4e?

Ignore it and enjoy playing the system you prefer.


----------



## Irda Ranger

I have a question about the "D&D must evolve or go out of business" argument. Why isn't D&D like Scrabble, Chess or Monopoly? They don't evolve, and they don't go out of business either. (And the different "versions" of Monopoly don't really count - they're the exact same game with a different color scheme and names). Companies still make a profit selling those games, and people keep buying those games (either new gamers or gamers replacing a worn out set).  In theory, couldn't TSR still be around selling the Basic Set to the new generation of gamers on the same basis that Hasbro is still selling Monopoly, Life and Clue?

I think the Supplements could also still be selling. TSR went cost-over-profit with their boxed sets in the 80s, but paperback gazzetters (e.g., "Supplement IX: Ravenloft") can be printed relatively cheaply and in quantities well matched to demand.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Irda Ranger said:


> I have a question about the "D&D must evolve or go out of business" argument. Why isn't D&D like Scrabble, Chess or Monopoly? They don't evolve, and they don't go out of business either. (And the different "versions" of Monopoly don't really count - they're the exact same game with a different color scheme and names). Companies still make a profit selling those games, and people keep buying those games (either new gamers or gamers replacing a worn out set). In theory, couldn't TSR still be around selling the Basic Set to the new generation of gamers on the same basis that Hasbro is still selling Monopoly, Life and Clue?
> 
> I think the Supplements could also still be selling. TSR went cost-over-profit with their boxed sets in the 80s, but paperback gazzetters (e.g., "Supplement IX: Ravenloft") can be printed relatively cheaply and in quantities well matched to demand.




All the examples you mentioned are competitive games. They are a different ball of wax completely. This is why D&D is headed in that direction too. 

D&D is an IP
An IP is an asset
A publicly held company needs as much profit from its assets as it can get.

Collectible competitive games are hot sellers. 
Make D&D a collectible competitive game = profit.


----------



## Cadfan

Irda Ranger said:


> I have a question about the "D&D must evolve or go out of business" argument. Why isn't D&D like Scrabble, Chess or Monopoly? They don't evolve, and they don't go out of business either. (And the different "versions" of Monopoly don't really count - they're the exact same game with a different color scheme and names). Companies still make a profit selling those games, and people keep buying those games (either new gamers or gamers replacing a worn out set).  In theory, couldn't TSR still be around selling the Basic Set to the new generation of gamers on the same basis that Hasbro is still selling Monopoly, Life and Clue?
> 
> I think the Supplements could also still be selling. TSR went cost-over-profit with their boxed sets in the 80s, but paperback gazzetters (e.g., "Supplement IX: Ravenloft") can be printed relatively cheaply and in quantities well matched to demand.



That's an easy question to answer.

Because in a roleplaying game you're playing a character, and the sorts of characters that people want to play change based on what's popular in fantasy literature, movies, and television.

If the primary reason that people played chess was because they liked pretending to be a rook, then chess would no doubt wane in popularity when pretending to be a rook fell out of favor in comparison to, I dunno, pretending to be a little top hat or a boot.

But that's not why people play Chess, so that doesn't happen.

Fantasy literature is _different_ these days, in comparison to the days of yore back in the 70s or 80s.  The same is true of movies.  And comic books.  And Saturday morning cartoons.  And a whole new genre of stuff from Asia has shown up and stuck its foot in the door.  Heck, since D&D was first written, at least two _entirely new genres_ of fantasy literature have come into existence: Romantic Fantasy, and New Weird.  And they've got their own conventions and character archetypes, and if you want to appeal to people who want to roleplay characters, you have to let them roleplay characters they _like._


----------



## Schmoe

Halivar said:


> The problem with RPG's is that any profit you might derive from a gamer is only once-per-product. You buy one (maybe two if it's core) book, and the revenue stream begins and ends with that purchase. In order to keep the stream flowing, you have to keep printing new books. Eight years later, you've got complete market saturation. The only people buying your previous books are new gamers, and new content for old gamers is hard to come by.




That's not a good reason for a dramatic shift in games, though.  For example, I bought many, many 3.5 supplements.  I think it's accepted that, perhaps, WotC needed to do something new with the game to continue to draw revenue from the people who have "everything", and 4e was certainly warranted by those criteria.  However, 4e marks a dramatic shift to the point where I'm not buying 4e.  It's not that I'm not buying because I have everything.  Actually, I'm looking at buying Pathfinder stuff.  It's that I'm not buying because the direction of 4e is a direction I don't really like.  And I think that is the heart of Jeff's question.  Why did WotC choose a direction with 4e that was such a radical departure from previous versions, when they could have retained many buyers by building on previous versions instead?

My guess is that WotC felt there was a large market of potential players that were put off by fundamental aspects of earlier versions of D&D, and they felt that the potential market was greater than the market of loyal customers they already had.  For the math inclined:

(Potential market gained by dramatic shift - loss of current market due to dramatic shift) > (Potential market gained by continuing current direction - loss of current market due to continuing current direction)


----------



## smdmcl

I am 40 years old, have played the red box, 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions of D&D since the early 80's and I am in WoTC's target audience with 4th edition. In fact, by Christmas, I will have purchased more WoTC product than I did through the entire 3rd edition era.

Why? I never fell in love with 3rd edition. It was playable but, very quickly, I grew tired of the over-complicated rules that led to bickering and rules-lawyering at the game table. IMHO, 4th edition has retained the options I need (greater than the first 2 editions) while making the rules simple and streamlined (more user friendly than 3rd) so that we rarely even need to look up the rules at the table any longer. Do I love 4th edition? No, so far it's shown itself to be a great game for my group but there are always things I think they could have done differently but, I think I may have a little crush.

For the record:
3rd edition purchases: 3.0 PHB, 3.5 PHB, DMG, MM, Complete Martial, No modules (not that WoTC did many) or other supplements
4th edition purchases: PHB, DMG, MM, AV, Martial Power (on order), H1, H2, H3, P1 (on order) and the DM screen, plus looking forward to the PHB2, Divine and Arcane Power books when they're released.

I'm no trying to say I'm right and anyone else is wrong. I'm just trying to point out that some people have increased their spending with the release of 4th edition. 

Shane


----------



## Psion

Jeff Wilder said:


> I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released.  I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets.  I bought the dungeon tiles.
> 
> Now I buy almost nothing from WotC.  I'm not interested in 4E.  The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis.  (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)




I'm right there with you. WotC could expect me to buy at least one major release per month under 4e, sometimes more.

My thought as to why: They decided to trade a bird in hand in hopes for 2 in the bush that is WoW.

My other cynical thought as to why: the decisions that informed the game design were less informed by perception of what the market "really wants" than what defensive 4e fans (and WotC employees) like to put forth.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty

Sunderstone said:


> edit* fwiw, they lost me when they made all these crazy splats (imho, the early attempts at WoW- type munchkinism).




Splats have been around since 2nd edition, and the first splats for 3E were out within a couple months of the core books.  WoW didn't come out until late 2004.  I'm not quite sure how WoW invented munchkinism, but I'm glad you were able to use it a scapegoat nonetheless.


----------



## xechnao

Psion said:


> My other cynical thought as to why: the decisions that informed the game design were less informed by perception of what the market "really wants" than what defensive 4e fans (and WotC employees) like to put forth.




Wotc believes it has the marketing prereequisites needed for its model to work.


----------



## Aeolius

meepothemighty said:


> i'm not quite sure how wow invented munchkinism, but i'm glad you were able to use it a scapegoat nonetheless.



"stop poking meeeeeeee!!!!"


----------



## ExploderWizard

MeepoTheMighty said:


> Splats have been around since 2nd edition, and the first splats for 3E were out within a couple months of the core books. WoW didn't come out until late 2004. I'm not quite sure how WoW invented munchkinism, but I'm glad you were able to use it a scapegoat nonetheless.




2nd Edition!!!   How bout Greyhawk, Eldritch Wizardry, Blackmoor? 

Splats and supplements are as old as the game itself.


----------



## Campbell

I think the notion that 4e was designed primarily on the basis of market research is largely flawed. While I'm sure the designers of 4e took the feedback they received seriously, I'll posit they did exactly what most game designers do: when given an assignment they made a game they thought would be more enjoyable using their creative muscles. That's right - they just made a game that they liked better. Nefarious bastards.


----------



## JDJblatherings

Irda Ranger said:


> I have a question about the "D&D must evolve or go out of business" argument. Why isn't D&D like Scrabble, Chess or Monopoly? They don't evolve, and they don't go out of business either. (And the different "versions" of Monopoly don't really count - they're the exact same game with a different color scheme and names). Companies still make a profit selling those games, and people keep buying those games (either new gamers or gamers replacing a worn out set).  In theory, couldn't TSR still be around selling the Basic Set to the new generation of gamers on the same basis that Hasbro is still selling Monopoly, Life and Clue?




Games change, even the classics. Chess has undergone a 1000 years of change, monopoly came from a small family of similar games that evolved for a couple of decades before becoming the classic version, it's been spitting out spin-off versions and imitators for decades.  Scrabble went through a period of evolution as well it didn't even have a board in it's earliest incarnation and it was known as Lexiko, It and Criss-Cross before becomign scrabble, Scrabble has also spawned many varitions and imitators.  

RPGs being the open games they are invite even more change then these classic games by having a wider range of options and a built in "do it yourself" nature.  Does this mean the games have to be radically different from edition to edition...nah, but many are going to be.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> I'm right there with you. WotC could expect me to buy at least one major release per month under 4e, sometimes more.
> 
> My thought as to why: They decided to trade a bird in hand in hopes for 2 in the bush that is WoW.



Maybe the bird was growing old or dying? While they loved and cherished him, they knew it would only last them so long? 



> My other cynical thought as to why: the decisions that informed the game design were less informed by perception of what the market "really wants" than what defensive 4e fans (and WotC employees) like to put forth.



I doubt that. 4E came pretty "stealthy" to all of us. Sure, rumours of 4E have been around since at least 3.5 (4E is coming 200x), but they weren't founded. There were no 4E fans until it was announced, and at that point, the game was already too far into development to see any major changes. It saw changes, sure, but the major design goals where already fulfilled, and the rest was mostly tweaking the details. The question wasn't anymore. "Should Fighters have powers" it was "Is Tide of Iron too strong?".


----------



## SteveC

So here's my $.02. What changed with 4E is the business model that WotC is using to sell books and develop the product line. In 4E WotC adopted the "White Wolf" product line method, which is a fundamentally different way of doing things than they had ever used before. By White Wolf, I mean the idea of giving you a small number of powers for each class/clan/whathaveyou and then expanding them dramatically in splats.

In the core PHB you get a "taste" of each character class, and you also have much more narrowly defined classes than what we've seen previously. In the case of the martial characters this can be hard to see, because they've gone from being 1-2 page descriptions to filling a dozen pages each. Even so, you rule out a lot of martial characters in the core rules: you can't make a fighter that effectively uses two weapons, for example, because that's a ranger. I know this has been argued to death, that you can take a fighter, multiclass as a ranger and replace powers, but the fact remains that it is far more difficult, and your character will be a lot less effective than a fighter who plays to the basic defender role.

What you get is a "starter edition" for characters that can do some very basic things, but you end up missing out on a lot of different options, and those options will be presented to you in later supplements.

This is most obvious with magical characters, as you no longer have illusionists, conjurers, and enchanters to name a few. Again, it may be argued that you can kludge together these characters, but they aren't going to be nearly as effective as the splat based classes that are designed to perform those roles by default. Those classes will be back, but they'll be in splats.

So if you want to play the kind of character you could play using only the 3X Core books (PHB/MM/DMG), you're going to be buying the core plus one or more splats.

When Martial Power comes out, the number of core powers and options for those characters is going to triple, and we're going to see two-weapon fighters, ranged rogues, and rangers with animal companions for just a start. The thing is, we had all of that in the core rules for 3X. 

To me, that's the difference in the different in the product line strategy for 4E, and I can see where that would not sit well with some of the previous audience. Frankly, it doesn't with me, but I find that there's so much good about the edition that I overlook a lot of it.

Please note: this is my opinion, I know a lot of you believe that the multiclass system is a lot more robust than I do, for example. That's all okay in the end, it's just one guy's opinion.

EDIT: In case it isn't obvious (and it wasn't when I reread what I just wrote!) I believe it's this change in product line philosophy that has made many folks feel they're no longer in WotC's target audience.

--Steve


----------



## xechnao

Campbell said:


> I think the notion that 4e was designed primarily on the basis of market research is largely flawed. While I'm sure the designers of 4e took the feedback they received seriously, I'll posit they did exactly what most game designers do: when given an assignment they made a game they thought would be more enjoyable using their creative muscles. That's right - they just made a game that they liked better. Nefarious bastards.




I do not agree. I believe certain goals are imposed to designers by developers that have more to do with business than anything else.


----------



## Umbran

Triskaidekafile said:


> The bottom line, really, is this - if you aren't buying 4e then, no, you aren't WotCs target audience.




The "target audience" is the group of people WotC is trying to sell to.  This is not the same as the group of people who actually buy.  To say, "the group of people we're going to try to sell 4e to is the group of people who buy 4e," would be circular.   

Some members of the target may not buy, and some folks who aren't in the target may buy.  The question is, who exactly were the target audience?  Note that anyone who isn't a WotC employee is only guessing at the target audience.  None of us really knows for sure.


----------



## Qwillion

I left and was left behind

I stopped buying WotC when Dungeon and Dragon Magazine where stopped (now I buy Kobold Quarterly). 

I buy products in pdf have for a long time but I like the option of print, heck even most pdf publishers offer print on demand from lulu.com

I also got left behind because Dungeon and Dragon are what converted me from my "Golden Era" of 2E. 

Then I read about the 100 yeah jump forward in the Realms in the timeline book, and thought well that means all my human Npcs are dead.  Which again made me feal like what I cared about was being killed off. 

Then came the bumbling of the GSL, and lack of my favorite 3rd party publishers.  I have seen only one supplement that attracted me Open Design's Wrath of the River King (which may still try to get a copy).

I found a new game to play that my group likes (Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved) and I read things like Book of Experimental Might and the Pathfinder Rpg Beta. 

I hope 4e does succeed, I hope the DDI fails so that I can get my magazines back in print, I hope that there is a 5e that comes back to the OGL.  I hope that Pathfinder Rpg becomes as popular as D&D ever was.


----------



## The Little Raven

Irda Ranger said:


> Why isn't D&D like Scrabble, Chess or Monopoly? They don't evolve, and they don't go out of business either.




Actually, all of these games evolved from their original incarnations.

Chess, obviously, has had the most refinement, since it has existed for centuries, and the basics of the modern form came into being about 500 years ago.

Scrabble has had little change to it in comparison to Chess, but it received some changes between it's original creation in 1938 and it's first major publication in 1948, as well as receiving some revisions in 1952 and 1976.

And as evidenced by it having its own article on its history alone, Monopoly has evolved over time.

Most of us weren't alive to see changes to these games like we are to see changes to D&D, so our perspective on whether they have changed and how dramatic the changes were comes from hindsight.


----------



## Dragonhelm

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it?  4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books.  Right?




Yes, and likewise, many haven't made the switch.  When 3e came along, many went with 3e and many didn't make the transition at all.  It's kind of the natural way of things.  WotC knows they are losing some audience, but with the relaunch, they're also gaining audience.   

Also, with new editions come new tones.  The writing is a bit different this time around compared to 3e.  



> Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.




I highly recommend Paizo's Pathfinder game.  It's more of a natural evolution.



> I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.




Then don't.  Vote with the dollar.  There is no evil overlord standing over you forcing you to buy WotC's stuff.  He's a ninja (kidding!).  

It is weird going from supporting a company and buying their products to dropping them.  I've done that with comic books, music, and gaming.  The thing is, don't buy something for the name of the brand.  Buy it because you like it or will use it.  For those of us with a natural tendency towards collection, it's hard to work around.

Also, we all change over time.  At one point, I had to have a majority of comics coming out from Marvel.  As time went on and prices rose, I read less and less.  Part of it was that the tone of the comics changed and characters acted out of character.  Part of it was cost.  I wasn't enjoying the stories as much.  Things were retconned, and it became hokey.  

So maybe you're having your own evolution.  *shrugs*


----------



## The Ghost

Psion said:


> My thought as to why: They decided to trade a bird in hand in hopes for 2 in the bush that is WoW.




Maybe the bird in hand is nothing more than a prairie chicken while the two in the bush sound a lot like turkeys! Turkeys are bigger and maybe more tasty than a prairie chicken.

My WotC purchases stopped with the first three 4E books. Until they produce either Greyhawk or Ravenloft in 4E that is probably where my 4E purchases end. I think CharlesRyan put it best up thread - I am part of that fuzzy zone in DnD gaming. I have no problem that my tastes differ from the average WotC customer. I have no problem with giving my money to a company that shares my tastes - lately, that has been Paizo and Fantasy Flight. I do have a problem when someone tells me my tastes are wrong, however.

I do wonder, though, why people feel so strongly toward WotC and the Dungeons and Dragons brand?


----------



## avin

On a side note (just for fun, no offense intended), we know that 4E is not Wow, because this topic would be trolled there as "QQ moar n00b"


----------



## Drkfathr1

I wonder if we've reached the point where D&D must become a Genre, rather than a specific game? 

In a way we're already there: Pathfinder, C&C, Runequest, OSRIC, 3E, 4E, etc.,etc.


----------



## TerraDave

Jeff Wilder said:


> You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*.  I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all.  I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game.  That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.




I think the answer has two parts, the specific, and the general.

The specific is basically what Toben the Many said. A lot of people had problems with 3E, and 4E made changes to fix those (percieved) problems and improve game play (for some). I think its worth noting that this is not really about WoW, Hasbro, young, old, DDI...a lot of people in what I am guessing is the exact same demographic as you, or at least many ENWorlders (typical 30 something pale skinned male english speaker playing D&D since early 80s) have found that 4E improves game play, and like it better, and will buy stuff for it in a way they no longer did for 3E. 

But you didn't, and you don't. This leads to the general point. So much stuff for 3E had been released (and it is an incredible amount, by way of comparision, I have a pretty complete 1E collection, it takes up, oh, 18 inches of shelf space, at the most, while my very partial 3E/D20 one takes up much more) and bought by so many people, that WotC didn't really have a choice but to do a big revision. 3.75 would face too much competition, _from what they have already released_. 

D&D just doesn't have the number of players, and hence raw volume of a, say, monopoly. (to touch on an earlier post) And you don't really need that much for it. But WotC wants to sell you a bunch of stuff. So they have to do better. They have to do a big revision that makes what they released before "obsolete". This revision naturally responds to a lot of problems (some) people have with the game.

But you didn't think the game was obsolete. Which leads us back to your problem.


----------



## D'karr

When did Motley Crue become classic rock?


----------



## stephengroy

I'll be 40 in May, and have played since 6th grade.
I've not bought much 3E stuff.
I HAVE played Minis, and it burns me they're changing that.


----------



## joethelawyer

i guess because of the ogl and the d20 license, wotc basically ran out of stuff to put out.  they needed to do a new edition so they could put out all the same materials they and others already put out, but under a new rule system.  otherwise they would have no new revenue streams.

i dont know if wotc planned on losing almost half of their base of customers when launching 4e, but i guess they figured hey, half of our customers spending X per month is better than all of our customers spending next to nothing per month, because all decent product ideas have been done already by us and others.

as to the rest, there is a lot i dont understand.

to begin with, and i dont know i this is relevant to anything in this conversation but i am still amazed by it, i never understood how a card game could have nearly killed off T$R back in the 90's.  (though i understand T$R was complicit in their own doom, i never understood the defection of rpg gamers to card gamers.)

i dont understand how wotc is planning on getting new gamers involved in the game.  i know the edition is designed to appeal to mmorpg players, but i don't see that there is a huge crossover between the markets.  all geeks are not equal.  just because you're a geek in one arena doesn't mean you will like all geeky things.

so other than making something similar in mechanics to mmorpg games, what else are they doing to attract new gamers?

one could argue that the DDI thing is an effort to make dnd more familiar and appealing to the new dnd gamer audience, but other than that, what else are they doing to get new dnd gamers?  and as for DDI i'll beieve it when i see it.  i have little faith it will turn into something good for the company.  

if you dont get new gamers, then with each edition you reduce the base by half each time.  eventually you will be out of people to sell to.

i'd be very curious to see of the people who bought 4e, how many were people who never played dnd before.  

i guess in summary, is this a dying industry with an ever decreasing rate of return, not counting price increases?


----------



## Psion

TerraDave said:


> But you didn't, and you don't. This leads to the general point. So much stuff for 3E had been released (and it is an incredible amount, by way of comparision, I have a pretty complete 1E collection, it takes up, oh, 18 inches of shelf space, at the most, while my very partial 3E/D20 one takes up much more) and bought by so many people, that WotC didn't really have a choice but to do a big revision. 3.75 would face too much competition, _from what they have already released_.




That also has the ring of truth.

Still, you can make a game mechanically incompatible and not have the same philosophical shift seen in 4e.


----------



## Obryn

D'karr said:


> When did Motley Crue become classic rock?



I was listening to a Classic Rock station in Southern Illinois this past weekend.

They played Pearl Jam and I felt ancient.

-O


----------



## DaveMage

joethelawyer said:


> i guess because of the ogl and the d20 license, wotc basically ran out of stuff to put out.




I see this assertion alot, but I just can't believe it.  How can you run out of stuff to put out when the setting is the multiverse?!?!?  If you can't come up with an idea for a cool product in such a setting, then I really don't think you're trying.

I think the real problem lies in the "1 or more rule books released per month" strategy.  Want better sales per book?  *Have fewer books*.  

1E, in its 12-year run, had a total of, what - 10 rulebooks?  Everything else was settings or adventures.  2E started the splat craze and (along with mismanagement) overloaded TSR to the point of failure.  The splat craze continues unchecked and thereby seems to require less and less time between editions. 

Less rulebooks, more ways to use the rules would be ideal, IMO.  (Hopefully Pathfinder will keep the rulebooks to a minimum.)


----------



## Halivar

joethelawyer said:


> i dont know if wotc planned on losing almost half of their base of customers when launching 4e



I think they gauged the market pretty well. I also don't think they lost anywhere near half of their customers.



joethelawyer said:


> so other than making something similar in mechanics to mmorpg games, what else are they doing to attract new gamers?



The 4E = WOW contention is seriously spurious. If I wanted to, I could hand-wave a "3rd Edition is nothing but Baldur's Gate for the tabletop" argument, and it'd have about as much weight. I have yet to see an actual list of similarities unique to 4E; instead, it's only "general feelings" and assumptions. As someone who plays both WOW and D&D, the association is ridiculous. They both have a class they call "paladins," and the similarities end there.



DaveMage said:


> I think the real problem lies in the "1 or more rule books released per month" strategy. Want better sales per book? *Have fewer books*.



You can only sell a particular book once to the same person.


----------



## Crothian

There is nothing wrong with not being their target audience.  I'm not sure I was their target audience in the days of 3.5 either as the adventures and books they came out with for the most part were far removed from the style of game I run.  4e seems no different but like that old 3.5 stuff I buy it because I can use it for the games I want to run.  I imagine the games where I would be the target audience are the games it would be tough to find players for.


----------



## TerraDave

Psion said:


> That also has the ring of truth.
> 
> Still, you can make a game mechanically incompatible and not have the same philosophical shift seen in 4e.




Its funny, when reading the first post, it reminded of all those who never left 1E. 2E involved a philosophical shift that turned off a lot of people, inspite of the fact that it was backwards compatible. 

I don't have a complete answer to this problem of philosophy. I guess once you are the designers, you have decided to go for it and do something new...you have to do something new. Regards 4E, I like the "we need to worry how it actually plays" part of the new philosophy, not so much the "we need to 'update' the style and feel for a new era" part. But given I liked the old versions, its not that surprsing I don't like all the changes.


----------



## Obryn

DaveMage said:


> I see this assertion alot, but I just can't believe it.  How can you run out of stuff to put out when the setting is the multiverse?!?!?  If you can't come up with an idea for a cool product in such a setting, then I really don't think you're trying.



It's not about making a cool product.  It's about diminishing returns.

While you, personally, might find "A Guide to Elves in Acheron" compelling enough to purchase it, it's likely something that the majority of D&D players wouldn't buy.  The narrower your books get, and the more specialized their application, the tougher it will be to make back the original investment and development dollars.

What about settings, though?  Remember the morass of settings in 2e...  Granted, those settings still have fans and many were excellent.  I think it's fair to say, though, that a multiplicity of settings will balkanize fans (and therefore their purchases) as much as releasing a new edition would.  If I run Dark Sun, odds are I don't need Spelljammer, FR, Birthright, etc. supplements.  More settings only compounds the problem, and it's why WotC rightly scaled back their settings for 3e.  It's best to leave these to third party publishers who won't have nearly the overhead that WotC itself does.

-O


----------



## El Mahdi

D'karr said:


> When did Motley Crue become classic rock?




About 10 minutes after Nirvana became popular.


----------



## joethelawyer

Quote:
     					Originally Posted by *D'karr* 

 
_When did Motley Crue become classic rock?_




El Mahdi said:


> About 10 minutes after Nirvana became popular.




LOL--well put.


----------



## DaveMage

Obryn said:


> While you, personally, might find "A Guide to Elves in Acheron" compelling enough to purchase it, it's likely something that the majority of D&D players wouldn't buy.  The narrower your books get, and the more specialized their application, the tougher it will be to make back the original investment and development dollars.




I agree.  I also never said product focus had to be more narrow.  



Obryn said:


> What about settings, though?  Remember the morass of settings in 2e...  Granted, those settings still have fans and many were excellent.  I think it's fair to say, though, that a multiplicity of settings will balkanize fans (and therefore their purchases) as much as releasing a new edition would.  If I run Dark Sun, odds are I don't need Spelljammer, FR, Birthright, etc. supplements.  More settings only compounds the problem, and it's why WotC rightly scaled back their settings for 3e.  It's best to leave these to third party publishers who won't have nearly the overhead that WotC itself does.
> -O




These are valid points too - that also don't address my point.  

My point is that you can make cool stuff at any time that could re-invigorate the brand (or at least have broad appeal) without the need of a new edition.  Will they sell as well as core books?  Probably not, but you can't convince me that the WotC developers and designers are incapable of coming up with kick-ass ideas (adventures, sites, etc.) that would sell well - even in the later stages of an edition.   I do NOT buy the argument that there were no products left to make.  No way!


----------



## scruffygrognard

Drkfathr1 said:


> I wonder if we've reached the point where D&D must become a Genre, rather than a specific game?
> 
> In a way we're already there: Pathfinder, C&C, Runequest, OSRIC, 3E, 4E, etc.,etc.




Interesting thought... and it makes a lot of sense.  Nowadays when I want to play D&D I usually reach for C&C or 3.5.  
I had high hopes for Pathfinder taking over as the next D&D game for me BUT I'm concerned with the direction they are taking with the game (anime-inspired art, ramping up the power level of races and classes, changing racial ability mods).  My hope was that the folks at Paizo would only fine-tune, streamline and clean up 3.5 rather than "making it their own" and geared towards playing in Golarion.


----------



## Drkfathr1

See, I think about that alot when I see threads asking what someone's "vision" of D&D is. Its a lot of different things for different people, but for me, D&D has never been about the exact rule set. 

When my friends and I reminesce about memorable moments from games long past, we never bring up what racial mods someone had, or what rules we used for leveling up, or proficiencies, or skills, etc. We always talk about the adventures: Against the Giants, Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, White Plume Mountain. 

I think alot of gamers would be a lot happier if they changed their perception about who's rule system is the "right" system, and just played with the system they like for themselves. 

Even though WOTC owns the D&D IP, they may not necessarily have the best rules/fluff for the majority of players. So maybe WOTC losing someone as a customer isn't such a bad thing, as long as we can all keep playing D&D the way we each like best.


----------



## Fifth Element

Drkfathr1 said:


> When my friends and I reminesce about memorable moments from games long past, we never bring up what racial mods someone had, or what rules we used for leveling up, or proficiencies, or skills, etc. We always talk about the adventures: Against the Giants, Keep on the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, White Plume Mountain.
> 
> I think alot of gamers would be a lot happier if they changed their perception about who's rule system is the "right" system, and just played with the system they like for themselves.



Well said. Forest for the trees and all that.


----------



## amysrevenge

All I can say is, imagine the nerd rage if instead of 4E we had gotten "3.6! The same basic game, but juuust different enough that you have to buy the books again!"


----------



## Greylock

Brutorz Bill said:


> ...But even with those purchases I'm not spending nearly the money I once was on gaming product, and these days I've got a bit more spending money than I used to.  So I guess I should thank WotC for saving me some money.
> So you are not by yourself in the way you are feeling.
> Regards,
> Bill




I'm gonna quote you here, and this should blow your mind Bill... I haven't bought a single gaming related product since... Spring? Maybe? Gaming books and accessories are no longer a part of my budget whatsoever, thanks to 4th Edition. And like Jeff Wilder, I was a WotC completest for years [right up until the Book of 9 Swords - which began my feeling of dissatisfaction]. The guys at the Comics shop set aside one each of the D&D new releases for me weekly, knowing they had a sale once upon a time. No longer.

Between this and the fact that I paid off my car and quit smoking this year, I should be rolling in the dough. Unfortunately, the economy went south, gas prices went high, my left hip fell apart and someone shot my car, so I haven't SEEN those savings yet. But when I do....!!! I'll be able to start saving for retirement finally.


----------



## The Little Raven

DaveMage said:


> I also never said product focus had to be more narrow.




But you have to recognize the fact that the more supplements you put out, the more narrow those supplements end up becoming, since you tend to cover the general topics in the beginning.


----------



## Windjammer

Tigerbunny said:


> I gotta say, I don't buy the "factor of age" thing one bit. If there's one thing I've noticed about those who I know who are the biggest converts to 4E, we tend to be of two demographics:
> 
> 1. Old-timers like me (vintage 1980!), who drifted away from the game since Red Box/RC era, find 4E a nice mix of robust rules with improvisational freewheeling attitude, and welcome the lack of setting focus and loss of decades of rules-cruft.




Vintage 1980 here too. Nice post, really, and captures what (I think) appeals most about 4E to older players: the streamlined mechanics, and the ease - especially for the DM - to run this thing fast and loose. For me, 3.5 was the complete opposite: prepping a session for 3.5 was careful drafting. I enjoyed both, and continue to enjoy both. None of this, however, has to do with "a welcome lack of setting focus". 4E fluff exists, and it sucks, big time. Which I take as a big incentive to come up with something better (read: "something more suited to my own taste"). More on that shortly.

Jeff, having read your original post, I'd like to recommend you to try to take on 4E like I do, which is as follows. You are right, you stopped being a completist, a guy who (to use Psion's terms) * bought * at least one WotC supplement a month. You know, buying one hardcover a month doesn't strike me as very old fashioned at all. The great appeal of D&D is, and always has been, to work with a minimum of official stuff and make the game your own. That, in my estimate, is the everlasting appeal of the Red Box and old Greyhawk box with two 30 page supplements. It's playing D&D before you got your crunch from official splatbooks, and before there was _canon_.

For me, 4E has been a liberating return to that time, precisely because 4E non-core products suck so much.  4E adventures are seriously uninspired and lacking in roleplaying, their splatbooks completely pointless rehash of extant mechanics - and guess what, I feel _liberated_. I don't have to buy every book anymore, I am free to go with 4E where I want, _ because I know _ WotC products no longer appeal to me, operating as they do on design principles which target an audience I'm no longer part of. And that is a fact I treasure  as much as I did its opposite when playing 3E (which I still do as well). For this is a freedom I never had with 3.5, when collecting stuff kicked in early and both DMs and players expected every little thing you bring to the table to have come out of a WotC book.

So the best way to enjoy 4E for me - I guess, the only way - is to take the excellent core books they produced, sidestep their laughable marketing and pitiful "follow up" products, and make their beautiful game my own. That way, I couldn't care less whether I'm in their target audience. I know I'm not, and I can still feel proud playing 4E.


----------



## justanobody

Sunderstone said:


> When Hasbro started dreaming they could tap into the WoW market.




I would say more when Hasbro decided to branch out of their kids and family market and try to conquer every other market with the same concepts in gaming and entertainment that don't always translate to older markets or non-mixed markets involving kids and adults at the same time.

So they are trying to take 3 markets, kids, adults, and mixed, and just make them one market...mixed, and it isn't working too well for D&D it seems for some.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Sunderstone said:


> When Hasbro started dreaming they could tap into the WoW market.




I don't think you need the smiley; it's fairly obvious that Hasbro is going after the WoW market with 4e.  And it's hard to blame them from a business standpoint.


----------



## The Little Raven

justanobody said:


> So they are trying to take 3 markets, kids, adults, and mixed, and just make them one market...mixed, and it isn't working too well for D&D it seems for some.




Kids, adults, and families have been buying and playing D&D for 30 years. Suggesting that this is new or unique to WotC is ignoring the history of the genre. Most of us on this very forum were kids at one point, many of us are adults now, and many of us have played in groups that feature both.

What's new is the fact that they are pushing a digital initiative in an industry that has been focused on more traditional means of advertising (physical magazines), distribution (retail stores), and community building (RPGA; conventions).


----------



## Simon Atavax

Obryn said:


> I was listening to a Classic Rock station in Southern Illinois this past weekend.
> 
> They played Pearl Jam and I felt ancient.
> 
> -O




If it makes you feel any better, this says more about the radio station's poor understanding of what "classic" means, and less about your age.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Halivar said:


> I think they gauged the market pretty well. I also don't think they lost anywhere near half of their customers.
> 
> The 4E = WOW contention is seriously spurious. If I wanted to, I could hand-wave a "3rd Edition is nothing but Baldur's Gate for the tabletop" argument, and it'd have about as much weight. I have yet to see an actual list of similarities unique to 4E; instead, it's only "general feelings" and assumptions. As someone who plays both WOW and D&D, the association is ridiculous. They both have a class they call "paladins," and the similarities end there.




I don't play WoW or any other on-line RPGs, but is it not the case that the healing surges and "taunt" mechanics are heavily WoW influenced?


----------



## Herremann the Wise

D'karr said:


> When did Motley Crue become classic rock?




"And music still on MTV."

In a really bizarre way, I think you have precisely answered Jeff in one. Bowling for Soup is the answer. XP going your way sir.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## The Little Raven

Simon Atavax said:


> I don't play WoW or any other on-line RPGs, but is it not the case that the healing surges and "taunt" mechanics are heavily WoW influenced?




Healing Surges have no counterpart in WoW. 3e and earlier healing is more like WoW healing in that there is a fuel cost (mana in WoW; spell slots/charges in pre-4e D&D), but no other cost (healing surges are a secondary cost for healing in 4e in addition to power slots).

Marking and "aggro" mechanics are quite different.

Marking imposes a penalty on an enemy if they select a target other than yourself (with a secondary effect based on your class, most likely), but does not dictate the behavior of that enemy, whether NPC or PC. It is a tool of a specific role to allow them to more easily do their job.

"Aggro" (also known as threat) dictates the behavior of an NPC, but not PCs. It does so by assigning "threat" values to the abilities that players use in order to determine who the NPC is forced to attack. It is produced by every PC, not just tanks (aka defenders).


----------



## EATherrian

TerraDave said:


> I _almost _agree with snoweel. Interesting.
> 
> JW: if you have all of the many books and minis released for an edition that is the best for you, its not surprising you have little interest in the new one.




I have almost all of the books for 3+ editions of D&D and I feel the same way about 4th.  I do enjoy playing it, but it doesn't inspire me to purchase any of the books.  They don't read well.  There's no reason to even look at the powers unless you are playing the class.  I feel that the game is passing me also.


----------



## Weregrognard

Obryn said:


> I was listening to a Classic Rock station in Southern Illinois this past weekend.
> 
> They played Pearl Jam and I felt ancient.
> 
> -O


----------



## Mouseferatu

EATherrian said:


> I have almost all of the books for 3+ editions of D&D and I feel the same way about 4th.  I do enjoy playing it, but it doesn't inspire me to purchase any of the books.  They don't read well.  There's no reason to even look at the powers unless you are playing the class.  I feel that the game is passing me also.




Interesting. I find 4E inspires me to run it more than 3E did. I agree that the rules don't read as well _in some cases_, but I find that they _play_ better, and--as others have said--the game is _far_ easier to prep for.

Then again, I also find the 4E cosmology and flavor to be far stronger than 3E's, and I _vastly_ prefer the new cosmology (Shadowfell, Feywild, etc.) to the old Great Wheel.


----------



## The Little Raven

EATherrian said:


> There's no reason to even look at the powers unless you are playing the class.




In previous editions, there's no reason to look at a class unless you're playing that class, or if your class has abilities that are identical to that other class.

I have no reason to look at the Barbarian's Rage or the Bard's Bardic Music if I'm not playing a Barbarian or Bard, so I fail to see how this is unique to 4e.


----------



## HelloChristian

Rereading this thread, i have to ask, "Does it even matter what WotC thinks?" The only opinion that matters to me is, well, my opinion. Am I still gaming? Am I still having fun? Are my players enjoying our campaign?

If the answer to all those questions is yes, the who cares about "the industry" or WoW or what have you. Just game and have fun.


----------



## Halivar

Simon Atavax said:


> I don't play WoW or any other on-line RPGs, but is it not the case that the healing surges and "taunt" mechanics are heavily WoW influenced?



No on both counts. The only thing I really see as being remarkably WOW-influenced is the concept of "party role," something that has always been there, informally ("Guys, we got no healer. Somebody has to make a cleric."). WOW simply stated outright what was always lurking in the back of our gamist side: unique roles help individuals stand out in a party. And it's fun.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Halivar said:


> And it's fun.




The DMG tells us what fun is about a hundred times. It must be true.


----------



## Sunderstone

MeepoTheMighty said:


> WoW didn't come out until late 2004.  I'm not quite sure how WoW invented munchkinism, but I'm glad you were able to use it a scapegoat nonetheless.




I didnt say wow invented munchkinism. Reread my post and note "wow-type".

The 3E splats like most previous splats were often unbalanced. To this day we run close to core only as far as player options go and are games run smooth enough. WotC lost most of my money when all they seemed to release were "Complete X" "Races of X", Bo9S etc.... They had a few gems but my spending was almost exclusively on 3rd party content.


----------



## Halivar

ExploderWizard said:


> The DMG tells us what fun is about a hundred times. It must be true.



I think I read the same DMG, and I don't know what you're talking about. Care to give an example?


----------



## Intense_Interest

HelloChristian said:


> Rereading this thread, i have to ask, "Does it even matter what WotC thinks?" The only opinion that matters to me is, well, my opinion. Am I still gaming? Am I still having fun? Are my players enjoying our campaign?
> 
> If the answer to all those questions is yes, the who cares about "the industry" or WoW or what have you. Just game and have fun.




The big reason that a table-top roleplayer complains about WotC not considering their sort of gamer as a "target audience" is because D&D is a large-group activity.  Therefore, if the D&D shifts its focus away from your preferred style, it will be harder to find a group that enjoys your style to game with.

So if we know why one could be concerned with what a games "target audience" is, the question then becomes "When did my social group stop enjoying what I enjoy?"

If you don't have a reason to answer that question, then the OP's concern is never needed to be voiced.


----------



## Sunderstone

just to clarify... Im not a WoW hater. In fact I run a Horde guild on the ***** server, and have been playing since the release.

I just prefer my tabletop RPG of choice to be alot less influenced by the current target audience's "In- things"" (for lack of a better term).


----------



## The Little Raven

Sunderstone said:


> I just prefer my tabletop RPG of choice to be alot less influenced by the current target audience's "In- things"" (for lack of a better term).




That's funny, since D&D developed as a mish-mash of things that were the current target audience's "in-thing." LotR was popular, so we got elves, dwarves, hobbits--- oops, halflings, orcs, and the like. Kung Fu was popular, so we got the monk class. Samurai and such were popular because of Shogun and kung fu movies, so we got the rest of Oriental Adventures.


----------



## justanobody

The Little Raven said:


> Kids, adults, and families have been buying and playing D&D for 30 years. Suggesting that this is new or unique to WotC is ignoring the history of the genre. Most of us on this very forum were kids at one point, many of us are adults now, and many of us have played in groups that feature both.
> 
> What's new is the fact that they are pushing a digital initiative in an industry that has been focused on more traditional means of advertising (physical magazines), distribution (retail stores), and community building (RPGA; conventions).




What are the demographics for each component of the current D&D product lines?

Miniatures
Miniature gaming
RPG
Computer gaming

And whatever other components there actually is.

I don't think they all mesh well to a single market, and each had preferred demographics for certain markets.

I know more kids that like the minis rather than the RPG. I know more older people that like the RPG than computer type games. DDI is hard to classify here. It is encyclopedia meets video game.

The point being while marketing to each may work for the individual components, it doesn't mean that combining them into one thing will sell well to all individual markets.


----------



## Halivar

Sunderstone said:


> just to clarify... Im not a WoW hater. In fact I run a *Horde* guild



Hah! I *knew* you were a reasonable man when I first met you! A discriminating gentleman, he is, and chooses his friends wisely. A jolly good fellow, that Sunderstone! Frood really knows where his towel is. Why, I can have no quarrel with the man.


----------



## WayneLigon

I think everyone stops being the target audience for anything around about every 7-12 years. The music you grew up with is now packaged as 'cool nostalgia' for the 15-25 demographic. The TV show you liked is now regularly mocked by that hot young comedian as 'painfully old-fashioned and stupid'. The game you once played added new stuff when newer customers demanded newer things after having been exposed to them in other newer games, or the designers decided to 're-engineer for a new generation'.

5-8 years from now, we'll have 5E and the exact same arguements, complaints and threads will come up once more. Then the same will happen for 6E.

The only way to combat it is to embrace and adapt.


----------



## jdrakeh

Frankly, I hear a lot of "WotC ignored my advice, so screw them!" whining from older gamers who don't want to change. What these people fail to appreciate is that D&D isn't a hobby for WotC — it's a _business_. 

Like any business, WotC _must_ change its marketing strategy and products as the market changes, pursuing the majority of consumers. If they don't do this, they don't earn any revenue. If they don't earn any revenue, they go out of business. 

You don't want to change? Then don't — but don't expect a company to waste time and resources catering to you and your tiny band of holdouts, ignoring the will of the consumer majority in an effort to win you back as customers. 

No sane or responsible business owner would ever put the screws to legions of willing customers currently giving them money in order to satisfy the whims of a few former customers who currently refuse to buy anything. That's just not how basic commerce works.


----------



## HelloChristian

WayneLigon said:


> The only way to combat it is to embrace and adapt.




Or, just keep on doing what you are doing if it makes you happy. Find an edition you like and play the hell out of it.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Jeff Wilder said:


> When did I stop being WotC's target audience?  And why?  Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?  Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us?




My answers:

1. You stopped being their target audience when they misjudged the market while creating and prepping for the release of 4e.

2. You stopped being it because they misjudged the market. They assumed a larger part of 3e's market would carry over into 4e in spite of the philosophical shift.

3. They didn't decide to forego your money. They made a mistake.

4. No. They made a profit off you in 3e.

Just my answers. But I think it's safe to say WOTC wishes the transition to 4e had gone a lot more smoothly than it has. The lead of the design team stepping down a couple months after the major release is probably significant. Maybe not... but probably is.


----------



## jdrakeh

HelloChristian said:


> Find an edition you like and play the hell out of it.




Don't be silly! Posting on message boards about how a faceless multi-million dollar corporation has personally wronged you is _far_ more productive


----------



## El Mahdi

I tried posting this earlier in the conversation but it was eaten (it encountered an internet sphere of annihilation).  I hope this isn't too far behind the conversation, although I have read the rest of the thread (and now I'm TIRED!).


I just turned 40 this year also, and I am not switching to 4E, but I really don't know if it has anything to do with my age or "generation".  I'd be interested in seeing a poll of those who switched and didn't switch based on age group.  Maybe there is a generational facet to it, maybe there isn't.  Hmmmm.

Anyways, I agree with Jeff for the most part.  In fact I probably feel about 90% the same way.  So I'm not trying to belittle him or his opinion.  But... 

I don't think that WoTC decided that I'm not their target customer anymore, I think it's that *I *decided I'm not their target customer anymore. 

Now, that doesn't mean I have anything against WoTC.  I don't.  I think WoTC made a smart business decision based on their financial and market research, and on customer and fan feedback.  They just used that information to go in a different way than I would have preferred.  They made a game that's popular, achieved the goals they set out to achieve, and I'm sure it's making money hand over fist, and I'm happy for them.

I'm just a little sad and disapointed (in the situation, not in WoTC) that our paths are diverging.  But the reality is, it hasn't changed my game or the enjoyment I and my players have when playing it, one single bit.  When the game is afoot, and the dice and monsters are being thrown about, the whole 4E/3E thing is the farthest from my mind.  And I think that's all that really matters.

Now, maybe in 5 or 10 years, when 5E comes out, it may feel more like the type of game I prefer.  I may even feel that D&D has gone _"back to it's roots"_, or that I want to _"play more"_, but that's for the future.  I do think it's less from anything WoTC has done, than it is my tastes have diverged from theirs.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

My personal view of edition changes is this.

No one edition is better or worse in the grand-scheme of things. Yes for myself some edition may be better or worse, for myself 4e is better, but that is personal taste.

And personal taste is one of the key reasons in my eyes, edition changes are a welcomed thing. With a edition change there should be some radical changes, which yes may alienate some of the old fans, BUT! this may cause some others to find THEIR edition.

For some 4e is their edition, for another 3e, for another 2e, for another Basic, etc, etc. No edition is better or worse.

The only bad thing is staying with one edition forever because that means that there is a whole fan-community out there that hasn't found their edition. 

So yes perhaps someone did buy all of 3e books but has no wish to buy 4e, there is a good chance it wasn't made for you, since 3e is perchance your edition. While 4e is anothers.


----------



## teach

I think what is interesting reading this thread, is that I never truly felt like I was WotC's target audience for 3.5.  I bought the core books, and a couple splat books (because they had feats or prestige classes that sounded interesting) and the Eberron Campaign Guide.   I think I've already spent as much on 4e that I did on 3.5.  However, I was a huge consumer of 2e books.  I loved the setting books, primarily the ones that moved away from the "vanilla lord of the rings" style fantasy (al-qadim, dark sun, planescape) and bought a ton of the campaign box sets (which was tough on my allowance).  I was definitely TSR's target audience for 2e, as I bought into multiple settings (which I think was one of their big expected revenue streams at the time).  

Now, I'm playing a ton more 4e than 3.5.  Do I like the default setting?  Marginally better, because I think the points of light allows for a lot more freedom in modifying it than the greyhawk-lite setting in 3.5.  Also, in 3.5, the crunch (the feats and prestige classes) and the fluff seemed more tied together.  Since I didn't really like the fluff in 3.5 much, it made it harder to enjoy and use the books because of the concern that if I changed the fluff would I also need to change the crunch.   In 4e, the fluff and crunch appear to be seperated better (at least so far), so it's easier to ignore.  

To tie back into the OP, I think 4e is more directed towards me and gamers like me (the kind that really like taking the core rules, and creating our own very diverse worlds around it, the kind that likes being tight with the combat rules, but loose with everytihng else).  I'm lucky I guess in that I don't see the 4e rules getting in the way of the stories I want to tell, even though they include very little of the fluff included in 4e.  

I agree that the books that have been released so far haven't been very "reader friendly".  they really are books of crunch rather than books telling a story, and including crunch as needed.  But I don't mind it, because I have my own stories I want to tell.


----------



## chitzk0i

Halivar said:


> WOW simply stated outright what was always lurking in the back of our gamist side: unique roles help individuals stand out in a party. And it's fun.




I don't really see this as a major part of WoW's design.  I mean, look at this page.  This information is very different from the focussed, codified roles that 4e has.  WoW designers _did_ increase player communication about party roles due to their strict party composition.  In WoW, if a party has too few characters specifically intended to deal damage, they won't be able to take on monsters effectively.  It will take much longer to kill monsters and the boss will probably kill you all.  

So when you form a party in WoW, you have to get down to business.  You have to say, "We need DPS!"


----------



## Delta

Jeff Wilder said:


> When did I stop being WotC's target audience? And why? Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them? Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us? Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...




CPerkins has the closest thing to my analysis:
(1) There was a great deal of continuity in the game from OD&D -> 1E -> 2E -> 3.0.
(2) At the dawn of 3E, Dancey & Co. gave away use of the IP via the Open Game License, irrevocably.
(3) Dancey left and management changed its mind about the OGL strategy and philosophy.
(4) Now they have to change the game quite radically in order to distinguish it from the OGL IP (in their thinking). Play must change; classes and races; powers must change; names of all the monsters must change to be trademark-protectible.

In summary: 4E had to be a radically different game to be locked-down IP according to current WOTC strategy. Your reaction is based on the fact that you fundamentally liked the game as it was for the first 30 years, and now it's quite different.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Just chiming in that I'm an old 1E (started 1983) and have been playing since then, some times less than I would like. I skipped 2E (but still played 1E) and then was recharged when 3E came out. Loved it. A part of me still does. 4E hit, and I've moved forward and onward once again. 

My two groups are "old" as well - most of us have played since the late 70s.

We dig 4e.

Does that mean I'm WotC's target audience? No. No more than it means you're not the target audience because 4e ain't for you.  

As the great Crothian said, "WotC didn't decide you weren't in their target audience, you did."  Truer words have rarely been said on these boards.

Also, as mentioned, it seems 4e appeals to the old crowd that like the fewer rules and ease of DMing akin to 1E days...and the young whippersnappers that grew up with flashy powers and WoW.  There are outliers in both groups, certainly, but I bet _that_ is their target audience.

In the end - does it really matter? Play what you like, Mr. Wilder. And perhaps save yourself some money in the process. 

WP


----------



## Truth Seeker

MSNBC-April 2008 It must be tough to be 34 and already see your children overshadow you.

This may explain, why you feel this way.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."
> 
> I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released. I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets. I bought the dungeon tiles.
> 
> Now I buy almost nothing from WotC. I'm not interested in 4E. The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis. (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)
> 
> When did I stop being WotC's target audience? And why? Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them? Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us? Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...
> 
> It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience. How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp? Is it because I turned 40 in May?
> 
> It really seems to me that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't care what you think" has the cause and effect backward. I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think. So why and when did they stop caring?


----------



## cougent

I am no longer in the WotC target market either, and that is OK with both of us.

Although I am 45, I don't think it is age based.  I think it is just changing goals for recruitment and retention of customers.  This has happened with other companies all the time and it is just the way of product life cycles in the corporate world.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Ycore Rixle said:


> My answers:
> 
> 1. You stopped being their target audience when they misjudged the market while creating and prepping for the release of 4e.
> 
> 2. You stopped being it because they misjudged the market. They assumed a larger part of 3e's market would carry over into 4e in spite of the philosophical shift.
> 
> 3. They didn't decide to forego your money. They made a mistake.
> 
> 4. No. They made a profit off you in 3e.
> 
> Just my answers. But I think it's safe to say WOTC wishes the transition to 4e had gone a lot more smoothly than it has. The lead of the design team stepping down a couple months after the major release is probably significant. Maybe not... but probably is.




There's an awful lot of misinformation involved in this post.

1) 4E is a runaway success, sales-wise. The transition was quite smooth enough, and there was no misjudgment of the market. There may have been a misjudgment of a _small portion_ of the market, but if so, it wasn't enough to substantially harm the launch of the game.

2) Rob Heinsoo is stepping down to take a more active role in actually _writing_, and James Wyatt--who is taking his place--had a _more_ direct hand in the creation of 4E than Rob did. Notice the names on the covers of the books.

This whole "I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick is getting old. Yes, a large number of the old fan base doesn't like it. That's been the case _with every edition to date_, and will always _be_ the case with new editions.

Is 4E the perfect game ever? No. Could some of the marketing have been handled better? Yes. Was 4E somehow a mistake or a disaster just because there's been a lot of shouting about it on the internet? Not even remotely.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mouseferatu said:


> This whole "I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick is getting old.



No more than the "I like it / I'm invested in it / *I'm writing for it*, so it's obviously a success" shtick is. Not by any means.




> Yes. Was 4E somehow a mistake or a disaster just because there's been a lot of shouting about it on the internet? Not even remotely.



Where you apparently see "shouting", and where some would certainly find it oh so convenient to see it that way, much of the time, it's perfectly valid, calm and reasoned criticism and concerns, as a matter of fact.

But sure, _flog_ that rhetoric. It's hardly the first time.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Aus_Snow said:


> No more than the "I like it / I'm invested in it / *I'm writing for it*, so it's obviously a success" shtick is. Not by any means.




Don't even try to play that card. The fact that I'm a freelancer doesn't prevent me from having my own opinions. (And frankly, I was perfectly prepared to hate the game, learn it purely for professional reasons, but keep playing 3.5. I'm grateful it didn't work out that way, but it could have.) I have never once, on ENWorld, expressed an opinion that I didn't honestly feel. I may choose not to say anything, rather than be negative, but if I claim to like something gaming related, it's because I like it, not because I may or may not do some work for the company. Frankly, I'm not important enough in the scheme of things for WotC to _care_ what I say on a messageboard, as long as I don't violate my NDA. And you've been around long enough to know that.

The bottom line--which I actually _mentioned_--is that 4E is _selling well_. I don't think it's a success because I like it. I think it's a success because it's succeeding.

Nor am I claiming that everyone has to like it. The "shouting" I refer to is the people claiming that it's a failure and a mistake, not the people who just don't care for it. "I like it" and "I hate it" are equally valid opinions. "It's a success" and "It's a failure" are _not_ equally valid opinions, because they're not opinions.


----------



## CharlesRyan

Mouseferatu said:


> There's an awful lot of misinformation involved in this post.
> 
> 1) 4E is a runaway success, sales-wise. The transition was quite smooth enough, and there was no misjudgment of the market. There may have been a misjudgment of a _small portion_ of the market, but if so, it wasn't enough to substantially harm the launch of the game.
> 
> 2) Rob Heinsoo is stepping down to take a more active role in actually _writing_, and James Wyatt--who is taking his place--had a _more_ direct hand in the creation of 4E than Rob did. Notice the names on the covers of the books.




As someone else in a position to know (on both of these points), I'll back Ari up on these.


----------



## Toll Carom

Mouseferatu said:


> Don't even try to play that card.




Seriously.  I can't believe anyone's still trying to roast that old chestnut.

Ari's (and others') argument is sound, and backed up by raw data.  Your argument is neither sound nor, in actual fact, an argument at all.

It's a roasted chestnut.  Kindly either eat it or throw it away already.


Best,
CAS


----------



## justanobody

Mouseferatu said:


> 2) Rob Heinsoo is stepping down to take a more active role in actually _writing_, and James Wyatt--who is taking his place--had a _more_ direct hand in the creation of 4E than Rob did. Notice the names on the covers of the books.




Wasn't Mearls taking the place Rob was stepping down from?


----------



## Mouseferatu

justanobody said:


> Wasn't Mearls taking the place Rob was stepping down from?




*blink*

I think you may be right. I may have confused two different positions. 

But the comment still stands. Be it James or Mike, they were both _major_ contributors to the design of 4E.


----------



## Windjammer

CharlesRyan said:


> As someone else in a position to know (on both of these points), I'll back Ari up on these.



 Always good to read people who are "in the know", even when the point in question is factually wrong. And (independently of that), as for Wyatt having a stronger hand in 4E than Heinsoo, that's just bolllocks. True, James "wrote" an entire book mostly singlehandedly - the DMG, bar the final chapter which Mearls and Baker co-wrote - in a remarkably short time of 9 weeks. In fact, it's such an uninspired rip-off of 3.5 DMG II and Dungeonscape that I've got a hard time understanding all those people who praise it like the second coming of our Lord, unprecedented in D&D. Obviously such people don't know their 3.5. Talking about uninformed opinions.
In any case, I see Heinsoo and Mearls as co-writing the mechanics of 4E, and you'd have to be blind not to see their respective input in the PHB and MM. If you think the DMG or other things that have come out under the lead story designer will have as lasting an impact on the 4E product line as the core mechanics did (PHB+MM), I'm all ears - because I cannot even imagine that.


----------



## BryonD

Mouseferatu said:


> Was 4E somehow a mistake or a disaster just because there's been a lot of shouting about it on the internet? Not even remotely.



"shouting on the internet" certainly has nothing to do with it, but check back in two years before declaring victory.  It is interesting how plenty of "in the know" people have differing assessments of how well 4E is really holding up already and what the future holds.

Just as there are people proclaiming disaster when it clearly has not been, there are people claiming victory when it is way to early and there are signs of issue.


----------



## Aus_Snow

BryonD said:


> Just as there are people proclaiming disaster when it clearly has not been, there are people claiming victory when it is way to early and there are signs of issue.



Precisely.


----------



## BryonD

Wisdom Penalty said:


> As the great Crothian said, "WotC didn't decide you weren't in their target audience, you did."  Truer words have rarely been said on these boards.



Actually, that is flat out absurd.
4E developers themselves have been up front with major design philosophy shifts.   They made certain choices with their eyes wide open.  
It may be 1% and it may be 50%, but a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.

If they gain for than they lose then that was the exactly right card to play.
So I'm not remotely claiming that it was wrong or bad for them to do it.

But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements.  Thats just dumb.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

I feel the need to point out that anyone who claims 4e isn't divisive is full of it.  I'm not going to argue that 4e is good or bad, but you're seeing a *much* bigger split in the fan base then you ever saw with 2e -> 3e, with much more emotional investment.  Most people who go to 4e, do it because they feel it's a better game; most people who went to 3e from 2e did it because _it saved Dungeons and Dragons for them_.  The thought that 4e hasn't split anything is absolutely absurd at best.

Pathfinder is in a very interesting situation - WotC has, meant to or not, created a large group of people that _very actively dislike _the new D&D, but very strongly want a new revision to an older setting - a group that is titanic compared to those niche groups from previous editions.  Pathfinder is set up to segue itself directly to that group, and many people in that group are very firm in their thought that Wizards wants absolutely nothing to do with them.  Now, in all fairness, that's hardly the fault of just Wizards - I think the 4e fan base has done a hell of a lot to ensure that split is wide and painful.  Of course, in doing so, they've done nothing but feed Pathfinder's potential for success.


----------



## jdsivyer

Jeff Wilder said:


> You'd think, and yet I'm very interested in Pathfinder*.  I don't think 3.5 -- er, the second most-recent edition -- is perfect, not at all.  I am almost certain WotC could have kept me as a loyal, crazy-spending customer, by fixing that edition, rather than creating a new game.  That's why I'm so confused about why they didn't.
> 
> * Note that, like another poster upthread, I'm becoming a little concerned about Paizo's vision for changing, uh, the the second most-recent edition, too, however.




This is what I'm curious about, too.  Instead of "fixing" 3.5 they went straight to a (and let's not pretend it isn't) a pretty much new set of rules.  Why?  Why not tidy up the errors from 3.5?  Why did they decide to re-tool the _entire_ game?

I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.


----------



## Windjammer

jdsivyer said:


> I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.



I think WotC were in a practical dilemma. The business cycle really mandated the D&D product line to be relaunched, lest that product line go out of existence entirely. However, to launch a new D&D product line, you've only got two choices. Either an ever so economical (read: minimal) re-touch to your latest edition, or an edition that is a new game in its own right. Take your pick, and try to tell me that either option wouldn't have caused a flamewar. "Why do we need to shell out another $90 on the core rulebooks when all that was needed was a 20 page PDF errata file?" I can see that reaction arising regardless of whether WotC would have gone 3.75, or 4.0 as they did - it's just the 3.0/3.5 issue all over, which caused plenty of flaming back then. Customers don't want a re-launch of their product line, they only want continual support - and free of charge, at that.


----------



## DaveMage

The Little Raven said:


> But you have to recognize the fact that the more supplements you put out, the more narrow those supplements end up becoming, since you tend to cover the general topics in the beginning.





Not necessarily (although that is certainly possible).   Keep in mind, my point was that people claiming that there was nothing left to make in 3.5 is not valid.  The game (3.5) was only in existance for 4.5 years.  1E had a 12 year run, and they didn't "run out of ideas" after only 4.5 years.  

There's plenty out there that could have been done.


----------



## Draksila

rounser said:


> Don't make out that it had to be this way. They could have just come out with a refined new edition of D&D (refinements being what new editions are generally about), rather than a mostly new game mislabelled as a new edition. Mechanics overhauls would have been enough, but it's not even thematically similar, they had to have their way with that as well. No campaign of mine will feature "dragonborn warlords".




I have to disagree with your assertion, there.  When 3.5 came out, _many_ fans cried out 'Foul!' and claimed that WotC was bilking them for their hard-earned cash.  People respond just as harshly to a new revision as they do a new edition.  Granted, there are significant changes between this edition and the previous that likely not have been as profound as when they plaster a sticker on the game claiming a full overhaul, but I knew a lot of people and read a lot of commentary online about how much of a ripoff it was to buy the corebooks again _without _it being a completely new product.

Frankly, at this point, I say just like what you like and buy accordingly.  There are plenty of books out there for basic, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition... age just makes some of them harder to locate.  If you don't like where a certain product line is going, stick with your tried and true and be thankful that you have extra money in your pocket every month.  The company made its decision based on its own research and business needs.  They're not going to change the direction of the product line at this point, so there's really no reason to even bother wondering why they changed their train of thought or (in the cases of a lot of threads in the last few months, not this particular one) throwing a hissy fit that they're not following your particular tastes.  Play the game that makes you and your group happy, let those who like the new take on things play the new game, and just find solidarity in the idea that we're all weird enough to enjoy spending our spare hours pretending to be reality-altering heroes and villains in a world where such epic destinies are denied to the majority of the population.

I guess that's a lot of words just to say that I think that over-analyzing it is dangerous and unnecessary, being that it's prone to cause the more passionate people in our hobby to take up arms against each other.


----------



## Mallus

ProfessorCirno said:


> ... but you're seeing a *much* bigger split in the fan base then you ever saw with 2e -> 3e...



Is there data to back up that claim?


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> "shouting on the internet" certainly has nothing to do with it, but check back in two years before declaring victory.



Ari said 4e was a success, right now, as that's what the sales figures show. He didn't proclaim 'victory' in the 100 Years Edition War.


----------



## jensun

Mallus said:


> Is there data to back up that claim?



That depends on whether you consider a small number of vociferous complainers on the internet data.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Halivar said:


> I think I read the same DMG, and I don't know what you're talking about. Care to give an example?




I don't have the books with me at work,and I would not want to mis-quote, but there was another thread not too long ago where I already gave examples.


----------



## AllisterH

jdsivyer said:


> This is what I'm curious about, too. Instead of "fixing" 3.5 they went straight to a (and let's not pretend it isn't) a pretty much new set of rules. Why? Why not tidy up the errors from 3.5? Why did they decide to re-tool the _entire_ game?
> 
> I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.




Um, because they realized that you fundamentally can't have a per day mechanic class balanced by a at-will mechanic class.

The assumption is that "a few tweaks is all D&D needs" but for many people, that doesn't fix what they see as problems with the game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

AllisterH said:


> Um, because they realized that you fundamentally can't have a per day mechanic class balanced by a at-will mechanic class.
> 
> The assumption is that "a few tweaks is all D&D needs" but for many people, that doesn't fix what they see as problems with the game.




That's of course assuming "balance" is a concern. This seems to be part of WotC characterization of its target audience, and might be why I still fall into it. I don't want to play second fiddle or be limited to a particular class/race to avoid the second fiddle. 

But it's not the only concern, obviously. 
Variety, different archetypes, character creation/build options is another. 3E had this in spades. 4E puts more constraints on this, but still has this as a goal.

Another concern is "tactical interestingness" - resource management during combat encounters. 3E had this at different degrees-  very strong for spellcasters, very weak for non-spellcasters. 4E things that everyone wants a similar amount of options and management during encounters, they just like the different focus (the roles are a shorthand for the directions they identified as important.)

Another concern was "playability" or "usability". How is the game played? How can it be played? How can we remove the parts that people rarely use or find annoying? How can we add stuff that people already do or would like to do, but don't know yet how to? 3E did something in this regard, by trying to streamline certain aspects of the game, but it still managed to get very... complicated in certain areas (monster and NPC creation?). And this also lead to stuff like no Craft/Perform/Profession - not used by enough people, too vaguely defined, seen as a "skill tax" for some classes (Bard). Use at the table is minimal, so off it goes.

Yet another concern might be "flavor/fluff". I am a fan of the 4E cosmology and races, but there are others apparently are not. Still, I think the "implied setting" is interesting and no worse then the 3E ones. but it's not the 3E or earlier editions one. 
Maybe here WotC made a mistake, believing that fans were ready for a new implied setting. I certainly wouldn't have expected people to see the lack of the Great Wheel as a problem, because I never experienced it as something "core" to D&D (especially after Manual of the Planes showed alternative cosmologies).

Of course, I am not sure how much all of this was internally written down as design goals based on marketing research, and how much can be attributed to the preferences of the design and development team (and their ability to find compromises between their preferences.)

The priorities that have been assigned to these concerns have changed between 3E and 4E. And thus 4E became a better fit for gamers with shared priorities. And now many 3E players find out the new priorities are more to their liking, and many others find out they had different priorities.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Mouseferatu said:


> There's an awful lot of misinformation involved in this post.
> 
> 1) 4E is a runaway success, sales-wise. The transition was quite smooth enough, and there was no misjudgment of the market. There may have been a misjudgment of a _small portion_ of the market, but if so, it wasn't enough to substantially harm the launch of the game.




Sales wise, yes. But is there data on how many of the people who bought the core books are still playing the game? 

Normally, this would be the part where I  say "I know a bunch of people who bought the game but have decided that they dont like it". What I am going to say is this: I was prepared not to like the game. As information began to leak out I saw things that I hated about it, and things that I liked about it. I ordered the gift set off of Amazon and read through it. I organized and ran a single session of 4E at a D&D meetup in NYC and found while it's not a terrible game, it's not a game that I'm interested in supporting. It sits on my shelf just like Champions, M&M, GURPS & Spycraft. It's just another game system to me and not the one that I'll be using for fantasy adventure gaming. 

So again while one side is claiming that the game is a runaway success, I'm more interested in what happens a year or two from now. How many people will be still playing the game with close to same enthusiasm that they are right now. I've tried to like it even though I have thousands of dollars invested in 3E - 3.5 materials. It just feels like a more detailed version on the D&D miniatures game to me. Which is not a bad thing if that's what youre interested in playing. Me not so much.


----------



## Sunderstone

Mouseferatu said:


> 1) 4E is a runaway success, sales-wise. The transition was quite smooth enough, and there was no misjudgment of the market. There may have been a misjudgment of a _small portion_ of the market,
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, a large number of the old fan base doesn't like it.




with all due respect but..... "lol".

Ill follow that up with an agreement with ProfessorCirno, im seeing a much bigger split of the fanbase this time around than any other.

*Disclaimer #2*.... The following is my uninformed yet consumer-ish opinion....

Regardless of how successful 4E "really" is  , I also believe WotC had to go this route no matter what. Bottom line is that their products after the Core and OGL have not been on par with the quality of some 3PPs. There were some gems here and there but few and far-between. 
While WotC may have had most of the market because of the "Official" seal itself, some 3PPs like Necro, Goodman, Green Ronin, Malhavoc, and later Paizo probably cut into their profit margin by consistently releasing better product. 
This was a no-brainer... "the ogl effed us up, we are losing sales, lets make a new edition so we can keep a tighter hold of the market with less competition (the draconic but necessary GSL) this time".

*End Disclaimer* from an uninformed yet consumer-ish opinion.


Someone else said (as many others have said).... "Play whatever edition you want". This is what most of us non-4E fans have done and will continue to do by supporting other companies we like. 

I'd appreciate if we could drop the "embrace, adapt, evolve with the game" though. I really do not want to embrace the current edition for whatever reason, and imho the game hasnt evolved at all. Its just taking a turn elsewhere.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

ShinHakkaider said:


> So again while one side is claiming that the game is a runaway success, I'm more interested in what happens a year or two from now.



We will know this in a year or two from now. 

But as much as we'd like to believe this time its special, I suspect the customer retention for games is a constant. If more people buy 4E Core then 3E Core, this means it will lose more people and also retain more people then 3E Core. It will just be different people gained/lost/retained. 

But we'll see this in a year or two from now. We can speculate as much as we want till then. For EN World, here is the poll I plan to re-use. If we're actually still interested in this matter in 1-2 years.


----------



## Sunderstone

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For EN World, here is the poll I plan to re-use. If we're actually still interested in this matter in 1-2 years.




Would be nice to have similar polls posted on other sites and compiled into the total. Probably would be alot of work though.


----------



## jdsivyer

Windjammer said:


> I think WotC were in a practical dilemma. The business cycle really mandated the D&D product line to be relaunched, lest that product line go out of existence entirely. However, to launch a new D&D product line, you've only got two choices. Either an ever so economical (read: minimal) re-touch to your latest edition, or an edition that is a new game in its own right. Take your pick, and try to tell me that either option wouldn't have caused a flamewar. "Why do we need to shell out another $90 on the core rulebooks when all that was needed was a 20 page PDF errata file?" I can see that reaction arising regardless of whether WotC would have gone 3.75, or 4.0 as they did - it's just the 3.0/3.5 issue all over, which caused plenty of flaming back then. Customers don't want a re-launch of their product line, they only want continual support - and free of charge, at that.




My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.    Even if 4e had a been a re-tooling of 3.5 (not an almost complete overhaul) then I would be less than happy still the same because it was only 3 years after the previous one.    So what I'm saying is that I would like WOTC to explain why they needed a new edition 3 years after the "fixing" of the previous one - I am yet to hear a logical or reasonable explanation.

As far as customer only wanting continual support (and free of charge), I'm not too sure, to be honest.  If the product is good, and justified, people will purchase it.  I'm just not sure if 4e was justified at this time (2008) when 3.5 came out only a few years back.

And why dooes a business like WOTC only have two choices when re-launching a game?  Why do they have to re-launch a new game in its own right?  If they realised there were errors or glitches in 3.5 then they simply should have been fixed.  I'm still not 100% sure of what the reason behind re-tooling 3.5 to what 4e has become is.

Maybe it's just me, but the decision to bring out 4e still leaves me a little baffled.  Whether the game is good, bad, great, or downright shocking, it doesn't matter.  I'm just simply curious as to why they released it so quickly after "fixing" the previous edition, that's all.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Sunderstone said:


> Would be nice to have similar polls posted on other sites and compiled into the total. Probably would be alot of work though.




I claim no copyright to this poll.  

But I plead laziness.


----------



## jdsivyer

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> We will know this in a year or two from now.
> 
> But as much as we'd like to believe this time its special, I suspect the customer retention for games is a constant. If more people buy 4E Core then 3E Core, this means it will lose more people and also retain more people then 3E Core. It will just be different people gained/lost/retained.
> 
> But we'll see this in a year or two from now. We can speculate as much as we want till then. For EN World, here is the poll I plan to re-use. If we're actually still interested in this matter in 1-2 years.




This _will_ be interesting


----------



## Rel

I'd like to request that everybody remain mindful of keeping the conversation respectful.  Thanks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

jdsivyer said:


> My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.    Even if 4e had a been a re-tooling of 3.5 (not an almost complete overhaul) then I would be less than happy still the same because it was only 3 years after the previous one.    So what I'm saying is that I would like WOTC to explain why they needed a new edition 3 years after the "fixing" of the previous one - I am yet to hear a logical or reasonable explanation.
> 
> As far as customer only wanting continual support (and free of charge), I'm not too sure, to be honest.  If the product is good, and justified, people will purchase it.  I'm just not sure if 4e was justified at this time (2008) when 3.5 came out only a few years back.



Sure, people will buy it - but will enough people do so? A certain amount of product cost will be fixed since you invest X time and Y people for Z money (and print it for a relative fixed cost, too). If not enough people buy this, you no longer make enough money with it to justify the expenses. Especially if you know there is an alternative that will make you more money. (If a new edition couldn't sell, there wouldn't be one.)

I think someone has put up a list of "issues" with 3.x that seem to require fixing according to a large number of 3.x "users" (DMs and players). I wish I had the link... *wishes very hard*



> And why dooes a business like WOTC only have two choices when re-launching a game?  Why do they have to re-launch a new game in its own right?  If they realised there were errors or glitches in 3.5 then they simply should have been fixed.  I'm still not 100% sure of what the reason behind re-tooling 3.5 to what 4e has become is.



Because in the eyes of WotC, me (and people like me), the "errors and glitches" in 3.5 where to substantial to create yet another "hotfix". Either you used the system as it was, or start anew. At some point, trying to fix it just doesn't cut it any more. 
And a 3.6, 3.75, 3.8 and 3.9 will only give you diminishing returns. Pathfinder works (at least I hope it does) because it doesn't have to make money for WotC, it "just" has to make money for Paizo. 



> Maybe it's just me, but the decision to bring out 4e still leaves me a little baffled.  Whether the game is good, bad, great, or downright shocking, it doesn't matter.  I'm just simply curious as to why they released it so quickly after "fixing" the previous edition, that's all.



They did all they could within the constraints of their business plans and their designer abilities.


----------



## Psion

DaveMage said:


> Not necessarily (although that is certainly possible).   Keep in mind, my point was that people claiming that there was nothing left to make in 3.5 is not valid.  The game (3.5) was only in existance for 4.5 years.  1E had a 12 year run, and they didn't "run out of ideas" after only 4.5 years.
> 
> There's plenty out there that could have been done.




I'm dubious about that.

1e was a fledgling game, and there was a lot of undiscovered country then. New races, classes, proficiencies, and settings were all things that came out in those early years, and came out slowly.

3e did not start out from ground zero here. 3e was built on the shoulders of a giant. It incorporated many of the features that showed up in 1e supplements right out of the starting gate, and whereas it took years for FR and Dragonlance to come out for 1e, dozens of settings were available for 3e in the first year.

It seems that you demarcate 3.5 as a new starting point. It's even less so than 3.0 was. It was a refinement of 3.0. The resetting of the supplement curve would be even less drastic.

Perhaps there were more options that could have been tried, but fundamentally, each supplement sells less than the last. I can see there was a genuine economic need for a new edition to "reset" the game in the time frame it happened.

What I disagree with is the shape 4e took. A system could have been designed that addressed the tastes of a broader degree of the existing market.


----------



## EATherrian

The Little Raven said:


> In previous editions, there's no reason to look at a class unless you're playing that class, or if your class has abilities that are identical to that other class.
> 
> I have no reason to look at the Barbarian's Rage or the Bard's Bardic Music if I'm not playing a Barbarian or Bard, so I fail to see how this is unique to 4e.




I must be different, since I used to read all of the books from front to back and then re-read the parts I needed.  The color-coded verbal vomit of the class section of 4E does not really work well with that.


----------



## EATherrian

Mouseferatu said:


> Interesting. I find 4E inspires me to run it more than 3E did. I agree that the rules don't read as well _in some cases_, but I find that they _play_ better, and--as others have said--the game is _far_ easier to prep for.
> 
> Then again, I also find the 4E cosmology and flavor to be far stronger than 3E's, and I _vastly_ prefer the new cosmology (Shadowfell, Feywild, etc.) to the old Great Wheel.




I've given up being a DM with 4th Edition.  I've mostly been DM for 20+ years, but now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer.  As to the new Cosmology, it's badly conceived but with good writers could be ok; but if they start shoe-horning every old setting into it they will lose me completely.  I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once.  I doubt I'll ever read it again.  Even bad 3E books got a few reads from me, that's how bad I feel 4E is to read.


----------



## rkwoodard

*no one is saying that*



BryonD said:


> Actually, that is flat out absurd.
> 4E developers themselves have been up front with major design philosophy shifts. They made certain choices with their eyes wide open.
> It may be 1% and it may be 50%, but a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.
> 
> If they gain for than they lose then that was the exactly right card to play.
> So I'm not remotely claiming that it was wrong or bad for them to do it.
> 
> But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements. Thats just dumb.




I don't think anybody said that the developers did not radically change the game.  Nor, did they think that 100% of people would change over on day 1.

But they certainly did not pick a sub-section of gamers and say, Nay, we don't care what they want.  

Now, that being said.

I am 41 have been gaming since 1980.  I declare that I AM WOTC'S TARGET AUDIENCE.

However, they were only partially successful.  I bought the core books, liked them, but decided that I wanted to play 3rd edition for a few more campaigns.  So for now, I am buying 3edition books on the secondary market.   And I am having a blast. 

RK


----------



## Mallus

EATherrian said:


> I've mostly been DM for 20+ years, but now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer.



Out of curiosity, where do you find an implicit animosity toward world builders in 4e? The first thing my group did was design a setting for our new campaign and we found 4e offered a little inspiration and no significant impediment in that process. We're happy with the results -- to be honest, we think the world is pretty smashing. 

If you're so inclined, you can read about in the second link in my .sig (and the Story Hour is coming soon, now that we've actually begun playing).

P.S I've been a "mostly DM" for approximately 18 years.


----------



## Psion

EATherrian said:


> I've given up being a DM with 4th Edition.  I've mostly been DM for 20+ years, but now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer.  As to the new Cosmology, it's badly conceived but with good writers could be ok; but if they start shoe-horning every old setting into it they will lose me completely.  I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once.  I doubt I'll ever read it again.  Even bad 3E books got a few reads from me, that's how bad I feel 4E is to read.




That matches my perception well. And you live in Southern MD. Why are we not gaming together?

Expect an email or PM.


----------



## vagabundo

EATherrian said:


> I must be different, since I used to read all of the books from front to back and then re-read the parts I needed.  The color-coded verbal vomit of the class section of 4E does not really work well with that.




While the power section is of little interest, unless you are actually playing the character class, I find the rest of the layout much better. 3e books were unreadable to me, their small font and a background image at the start of every chapter, just terrible.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Delta said:


> In summary: 4E had to be a radically different game to be locked-down IP according to current WOTC strategy. Your reaction is based on the fact that you fundamentally liked the game as it was for the first 30 years, and now it's quite different.




This is my take on the reason for the break in continuity as well.  In order to pull some of the IP back under their own control, WoTC needed to make a clean enough break with 3.x and previous versions of D&D that previous products would be unusable with the new system.  

I suspect that this is part of the reason for the significant changes between 3.X and 4E.  It will be interesting to see if we ever get confirmation that this was a part of the discussions when 4E was planned.


----------



## Aeolius

EATherrian said:


> ...now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer.  As to the new Cosmology, it's badly conceived... I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once.  I doubt I'll ever read it again.




I'm right there with you, along with resent at "change for the sake of change"; succubus/erinyes, several traditional monsters no longer able to do what they once could, omission of classic critters, etc.

I fully intended to flesh out a campaign concept of mine, using 4e. The concept requires Awakened animals, greenhags, and druids, none of which were in the initial core books.

I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)


----------



## Mallus

Aeolius said:


> I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)



While I completely disagree with the quote, I also find it fairly meaningless. Nothing about 4e prevents my group from spending time "interacting with the little people". Conversely, nothing about 3e (or any previous edition) offered much in the way of support for playing in that manner.


----------



## Sunderstone

Aeolius said:


> I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)




Thats really in there?


----------



## Maggan

jdsivyer said:


> My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.




But it was 3.0 that lasted 3 years. 3.5 lasted 5 years, as far as I can tell.

/M


----------



## Aeolius

Mallus said:


> Nothing about 4e prevents my group from spending time "interacting with the little people". Conversely, nothing about 3e (or any previous edition) offered much in the way of support for playing in that manner.




Fair enough. Granted, that quote, along with the aforementioned references to quotes mentioning how to have "fun" in 4e, create an underlying tone that I find distasteful. Perhaps, in time, I will learn to ignore that tone but not today.


----------



## Fifth Element

jdsivyer said:


> My main problem is that a mere 3 years after 3.5 (which supposedly "fixed" 3.0) was produced, along came 4e.



3.5 was released in 2003, not 2005. So it's 5 years, but anyway.



jdsivyer said:


> I'm just simply curious as to why they released it so quickly after "fixing" the previous edition, that's all.



Presumably because they don't consider 3.5 a new edition over 3.0, which is why they called it 3.5.

So it was 8 years since the last new edition, and they felt it was time to do a new one. It's not that different from previous new editions. 2E was what, 12 years after 1E, and 3E was 11 years after 2E. So it's a bit quicker, though the pace of RPG design has arguably increased in recent years, so maybe it makes sense.


----------



## Carpe DM

Does anyone have actual numbers?  

My predictions: 

1.  The 4E core books sold quite well.

2.  4E in general will not generate the revenue that 3.0 and 3.5 did.

My reasons for those predictions can be found elsewhere in this thread.  I am more interested in asking whether anyone has data that can disprove or support this hypothesis.

-Carpe


----------



## Cadfan

Its not possible to have data to disprove the second hypothesis.  Ask that one again in a few years.  As for the first, I suspect that Ari Marmell and Charles Ryan are both telling the truth when they say that they do in fact have data to support it.  The idea that they'd lie about this is unrealistic and also insulting.

I also doubt they will share that data with us.  I wouldn't if I were in their position.


----------



## Fifth Element

Aeolius said:


> I also keep this quote handy, when thinking of reasons why I am not the target audience for 4e; "D&D is a game about slaying horrible monsters, not a game about traipsing off through fairy rings and interacting with the little people." - James Wyatt, "Races and Classes" (pg. 34)



So we have one quote, possibly taken out of context. Granted Mr. Wyatt is one of the lead designers of 4E. But that's one man's opinion, and many things changed between the preview books and the release of the game.

But you're probably well-served in ignoring designer intent as much as possible, and play the game how you want to play it. Goodness knows I never played 1E the way Mr. Gygax intended.


----------



## Halivar

Aeolius said:


> along with the aforementioned references to quotes mentioning how to have "fun" in 4e



I'm still contesting this. I see a lot of guidelines on how several different gamer-types *might* have fun, and guidelines on how to cater to them.


----------



## Carpe DM

Sure, it's possible.  We can look at trends, and make predictions.  We might look to see if further books, beyond core, are selling at the same rate.  Has the Forgotten Realms 4E received the same adoption numbers as the 3.0 and 3.5 reworks?  In short, do we think people are playing the game, or bought the core books to see what it is all about.

Asking for numbers may be naive, and the refusal to give numbers may be revealing, but it is not insulting.  I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm just curious.

-Carpe


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> What I disagree with is the shape 4e took. A system could have been designed that addressed the tastes of a broader degree of the existing market.



This is all just speculation, so let me say: No, I don't think so. 

There are too many things that people seem to want that I simply don't want to want. For example, Raven Crowking is perfectly able of telling me how he wants to play D&D, and what he prefers. I think I generally understand his goals and interests. But I don't share them. The direction he would take a new edition is not the direction I would want to go. 
Then I read pemertons post and think "well, I might not entirely share all his priorities, but I like where he's going." And he seems to like the 4E enough to consider running/playing it, when he used to play Rolemaster instead of D&D 3.x. 

(Sorry pemerton and RC if I pick you as examples, but we've batted heads in so many threads by now...)

I myself was already in the process of being no longer part of the 3.x audience - I DMed Iron Heroes and would have loved (preferred?) to play it, too. (Despite all its flaws!)

Anyway, RC and I have been part of the "broader existing audience" of 3.x. Where was 4E supposed to go if it wanted to keep us both? How would it have added pemerton?


----------



## Fifth Element

Carpe DM said:


> Does anyone have actual numbers?



Yes, WotC does. But they're not in a position to share.


----------



## der_kluge

Two things -

First, I stopped buying WoTC books years ago - when I realized I could find far more creative and imaginative stuff from 3rd party publishers. Nowadays, my whole campaign is based around 3rd party stuff - mostly Necromancer Games.

Secondly, with 4th edition, I feel like the designers, isolated in a box amongst themselves, decided amongst themselves that they alone knew what was best for the game, and changed so much stuff in it, that it (to me) hardly feels like D&D anymore. So, for me at least, part of why I hate 4e is the arrogance on the part of the designers that "this is the most fun version ever!" attitude that really grates on me. 

And I tend to agree with Aeolius that the attitude surrounding the design of the game really basically states that unless you're using the game to go around killing monsters, you're doing it wrong. Sorry. No thanks. I've got role-playing to do.


----------



## Razuur

Mouseferatu said:


> This whole "I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick is getting old. Yes, a large number of the old fan base doesn't like it. That's been the case _with every edition to date_, and will always _be_ the case with new editions.




I was here way back when 3 e first came out, and I just don't remember the vitriol or sheer divisiveness from 2e to 3e.  I remember some detractors, sure, but nothing like I see going on this time.  I think the new edition has been a success, but I wonder if it could have been an even bigger success had it remained an everymans game, instead of setting it sights on part of its audience.  But I suppose:

A.  We'll never know.

B. It doesn't really matter anyways

I mean hey, what has happend has happened.  People at some point will just get over it and move on - We lost a lot of DnDers, we gained a lot of DnDers.  I wish those that enjoy the game all of the luck in the world and years of gaming bliss!

Oh, and Ari - *LOVE* Hamunaptra!

Razuur


----------



## Carpe DM

Fifth Element said:


> Yes, WotC does. But they're not in a position to share.




Why not?  Often, publishers release numbers if their book is selling well.


----------



## Mallus

der_kluge said:


> Sorry. No thanks. I've got role-playing to do.



Like I asked before, what about 4e impedes your role-playing (and, conversely, what was present in previous editions that aided it)?

I've got plenty of role-playing to do --sometimes much to the chagrin of my friends. Would you like to hear about my Gnostic, quixotic Dragonborn paladin who marks foes with his semi-divine semen? Thought not. 

For the life of me I can't see how 4e gets in the way of role-playing (which isn't, of course, to say that you're wrong in disliking 4e)


----------



## Gothmog

EATherrian said:


> I've given up being a DM with 4th Edition.  I've mostly been DM for 20+ years, but now that there is an implicit animosity to world builders I don't feel the desire any longer.  As to the new Cosmology, it's badly conceived but with good writers could be ok; but if they start shoe-horning every old setting into it they will lose me completely.  I bought the 4E FRCS and skimmed it once.  I doubt I'll ever read it again.  Even bad 3E books got a few reads from me, that's how bad I feel 4E is to read.




Hmm, different strokes for different folks I guess.  4e fired my imagination like nothing since 1st edition AD&D has, and I developed a world based off the 4e rules without noticing any impediment or antagonism on the part of the rules and books.  4e reminds me much more of myths, legends, fairy tales, and ghost stories with its background, tone, and themes - much like 1e AD&D.  4e dropped a lot of the tie-in of rules and fluff of 3.x, and the rules of 4e are MUCH more modular- I can alter something in 4e or ignore rules with almost no consequences, in contrast to 3.x where even small rules tweaks in the interest of flavor for a setting could snowball out of control.  I also find leaving the baggage of the Great Wheel and its silly alignment-coded planes out of the new edition a much welcomed change.  The Feywild, Shadowfell, Elemental Chaos, Astral Sea and Far Realm are far more evocative to me than Arcadia, Olympus, Tartarus, the Negative Energy Plane, or the Abyss of previous editions.  Finally, IME 4e stands in the way of roleplaying less.  I run RP-heavy simulationst games, and I felt 3.x tried to put far to many mechanics into RP aspects of the game when none were needed.  Roleplaying is not "I ask the duke to let me lead a force of 100 soldiers against the orcs.  I rolled a 28 on my Diplomacy check."  To me, the player should make a case and roleplay out the situation rather than relying on die rolls as a crutch.  4e handles this better mechanically via skill challenges (for those that want to use a mechanical method for roleplaying) by making the number of successes achieved have a result along a continuum of possibilities, rather than the binary effects of social interaction rolls in 3e (either the duke lets the PC lead the soldiers, or not).  As for the simulationist aspect- I want my fantasy world to make sense, so I figure out detailed histories, trade routes, political struggles, religious wars, monetary/cashflow/resource issues for countries, and NOTHING in 4e prevents or hinders me from doing this.

In contrast, I felt 3.x forced me into a corner with world design because of the heavy interaction of rules and implied fluff, magic levels, and class balance (caster dominance).  I found the 3.x rules were actually a rather severe impediment to world building, because it forced me to build with rules as a primary consideration, rather than history, theme, tone, and interesting ideas as the primary concerns.

In any case, play whatever works best for you.  My group and I are playing 4e, and never looking back.  But for folks who like 3.x, there are literally truckloads of material out there, and Pathfinder is still around for you, so we all win.


----------



## The_Gneech

Razuur said:


> I think the new edition has been a success, but I wonder if it could have been an even bigger success had it remained an everymans game, instead of setting it sights on part of its audience.  But I suppose:
> 
> A.  We'll never know.
> 
> B. It doesn't really matter anyways
> 
> I mean hey, what has happened has happened.




Well said. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Psion

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> This is all just speculation, so let me say: No, I don't think so.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Anyway, RC and I have been part of the "broader existing audience" of 3.x. Where was 4E supposed to go if it wanted to keep us both? How would it have added pemerton?




Since I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of your, RCs, or (especially) pemerton's playstyles, I couldn't begin to guess.

But I can speak generally and say: build for modularity and playstyle inclusivity. The founding philosophies of "this is fun... anything else is not" that seem to inform 4e--and are so much as spelled out in the 4e DMG and dragon articles--to me betray an exclusivity in the design and (as put by Irda Ranger in another thread) _monoculture_ at WotC's D&D design team.

So, yeah. I guess what I am saying is I agree to disagree. I don't propose that it's easy. Just that it can be done.


----------



## Maggan

Razuur said:


> I was here way back when 3 e first came out, and I just don't remember the vitriol or sheer divisiveness from 2e to 3e.




I remember the launch being very "divise" for some people. There are D&D fan sites where you are not allowed to even talk about D&D3e (or D&D4e, I guess), and amongst a group of gamers, WotC D&D was always derided as "not true D&D", instead passing that accolade to other games.

So at least at the sites I frequent(ed), I have a feeling that there was about the same amount of ... let's say disappointment, among groups of fans of the older editions.

/M


----------



## The_Gneech

Mallus said:


> Like I asked before, what about 4e impedes your role-playing (and, conversely, what was present in previous editions that aided it)?




I don't think anyone's arguing that 4E impedes roleplaying -- just that there is an underlying tone implying that roleplaying should be met with a held nose and a refrain of "Oh, if you _must_, but get it over with so we can get back to combat!"

Certainly as long as I can remember, in the larger RPG community, _D&D_ was held up as "the bad example" as far as roleplaying is concerned. I particularly recall blinking two or three times at a passage in _Call of Cthulhu_, c. 1985-1986, which decried "that bane of intelligent roleplaying, the wandering monster," as it was a revelation to me at the time. The hoary old cliche of "why ROLL-play when you can ROLE-play" has been used by other games to differentiate themselves from _D&D_ for decades.

However, previous editions of _D&D_, in an effort to bring as many people into the fold as possible, recognized this as an area that could use some development and started to include that crowd in its thinking. The 2nd Edition _Campaign Guide _is all about "the story," and how GMs can encourage players to get into the roleplaying aspect of the game by playing it up themselves.

3E, with the "back to the dungeon" mantra, wasn't quite as pro-"talky parts" as 2E by any stretch, but on the other hand by allowing much more flexibility in character creation, it was still much better at creating "just the character you want" instead of something "sorta in the right neighborhood." The fact that "just the character they wanted" for a lot of min-maxers may have been a dual-wielding dwarven cleric named "Bob the Stumpy" doesn't detract from the fact that it was easier for those of us who wanted "high-concept" characters to build them. (Early 3E-era _Dragon_ magazines had a ton of articles on how to do this ... I remember looking at the Skald -- i.e., a bard/barbarian multiclass -- and thinking it was a brilliant idea.)

In other words, 3E wasn't built with the intent of being a role-player's paradise, but it still _supported_ role-players in a way that 4E's "choose from column A or B" class system doesn't seem to.

That's how it strikes me, anyhow.

-The Gneech


----------



## Fifth Element

der_kluge said:


> First, I stopped buying WoTC books years ago - when I realized I could find far more creative and imaginative stuff from 3rd party publishers. Nowadays, my whole campaign is based around 3rd party stuff - mostly Necromancer Games.
> 
> Secondly, with 4th edition, I feel like the designers, isolated in a box amongst themselves, decided amongst themselves that they alone knew what was best for the game, and changed so much stuff in it, that it (to me) hardly feels like D&D anymore.



I like how you jump from "3PP stuff is more imaginative" to saying that Mike Mearls, who started out with 3PP, doesn't know what's good for D&D.

I don't understand how you can claim the 4E designers are "in a box" any more than the 3E designers, or any set of designers before them. If anything, the fact that they can maintain an online presence (Mr. Mearls posts here at times, for instance) reduces the "in a box" likelihood.

To me these complaints seem to be more of "I personally don't like the changes made, so there must be something wrong with them." Maybe they just don't fit your tastes, but do fit the tastes of many others.


----------



## GlaziusF

Jeff Wilder said:


> Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."




From official WotC sources or from Internet people jumping to Internet conclusions? (which are like regular conclusions, only you know how you can see a web page from Russia in 0.5 seconds? Yeah, same distance compression.) 

Really, anybody not actually a WotC marketer who talks about WotC's market or target audience or what have you is talking out of a more southern orifice than their mouth. 

The odds are really, really astronomically high that TSR/WotC/Hasbro never considered you, personally, when making decisions about content and publishing, and they never will. You don't want to buy 4E because there's more things that make you want to not buy it than things that make you want to buy it, not because some marketing drone had a hate on for you and decided to take it out on the dev team. 

So winkle those things, whatsoever they may be, out of your head with a big pin and stick them on the Internet for everybody to see. You don't have to run with some imagined block of slighted former enthusiasts to keep yourself safe. 

I bought 4E because it just spit a bunch of cool things for players out to do without giant complex rule systems to describe how to construct them; put out explicit underpinnings for what (from skill checks to monsters) was considered challenging for characters of any level so I feel more confident in designing my own scenarios and monsters and not worrying about the numbers being trivial or impossible; and most importantly put everything I needed to know to completely run a monster in one small, portable, easy-to-parse block so I can cut down the amount of prep I have to do by an order of magnitude.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Anyway, RC and I have been part of the "broader existing audience" of 3.x. Where was 4E supposed to go if it wanted to keep us both? How would it have added pemerton?




As Psion puts it - modularity.  They could allow variations of the core rules to be created that would allow for more "realistic" styles of play (without 1st level characters being able to teleport all over the place, for example).  I think this would be a very easy thing to do with 4E, but the way the GSL is setup will prevent thsi from happening - it seems very intent on only allowing one over all game experience.  I could do all the work myself, and I may actually end up doing that, but it would be neat if someone (WotC or soemone else) could produce that kind of product.  I don't know if its possible to do it legally, however.


----------



## Halivar

The_Gneech said:


> In other words, 3E wasn't built with the intent of being a role-player's paradise, but it still _supported_ role-players in a way that 4E's "choose from column A or B" class system doesn't seem to.



4E caters to the method actor, not the technical actor. That's why a whole chapter is devoted to "finding your character" before the chapters on choosing character mechanics. For my part, the 4E PHB goes leaps and bounds beyond 3.x in cultivating good roleplay. It simply does so without mechanical props.


----------



## Cadfan

Kid Charlemagne said:


> As Psion puts it - modularity.  They could allow variations of the core rules to be created that would allow for more "realistic" styles of play (without 1st level characters being able to teleport all over the place, for example).  I think this would be a very easy thing to do with 4E, but the way the GSL is setup will prevent thsi from happening - it seems very intent on only allowing one over all game experience.  I could do all the work myself, and I may actually end up doing that, but it would be neat if someone (WotC or soemone else) could produce that kind of product.  I don't know if its possible to do it legally, however.



I don't think modularity would satisfy you, because it already exists, and it doesn't satisfy you.

Look at the example you give- first level characters "being able to teleport all over the place."  At first level, if you want to teleport at all, you need to be either an Eladrin, a Fey Pact Warlock, or an Assault Swordmage.  That means that if you don't use those three build options, ie, you discard the modules you do not like, you won't have first level characters teleporting all over the place.  This is true of basically every high fantasy element in the game- they're sequestered very carefully by power source.

This sort of complaint smacks of the old "It bothers me that the option even exists" chestnut, which is of course antithetical to modularity.


The_Gneech said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing that 4E impedes roleplaying -- just that there is an underlying tone implying that roleplaying should be met with a held nose and a refrain of "Oh, if you _must_, but get it over with so we can get back to combat!"



And this is an excellent illustration of why the pro 4e and anti 4e camps will never get along.  The antis see this as a reasonable opinion, while the pros see it as being a crank.


----------



## billd91

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Anyway, RC and I have been part of the "broader existing audience" of 3.x. Where was 4E supposed to go if it wanted to keep us both? How would it have added pemerton?




I'm not really sure about either RC or pemerton's styles of play (though I think I've been on the same side as they in a number of board debates lately), but I would have been much happier with a 4e that was more backward compatible, particularly with the fluff peripheries.

In fact, I think the classes and power structure could be a pretty interesting subsystem for a more 3.5-like game. There are still things I have grave misgivings about like DCs rising with the level of the party and not the inherent difficulty of the task, but I think a D&D edition that kept more continuity with the past editions and more tools to support that sort of campaign would have been more welcome. 

I imagine a MM with monsters designed for 4e but with an additional list of powers for the creature from previous editions, under the heading of "Lesser used powers" for DMs to build additional plot hooks around. Or a MM with a lot more mundane creatures for the lower-powered or more mundane campaign.

Then there comes the new cosmology. Personally, I don't mind it so much since I thought the Great Wheel was quite a hodge-podge. But then I didn't play a Planescape campaign. But since there are outer planes books dating back to 1st edition (and TWO for 3.x varieties) and lots of adventures, there was quite a bit of general continuity that was dropped off the map. Were Planescape my favorite campaign, I'd feel a bit like my branch of fandom was kicked to the curb.

The way I see it, mechanics have a little to do with the types of stories I want to play, but less than all of the other things going on around the actual mechanics. If I want to build an adventure involving a lot of natural creatures, I have to do a lot of wheel re-inventing or wait until 4e finally puts out a MM supporting druid characters, something I didn't have to do very much of in any previous edition of AD&D. Blood war stories? Not so much. Planescape? Nope. Any ongoing campaign focusing on these things, or on druids, barbarians, bards, or even the FR in the heyday of the 2e-3e timeline, faces barriers going to 4e, even if the players and DM like the combat mechanics.

And all of those changes from pre-3e periphery to 4e are _*completely optional changes*_, not inherently necessary because of any of the mechanics of 4e revealed to us so far. So WotC _*chose*_ to tack away from some of the elements that have built D&D into the brand that it is today. I can't imagine they didn't know or at least assume that doing so would lose them some fans and customers, at least in the short term (they could always tack back with some future supplements). Realistically, with certain kinds of changes, you've probably only got customers to lose. Who's going to go to 4e specifically because of the cosmological changes? Probably nobody. They'll shift for the changes in mechanical gameplay. But will there be people, who might have otherwise been willing to shift editions, staying with a previous edition because the cosmology shifted? Probably.

So did WotC's target audience shift? Sure did. They shifted priority away from retaining long-time continuity players and that shifts the target audience.


----------



## MrMyth

Jeff Wilder said:


> Why do you assume they're mutually exclusive, when -- since I wrote both of them -- you should be assuming they're not?
> 
> I'm not interested in 4E, because 4E was designed by people who weren't listening to me (or people like me). I am not saying 4E was designed while listening to nobody ... I'm saying 4E was designed without listening to _me_. And I'm wondering why, and when, WotC decided to stop listening to people like me.
> 
> Why, and when, did WotC decide I wasn't their target audience?




They did and they didn't. 

Look, _every single gamer_ is going to have a different idea of what makes the perfect game. Fourth Edition IS designed entirely around gamer feedback and what many of their customer base wanted. But it simply isn't possible for it to satisfy everyone, just as Third Edition couldn't, or GURPS couldn't, or World of Darkness couldn't - every RPG has those who like it and those who don't. 

They weren't specifically out to alienate you. They'd love to still have you as a customer - the entire goal of the company is to sell product! And I don't know if the issues, for you, are with every decision they have made - or if they have simply made some specific change so frustrating that you have turned away from all their other product in response. 

Whatever the case, they can't please everyone at the same time. Every time they make a decision - make a choice of any kind - there will be some fans grateful for it and others who dislike it. 

You don't find 4E to your taste. That's fine. This isn't because they designed a game to specifically drive you away - it is because they designed a game that they felt was what their audience was looking for, and it didn't end up being what you wanted in a game. 

That's fine. There is no malevolent plan here, no conspiracy. People simply aren't a hive mind, and that's a good thing. And there is no one single target group that the game is 'for', or 'not for' - I've seen gamers who have been around since D&D started who think 4E is the best thing ever, and others who have loathed it. I've seen those who feel it is a callback to Second Edition after a Third Edition they despised; I've seen others who feel it only continues a trend that takes the game away from its roots. I've seen younger gamers who hate the changes it has made to the only edition they've experienced (3rd Ed), and others who have enjoyed the chance to see a new edition happening. 

Why did WotC decide to stop listening to _you_ specifically? I can't answer that. I'm not sure what the elements are that you specifically take umbrage with. The answer might be that they felt there were more fans who had an opposing viewpoint as to yours. Maybe they simply weren't getting the right feedback from people in your category. Maybe they were only hearing complaints about certain elements of the game, and it wasn't until they changed those elements that those who enjoyed them spoke up. 

It is even harder to answer because each decision, each change, is seperate from the last. Some people love 4E but are upset with what they did with the Realms. Some are ok with that, but upset about the way they are going to be handling miniatures. Others might not like 4E, but love the changes they are making to the miniatures lines. 

In the end, the only thing you can do is vote with your wallet, and give feedback where you can. And maybe there will be enough others who do the same for them to take note, and make changes to what you are looking for. Honestly, that is probably _how _many of these changes - with the game, with the miniatures - came to happen. 

Or maybe that won't be the case. Many people felt just as alienated when Third Edition came around. Some were lured back to the game nonetheless, others are returning with 4E - and others still continue to stay away. 

Like I said. The game can't be written for everyone. I don't think that WotC as a whole has gone in some strange new direction that has resulted in every single decision they make being anathema to your ideals. I think it far more likely that a few specific issues have cropped up to drive you away - or that, having decided 4E wasn't to your taste, there simply wasn't any specific need to grab any other material from WotC. 

But really, the only one who can answer your question - regarding what it is that is driving you away from WotC's products - is yourself. And whatever the answer is, I honestly don't think it the result of any corporate conspiracy or because they specifically set out to target one part of the audience over another. 

I think they set out to make a quality game, and feel they succeeded. Whether you disagree with that or not - whether or not you feel the game is _for you_ - is your own decision to make, just as has been the case for every gamer with every edition of every game.


----------



## Greylock

Everyone keeps saying that 4E is a sales success... I don't see it. I just don't. The bookstores in my area, from mom and pop comic/rpg shops to major retailers like Borders and Barnes & Noble seem to be letting D&D vanish from the shelves. I see beat up cardboard shippers with the same five or so books in them for months at a time. I see the books sitting well browsed and mostly unsold while White Wolf and video game books refill what space is left when books are sold or returned. My local Borders, for instance, had two four foot sections of RPGs, four shelves high, last year. Now it's two shelves period, half full and buried. The comic shops that heavily supported RPGs barely even bother to order new releases now. All publishers seem to have suffered from the 4E back catalog wipe even if they weren't 3.x D&D.

I'm seeing this all over my city, and all my friends are concerned about it as well. No retailers here seem to give a damn about RPGs anymore.


----------



## MrMyth

The_Gneech said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing that 4E impedes roleplaying -- just that there is an underlying tone implying that roleplaying should be met with a held nose and a refrain of "Oh, if you _must_, but get it over with so we can get back to combat!"
> 
> ...
> 
> In other words, 3E wasn't built with the intent of being a role-player's paradise, but it still _supported_ role-players in a way that 4E's "choose from column A or B" class system doesn't seem to.
> 
> That's how it strikes me, anyhow.




I don't know about that - it really is a highly subjective matter. 

For myself, I've found roleplaying _significantly_ more supported by 4E - between the much better advice on running games in the DMG, the encouragement to allow player creativity, putting greater narrative control in player's hands, the presence of genuine mechanics for dealing with non-combat encounters, and the ability to embrace character concept and build characters in a way that feels natural instead of having to be forced into absurd optimized builds in order to be viable playing the game. 3rd Edition, in my experience, was the game that dismissed RP in return for more combat time. 

But... that is just my opinion. I know others who loved the greater simulationism, the thoroughness of the details in character construction and world-building, the greater diversity of skills and features, the greater distinction between melee and spell systems and the flavor that brought - and for them, 3rd Edition was far more useful for RP. 

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages for roleplaying. Some will prefer one over the other, and that's ok. 

That said, I _do _think you are very mistaken to state that 4E in any way implies that RP should take a backseat to combat, or discourages it in any fashion. Both games provide plenty of support for roleplaying... which, in the end, is something entirely driven by the players and the DM. 

You can certainly feel free to prefer the RP strengths of 3rd Edition over those of 4E - but if you genuinely think it somehow looks down on roleplaying, I really think you are viewing it through a biased lens and giving an extraordinarily incorrect description of the game.


----------



## MrMyth

Greylock said:


> Everyone keeps saying that 4E is a sales success... I don't see it. I just don't.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm seeing this all over my city, and all my friends are concerned about it as well. No retailers here seem to give a damn about RPGs anymore.




It really does seem to vary from area to area. For every story I hear about 4E books rotting on the shelves, I hear from someone else whose retailers can't get new copies in fast enough. 

Thus far, every report from WotC themselves has been that 4E has been quite successful. Whether that will remain the case in the long run is simply something folks will need to wait and see - but I think looking at any isolated areas isn't going to give the big picture.


----------



## Shroomy

Greylock said:


> Everyone keeps saying that 4E is a sales success... I don't see it. I just don't. The bookstores in my area, from mom and pop comic/rpg shops to major retailers like Borders and Barnes & Noble seem to be letting D&D vanish from the shelves. I see beat up cardboard shippers with the same five or so books in them for months at a time. I see the books sitting well browsed and mostly unsold while White Wolf and video game books refill what space is left when books are sold or returned. My local Borders, for instance, had two four foot sections of RPGs, four shelves high, last year. Now it's two shelves period, half full and buried. The comic shops that heavily supported RPGs barely even bother to order new releases now. All publishers seem to have suffered from the 4E back catalog wipe even if they weren't 3.x D&D.
> 
> I'm seeing this all over my city, and all my friends are concerned about it as well. No retailers here seem to give a damn about RPGs anymore.




If most gamers are anything like me (and I'm not saying that they are), then they're buying mostly through the online outlets.  At this point, with the exception of modules, tiles, and the occassional 3PP product, I'm buying exclusively through Amazon.com.  I feel bad for our local LGSs, but I'm not giving up that kind of discount, especially with an upcoming wedding I have to pay for.


----------



## Mark

Shroomy said:


> (. . .) with an upcoming wedding I have to pay for.





 Congrats! 


How many of the wedding party are gamers?


----------



## Fifth Element

Greylock said:


> I'm seeing this all over my city, and all my friends are concerned about it as well. No retailers here seem to give a damn about RPGs anymore.



This is very similar to the complaints about the game itself.

"Me and my friends don't like 4E, therefore it must not be successful."

and

"4E may not be selling well in my area, therefore it must not be successful."

Neither are valid arguments. 4E's success as a whole does not depend on you buying it, or people who frequent the stores you do buying it. You haven't even based you conclusion of the actual number of copies actually sold by your local retailers, just the number you perceive (or assume, or guess) to have been sold.


----------



## Mallus

The_Gneech said:


> I don't think anyone's arguing that 4E impedes roleplaying...



My impression is that they were saying: 

"4e *does not* provide me with the adequate tools to role-play the character of my choice". 

It's not a position I agree with, but I can understand it. 



> ... just that there is an underlying tone implying that roleplaying should be met with a held nose and a refrain of "Oh, if you _must_, but get it over with so we can get back to combat!"



I didn't think people were saying this. Because this basically says:

"4e *does* provide me with the tools I need to role-play the character of my choice, but for other, ancillary reasons, such as comments made by some of the designers, or what I perceive to be their attitude toward the game, I don't want to use them."

And that's either petty, oversensitive, or both. 



> Certainly as long as I can remember, in the larger RPG community, _D&D_ was held up as "the bad example" as far as roleplaying is concerned.



I'm mostly a D&D player and I've never subscribed to that load of rot. My experience of D&D is that people play it in so many different ways it's hard to say anything about the game "as a whole".



> 3E wasn't built with the intent of being a role-player's paradise, but it still _supported_ role-players in a way that 4E's "choose from column A or B" class system doesn't seem to.



3e supports a certain kind of role-playing better; one pegged to the mechanical modeling of character abilities, so you're certainly right in that sense.


----------



## Greylock

Fifth Element said:


> ...You haven't even based you conclusion of the actual number of copies actually sold by your local retailers, just the number you perceive (or assume, or guess) to have been sold.




You are jumping to conclusions as well. I talk to the shopkeepers and have friends at some of the big box stores, Hastings and Borders both, but my anecdote was based only on what I see, and I've been a retailer and retail buyer my whole life. I'm not going to expect you to trust my judgment, but I have a practiced eye.

I'm not sure why everyone around here would bail on the primary local comic/RPG shop and go online buying when, as I routinely reported when the box sets came out, it undercut Amazon in pricing.


----------



## The Little Raven

EATherrian said:


> I must be different, since I used to read all of the books from front to back and then re-read the parts I needed.




You chose to read them, but had no reason to actually do so besides the desire to read something other than your own class. That is no different in 1e, 2e, 3e, or 4e.



> The color-coded verbal vomit of the class section of 4E does not really work well with that.




It doesn't kill my eyes or my desire to read like the tightly cramped, brown-drenched, overly busy of 3e's books. To each their own.


----------



## scruffygrognard

Fifth Element said:


> Neither are valid arguments. 4E's success as a whole does not depend on you buying it, or people who frequent the stores you do buying it. You haven't even based you conclusion of the actual number of copies actually sold by your local retailers, just the number you perceive (or assume, or guess) to have been sold.




I'm sure that 4th edition is selling REALLY well but, as far as I've seen, no one I know who has played 4th edition wants to stick with it.

I TOTALLY realize that what I'm seeing among the 20-odd gamers I know may may be an anomaly... but it's odd that such a popular game could lose every potential customer that I know personally.  

A the same time, most of these players have bought the PHB or the core set but won't be subscribing to the DDI or purchasing any other 4e products.  This, to me, points at great initial sales of 4th edition products with a sharply declining market afterward.  As I've said this is based solely on what I'm seeing but that (and my gut feeling) is all I have to go on.


----------



## Thasmodious

Psion said:


> But I can speak generally and say: build for modularity and playstyle inclusivity. The founding philosophies of "this is fun... anything else is not" that seem to inform 4e--and are so much as spelled out in the 4e DMG and dragon articles--to me betray an exclusivity in the design and (as put by Irda Ranger in another thread) _monoculture_ at WotC's D&D design team.




I couldn't disagree more and I don't understand this stubborn insistence from some that 4e is a limited focus game that attacks other playstyles.  It isn't backed up by the system as presented, nor the design philosophy.

4e IS built for modularity and playstyle exclusivity.  3e wasn't.  The designers tried to design every little subsystem they thought anyone might want and cram it into the overall game structure.  It ended up limiting, rather than expanding game play, as you were stuck with the designers half-baked craft system instead of a well thought out, balanced one (for example).  If crafting wasn't a part of your groups playstyle, those rules were a waste or resulted in actual conflict with the system (endless gold loops).  If your group was all about the crafting, the rules that were there were not nearly sufficient and you had to houserule them to death anyway.  

4e is modular.  The core books present the core system and the core component of D&D gameplay - encounter resolution.  With a solid, balanced system you can plug away, easily adding whatever subsystems you want.  You can take them easily from past editions, other games, whatever, and thanks to tables such as that on pg. 42 DMG, and advice from the section on house ruling its easy to do in a balanced manner.

Want to plug a more involved economic system on the core equipment rules, easy to do.  For core gameplay, mundane equipment is largely irrelevant to adventurer wealth.  This is, obviously, consistent with every other edition.  In 4e though, rather than devote pages to it, and come up with starting gold tables, all PCs get the same and the prices are set a bit artificially because you only do it once.  Want more for a low magic game or one where secondary gear (like pitons, chalk, etc) prove very important (such as an exploration/wilderness focused game)?  Its easy to institute your own starting gold tables and expand the lists using information from past editions.  The gold scale in the game really applies to magic items, so you can even just plug the equipment straight from 3.5 into the game with no problem.

Want crafting or other skill sets outside of the core adventuring set of skills?  Easy.  Add them in, decide how many of this extra set of skills each class gets to pick.  They can do this without affecting their ability as adventurers.  Want those choices to affect their abilities as adventurers, add the skills, don't give any from free, just add access to the class lists.  

Crafting rules?  Use the craft points system from UA or the crappy 3e system if you really want.  Use the table on page 42 for the DCs.

The design of 4e lets you add anything your group wants into the game without worrying overmuch about its interaction with the core rules.  It also has the added benefit that if your group wants something as part of the game, they are unlikely to look to abuse it, but to use it in the spirit intended.  For some optimizers in 3e, all the crafting system or the artificier were good for were endless gold loops. 

At no point does the game system tell you how you must play the game.  It makes it easier than ever before to tailor the game to your groups playstyle without interference from the rules.  The only conceit the game engages in is in saying that the core of gameplay for D&D games is - gaining levels and treasure through defeating monsters and enemies.  If this isn't part of your gameplay, then D&D, not just 4th edition, is not for you.  

The assumption is that gamers are generally a creative, imaginative bunch.  I've never understood the attitude of some in saying - "they took away xxx, my group likes to xxx, now we can't xxx, 4e sucks".  Especially as the system is designed to be modular.  This will be a major area where 3PPs will find wiggle room, I would imagine - building subsystems (craft, profession/background skills, alternate skill systems, etc.).


----------



## The Little Raven

Carpe DM said:


> Why not?  Often, publishers release numbers if their book is selling well.




Because Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro, a publicly traded corporation. There are laws that regulate the flow of information from publicly traded companies, and their subsidiaries, to the public in order to prevent things like insider trading.


----------



## DaveMage

Psion said:


> I'm dubious about that.
> 
> 1e was a fledgling game, and there was a lot of undiscovered country then. New races, classes, proficiencies, and settings were all things that came out in those early years, and came out slowly.
> 
> 3e did not start out from ground zero here. 3e was built on the shoulders of a giant. It incorporated many of the features that showed up in 1e supplements right out of the starting gate, and whereas it took years for FR and Dragonlance to come out for 1e, dozens of settings were available for 3e in the first year.
> 
> It seems that you demarcate 3.5 as a new starting point. It's even less so than 3.0 was. It was a refinement of 3.0. The resetting of the supplement curve would be even less drastic.
> 
> Perhaps there were more options that could have been tried, but fundamentally, each supplement sells less than the last. I can see there was a genuine economic need for a new edition to "reset" the game in the time frame it happened.
> 
> What I disagree with is the shape 4e took. A system could have been designed that addressed the tastes of a broader degree of the existing market.





I use 3.5 as a starting point becasue a lot of the products updated 3.0 material for 3.5 (in other words, it was the same stuff re-presented).  And, as you say, it pretty much covered the 1E rules as well, but not the other stuff.

And, don't think rules supplements.  I think there were too many of these.  (So for rules supplements, I agree - enough already.) But think adventures.  Think locations.  Tell me it wouldn't have been cool to have the Palace of Bones as a product.  Tell me it wouldn't have been cool to have Abysm detailed.  Tell me it wouldn't have been cool to have Undermountain (or some other mega-dungeon) designed by WotC in 3.5.  And I cannot be convinced that there aren't products out there that I can't even fathom that would be great additions to the 3.5 multiverse.  

Bruce Cordell wrote the incredible "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" very late in the 2E life cycle.  That was a fantastic product.  There is much potential for that type of stuff at any point in a product's life cycle.


----------



## Carpe DM

The Little Raven said:


> Because Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro, a publicly traded corporation. There are laws that regulate the flow of information from publicly traded companies, and their subsidiaries, to the public in order to prevent things like insider trading.





Um. No. Rule 10b-6 does not cover that eventuality.  There is no law prohibiting the release of number of book sales.  And we can see why: half the bestseller book jackets out there would be illegal.  

-Carpe


----------



## Cadfan

cperkins said:


> I TOTALLY realize that what I'm seeing among the 20-odd gamers I know may may be an anomaly... but it's odd that such a popular game could lose every potential customer that I know personally.



I don't think its so odd that groups tend to go similar ways.


----------



## Windjammer

Fifth Element said:


> To me these complaints seem to be more of "I personally don't like the changes made, so there must be something wrong with them."



I think it was mentioned before in this thread that, among other things, what put people off playing 4E was the rabid fans on the net who deteriorated into personal attacks and feeble _ad hominem_ argumentation in response to arguments that were neither. You might want to consider that.



Fifth Element said:


> I like how you jump from "3PP stuff is more imaginative" to saying that Mike Mearls, who started out with 3PP, doesn't know what's good for D&D.



Ridiculous. Mearls exchanged the creative freedom he had at Malhavoc for the coolest thing ever: to _officially_ design his own D&D. I suggest you read _Book of Iron Might_ and _Book of Nine Swords_ side by side. If you think Mearls' design principles haven't changed inbetween these products, I conclude you don't really care about the man beyond him sticking his name on a book. Another very, very good comparison would be to see how _Keep on the Shadowfell_ fares with Necromancer's  _Siege of Durgam's Folly _ (in my humble estimate, Mearls' finest adventure to date). It's basically the same plot idea, except that the execution couldn't differ more: the first one is low on non-combat resolution, hyper-linear and an offense in railroading of the very worst sort, where Durgam's Folly shines in non-linear module design and endless opportunity for non-combat roleplaying challenges. To see how much WotC' ultra-linear delve format is out of touch with Mearls' own creative principles - hence, to see how much of creative control he had to sacrifice for working on 4E - read  this article . And to see how much Mearls' design principles changed on the side of crunch, I recommend this  insightful article on the "Design Ethos at Wizards". (It chimes well with what Psion said in this thread, if I may say so.)


			
				TheAlexandrian said:
			
		

> I don't have high expectations from any game that       Slavicsek is responsible for. On the other hand, Mike Mearls is the head developer for       4th Edition. Mearls is responsible for a slew of high quality D20       supplements and the generally excellent _Iron       Heroes_. Unfortunately, since Mearls started working at WotC, there       are plenty of indications that he's swallowed the Kool-Aid. Which leads to       the other big strike 4th Edition has against it, in my opinion: the new Design Ethos at Wizards.




For the nuts and bolts of the arguments to back up the last line, follow the link I just gave.​


----------



## Psion

DaveMage said:


> Bruce Cordell wrote the incredible "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" very late in the 2E life cycle.  That was a fantastic product.  There is much potential for that type of stuff at any point in a product's life cycle.




Yep, that was a great adventure.

But how well did it sell? Is a worthy revenue-generator for a company like WotC?

Certainly there are great ideas and great books that could still be written. That's sort of not my point. Great new products can still be written for an old game. But it will still probably generate less sales than the product before it, as a variable independent from quality.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> Since I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of your, RCs, or (especially) pemerton's playstyles, I couldn't begin to guess.
> 
> But I can speak generally and say: build for modularity and playstyle inclusivity. The founding philosophies of "this is fun... anything else is not" that seem to inform 4e--and are so much as spelled out in the 4e DMG and dragon articles--to me betray an exclusivity in the design and (as put by Irda Ranger in another thread) _monoculture_ at WotC's D&D design team.
> 
> So, yeah. I guess what I am saying is I agree to disagree. I don't propose that it's easy. Just that it can be done.



And what's with the beginner? That doesn't even know how to play any RPG? How will he react to a lot of "modules" he has to plug together and figure out what he likes? 

And what is with play-testing and balancing the system? "You know, we still need 4 play-tester groups for the Vancian Spell + Martial Token System + Wound & Vitality. "

The way I see it, 4E Core Rules presents us with one module. But there are several points where you could exchange game aspects. 
Healing & Hit Points for example - you could change a lot here. You could add wound tracking, lasting penalties (disease track => injury track). You could exchange the encounter/daily power system with a "skill challenge" variant that uses attack rolls. You could change how rituals operate.
We are already seeing ways to repurpose stuff like skill challenges (use them on an "adventure" scale), disease tracks (why not for poisons and injuries?) and multiclassing (why not use them for low level Prestige-Class like aspects or Spellscars (Spellfire)?)

And all this is far easier to create and build then ever before.

The modularity is already there. The modules just need to be created.
And here lies at the moment the greatest weakness - the GSL sucks compared to the OGL. It will probably always create a hindrance to real innovation from 3PP. But that doesn't mean that the DMG II, III and IV or the 4E equivalent of the Unearthed Arcana won't eventually add such ideas. Of course, there is also no guarantee it happens. I certainly can't do so. I have no insights into WotC plans or their designer ideas. I hope something like this will happen. 

All this doesn't help people that want to play D&D 4E NOW and expect it to have the "modules" they prefer.


----------



## carmachu

Its hard to find out, isnt it?

There's no set time or limit. Both WotC and Games Workshop...I've discovered I'm not the target anymore....


----------



## The_Gneech

Cadfan said:


> And this is an excellent illustration of why the pro 4e and anti 4e camps will never get along.  The antis see this as a reasonable opinion, while the pros see it as being a crank.




I certainly didn't intend it as a crank, just calling it as I see it. As with all subjective things, the presence or absence of such an attitude is going to be a matter of opinion.



			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> You can certainly feel free to prefer the RP strengths of 3rd Edition over those of 4E - but if you genuinely think it somehow looks down on roleplaying, I really think you are viewing it through a biased lens and giving an extraordinarily incorrect description of the game.




Well, one of the annoying things about bias is that by its nature it's almost impossible to tell if you've got it or not. It may be definition of terms -- one of the truisms of gaming is that "you can roleplay in 'Monopoly' if you really want to," but what does that mean? Pretending you're a little boot going around a track? Pretending you're a 1920s mogul buying and selling property? Haggling with other 1920s moguls "in character?"



			
				Halivar said:
			
		

> 4E caters to the method actor, not the technical actor. That's why a whole chapter is devoted to "finding your character" before the chapters on choosing character mechanics. For my part, the 4E PHB goes leaps and bounds beyond 3.x in cultivating good roleplay. It simply does so without mechanical props.




But why not do both? For me, the mechanics and the roleplay are inseparable. I mean, if you roleplay a flighty elf archer, but the character sheet is a dwarf berserker, isn't there some fundamental disconnect there? That was one of the reasons I used to hate 2E so much. I was constantly coming up with what I thought were neat ideas, but which mechanically just couldn't fly. (And granted, some of them still didn't fly in 3E -- I never did get a "warrior mage" to work the way I wanted. But at least the system was trying, so to speak.)

If the chapter devoted to "finding your character" was then followed up by mechanics that _supported_ that character, I would be a lot more 4E-friendly. Instead, what I see is "find your character -- and then shove him into one of six pre-made slots from which there is little derivation."

A lot of this is the "you are your role in combat" thing coming up again. For me there should be just as much "roleplaying" in combat as out of it. So when I wanted to create a fighter who kicked down the door, ran across the room, and lopped the head off the enemy boss, and was told "your job is to defend your teammates while the ranger or the wizard do damage," it really stuck in my craw. To me, a "fighter" is "someone who fights." It's not "someone who is and always shall be the meatshield."

-The Gneech


----------



## ProfessorCirno

You know, I feel the need to refer back to myself.  This thread just helps so much in proving my own point that it wasn't Wizards that made the divide as wide and painful as it is, it's the legion of 4e fanboys that _cannot abide anyone saying anything bad about the game_.

This whole thread started as "Why aren't I your target audience?" and was quickly answered with "Because something is wrong with you."

As for the idea that 4e caters to _everyone_ if they'd just make up their own rules, no.  No, it doesn't, and that's a stupid argument, and it wouldn't work for any other game.  I can alter any game and any system in existence to do what I want so long as I just BS it enough; that hardly speaks out in that game's favor.  The crafting thing just blows my mind - the actual argument here is "4e has crafting if you put it in."  Well, Deadlands can be played to take place _in outer space_ if I put that in, but last I checked nobody cared because that's not an official part of the game.

Crafting is not an official part of the game.  Dialogue skills are not an official part of the game.  The vast majority of spells having a use outside of combat is not an official part of the game.  It doesn't matter how much you houserule it, _it's still not a part of the game_, and that's what people are refering to regarding the modularity.  And before someone gets mad at me, _that isn't inherently a bad thing_.  Some people *love* that non-combat spells are 100% rituals.  We had a whole thread of someone talking about how happy they were that there were no crafting rules.  4e knows exactly what it wants to be, devil take the rest.  Some people like what 4e wants to be.  But some people don't, and the problem is that those people are left behind.


----------



## Fifth Element

Windjammer said:


> I think it was mentioned before in this thread that, among other things, what put people off playing 4E was the rabid fans on the net who deteriorated into personal attacks and feeble _ad hominem_ argumentation in response to arguments that were neither. You might want to consider that.



And you might want to read my sig.


----------



## Mallus

The_Gneech said:


> IIt may be definition of terms -- one of the truisms of gaming is that "you can roleplay in 'Monopoly' if you really want to," but what does that mean?



Implicit comparisons between 4e and Monopoly aren't helpful. 



> For me, the mechanics and the roleplay are inseparable.



For certain definitions of role-playing, you're absolutely right. But there are other ways of looking at RP. For example, if you consider role-playing primarily in terms of creating personalities, then mechanics and role-playing are almost completely unrelated (at least as far a D&D is concerned, since it doesn't really rules that describe the psychological makeup of characters).



> That was one of the reasons I used to hate 2E so much. I was constantly coming up with what I thought were neat ideas, but which mechanically just couldn't fly. (And granted, some of them still didn't fly in 3E -- I never did get a "warrior mage" to work the way I wanted. But at least the system was trying, so to speak.)



The only way to really fix this is to adopt a full-fledged effects-based point-buy system like HERO/Champions or M&M. Anything else is going to be a kludge (as 3e's various attempts at a fighter-mage demonstrate). 



> If the chapter devoted to "finding your character" was then followed up by mechanics that _supported_ that character, I would be a lot more 4E-friendly.



4e is definitely a more rigid class-based system (though I believe it's a lot more flexible that it appears initially). 



> Instead, what I see is "find your character -- and then shove him into one of six pre-made slots from which there is little derivation."



For people who define role-playing in terms of characterization (in the fictional sense), in terms of personality, this isn't so important.


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> Instead, what I see is "find your character -- and then shove him into one of six pre-made slots from which there is little derivation."



Not sure why you picked the number six, but regardless this is symptomatic of any class-based system, not just 4E.


----------



## Lacyon

ProfessorCirno said:


> This whole thread started as "Why aren't I your target audience?" and was quickly answered with "Because something is wrong with you."




You and I must be reading different threads.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Dialogue skills are not an official part of the game.




???


----------



## The_Gneech

Mallus said:


> Implicit comparisons between 4e and Monopoly aren't helpful.




I was getting at the definition of roleplaying, not whether 4E was like Monopoly.  Other than a frantic desire to collect treasure, the two games are only superficially similar! 



Mallus said:


> The only way to really fix this is to adopt a full-fledged effects-based point-buy system like HERO/Champions or M&M. Anything else is going to be a kludge (as 3e's various attempts at a fighter-mage demonstrate).




Well, no, not really. 3E worked more often than it didn't, in this regard, it just had a few notable holes. _Saga Edition_, with its free multiclassing and closer class balancing, works better still. 4E _could have_ gone this way, but the designers made a point of choosing not to, for whatever reason.

I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a _Saga_-ized _D&D_, it would have been a huge win, instead of leaving me (and several others, as evidenced by these recurring threads) feeling like we got kicked out for liking an unfashionable play style.

-The Gneech


----------



## DaveMage

Psion said:


> Yep, that was a great adventure.
> 
> But how well did it sell? Is a worthy revenue-generator for a company like WotC?
> 
> Certainly there are great ideas and great books that could still be written. That's sort of not my point. Great new products can still be written for an old game. But it will still probably generate less sales than the product before it, as a variable independent from quality.




If what you are saying is correct, then should we expect that a D&D product life cycle for each new edition at this point is only 4 years or so?  I have trouble accepting that - especially since Paizo is *still* going strong today - a year after WotC essentially stopped producing 3.5 stuff.

And yes, I realize Paizo is magnitudes smaller, but to me it means that the D&D brand is in the wrong hands if it can't sustain its acceptable profitability for more than 4 years.


----------



## The_Gneech

Fifth Element said:


> Not sure why you picked the number six, but regardless this is symptomatic of any class-based system, not just 4E.




Again, not necessarily. See my comments re: _Saga Edition_ above. When the class is a building block, not a straightjacket, it makes all the difference in the world.

And the number six was pulled largely out of the air because I didn't want to make an exact inventory of the number of classes and sub-builds without a book handy to reference. Call it "a handful" if you prefer. 

-The Gneech


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> Again, not necessarily. See my comments re: _Saga Edition_ above. When the class is a building block, not a straightjacket, it makes all the difference in the world.



But to extend your thought, you would have to conclude that OD&D is no good for roleplaying either. Because if you think 4E's classes are restrictive, you should see OD&D. But I think those who enjoy playing OD&D would vociferously disagree.

I used to play OD&D, and I certainly disagree.


----------



## justanobody

If in any way it is the fans of the new edition phenomenon that is pushing people out of the target audience, then maybe that competitive nature from the other games is the type of gamer WotC wanted to target as their audience for 4th?

Which means the audience changed when CCGs came about and widespread competitiveness broke lose.

It may also explain the need to try to balance everything in the game because the target audience is so trying to compete with the other players that making anything less than balanced would make people feel like they had some unfair advantage over another player or vice versa.

I can actually see something in this that means it might be a possibility in reason behind the target shift.


----------



## Psion

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And what's with the beginner? That doesn't even know how to play any RPG? How will he react to a lot of "modules" he has to plug together and figure out what he likes?




Pretty much the same way I took all the extra little sidebar rules in Top Secret SI the first time I played it. "That looks cool" or "yeah, that addresses the problem I had."



> And what is with play-testing and balancing the system? "You know, we still need 4 play-tester groups for the Vancian Spell + Martial Token System + Wound & Vitality. "




Like I said above, I didn't say it would be easy.



> The modularity is already there. The modules just need to be created.




That would make it _extensibility_ is there, not modularity. For modularity to be there, the modules have to... be there. At least in the form I speak of, which is something like inline add-in rules and options like the old Top Secret SI game.

But as far as that goes, I see the core rules of 4e as fairly monolithic. For me to adapt 4e to my playstyle would take more than a bit of hammering.



> All this doesn't help people that want to play D&D 4E NOW and expect it to have the "modules" they prefer.




That's true of less stylistic issues, like folks wanting to play druids and bards.


----------



## Mallus

The_Gneech said:


> Well, no, not really. 3E worked more often than it didn't, in this regard, it just had a few notable holes.



Like multiclassed spell casters... but sure, 3e, especially late 3e, is a good system that supports the creation of a wide variety of mechanically interesting characters. 

Though when I'm in the mood to make mechanically interesting characters, I really prefer the level of control systems like HERO or M&M afford. For example, my character in our M&M game is the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling (with a perfectly suitable suite of powers)... something like that would be hard to create in a class-based system, whereas it was a snap in M&M. 



> I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a _Saga_-ized _D&D_, it would have been a huge win...



I was surprised that WotC didn't go that route.


----------



## The Little Raven

DaveMage said:


> If what you are saying is correct, then should we expect that a D&D product life cycle for each new edition at this point is only 4 years or so?




3.5 was not a new edition. It was a revision to 3rd Edition, hence the reason it still bears the 3rd Edition trade dress and core system. Saying it was a complete and new edition is like saying that 2nd Edition Revised was a complete and new edition, and not just a revision of 2nd Edition.


----------



## The_Gneech

Fifth Element said:


> But to extend your thought, you would have to conclude that OD&D is no good for roleplaying either. Because if you think 4E's classes are restrictive, you should see OD&D. But I think those who enjoy playing OD&D would vociferously disagree.
> 
> I used to play OD&D, and I certainly disagree.




I used to play OD&D too, and I _do_ think it's no good for roleplaying without some serious house-ruling. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point, but I held that opinion in 1982 and I still hold that opinion now.

-The Gneech


----------



## Psion

DaveMage said:


> If what you are saying is correct, then should we expect that a D&D product life cycle for each new edition at this point is only 4 years or so?




4 years? No, that's unreasonable. But then, like I already said, I see 3.5 as a refinement, not a new edition.

What I am saying though is I do understand why 1e enjoyed a long period of new innovations, and how the fact many of those same innovations will be available out of the gate for later edition.

(Or then... perhaps not, considering that with the heavy handed nuking of skills under 4e, it need a book like the 1e survival guides or 1e OA.  )



> I have trouble accepting that - especially since Paizo is *still* going strong today - a year after WotC essentially stopped producing 3.5 stuff.
> 
> And yes, I realize Paizo is magnitudes smaller, but to me it means that the D&D brand is in the wrong hands if it can't sustain its acceptable profitability for more than 4 years.




Yes, Paizo is smaller than WotC would be the point I would have offered there. And in a way, I guess they way things turned out is the perhaps the best possible thing that could have happened: a third party that is "sized right" to handle the portion of the market that liked the fundamental informing characteristics of 3e.

As for sustaining profitability... that goal is not a friend to you and I Dave. Yeah, everyone wants to have books on shelves that they want, and have groups playing what they want. But this also gets us marketing-informed decisions like "parsing out the core" and "WoW fans will dig dragonborn."


----------



## Storm Raven

The Little Raven said:


> Because Wizards of the Coast is a subsidiary of Hasbro, a publicly traded corporation. There are laws that regulate the flow of information from publicly traded companies, and their subsidiaries, to the public in order to prevent things like insider trading.




In point of fact, providing this sort of public information is entirely antithetical to insider trading. Insider trading means trading on knowledge that is not available to the public - because I am an executive at a company I know that the earning report that will be issued next month is going to tank the stock, so I advise all my friends to dump the stock now. That's insider trading.

Providing accurate information to the public concerning the sales figures for something? That's not an element of insider trading. It is only insider trading if you use that knowledge ahead of time (when it is non-public) to gain an advantage.


----------



## Allister

justanobody said:


> If in any way it is the fans of the new edition phenomenon that is pushing people out of the target audience, then maybe that competitive nature from the other games is the type of gamer WotC wanted to target as their audience for 4th?
> 
> Which means the audience changed when CCGs came about and widespread competitiveness broke lose.
> 
> It may also explain the need to try to balance everything in the game because the target audience is so trying to compete with the other players that making anything less than balanced would make people feel like they had some unfair advantage over another player or vice versa.
> 
> I can actually see something in this that means it might be a possibility in reason behind the target shift.




You're forgetting ANTHER valid reason for play balance.

Players are no longer expected to play ALL the levels of the game. Another poster in a different thread mentioned that his players are mature enouh to realize that just because they're ineffective today, they will get to shine a few levels down the road. They're playing 6-10 hours every week so the "payoff" isn't that far away.

WOTC has realized that this may no longer be true at all for the majority of gamers. Most gamers might only get together once a month and basing a game system with THAT underlying assumption means it isn't relevant for most gamer's needs.


----------



## The Little Raven

Psion said:


> "WoW fans will dig dragonborn."




If one paid attention to 3rd Edition, one would realize that the plethora of dragon-men archetypes that kept surfacing over the course edition points to D&D fans digging them, which was the motivation for making them a core race. Suggesting that WoW, which has no dragonman race for players, is responsible and not the previous edition of D&D, which had several dragonman races for players, is just ignoring the history of the game.


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> I used to play OD&D too, and I _do_ think it's no good for roleplaying without some serious house-ruling. I'm happy to agree to disagree on this point, but I held that opinion in 1982 and I still hold that opinion now.



Reasoned arguments have been made that OD&D is *better* than 3E for roleplaying. I don't agree since I think roleplaying in D&D is more or less divorced from system, but I find the argument that the original RPG is no good for RPing to be....interesting.


----------



## Greg K

The_Gneech said:


> I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a _Saga_-ized _D&D_, it would have been a huge win, instead of leaving me (and several others, as evidenced by these recurring threads) feeling like we got kicked out for liking an unfashionable play style.




Despite my dislike for Saga's use of per encounter abilities, removal of skill ranks, and over consolidation of skills, a Saga-ized DND would have, imo, been much better game.  I doubt that I would play it (unless 3pp addressed those issues).  However,  it would have much closer to a game that  I would enjoy as the above are my only issues with Saga unlike 4e where they are just the start of my issues with the game.


----------



## Carpe DM

This strikes me as much like the Vista debate.  Vista released.  A lot of people complained.  Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.


----------



## Aeolius

Carpe DM said:


> Vista released.  A lot of people complained.  Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.




V Word

Sorry, as a Mac user I am by default not the target audience for the DDI.


----------



## Psion

The Little Raven said:


> If one paid attention to 3rd Edition, one would realize that the plethora of dragon-men archetypes that kept surfacing over the course edition points to D&D fans digging them, which was the motivation for making them a core race. Suggesting that WoW, which has no dragonman race for players, is responsible and not the previous edition of D&D, which had several dragonman races for players, is just ignoring the history of the game.




Not that the statement you are quoting was an argument so much as an example, but: WoW features monstrous races.

Not dismissing that such desire exists in some D&D fans as well. But there was also a sizeable backlash against half-dragons in 3e, to the point that Dungeon swore off using them.

Did people like dragonlike races because they were dragonlike, or because they were abusable? I don't know about you, but the more reasonable races in Races of the Dragon never flew (no pun intended) with my players.


----------



## Mallus

Carpe DM said:


> This strikes me as much like the Vista debate.  Vista released.  A lot of people complained.  Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.



Except that the people buying 4e intended to buy 4e. It didn't come bundled with the purchase of something else.


----------



## El Mahdi

BryonD said:


> Actually, that is flat out absurd.
> 4E developers themselves have been up front with major design philosophy shifts. They made certain choices with their eyes wide open.
> It may be 1% and it may be 50%, but a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.
> 
> If they gain for than they lose then that was the exactly right card to play.
> So I'm not remotely claiming that it was wrong or bad for them to do it.
> 
> But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements. Thats just dumb.




Sorry about this being from 4 pages ago, but from the time I went to bed last night until I logged on today there have been 4 more pages. Wow. I think ENWorld may need another icon for hotter than hot. This thread seems to be smoking.

Anyways, to the point. This just isn't accurate. WoTC did not intentionally move away from any group, they intentionally moved toward a new idea. As with any new idea or change, there will be people who don't agree and *CHOOSE* to stay away (myself included), but these people could have just as easily chosen to go in the new direction, as many have. However, WoTC did not intentionally choose a course to move away from me, or other like minded gamers. I and everyone else who have decided not to switch to D&D have *CHOSEN* not to switch. We could just as likely gone the other way, just as I'm sure there are plenty of 40 somethings with extensive 2E and 3E collections that did switch. I *CHOSE* not to this time.

Everyone has there own likes and dislikes, but it's not just a matter of black and white (usually), but shades of gray. There are actually very few things I "Hate" in this world. There are however a massive amount of things I like to one degree or another. I'm sure there are some people who hate 4E, just as there are a lot of people who like 4E, but there are a lot of people who don't dislike or "Hate" 4E, they just prefer something else. That my friend, *IS A CHOICE*. WoTC did not intentionally set out to move away from anyone. They followed their research and feedback, and intentionally moved towards a different path. That isn't just semantics, it's intent. They did not intentionally set out to alienate anyone. What they did is intentionally make a product that their customer feedback told them the customers wanted, even though they knew some wouldn't like it. You can't please all of the people, all of the time. But, they did not set out to intentionally not please a specific group of people. *That is absurd.*


4E designers moved *towards* a new design philosophy.
4E designers changed the game to something new, that they hoped people would like (based on research). They did not change the game, intentionally, to something that people wouldn't like. I'm sure they hoped everyone would like it, even though they know thats not realistic.
I, and others, who haven't switched have *chosen* not to switch. We have not been betrayed, or shunned, or excluded. No matter how much people want to say this, it won't make it true.
I've been a very outspoken critic of WoTC products. When something is horrible in my opinion, I say it's horrible. When something is good in my opinion, I say it's good. When WoTC has ignored feedback from it's fan base, I've been very vocal about there not listening (i.e. _Scales of War_ AP outline). When they have made dismissive statements, I haven't liked it and told them so, also quite vocally. But not once, not even for a milisecond, have I felt betrayed or shunned because of WoTC business decisions pertaining to the direction they wanted to take the game and their business.

Now, I'm not saying others don't feel betrayed or excluded. That's their right and their opinion. But WoTC did not intentionally set out to do this to people. They intentionally made a new game that many people like and seems to be a success so far. Applying malicious intent to their actions is absurd, and says a lot more about those who feel this than it does about WoTC.


P.S.: Nowhere does the statement _"WotC didn't decide you weren't in their target audience, you did."_ say that WoTC didn't change the game and didn't radically change some key elements. It's obvious they did. That statement has absolutely nothing to do with these points.


----------



## The_Gneech

Fifth Element said:


> Reasoned arguments have been made that OD&D is *better* than 3E for roleplaying. I don't agree since I think roleplaying in D&D is more or less divorced from system, but I find the argument that the original RPG is no good for RPing to be....interesting.




By modern standards, a Model T Ford is a rotten car. It's the same logic.

I don't want to derail the thread with whether or not early versions of _D&D_ are any good for roleplaying; if you want to fork the thread to discuss it I'm willing. I will just say here that a folder full of characters who couldn't be played because "that's not allowed" testify to a game that makes for a pretty cruddy roleplaying experience for me. Fighters aren't allowed to learn spells. Ever. Wizards aren't allowed to use swords. Ever. When the first _Lankhmar_ setting book came out, there were howls because Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, as iconic proto-_D&D_ archetypes as ever there were, were built in ways that PCs could not be.

In my book, that spells "no good for roleplaying."

-The Gneech


----------



## Halivar

Carpe DM said:


> This strikes me as much like the Vista debate.  Vista released.  A lot of people complained.  Microsoft insisted that Vista was a success because it was the most commonly used operating system.



Notwithstanding that fact that I have not used, and will never use Vista... yes. It *was* a huge success, even despite the haters like me.


----------



## Mallus

The_Gneech said:


> In my book, that spells "no good for roleplaying."



Older editions of D&D weren't as good at detailed mechanical character-modeling. That's inarguable true. Whether that meant they were bad for role-playing is a whole other kettle of fish...


----------



## Greg K

Mallus said:


> Though when I'm in the mood to make mechanically interesting characters, I really prefer the level of control systems like HERO or M&M afford. For example, my character in our M&M game is the Egyptian God of Mexican Wrestling (with a perfectly suitable suite of powers)... something like that would be hard to create in a class-based system, whereas it was a snap in M&M.




I would have settled for a True20 approach, but only because I want a little more structure on character generation and friendiness to plug-in pre-built magic systemss when it comes to fantasy.


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> By modern standards, a Model T Ford is a rotten car. It's the same logic.



My last comment on the matter:

No one still drives a Model T. *Many* people still play OD&D.


----------



## Thasmodious

The_Gneech said:


> But why not do both? For me, the mechanics and the roleplay are inseparable. I mean, if you roleplay a flighty elf archer, but the character sheet is a dwarf berserker, isn't there some fundamental disconnect there? That was one of the reasons I used to hate 2E so much. I was constantly coming up with what I thought were neat ideas, but which mechanically just couldn't fly. (And granted, some of them still didn't fly in 3E -- I never did get a "warrior mage" to work the way I wanted. But at least the system was trying, so to speak.)




If this is your position, I find it pretty strange that you are using this statement to defend 3e over 4e.  3e was very limiting on what you could play and how you could play it because of the things they tied into the basic system.  

First, though, to be fair, the 3e PHB had 10 classes and the 4e PHB has 8.  If you're trying to compare 4e now to 3e at the end of its run, well, that's a pretty skewed way to go about things.  Wait 8 years, then compare.  Those 10 classes in 3e had a very limited range of options (do I want my fighter to have a longsword and focus or a greataxe and power attack?).  Both games are built to expand through future products, its the business model.  New options for existing classes, new classes, new pretige/paragon paths, etc. 

That said, 3e attempted to pigeonhole characters pretty strongly.  All fighters pretty much looked the same.  One might trip, another cleave, but they had the same pitiful skills and none of them could effectively utilize the other skill based systems like craft.  You couldn't make the character you wanted, unless you could justify any non adventuring details mechanically.  A fighter/blacksmith? How you going to pull that off without making a subpar fighter?  You had to do it by not actually taking fighter levels, you had to dip in something else for skill points, never mind your concept is not rogueish at all.  Spellcaster multiclassing was awful and severely limited what you could do and how far you could do it.  

That's the problem with trying to encompass everything in the rules.  Every group doesn't need everything, and the attempt leaves the system full of holes, corner cases, unworkable subsystems and unfixable disparity.  It took WotC 8 years to come up with a way to put a dint in the caster/melee disparity and the solution was to magic up melee classes with Tome of Battle.  



> If the chapter devoted to "finding your character" was then followed up by mechanics that _supported_ that character, I would be a lot more 4E-friendly. Instead, what I see is "find your character -- and then shove him into one of six pre-made slots from which there is little derivation."




Class doesn't define character and character doesn't have to be represented mechanically (although its easy to do so if your group desires).  Class represents the skill/powerset that a character uses while adventuring.  Right now, class choice is limited, just as it was at the beginning of 3e.  But within that range there is a lot of wiggle room, as a whole and within each class.  A lot of options are realized through the limited power selection versus the large number of choices (which will only grow, and has already).  A fighter focused on heavy damage with a 2h is a lot different from a fighter built for toughness from a fighter built around skilled tactical combat.  Feats and powers leave plenty of room for variety.  Sure, all those are fighters, but thats the class.  



> A lot of this is the "you are your role in combat" thing coming up again. For me there should be just as much "roleplaying" in combat as out of it. So when I wanted to create a fighter who kicked down the door, ran across the room, and lopped the head off the enemy boss, and was told "your job is to defend your teammates while the ranger or the wizard do damage," it really stuck in my craw. To me, a "fighter" is "someone who fights." It's not "someone who is and always shall be the meatshield."




The roles have variety as well.  You can be an offensive defender.  In my group, the fighter is exactly that.  He is the guy who kicks down the door and charges the BBEG.  As class choice expands though, so will overall options as to how you can realize your concept mechanically.  Every role will be represented within each power source, in all liklihood.  A martial controller, a primal defender, an arcane leader, etc.  Looking at the general design layout, it looks to me like 4e will be able to reach the end game versatility of 3e in a much shorter time/book frame.  There are simply more avenues for expansion.


----------



## The Little Raven

Psion said:


> Not that the statement you are quoting was an argument so much as an example, but: WoW features monstrous races.




And so has D&D, since at least 2nd Edition, with its book on playing monstrous humanoids. Then we have 3e with its Savage Species, as well as books like Races of the Dragon.

This is just another case of WoW being cited without there being any actual facts to support the citation. Previous editions of D&D have way more influence on dragonborn and tieflings being in the core than any non-D&D source.


----------



## justanobody

Allister said:


> You're forgetting ANTHER valid reason for play balance.
> 
> Players are no longer expected to play ALL the levels of the game. Another poster in a different thread mentioned that his players are mature enouh to realize that just because they're ineffective today, they will get to shine a few levels down the road. They're playing 6-10 hours every week so the "payoff" isn't that far away.
> 
> WOTC has realized that this may no longer be true at all for the majority of gamers. Most gamers might only get together once a month and basing a game system with THAT underlying assumption means it isn't relevant for most gamer's needs.




The majority of gamers also does not play D&D because they don't want the work it includes. They play video games instead, or CCGs. Things that take little effort and have a big payoff with quick returns.

You never had to play all the levels. You don't even have to play a whole level. You never have to play the same class from game to game and can switch it up.

Nothing has changed that a party will still need most base classes and a single class party won't work. So there is no real balance when you cannot play the class you want because everyone else want to play it and that leaves the party deficient in functioning because the system has not changed to solve any of that. So there is no real balance so long as each class cannot perform all things equally.

Or a party of all fighters cannot perform equally well as a party of all wizards, all clerics, all rogues, etc.

So there still is not a balanced game, only a shift in the balance from one aspect to another. Playing a single level or even all levels still does not fix the problem of balance. It just creates another problem. Oddly for such a poor balanced game D&D survived for decades as the #1 RPG in the industry above other games that were more balanced for ages.

So you idea really doesn't seem to hold water.


----------



## Windjammer

Fifth Element said:


> And you might want to read my sig.



Touché! Still, not having played 4E doesn't grant you immunity to resorting to _ad hominem_ argumentation in defense of 4E. And, by the way, I've encountered lots of 4E fanboys on diverse forums who never played it. That's nothing to do with 4E in particular, just the fact that 50%+ of the people on boards don't play the game they're talking about, and are willing to love and hate it nevertheless.


----------



## justanobody

Fifth Element said:


> No one still drives a Model T.




You are sadly mistaken.


----------



## The_Gneech

Mallus said:


> Older editions of D&D weren't as good at detailed mechanical character-modeling. That's inarguable true. Whether that meant they were bad for role-playing is a whole other kettle of fish...




Again, that's one of those fundamental areas where people are going to disagree. As I said above, for me they're inseparable.

Another player's character in a very light-hearted game I played a while back was a halfling rogue who was insane and believed himself to be a dwarf berserker. It was a funny bit. But if someone found themselves at the table _trying_ to play a dwarf berserker when the rules just screamed "halfling rogue" instead, they'd have room to complain, wouldn't they?

Certainly, 4E isn't _that_ extreme, but I'm just using it to illustrate the point. I'm an old HERO player, so I'm used to divorcing the mechanics from the special effects -- but there's only so much reskinning you can do before you've left the realm of handwaving and entered the realm of metaphoric schizophrenia.

-The Gneech


----------



## Fifth Element

Windjammer said:


> Touché! Still, not having played 4E doesn't grant you immunity to resorting to _ad hominem_ argumentation in defense of 4E. And, by the way, I've encountered lots of 4E fanboys on diverse forums who never played it. That's nothing to do with 4E in particular, just the fact that 50%+ of the people on boards don't play the game they're talking about, and are willing to love and hate it nevertheless.



I don't love or hate 4E. It looks interesting and I will try it when I have the chance. At this point it's at best a 50/50 chance that I will switch to it full-time from 3.5.

But you'll have to read my user title as well. It's not any edition of the game I'm defending. I just hate invalid arguments, made about any edition.


----------



## Greg K

justanobody said:


> Or a party of all fighters cannot perform equally well as a party of all wizards, all clerics, all rogues, etc..



This, of course, being dependent upon the type of adventures and encounters the DM throws at the characters. For 2e and 3e, there have been discussions in products dealing with the running of single class campaigns.  It just takes a little more effort and planning on the part of the DM.


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> You are sadly mistaken.



I rather doubt they're road-worthy. I'll rephrase.

No ones still uses a Model T for its intended purpose: transportation.

Plenty of people still use OD&D for its intended purpose.


----------



## Aeolius

Fifth Element said:


> No one still drives a Model T.




Better not tell THESE FOLKS


----------



## Psion

The_Gneech said:


> In my book, that spells "no good for roleplaying."




I have that book.


----------



## billd91

Fifth Element said:


> I rather doubt they're road-worthy. I'll rephrase.
> 
> No ones still uses a Model T for its intended purpose: transportation.
> 
> Plenty of people still use OD&D for its intended purpose.




You're seriously implying that means something? We'll see how many people are playing OD&D 50 years from now, _*then*_ we'll have comparable frames of reference.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Mouseferatu said:


> There's an awful lot of misinformation involved in this post.
> 
> 1) 4E is a runaway success, sales-wise. The transition was quite smooth enough, and there was no misjudgment of the market. There may have been a misjudgment of a _small portion_ of the market, but if so, it wasn't enough to substantially harm the launch of the game.
> 
> 2) Rob Heinsoo is stepping down to take a more active role in actually _writing_, and James Wyatt--who is taking his place--had a _more_ direct hand in the creation of 4E than Rob did. Notice the names on the covers of the books.
> 
> This whole "I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick is getting old. Yes, a large number of the old fan base doesn't like it. That's been the case _with every edition to date_, and will always _be_ the case with new editions.
> 
> Is 4E the perfect game ever? No. Could some of the marketing have been handled better? Yes. Was 4E somehow a mistake or a disaster just because there's been a lot of shouting about it on the internet? Not even remotely.




Actually, for the record, I like 4e and DM a 4e game regularly. 

Ari, I'm not sure where the misinformation is. Maybe you meant disinformation? But I didn't intend to mislead, either. It's true that a couple of months after release, the lead of the  mechanical design team stepped down. By the way, I thought Mike Mearls, not James Wyatt, took Rob's place. Last I was working with those guys, James was very much on the story side of things, so a jump to mechanical design would be a big one. But that was a while ago, so who knows.

Anyway, I'm not putting out any dis- or mis- information. Just saying what happened.

My conclusion that WOTC is not fully satisfied with the launch of 4e is, I think, clearly my own conclusion. I'm not reporting on some insider knowledge or scooping a news bit. I'm just saying, DDI was a disaster, people like Jeff feel alienated and aren't buying stuff, major publishers like Clark Peterson are calling 4E a miniatures game and saying it doesn't have the soul of D&D, and the GSL is nonexistent. I think that given those things, it's safe to say that WOTC is not fully satisfied with 4E's launch. They sure shouldn't be.

I understand that some are tired of the ""I don't like 4E, so it's obviously a failure" shtick. But that is not the case here. I like 4E, I play 4E, I DM 4E. Could it be better? Yes. But it's fun. It's launch has been a commercial success. Does that mean that WOTC read the market correctly? Nope, not at all. They botched it in significant ways. Enough to ruin the game? Nope. Enough to ruin it for some people? Yep.


----------



## Aeolius

billd91 said:


> We'll see how many people are playing OD&D 50 years from now, _*then*_ we'll have comparable frames of reference.




And they have to use their original dice, or it's cheating. No mixing new dice in  with the old dice.


----------



## Greg K

Thasmodious said:


> You couldn't make the character you wanted, unless you could justify any non adventuring details mechanically.  A fighter/blacksmith? How you going to pull that off without making a subpar fighter?



Fighter with Craft (blacksmithing). 


> You had to do it by not actually taking fighter levels, you had to dip in something else for skill points,never mind your concept is not rogueish at all.



Or just use the Customizing a character section from the PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).  There is an example of trading in a few things for extra skill points per level and a couple of class skills.


----------



## billd91

Aeolius said:


> And they have to use their original dice, or it's cheating. No mixing new dice in  with the old dice.




Well, I won't necessarily hold them to that strictly. I imagine some people have had to custom make parts to keep the Model Ts running in the 100 years since they were introduced and 80 since they were discontinued. I would consider resorting to a chit cup to be an acceptible substitution.


----------



## Mallus

The_Gneech said:


> I'm an old HERO player, so I'm used to divorcing the mechanics from the special effects -- but there's only so much reskinning you can do before you've left the realm of handwaving and entered the realm of metaphoric schizophrenia.



OK... I guess I just approach it from a different angle. 

I play in a group that's really good at creating... diverse personalities for their characters (oh, they're really good at... diverse mechanics too, but that's another story). I'm confident that you could give each of us the exact same PC --let's go "all in" and make it the exact same 1e fighter-- and by the end of a single session we'd all have completely unique _characters_, in terms of the their personalities, and, well, their role-playing.


----------



## Fifth Element

billd91 said:


> You're seriously implying that means something? We'll see how many people are playing OD&D 50 years from now, _*then*_ we'll have comparable frames of reference.



I wasn't the one who brought up the comparison in the first place.

But for the record, no I don't think it's a good comparison, I was jut trying to work with the comparison given to me. The comparison is invalid because cars are something that physically wear out over time, unless you put a good deal of work into them. They require maintenance over time. OD&D is just as playable now as it was 30 years ago.


----------



## Fifth Element

Aeolius said:


> Better not tell THESE FOLKS



Are you saying the only people who use OD&D are collectors? They don't actually use it, but like to display it with other collectors?

Really, the whole comparison is ridiculous and I'm sorry I tried to refute it.


----------



## Allister

I think Cadfan was right when he said the anti and pro 4e sides will never meet.

When I opened the 3e PHB, the "roleplaying" notes are at the BACK of the PHB after all the crunch whereas the 4e PHB, the book actually makes a player THINK about how their character would respond.

I mean, I thought roleplaying was that if faced with situation Z, characters A, B anc C would respond differently based on how the characters were portrayed.

4e is the only version of the PHB that even pays lip service to this roleplaying, yet apparently, this ISN"T considered role-playing?

Colour me confused....


----------



## billd91

Fifth Element said:


> I wasn't the one who brought up the comparison in the first place.
> 
> But for the record, no I don't think it's a good comparison, I was jut trying to work with the comparison given to me. The comparison is invalid because cars are something that physically wear out over time, unless you put a good deal of work into them. They require maintenance over time. OD&D is just as playable now as it was 30 years ago.




Actually, I would agree that by modern standards, OD&D _is_ a crappy RPG. Community standards have changed, but just like the Model T with its hobbyists, the game still has its fans and has a life.


----------



## The_Gneech

Thasmodious said:


> If this is your position, I find it pretty strange that you are using this statement to defend 3e over 4e.  3e was very limiting on what you could play and how you could play it because of the things they tied into the basic system.
> 
> First, though, to be fair, the 3e PHB had 10 classes and the 4e PHB has 8.  If you're trying to compare 4e now to 3e at the end of its run, well, that's a pretty skewed way to go about things.  Wait 8 years, then compare.  Those 10 classes in 3e had a very limited range of options (do I want my fighter to have a longsword and focus or a greataxe and power attack?).  Both games are built to expand through future products, its the business model.  New options for existing classes, new classes, new pretige/paragon paths, etc.




In 3E, it was easy to multiclass and rather expected that you would. I already mentioned _Dragon_ magazine's series of articles building about fifty different "classes" simply by mixing the core 10. In ten years of playing 3/3.5, I used non-core classes a total of twice, both on the same character. 



Thasmodious said:


> That said, 3e attempted to pigeonhole characters pretty strongly.  All fighters pretty much looked the same.




That's simply not the case. Even if you stayed pure fighter, which IME only NPCs ever did, you quickly became very good at whatever your specialization may be -- or you quickly became very flexible in a variety of situations.



Thasmodious said:


> One might trip, another cleave, but they had the same pitiful skills and none of them could effectively utilize the other skill based systems like craft.  You couldn't make the character you wanted, unless you could justify any non adventuring details mechanically.  A fighter/blacksmith? How you going to pull that off without making a subpar fighter?  You had to do it by not actually taking fighter levels, you had to dip in something else for skill points, never mind your concept is not rogueish at all.




How many ranks in Craft do you need to be a competent blacksmith? An Int of 10 gives a 1st level 3E fighter 8 skill points. Put 4 of those in Craft (which is a class skill) and you've got a perfectly good blacksmith, with 2 more each for Jump and Swim.

I'll happily agree that 3E fighters could use more skill points -- but you didn't have to make a sub-par fighter just to make him a blacksmith.



Thasmodious said:


> Spellcaster multiclassing was awful and severely limited what you could do and how far you could do it.




I've acknowledged this already. That was a design flaw, not a philosophical one.



Thasmodious said:


> Class doesn't define character and character doesn't have to be represented mechanically (although its easy to do so if your group desires).  Class represents the skill/powerset that a character uses while adventuring.  Right now, class choice is limited, just as it was at the beginning of 3e.




Except it wasn't, that's my whole point. The reason I came back to _D&D_ with the release of 3.0, after a decade of being a HERO-only player[1], was because you could finally use _D&D_ to build a wide variety of characters with nothing more than the _PHB_.

I dunno, maybe there's some super-wifty piece of game mechanic I'm just not seeing for all the neon lights and tiefling horns ... but what I've seen of 4E character building sure doesn't _look_ flexible to me.

-The Gneech 

[1] And no, I don't want to go back to HERO, for reasons that aren't worth ranting about here. Suffice to say it's also suffered over the years.


----------



## Psion

The Little Raven said:


> And so has D&D, since at least 2nd Edition, with its book on playing monstrous humanoids. Then we have 3e with its Savage Species, as well as books like Races of the Dragon.




Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.

And for that matter, I understand why there _still_ aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.


----------



## The Little Raven

Ycore Rixle said:


> My conclusion that WOTC is not fully satisfied with the launch of 4e is, I think, clearly my own conclusion.




Based on what, though? The fact that Rob Heinsoo stepped down from his managing position? Suggesting that ignores the context of his decision: he was spending more time managing things than actually writing, and he wanted to spend more time writing.

Mike Mearls posted that by August, they had smashed their sales expectations for the entire 2008 year for 4th Edition, which directly contradicts the idea that they aren't fully satisfied with the launch. In two months, with a handful of products, they beat their sales expectations that were predicated on another 4 months of sales, along with another half-dozen products. Any company in the world would kill to do that.


----------



## Aeolius

Fifth Element said:


> OD&D is just as playable now as it was 30 years ago.




   Until you lose your books. Sure, you can get replacement on eBay and the like; but that makes you a collector.  

   I am not entirely unsympathetic to those who play 4e. I switched from 1e to 3e for two reasons. First, 3e inspired me to create. Second, as my campaigns tend to be atypical by nature, I thought running weird games AND using out-of-print rules might have been a stretch.


----------



## HelloChristian

justanobody said:


> You are sadly mistaken.




Oh my. I'm glad to see this thread is just as productive on page 9 as it was on page 1.


----------



## Psion

The_Gneech said:


> I've acknowledged this already. That was a design flaw, not a philosophical one.




I don't think it's a design flaw. Nothing tells me that clerical magic and arcane magic should be mixable. That's a setting consideration.


----------



## Sunderstone

The Little Raven said:


> Mike Mearls posted that by August, they had smashed their sales expectations for the entire 2008 year for 4th Edition, which directly contradicts the idea that they aren't fully satisfied with the launch. In two months, with a handful of products, they beat their sales expectations that were predicated on another 4 months of sales, along with another half-dozen products. Any company in the world would kill to do that.





Golden Gate Bridge for sale..... starting bids will begin in a moment.


----------



## The Little Raven

Psion said:


> Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.




And this has what to do with your unsupported claim that WoW is the reason we have Dragonborn in the core?


----------



## DaveMage

Psion said:


> 4 years? No, that's unreasonable. But then, like I already said, I see 3.5 as a refinement, not a new edition.




If so much of 3E wasn't duplicated in 3.5, I would agree, but since I view so many of the 3.5 products as essentially a 2nd printing of the 3.0 books, it's like the edition started over at 3.5 (to me).  Hence, the 4.5 years.



Psion said:


> What I am saying though is I do understand why 1e enjoyed a long period of new innovations, and how the fact many of those same innovations will be available out of the gate for later edition.




I can buy that.



Psion said:


> Yes, Paizo is smaller than WotC would be the point I would have offered there. And in a way, I guess they way things turned out is the perhaps the best possible thing that could have happened: a third party that is "sized right" to handle the portion of the market that liked the fundamental informing characteristics of 3e.
> 
> As for sustaining profitability... that goal is not a friend to you and I Dave. Yeah, everyone wants to have books on shelves that they want, and have groups playing what they want. But this also gets us marketing-informed decisions like "parsing out the core" and "WoW fans will dig dragonborn."




No argument here.


----------



## The Little Raven

Sunderstone said:


> Golden Gate Bridge for sale..... starting bids will begin in a moment.




Okay, so now Mike Mearls is a liar? Care to produce some evidence of that, or is this just one of those blanket impugning of someone's character because they work for the big bad evil corporation?


----------



## Psion

The Little Raven said:


> And this has what to do with your unsupported claim that WoW is the reason we have Dragonborn in the core?




I never said they were "the" reason we have Dragonborn in the core.


----------



## Allister

Psion said:


> Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.
> 
> And for that matter, I understand why there _still_ aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.




I'm not sure why WOTC shouldn't respond to the wishes of its paying customer-base.

Personally, I couldn't understand the fascination with half-dragons etc, but there HAS to be SOMEONE buying all those products.

Seriously, 3e produced 

Dragon magic
Races of the Dragon
Dragons of Eberron
Dragons of Faerun
Draconomicon

and this doesn't even include side products like the PHBII which had the Dragon shaman 

Seriously, SOMEONE has to be buying all these dragon-themed products. WOTC isn't in the business to just print books that they want. IF you were a designer and you KNOW your audience loves dragontheme products, why wouldn't you include something for them?

(Again, I'll point out thatI I personally don't understand the dragon-love. I'm neutral to dragonborn but I don't deny the fact that it seems to sell VERY well)


----------



## Sunderstone

The Little Raven said:


> Okay, so now Mike Mearls is a liar? Care to produce some evidence of that, or is this just one of those blanket impugning of someone's character because they work for the big bad evil corporation?




Not calling anyone a liar at all. I just thought it was humorous thing to post. Thanks for the shining armor routine though.


----------



## DaveMage

The Little Raven said:


> 3.5 was not a new edition. It was a revision to 3rd Edition, hence the reason it still bears the 3rd Edition trade dress and core system. Saying it was a complete and new edition is like saying that 2nd Edition Revised was a complete and new edition, and not just a revision of 2nd Edition.




I don't see it that way.  As I said above, I see 3.5 more like a "do-over".


----------



## Cadfan

Psion said:


> Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.
> 
> And for that matter, I understand why there _still_ aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.



But becoming a half-dragon was supported by the DMG.

In any case, lots of people liked dragon-ish characters.  They played them and had fun and bought books about having dragon-ish characters.  So 4e supports dragon-ish characters in the PHB.  Having a problem with that is the _ultimate_ in badwrongfunism.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

To answer the OP, I don't know why you dropped out of the target audience, but as someone that has been dropped and regained several times from the D&D target audience, I can tell you why that happened to me. It might answer some of the question:

1. Later sets of Basic D&D lost me because it was too little, too late to compete with new shiny (1st ed.)

2. 1E grabbed me because I was a teen, it was shiny, and you could play an elven rogue or even multiclass as something besides an elven fighter/wizard (aka "basic elf").

3. 1E lost me because once I had the main books, I didn't much need anything else. And besides, 2E was a little too fluffy for my tastes at the time. And then I got seriously interested in non-D&D games.

4. 2E grabbed me because some of the supplements worked pretty well in my Fantasy Hero campaigns, even if I never bought or ran with the 2E rules.

5. Basic grabbed me again, because the RC was just that good. Still, there is only so long I can play with "elf" as a class.

6. 3E grabbed me because as much as I enjoy Hero, I needed a break from the character point accounting, and 3E looked like a better fit for the particular style of game I was running at the time. 

7. 3E lost me, because too much of the early supplements didn't do it for me, and AU/AE did. And I began to seriously dread prepping a game when the characters were over about 9th level. 

8. 3.5 never had me, because AE did some of the same things, only better (IMHO). Also, too much of the later 3.5 stuff seemed kludged onto 3E--both going too far, but not far enough, at the same time.

9. 4E grabbed me primarily because of the dread of 3E prep (see #7). There are other things I like about it, but that was the thing that got me to try it right away. Well, that and the Amazon sale, when I hadn't bought anything new and shiny in ages. There was some unspent 3.5 money burning a hole in my pocket.  Stuff I didn't like in 3.5, when glued onto 3E, I now like when it is completely integrated into the whole ruleset.

10. All during this time, Dragon and Dungeon were working to lose me. It took Dungeon several changes of editors and the better part of 40 issues to lose me, but they managed it in the end. Pazio had already finished me off, but the DDI was the wrong way for WotC to get me back.

As to when I"ll be lost and regained again into the D&D fold, I don't know. Maybe Hero System 6E will knock my socks off, since I skipped 5E as, "too many nitpicky changes that manage to invalidate my copy of the rules without solving the issues I have with the game." Given the stated preferences of the current Hero owners, I doubt it, but anything is possible. Or maybe I'll have a retro Runequest itch. Or maybe I'll get so enamored with my Burning Wheel campaign, that I forget about everything else.

I apologize for the length, but I think this illustrates nicely those "fuzzy margins" that Charles Ryan was discussing. It would be incredibly difficult to keep only me square in the sights of the target audience, even if WotC tried to do exactly what I want, all the time. The real miracle with any solid design is that it attracts a substantial audience at all. Being more of the "glass half full" type, I'll suggest that 3E/AE keeping me entertained for the better part of 8 years is more impressive than that I got tired of it eventually.   A lot of "lost me" is really "went onto something else when I'm not done with it".


----------



## The Little Raven

Psion said:


> I never said they were "the" reason we have Dragonborn in the core.






> But this also gets us marketing-informed decisions like "parsing out the core" and "WoW fans will dig dragonborn."




So, what was your point in trying to link WoW to the dragonborn's presence in 4e?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> Those are not, in any way, shape, or form, the PHB.



No, they were not in the Core Rules. Still, the ECL rules were included in the DMG in 3.5 (I am not sure if they were already in 3.0). And these books sold and were very popular. So, if these "monstrous" races are so popular, why not make them a direct part of the Core Rules - at least the favorite archetypes?

Of course one could argue that this also makes a good point for keeping them a separate book, since it apparently sells. But maybe Druids and Bards in PHB II would sell better then Minotaurs and Dragonborn in PHB II? 



> And for that matter, I understand why there _still_ aren't orcs, goblins, and trolls in the PHB.




I don't know about that. Maybe they figured that they couldn't cover more than 8 races, and picked the most popular ones. (Still could have gone without the Half-Elf, personally.)


----------



## The_Gneech

Yeah, let's not get too hung up on the Model T thing. At no point did I say that OD&D was no good as a game -- for playing fighters, wizards, and clerics taking their 10' poles into dungeons it was the cat's meow in its day and while I haven't played it in years I imagine it's still fine for just that purpose.

But then there was _Traveller_. [1] And _Call of Cthulhu_. And _Rolemaster_ and _HERO_. And _Vampire_. The meaning of "roleplaying" expanded with each one.

Some of this is what I was getting at by the definition of roleplaying.

Yes, I can come up with an interesting personality for my dwarf fighter, and that's roleplaying. I'm not arguing that point.

However, if I want to play a half-orc fighter/bard, and the rules pitch an error, that's bad for roleplaying, ain't it?

-The Gneech 

[1] Let's also not get into whether _D&D_ or _Traveller_ was first, 'k? My guess is that for the average player, _D&D_ led to _Traveller_, not the other way 'round.


----------



## The Little Raven

Sunderstone said:


> Not calling anyone a liar at all. I just thought it was humorous thing to post. Thanks for the shining armor routine though.




Ah, so it's funny to impugn someone's character for a chuckle.

Maybe I'm just too stodgy to agree.


----------



## Fifth Element

Aeolius said:


> Until you lose your books. Sure, you can get replacement on eBay and the like; but that makes you a collector.



Buying the book to have it is collecting. Buying the book to use it to play the game is not.


----------



## justanobody

Greg K said:


> This, of course, being dependent upon the type of adventures and encounters the DM throws at the characters. For 2e and 3e, there have been discussions in products dealing with the running of single class campaigns.  It just takes a little more effort and planning on the part of the DM.




The adventures would need to be the same for all attempts.

Take KotS. Not claiming it to be a perfect adventure, but run different party compositions through it and see what happens.

Have the following parties:

*Optimally mixed roles
*All wizards
*All clerics
*All fighters
*All rogues

Using the standard older classes to compare you can see that the parties will be able to compare to older editions balance without having to match up new classes to older ones.

Having to adjust for one specific class will only prove that the classes are not balanced if you cannot use the adventure for a single class group or a mixed class group.

The only thing you should have to adjust would be the tactics used for smarter opponents of the PCs to make use of the strengths and weaknesses of the classes.

If the survival rate of each of these parties throughout the campaign is not the same them you still have not achieved balance.



Fifth Element said:


> I rather doubt they're road-worthy. I'll rephrase.
> 
> No ones still uses a Model T for its intended purpose: transportation.




Still you are wrong. Also having the permanent license plate that doesn't require constant fees and such makes older model cars cheaper save for gas and repair costs. You are just making a snap judgement on what other people do or do not do and have no evidence of the matter, otherwise you would know your statements were false, and that people still do use Model-Ts as their primary form of transportation.



HelloChristian said:


> Oh my. I'm glad to see this thread is just as productive on page 9 as it was on page 1.




At least we are consistent.


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> However, if I want to play a half-orc fighter/bard, and the rules pitch an error, that's bad for roleplaying, ain't it?



But where's the line? By that logic, *any* edition of D&D is bad for roleplaying because there will always be certain things (in terms of class combinations or what have you) that you can't play, per the rules as written.


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> Still you are wrong. Also having the permanent license plate that doesn't require constant fees and such makes older model cars cheaper save for gas and repair costs. You are just making a snap judgement on what other people do or do not do and have no evidence of the matter, otherwise you would know your statements were false, and that people still do use Model-ts as their primary form of transportation.



Please. Back to the topic.

Suffice it to say I don't literally mean *no* one.


----------



## The Little Raven

justanobody said:


> If the survival rate of each of these parties throughout the campaign is not the same them you still have not achieved balance.




The system is balanced for diverse groups composed of multiple roles, which is the design intent. Shifting the goalpost away from the design intent, then declaring that balanced was not achieved according to your shifted goalpost is a completely dishonest assessment.



> You are just making a snap judgement on what other people do or do not do and have no evidence of the matter, otherwise you would know your statements were false, and that people still do use Model-ts as their primary form of transportation.




Kinda like how you made a snap judgment about 4e never getting onto Wal-Mart shelves?


----------



## Psion

Allister said:


> Personally, I couldn't understand the fascination with half-dragons etc, but there HAS to be SOMEONE buying all those products.




Hey, Allister, I know you are getting caught up in TLR's little crusade, but let me re-emphasize:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Not dismissing that such desire exists in some D&D fans as well.


----------



## The_Gneech

Fifth Element said:


> But where's the line? By that logic, *any* edition of D&D is bad for roleplaying because there will always be certain things (in terms of class combinations or what have you) that you can't play, per the rules as written.




It's not a line, it's a continuum. Certainly you run into the realm of diminishing returns somewhere -- there's no reason to put rules for playing a smurf in a _Star Trek_ game, for example. But for a fantasy role-playing game that has had everything from gnome miners to aliens with lasers to mind-flayers sailing the stars, it certainly makes sense to go out of your way to be as inclusive as possible.

-The Gneech


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> If the survival rate of each of these parties throughout the campaign is not the same them you still have not achieved balance.



No one is suggesting the balance is perfect. Just better.

I believe a party of 1st-level wizards could actually survive in 4E, for instance. Obviously different party makeups will have different strengths against different types of opponents, but that's always been true when discussing extreme parties (all wizards, e.g.).


----------



## Fifth Element

The_Gneech said:


> It's not a line, it's a continuum. Certainly you run into the realm of diminishing returns somewhere -- there's no reason to put rules for playing a smurf in a _Star Trek_ game, for example. But for a fantasy role-playing game that has had everything from gnome miners to aliens with lasers to mind-flayers sailing the stars, it certainly makes sense to go out of your way to be as inclusive as possible.



Considering some of those examples come from entirely different campaign settings, I don't think you have a point. There's nothing preventing a 4E version of Spelljammer.


----------



## Psion

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Of course one could argue that this also makes a good point for keeping them a separate book, since it apparently sells. But maybe Druids and Bards in PHB II would sell better then Minotaurs and Dragonborn in PHB II?




There was a podcast that stated that's exactly why some things that were formerly core (I think Frost Giants were the examples at hand) were being put in the "II (III, IV, etc.) books. Because things sell better when they are perceived as "core".


----------



## justanobody

The Little Raven said:


> The system is balanced for diverse groups composed of multiple roles, which is the design intent. Shifting the goalpost away from the design intent, then declaring that balanced was not achieved according to your shifted goalpost is a completely dishonest assessment.




No balance does not mean uneven one one side for one reason or another. You are claiming game balance, rather than class balance to prevent having to play through every level to find that balance, but the balance is still artificial since it requires some arbitrary restraint in the form of using a specific combination of classes rather than allowing for every possible combination of classes.

It doesn't solve the old problems, just masks them with a new one that is overlooked. So balance was not truly reached between the classes and thus the reason focus was shifted to classes to obscure this fact.

Can a party of all defenders compare to a mixed party? How about all strikers? controllers? all leaders?

The balance is artificial because you have to achieve it through some complex means rather than a natural one.

Until the classes are balanced against each other so that each class can hold its own against a mixed group then you have not reached a state of balance and are relying on the balance of functions of the group at each level, which still causes specific classes/roles within the party to work better that others at certain levels. You have just taken wizards overpowered at higher levels to make them overpowered in the odd levels* and underpowered in the even ones to make it more spread out.

*Odd and even used as quick concepts rather than actual dissection of the levels for simplicity's sake of the argument.

This goes for all other classes as well.

Having them unbalanced for lower amount of time before they are overpowered again, doesn't make for balance, but for less focus to be on who is overpowered/underpowered and when.



Fifth Element said:


> No one is suggesting the balance is perfect. Just better.




I will not say better, but the unbalance is more evenly distributed throughout the classes at various levels. As opposed to having large instances of unbalance that become more readily noticeable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> There was a podcast that stated that's exactly why some things that were formerly core (I think Frost Giants were the examples at hand) were being put in the "II (III, IV, etc.) books. Because things sell better when they are perceived as "core".



Yes, I think this is at least the "business" intent. 

From my perspective, I have seen two benefits so far: 
- This gives the designers more time to design their stuff. 
- This means the supplements I personally would have bought anyway will contain more useful material for me than they did in 3E. (Sometimes I shudder on the amount of material I never used simply because I found it disappointing, weak or just not to my "flavor" preferences)

The drawback of course is that we still need to buy supplements, so from a financial perspective, it didn't really change for me (but it might have for others, who didn't use to bother with supplements since the core rules contained their Druids and Frost Giants.)


----------



## MrMyth

The_Gneech said:


> I've said before, and I'll say again, if 4E had been a _Saga_-ized _D&D_, it would have been a huge win, instead of leaving me (and several others, as evidenced by these recurring threads) feeling like we got kicked out for liking an unfashionable play style.




While not familiar enough with Saga to know what you are looking for - what 'unfashionable play style' do you feel 4E is somehow against? 

I have found the 4E class building system to have a remarkable level of versatility and customizability. The opening of skill access and former class features via feats allows one to adapt to almost any character concept they might have. 

Most complaints I've seens have been built around, honestly, mechanical concepts, like not being able to play a Rogue who Sneak Attacks with a Greataxe. That isn't a character concept, and I don't feel there is any fault in a system that lacks that potential - as long as one _can_ play a stealthy thief who slices people apart with a greataxe, which _is_ an entirely viable concept. 

You mention being frustrated that others forced your fighter to act as meat-shield - that is a group problem, not part of 4E. It is no different than 3rd Edition clerics who wanted to fight in melee, but got told to sit in back and heal the group. Each class can generally fit into several roles, even if they have some specific ones they default to. 

Fighters are Defenders with a bit of Striker, and can just as easily be heavy-hitting warriors as meat-shields. If you want to play a Fighter as a damage-dealing machine, the system is more than ok with that - the only thing standing in your way, apparently, is the group you play with. 



The_Gneech said:


> In 3E, it was easy to multiclass and rather expected that you would. I already mentioned _Dragon_ magazine's series of articles building about fifty different "classes" simply by mixing the core 10. In ten years of playing 3/3.5, I used non-core classes a total of twice, both on the same character.




Sure, you could assemble a fighter/rogue/sorcerer/druid/bard/wizard, but... what does that mean? What character concept is that? 

Pretty much any genuine concept you could build in 3.5, you can build in 4E. There are a few exceptions, mainly dealing with elements that haven't come out yet (unarmed combat, shapeshifting, for example). But 4E can build many very different types of characters, in what I feel is a much more fluid fashion than in 3rd Edition. 



The_Gneech said:


> That's simply not the case. Even if you stayed pure fighter, which IME only NPCs ever did, you quickly became very good at whatever your specialization may be -- or you quickly became very flexible in a variety of situations.




I really didn't find this to be true. 90% of fighters are good with one weapon, and spent their rounds taking a 5' step and a full-attack. Of the rest, a handful were specialists in tripping foes with spiked chains, but combat manuevers were generally weak unless you were extremely designed for them. 

I'm actually rather amazed you can insist 3rd Edition fighters ended up very different from each other, while insisting 4E character building isn't flexible. 

What character builds do you see missing from 4E? Seriously, compare it to the launch of 3.0. In 3.0, trying to play a hybrid build was very, very challenging - a Fighter/Wizard took a significant hit to both side's effectiveness. Even for the Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge, it took many, many levels of being subpar to really start to feel decent at the split roles. The primary use of multiclassing was to grab a single dip of barbarian or cherry pick a few abilities from top-heavy classes that only enhanced what you were already good at. 

In 4E, there are a variety of ways to play a character good at two things - and with 4E multiclassing, you are _actually decent at both roles_. And while 3rd Edition eventually got better at this, from introducing various feats and prestige classes... I think 4E is much more effective right out of the gate, and with more potential to cover different concepts in the long run. 



The_Gneech said:


> However, if I want to play a half-orc fighter/bard, and the rules pitch an error, that's bad for roleplaying, ain't it?




Only in the same way that 3.0 was bad for roleplaying because you couldn't play a Dragonborn Warlord/Warlock. 

Specific lack of options is going to vary between every edition - that isn't something that hinders roleplaying, that is the inherent limitation in only having so many pages available in any given product. You feel one set of options might be better than another; someone else might feel differently. That isn't the fault of the system. 

And, honestly? Right now, in 4E, you could build an Orc Fighter/Charisma Rogue, or Fighter/Warlord, and run it in a very similar style to a 3.0 Fighter/Bard... and I bet it would be a much more functional character on the table. And I bet when the PHB2 comes out, and you can assemble a half-orc fighter/bard, it will also be an entirely viable choice. 

And that, at least on this topic, feels like the important thing to me. The core multiclassing rules for 4E seem better suited to building character concepts than in 3rd Edition. You might have less options, but most of those missing options are entirely mechanical ones, rather than actual character concepts - and the options you do have are actually playable at the table, rather than hybrids that sound awesome in theory and are useful in practice.


----------



## Imaro

This is a just out of curiosity question...

When people compare the options of 3.5 to 4e do they take into consideration the Monster Manual which had an abundance of mosters that could be made into PC's (You know one of the advantages of monsters and PC's operating on the same rules)?  I'm just curious because I don't see it brought up in any of the debates.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

To the OP. well Jeff, did  you find anything helpful in all the fire and smoke.

As for my tuppence worth. I don't think that anyone that was fundamently happy with 3e would be happy with an edition that changed thing in any major way. 
I believe that 4e was going to change things because WOTC need to sell stuff to keep going and I suspect that a Saga-ised 4e would not have extended the mathematical sweet spot enough to sell as many books as they envisioned. If we look now, to get what we had in the core 3e we will at least 5 books. 
The current core 3 gives you fighter, paladin, cleric, ranger, rogue, warlock, warlord and wizard. 
To get ranger pets we need another book and at lest one more (and perhaps 2 I am not sure) to get Druid, Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer. 
Probably another couple of books for psionics. 
Not to mention the books for the necromancer, illusionist and enchanter

The classes are pretty tightly focussed and the maths is pretty well worked out so I can see alot more book being brought out without greatly upsetting the power balance. 

Could they have done this in a Saga-ised D&D, I dunno, maybe maybe not.

However, I also reckon they wanted to reclaim their IP. Hence all the problems with the GSL. I suspect that this is linked to the DDI initiative and desire to create a subscription revenue stream for access to WoTC ip.


----------



## Aeolius

Imaro said:


> When people compare the options of 3.5 to 4e do they take into consideration the Monster Manual which had an abundance of mosters that could be made into PC's.




That is one of 3e's biggest strengths and one reason 3e brought me back to the fold. Granted, I rarely run games that allow "core" races for PC use. Here's hoping the 4e MM2 will have some useful playable races in it, like locathah, merfolk, and sea elf.


----------



## El Mahdi

Aeolius said:


> Better not tell THESE FOLKS




They don't count, they're just grognards.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty

Crothian said:
			
		

> WotC didn't decide you weren't their target audience; you did.






			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> Actually, that is flat out absurd.




How so? Ahh...you have some amplifying information for me:



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> ...a certain section of the fan base was intentionally moved away from.




Wrong, unfortunately. No company decides they want to intentionally lose money.  1% or 4% or 9& or whatever percent. It just doesn't happen, silly. 

Now, now - they may make decisions to increase their revenues with the understanding that they may lose a couple folks to gain more.

That's probably what you meant, so we'll leave it there.



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> But do not tell me that they are not the ones who changed the game, and radically changed some key elements.




Who said anything of the sort? They absolutely _did_ radically change the game.

Little Byron, I think you and I actually agree on a couple things.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> That's just dumb.




I know it is, but it's the truth nonetheless. And I still love you.

WP


----------



## Shroomy

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The drawback of course is that we still need to buy supplements, so from a financial perspective, it didn't really change for me (but it might have for others, who didn't use to bother with supplements since the core rules contained their Druids and Frost Giants.)




Technically, you don't even have to buy the supplements anymore, as the DDI Compendium would also be updated with the new rules content by what, the 4th Tuesday of the month (I can't remember the exact details anymore).


----------



## Shroomy

Imaro said:


> This is a just out of curiosity question...
> 
> When people compare the options of 3.5 to 4e do they take into consideration the Monster Manual which had an abundance of mosters that could be made into PC's (You know one of the advantages of monsters and PC's operating on the same rules)?  I'm just curious because I don't see it brought up in any of the debates.




I don't think its brought up in many of these debates because the 4e MM has playable versions of most (but not all) of the really popular monstrous races.  Personally, given the glass-jawed characters that the LA mechanic and ECL system could easily create, I'm not convinced that the majority of those options were really that viable to begin with, at least for the majority of players and campaigns.  I think WoTC agreed with that assesment, given the creation of monster class levels, etc.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Shroomy said:


> Technically, you don't even have to buy the supplements anymore, as the DDI Compendium would also be updated with the new rules content by what, the 4th Tuesday of the month (I can't remember the exact details anymore).



That is what I plan on using a lot, unless the book is one I really, really like.


----------



## Shroomy

Fallen Seraph said:


> That is what I plan on using a lot, unless the book is one I really, really like.




I'm pretty much a collector, so I can easily get on the supplement treadmill (I'm pretty much on already), especially with the deals I'm getting from Amazon.  That said, if times get tough and I have to cut back, its nice to have the option of the Compendium.


----------



## Rel

Nobody should feel it necessary to respond to Wisdom Penalty's last post.


----------



## WayneLigon

jdsivyer said:


> Why did they decide to re-tool the _entire_ game?
> 
> I would dearly love to hear from one of the WOTC staff justifying the (almost) complete overhaul of the D&D game.




Because the biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D. The game has needed a fundamental structural change for many years now; 3E was a good start, and a single step in the right direction, by introducing actual skills, making most of the stats useful, tearing down most of the limits in race/class/etc choice, and a number of other things. Really, 4E didn't go nearly as far as it _could have_.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Just one more former collector who no longer seems to be part of the target audience. Just stating where I am at and will refrain from getting into the edition war.


----------



## Imaro

Shroomy said:


> Technically, you don't even have to buy the supplements anymore, as the DDI Compendium would also be updated with the new rules content by what, the 4th Tuesday of the month (I can't remember the exact details anymore).




I can just see it now, all the people who were saying they were trying to switch D&D to a purely online model....proven right with the justification by a WotC rep that the books "Just aren't profitable anymore"

  I kid...I kid...



 Or do I?


----------



## Shroomy

Imaro said:


> I can just see it now, all the people who were saying they were trying to switch D&D to a purely online model....proven right with the justification by a WotC rep that the books "Just aren't profitable anymore"
> 
> I kid...I kid...
> 
> 
> 
> Or do I?




Oh, I definitely see an increasing trend towards online distribution methods, which makes sense if your printing costs are going up and your primary audience is, in general, very tech savvy, but I don't see the traditional distribution methods going away anytime in the near future (especially if you can get people like me to buy both)  However, the online model that everyone seems to fear is more centered on the exclusivity of online play; personally, I don't think the extinction of physical, PnP games will ever come to pass.


----------



## joethelawyer

Thasmodious said:


> 4e is modular.  The core books present the core system and the core component of D&D gameplay - encounter resolution.  With a solid, balanced system you can plug away, easily adding whatever subsystems you want.  You can take them easily from past editions, other games, whatever,....






thats true. for example, i took the 4th ed phb, cut out the part that said 4th edition off of the cover, and pasted it on my shiny new pathfinder rpg book.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Fifth Element said:


> I don't love or hate 4E. It looks interesting and I will try it when I have the chance. At this point it's at best a 50/50 chance that I will switch to it full-time from 3.5.
> 
> But you'll have to read my user title as well. It's not any edition of the game I'm defending. I just hate invalid arguments, made about any edition.




Ok I gotta bite. If you have never played 4E how exactly are you in a position to state that someone who HAS played 4E and finds the experience less than thrilling to be making an invalid argument?

I AM playing 4E now and enjoying the good gaming time with my friends. The rules are not enhancing that in any way though. We could have as much fun playing TWERPS.


----------



## Hussar

Here's my personal little conspiracy theory that I've been toying with for a long time.

4e is the RPGA edition.  

Look at many of the changes made in late 3e.  Many of them were a direct result of RPGA play - polymorph being a prime example.  Then look at the changes for 4e - no cohorts, much more precise class definitions, no accidental suckitude - and apply that to RPGA play.

I can really see, once the DDI finally gets going, WOTC catering 4e almost exclusively to the RPGA audience.  Driving the game through online and convention play with Living campaigns.  A sort of really slow version of a MMO.  

RPGA players, by their very nature, are very invested in the current edition.  If you manage to increase their numbers (currently at around 150K IIRC) or even simply manage to maintain those numbers and sell to that group, you've got a pretty winning economic model.

Jeff, were you fired as a fan?  Nope, but, I'll bet dollars to donuts you weren't an RPGA member.  

In my mind, that's the main reason for the cuts to be made and the driving motive behind the new design philosophy.  

Do I have any proof for this?  Nope.  Not a shred of evidence, just some interesting coincidences.  Complete conspiracy theory.  But, again, I'll bet dollars to donuts that after next Winter Experience we're going to see some massive drives for RPGA memberships.


----------



## joethelawyer

Imaro said:


> I can just see it now, all the people who were saying they were trying to switch D&D to a purely online model....proven right with the justification by a WotC rep that the books "Just aren't profitable anymore"
> 
> I kid...I kid...
> 
> 
> 
> Or do I?




i think this touches upon an area i don't see addressed in this whole long-assed thread.  illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.  there will never be exact numbers, of course, as to how many people download and use the stuff they downloaded, who would have bought it had they not downloaded it.  but i don't think you can underestimate the impact of illegal downloading on the bottom line over at wotc.  please, dont let this get into a "i download and then buy" or "i download as a backup" tangent. frankly, no one cares, and no one has any reason to believe anything someone here says about whether or not they illegally download.

it is enuf to state as a fact that illegal downloading hurts the bottom line of wotc in more than a minor way. hence tying the new products to the whole ddi thing.  it ensures a constant revenue stream.  i believe the 4e game in its present and future incarnations were designed with a ddi revenue stream in mind.

i'd bet anyone here 10000 xp that ddi doesn't produce anywhere near the revenue stream budgeted, and i think that lack of revenue will determine 4e's future more than anything else (including most every comment in this whole thread dealing with differences between 3e and 4e, and user base attrition,  style of play, roleplay v rollplay, and every other issue related to content difference between 3e and 4e).

4e print  content will not drive 4e's future.  ddi will.  and i believe ddi will not get wotc the revenue wotc needs to justify the 4e product line currently envisioned.  mostly because wotc's failure to get a working product.


----------



## Allister

Psion said:


> Hey, Allister, I know you are getting caught up in TLR's little crusade, but let me re-emphasize:




Er, but you're the one that stated that the reason why dragonborn are in is because of WoW.

I think both TLR and myself showed that if anything, dragonborn are in D&D BECAUSE of 3e.


----------



## jodyjohnson

Ryan Dancey I think said that TSR fragmented the market, but given the way things play out on the forums it seems obvious to me that it is the nature of the RPG market itself to fragment, and there's not much a company can do to prevent that.

RPGing is such a personal thing.  Sure a new shiney can pull things together for a while but eventually that inner "perfect game" drives the urge to either rewrite or switch games.

The multitude of settings for 2e wasn't a cause but the effect of TSR staff pushing out into their own fragmenting vision of what D&D was to them (and then sometimes someone just plops a proposal on your desk and says, 'write this').


----------



## Greylock

Hussar said:


> Here's my personal little conspiracy theory that I've been toying with for a long time.
> 
> 4e is the RPGA edition.
> 
> Look at many of the changes made in late 3e.  Many of them were a direct result of RPGA play - polymorph being a prime example.  Then look at the changes for 4e - no cohorts, much more precise class definitions, no accidental suckitude - and apply that to RPGA play.
> 
> I can really see, once the DDI finally gets going, WOTC catering 4e almost exclusively to the RPGA audience.  Driving the game through online and convention play with Living campaigns.  A sort of really slow version of a MMO.
> 
> RPGA players, by their very nature, are very invested in the current edition.  If you manage to increase their numbers (currently at around 150K IIRC) or even simply manage to maintain those numbers and sell to that group, you've got a pretty winning economic model....




That would explain why 4E has been a non-starter in my city. The RPGA died here as far as I know about three or four years ago. If there's even a local chapter anymore I've missed it.


----------



## Rasalom

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> No more than the "I like it / I'm invested in it /_* I'm writing for it,*_ so it's obviously a success" shtick is. Not by any means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mouseferatu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try to play that card. The fact that I'm a freelancer doesn't prevent me from having my own opinions. (And frankly, I was perfectly prepared to hate the game, learn it purely for professional reasons, but keep playing 3.5. I'm grateful it didn't work out that way, but it could have.) I have never once, on ENWorld, expressed an opinion that I didn't honestly feel. I may choose not to say anything, rather than be negative, but if I claim to like something gaming related, it's because I like it, not because I may or may not do some work for the company. Frankly, I'm not important enough in the scheme of things for WotC to care what I say on a messageboard, as long as I don't violate my NDA. And you've been around long enough to know that.
Click to expand...





Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child 4e fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn 4e or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only WotC knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of 4e. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to 4e for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing 4e succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about 4e in WotC’s direction.



People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.


----------



## Thasmodious

MrMyth said:


> While not familiar enough with Saga to know what you are looking for - what 'unfashionable play style' do you feel 4E is somehow against?
> 
> I have found the 4E class building system to have a remarkable level of versatility and customizability. The opening of skill access and former class features via feats allows one to adapt to almost any character concept they might have.
> 
> Most complaints I've seens have been built around, honestly, mechanical concepts, like not being able to play a Rogue who Sneak Attacks with a Greataxe. That isn't a character concept, and I don't feel there is any fault in a system that lacks that potential - as long as one _can_ play a stealthy thief who slices people apart with a greataxe, which _is_ an entirely viable concept.
> 
> You mention being frustrated that others forced your fighter to act as meat-shield - that is a group problem, not part of 4E. It is no different than 3rd Edition clerics who wanted to fight in melee, but got told to sit in back and heal the group. Each class can generally fit into several roles, even if they have some specific ones they default to.
> 
> Fighters are Defenders with a bit of Striker, and can just as easily be heavy-hitting warriors as meat-shields. If you want to play a Fighter as a damage-dealing machine, the system is more than ok with that - the only thing standing in your way, apparently, is the group you play with.
> 
> Sure, you could assemble a fighter/rogue/sorcerer/druid/bard/wizard, but... what does that mean? What character concept is that?
> 
> Pretty much any genuine concept you could build in 3.5, you can build in 4E.




This.

I was going to respond in much the same way to the gneech.  Nicely stated.  There was a thread just after the release of 4e in which someone challenged the people who claimed 4e was lacking in character versatility to propose concepts that you couldn't do in 4e that you could do in 3e.  Outside of people using mechanical differences between the systems as "concepts" (I want a rogue who can do 12d6 sneak attack damage), there were very few, if any, concepts we couldn't make work even with just the options at release.  The notable exceptions were certain wizarding specialists, like enchanters and illusionists, but Dragon addressed the illusion issue fairly early on and others are yet to come.  

I think, gneech, you might actually be missing something as you feel 4e is extremely limiting, as you asked.  Its not some hidden trick, its just an open mind and a realization that 4e is not 3e and therefore a different approach is required, as with any edition change.  3e was not known as a versatility machine on release, it took a number of supplements and a great expanion in the feat options to begin to really see the multitude of build options.  By the end, you could take the same concept and represent it mechanically a dozen ways.  This was a bit of overkill really, and several of those ways were often very subpar or very broken.  I hope 4e maintains a more cautious approach to expansion and expands versatility, without comprimising the system.  

General note:
These edition war threads used to get under my skin as I felt so many people (feel) are just being obtuse on purpose, being opposed to any kind of change just for the sake of opposition.  A very kindly blogger (i forget who, perhaps Chatty?) posted an archive of message board posts from 3es release and it was comforting to see the exact same arguments from the exact same type of grognard.  Sure, the mechanics and flavor of those arguments were sometimes different (AC counts upwards?!  Hasbro has KILLED D&D!) and sometimes not (D&D is a miniatures videogame clone now - was quite common), but the tone and source were the same and it enabled me to chill about the whole thing.  I've enjoyed each edition of my beloved D&D from the 1st to the current and been along for the whole ride.  I think 4e is the best system to date.  I felt the same about 3e, 2e, 1e...  I like how the game has evolved and I apparently still remain firmly in the target demographic for WotC.


----------



## Fifth Element

ExploderWizard said:


> Ok I gotta bite. If you have never played 4E how exactly are you in a position to state that someone who HAS played 4E and finds the experience less than thrilling to be making an invalid argument?



I was not responding to someone's impressions of _playing_ 4E. I was responding to the claim that 4E's designers are somehow insulated from the gaming community - "in a box" was the phrase, I believe.


----------



## Thasmodious

Way to make a new account and post anonymously like a coward rather than give the person your impugning the ability to face his accuser.  Courageous stand there "new guy".



Rasalom said:


> Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child 4e fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn 4e or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only WotC knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of 4e. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to 4e for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing 4e succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about 4e in WotC’s direction.
> 
> 
> 
> People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.


----------



## Fifth Element

Rasalom said:


> People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.



1. Wow.

2. Welcome to Enworld?

3. Please check the forum rules. I think the mods would frown upon this type of post.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Rasalom said:


> ...snip...




How gutless!

Personally, I take Ari's comments on these boards with a grain of salt knowing he is 4e positive. However, to attack his credibility like you have by making an anonymous account and going to town is gutlessness in the absolute extreme. 

Ari deserves more for his efforts than to cop that rubbish.

Best Regards (not)
Herremann the Wise


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Rasalom said:


> Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child 4e fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn 4e or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only WotC knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of 4e. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to 4e for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing 4e succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about 4e in WotC’s direction.
> 
> 
> 
> People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.




In Ari's defense, I submit this:

Working on WotC projects(Draconomicon I coming out next month for example), he speaks to people who would know how 4E is selling. If 4E was not meeting expectations(in terms of sales beyond the first wave), I don't see any reason why he would be saying that 4E was selling well. Accusing WotC and Ari of spreading misinformation speaks badly of you more than it does of them. Since Ari is interested in his paycheck, it isn't in Ari's interest to defend a sinking ship. 

The fact is that Mouseferatu(Ari) is more in the know then you. Whatever his information may or may not be, we can be sure that you have less. Accusing him of deceit shows your bias more than it does his.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Rasalom said:


> Whether it’s a true claim or not is irrelevant at this point, because frankly it’s a public perception and reputation that you’ve garnered for yourself here and elsewhere. You’ve been a poster-child 4e fanboy at times, and you’ve lashed out pretty damn harshly against people who have the audacity to impugn 4e or suggest that it might not be the roaring success that you want and you need it to be. The initial sales were good, but beyond that only WotC knows for sure, and unless they’re sharing sales figures with you, you don’t know either. They’ve had a year of horrendous PR, the death of a major investment in Gleemax, and tons of people angry at them for reasons various and sundry regarding the marketing and substance of 4e. All that said, for good or for ill Ari, you’ve hitched your professional star to 4e for a year now. You have a very strongly vested stake in seeing 4e succeed and you’ve come out at times to angrily defend it against anyone that might push more bad PR about 4e in WotC’s direction.
> 
> 
> 
> People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.




OUCH.

I wouldn't have put it that harshly but I kinda see things the same way. I think you've become kinda unreliable as an unbiased source when it comes to WOTC and 4E. Which is kinda sad because you were one of the few (only?) people that I held in any kind of regard on EN World. I mean I still listen to what you say when you post on the boards but now your opinion carries as much weight as anyone else who isnt a complete jerk. Which these days on this board is a real short list.


----------



## Thasmodious

Herremann the Wise said:


> Personally, I take Ari's comments on these boards with a grain of salt knowing he is 4e positive.




You say that like its equivalent to having AIDS.  '4e positive'?  Really?  Enjoying the new edition automatically makes you unqualified to comment on the new edition?  Or worthy of being taken with a "grain of salt"?


----------



## thecasualoblivion

So, because Mouseferatu is espousing an opinion you don't like and giving good news that you'd rather not believe he's being deceitful?


----------



## Fifth Element

I think this conversation should stop now. The mods will surely be stepping in to take care of it.


----------



## Imaro

thecasualoblivion said:


> So, because Mouseferatu is espousing an opinion you don't like and giving good news that you'd rather not believe he's being deceitful?




Uhm... I was going to stay out of this at first, but...isn't only talking about the positive of something and consciously choosing to be silent about the negatives... actually presenting a biased view?  Just saying.  If all I say are positive things about something without stating my negatives...and then admit that I do this, well it is presenting a purposefully biased facade of how I feel about something.

Anyway, I do think that above post was a little... harsh, though everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Thasmodious said:


> You say that like its equivalent to having AIDS.  '4e positive'?  Really?  Enjoying the new edition automatically makes you unqualified to comment on the new edition?  Or worthy of being taken with a "grain of salt"?



I'm enjoying 4e at the moment myself by the way before you get your dander up trying to apply the specific to the general. Ari strikes me (correct me if I'm wrong), as the type of guy that will be positive about the positive things and leave the negative stuff for others to comment about. He seems an enthusiastic and positive kind of guy. At no stage did I say anything about aids, or that enjoying the new edition somehow meant you were unqualified to comment on it. They are your words sir and certainly not mine.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> Uhm... I was going to stay out of this at first, but...isn't only talking about the positive of something and consciously choosing to be silent about the negatives... actually presenting a biased view?  Just saying.



Not by itself, no. If you feel that all the important things are positive, then a completely positive review is not biased, it's honest. Mentioning small negative things just to maintain an appearance of impartiality is silly.

If you really think something is great, why would you say otherwise?


----------



## der_kluge

Mallus said:


> Like I asked before, what about 4e impedes your role-playing (and, conversely, what was present in previous editions that aided it)?
> 
> I've got plenty of role-playing to do --sometimes much to the chagrin of my friends. Would you like to hear about my Gnostic, quixotic Dragonborn paladin who marks foes with his semi-divine semen? Thought not.
> 
> For the life of me I can't see how 4e gets in the way of role-playing (which isn't, of course, to say that you're wrong in disliking 4e)




I don't think that 4e detracts from role-playing any more than Monopoly detracts from role-playing. You don't even need a damned book to roleplay anything.

But I do feel like 4e replaces the sense of what it means to be a "character" with a list of abilities and powers. I feel like wizards aren't really any thematically different from clerics, and not all that different from warlords, et al.  It's the sameness, and blandness in an effort to balance all the classes that has completely sucked the flavor out of the game for me.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Imaro said:


> Uhm... I was going to stay out of this at first, but...isn't only talking about the positive of something and consciously choosing to be silent about the negatives... actually presenting a biased view?  Just saying.  If all I say are positive things about something without stating my negatives...and then admit that I do this, well it is presenting a purposefully biased facade of how I feel about something.
> 
> Anyway, I do think that above post was a little... harsh, though everyone is entitled to an opinion.




He's not a journalist, he's a freelance employee. He isn't really obligated to say anything to us in either direction. Just because its contrary to what some people believe or want to be true doesn't indict the statements.


----------



## Imaro

Fifth Element said:


> Not by itself, no. If you feel that all the important things are positive, then a completely positive review is not biased, it's honest. Mentioning small negative things just to maintain an appearance of impartiality is silly.
> 
> If you really think something is great, why would you say otherwise?




Because you aren't being honest... if some one is looking to you for your opinion in order to inform their own or help them make a choice, you are only being honest if you are upfront with them about both the things you like and those you don't (if there is nothing you dislike then it's another story).  Otherwise you are presenting a selective and skewed view of  your true feelings.


----------



## Imaro

thecasualoblivion said:


> He's not a journalist, he's a freelance employee. He isn't really obligated to say anything to us in either direction. Just because its contrary to what some people believe or want to be true doesn't indict the statements.




No one said he was a journalist... what is being called in question is whether the opinions he states are skewed or not.  What he is or isn't * required* to say is irrelevant to the question.

EDIT:  It's the fact that he says in his post he doesn't comment on the negative, that makes his stated views skewed.


----------



## Thasmodious

Herremann the Wise said:


> I'm enjoying 4e at the moment myself by the way before you get your dander up trying to apply the specific to the general. Ari strikes me (correct me if I'm wrong), as the type of guy that will be positive about the positive things and leave the negative stuff for others to comment about. He seems an enthusiastic and positive kind of guy. At no stage did I say anything about aids, or that enjoying the new edition somehow meant you were unqualified to comment on it. They are your words sir and certainly not mine.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




I didn't mean that post as serious as it came off.  I was just struck by the term '4e positive' which sounds like some kind of disease or diagnosis.


----------



## El Mahdi

I have never read any post from Ari where he has stated that 4E is a perfect system with absolutely no negatives.  In fact he has stated exactly the opposite.  However, he has not been shy about the fact that 4E is currently his favorite and has a lot of good things to say about it.  And there is absolutely nothing wrong about that.  A feelancers work can be up and down, but I have never read anything by him that was pandering to WoTC.  He has always been respectful, informed and non-adversarial.  Personally, I think he deserves the same in return.


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> Because you aren't being honest... if some one is looking to you for your opinion in order to inform their own or help them make a choice, you are only being honest if you are upfront with them about both the things you like and those you don't (if there is nothing you dislike then it's another story).  Otherwise you are presenting a selective and skewed view of  your true feelings.



No, read my post again. I said if everything *important* is positive for you, then a wholly positive review is unbiased. No review can cover everything. If the 20 things you find most important about the game are all positive, there's no reason to include item 21 just to have something negative to say.

Adding such a negative comment (just to add a negative comment) skews your review, which would otherwise be more positive because you don't find the negative things important).


----------



## Psion

Hussar said:


> Here's my personal little conspiracy theory that I've been toying with for a long time.
> 
> 4e is the RPGA edition.




Just as I had feared.

I guess we share a pet.


----------



## Imaro

Fifth Element said:


> No, read my post again. I said if everything *important* is positive for you, then a wholly positive review is unbiased. No review can cover everything. If the 20 things you find most important about the game are all positive, there's no reason to include item 21 just to have something negative to say.
> 
> Adding such a negative comment (just to add a negative comment) skews your review, which would otherwise be more positive because you don't find the negative things important).





Uhm...ok,  whatever man, you win.

EDIT: Or comment 21 could be you giving a more thorough and thus more honest review...but I'm done with this, I don't feel comfortable using Ari as the subject of this discussion.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Thasmodious said:


> I didn't mean that post as serious as it came off.  I was just struck by the term '4e positive' which sounds like some kind of disease or diagnosis.



That's cool - and I suppose yeah it does sorta sound that way. I was just expressing that Ari has a positive attitude towards 4e and that no, that does not mean his credibility should be called into question. I think in a strange way, we are actually in agreeance.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Fifth Element

Imaro said:


> EDIT: Or comment 21 could be you giving a more thorough and thus more honest review



Final word then: Assuming you have an unlimited amount of space to make your review, sure you can put 21 in. But if you can only fit in the top 10 things in the space you have (for instance), then throwing in 21 just to have something negative to say is silly. That's my point.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Can we please stop talking about Ari and go back to Edition Wars? 

For my milage: WotC probably formed 4e based on customer feedback, but that doesn't mean that the release went exactly as planned. It's quite possible that *the D&D audience has no idea what it really wants*, and also that *if someone put out a book of blank pages that said D&D on the cover, it would probably sell like gangbusters*. 

That said, I'm sure they're learning from this experience, and I wouldn't be too shocked if the next "wave"  of supplements tried to bring in to the game exactly what some people are complaining isn't in there. I expect a concentration of fluff and old-school-ness to pop up in a year or two once they have time to form and publish a reaction. It won't be crazy, it won't reject 4e's assumptions, but it will try as much as possible to work within them.


----------



## Fifth Element

Herremann the Wise said:


> I think in a strange way, we are actually in agreeance.



I think the confusion arises from your use of the term "grain of salt", which implies that you don't take his posts at face value. That may not have been your intent, but that's how it came off.


----------



## Fifth Element

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's quite possible that *the D&D audience has no idea what it really wants*



I think you just won the edition wars. Or found the key to a peace accord?

Something like that, anyway.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

The D&D audience isn't really one piece. Some of them want strange things, like a classless system that would anger most of thus. You can't please everybody.


----------



## El Mahdi

If I could give out any more XP today, it would go to Kamikaze Midget for a very timely post. Thank You.


Now, as KM wished, 4E is the worst system Evar.........


----------



## Fifth Element

El Mahdi said:


> If I could give out any more XP today, it would go to Kamikaze Midget for a very timely post.  Thank You.



Heh. I was thinking the very same thing.


----------



## Imaro

What I will say that I find telling is how gung ho Scott was to announce the corebooks hitting the bestsellers lists...

However, since then it's been pretty quiet as far as the FR books go, or even Adventurer's Vault... I really wonder how well these releases have done.  Traditionally hasn't the FR been one of WotC's big sellers?  I'm also wondering about the DDI.  I'd like to know how well the first supplements for 4e sold vs. those for 3.0 or 3.5

I mean I have no proof they aren't meeting WotC's expectations, but as shown by the corebooks, they don't seem shy about announcing when books do good.  So I'm kinda curious about the silence.


----------



## joethelawyer

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's quite possible that *the D&D audience has no idea what it really wants*,







Fifth Element said:


> I think you just won the edition wars. Or found the key to a peace accord?
> 
> Something like that, anyway.




you know, that may be about the closest thing to ultimate truth that we have seen in these edition wars.

its true in every other aspect of people's lives, why not in dnd too?

i don't doubt that people state loudly and clearly exactly what they want.  it's just that what they say their views are on most things, and what they actually act on in reality, are most often two completely different things.

enough people have made enough money off of enough self-deluded people based on that universal contradiction that i no longer doubt the reality of it as a universal truth.


----------



## Gothmog

I have to say I find the comments about Ari completely off base, tactless, and ill-informed.  I've talked to Ari a decent amount on ENWorld the last three or four years, and the guy is a class act.  He generates high quality writing and ideas for D&D (whether 3.5 or 4e), and is enthusiastic about his gaming, which comes across in his writing.  He is also open to fan suggestions and criticisms, and strives to incorporate their feedback and ideas into his work.  His books are among the most used I own (Heroes of Horror was awesome, and the APG is a huge hit at my table, for example), and I can't recall a single time of him being negative or condescending to other posters.  He seems to live by the motto "if you can't say something nice, say nothing at all."

Ari also has never claimed 4e is perfect- in fact, he's said in a few threads it has its issues, but it excites him to write and play in a way 3.x never did.  He makes insightful and respectful comments in discussions, always contributes something meaningful in my opinion.  I don't always agree with him, but I respect his opinion, and him as a person.  I couldn't ask for a better game designer and guy to be active on these boards.  So Ari, if you're reading, quite a few of us have your back and love your work!  Don't let this chump's comments bother you at all.


----------



## Andor

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Can we please stop talking about Ari and go back to Edition Wars?
> 
> For my milage: WotC probably formed 4e based on customer feedback, but that doesn't mean that the release went exactly as planned.




I think it's worse than that. From editing errors, bad examples, and unclear verbiage I think it's very evident that 4e was in no way a finished product by the time the 'send to printer' deadline rolled around. I suspect if you could corner the design team in a bar they would admit that 4e, as was printed, wasn't even what _they_ wanted. What makes me sad is that WotC, the 800lb gorilla of the RPG world, couldn't do the right thing and delay release until they actually had a product they were proud of.

That said a lot of people seem happy with what we did get. I'm sad to say I'm not one of them. I'd love to love 4e, but I can't. It seems like an overly inbred game. I can see where design influences drew on elements of crpgs, tactical crpgs, board games, minis, and ccgs, and there is nothing wrong with that. However all of those things drew on D&D in the first place and the design became so insular, so reiterative that it feels like it has no roots outside of games as games. When 3e was designed they had a list of sacred cows to make sure it remained D&D. 4e not only ignored the sacred cows of D&D they forgot that at it's heart an RPG, any RPG,  (unlike many of the other game formats that informed 4e design) is a tool that portrays the actions and mechanics of a world so that we can sit down with dice and  cheetos and coke and tell stories of adventures in that world. When they lost contact with that as their touchstone I'm afraid they lost me as their target market.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Andor said:


> I think it's worse than that. From editing errors, bad examples, and unclear verbiage I think it's very evident that 4e was in no way a finished product by the time the 'send to printer' deadline rolled around. I suspect if you could corner the design team in a bar they would admit that 4e, as was printed, wasn't even what _they_ wanted. What makes me sad is that WotC, the 800lb gorilla of the RPG world, couldn't do the right thing and delay release until they actually had a product they were proud of.
> 
> That said a lot of people seem happy with what we did get. I'm sad to say I'm not one of them. I'd love to love 4e, but I can't. It seems like an overly inbred game. I can see where design influences drew on elements of crpgs, tactical crpgs, board games, minis, and ccgs, and there is nothing wrong with that. However all of those things drew on D&D in the first place and the design became so insular, so reiterative that it feels like it has no roots outside of games as games. When 3e was designed they had a list of sacred cows to make sure it remained D&D. 4e not only ignored the sacred cows of D&D they forgot that at it's heart an RPG, any RPG,  (unlike many of the other game formats that informed 4e design) is a tool that portrays the actions and mechanics of a world so that we can sit down with dice and  cheetos and coke and tell stories of adventures in that world. When they lost contact with that as their touchstone I'm afraid they lost me as their target market.




3E was just as bad in terms of editing errors, bad examples, and unclear verbiage, especially the splats. As for the inbredness, it can't be worse than 3E, which tried to be both a class-based and a classless system at the same time, and tried to incorporate all facets of RPGdom, be them gamist, simulationist, or whatever simultaneously.


----------



## Hussar

Psion said:


> Just as I had feared.
> 
> I guess we share a pet.




Heh, this is a little idea that's been bouncing around in my head since before 4e hit the shelves.  I look at it like this:
4e was playtested by the RPGA
Many of the changes done in late 3e were informed by RPGA play
While I don't think 4e gets in the way of world building, it doesn't really help that much either - and since RPGA play doesn't require world building....
The DDI VTT will be a huge draw for the RPGA
Very exacting language
Very concerned by class balance
Ejecting races that were ... underplayed
Including races that were more played (Hey, it's not a secret why the Iconics for Paizo's Age of Worms included a Tiefling)
Expanded rules for covering role play experience awards 
Streamlining rules to allow easier DMing

There's likely more, but that's what I can think of right now.  

So, to me, if 4e turns you off, it's likely because you weren't a target for RPGA play either.  Or, rather, you don't play like people play in the RPGA.  If you like 4e, likely your playstyles were more in keeping with how the RPGA functioned at the table.

Honestly, from a corporate standpoint, I think WOTC's idea is full of win.  If they can hook just 10% of the RPGA into the DDI VTT, that's about 15000 players.  That's a smidgeon under 3000 groups, or to put it another way, an RPGA game starting every 5 minutes 24/7.  That's a massive draw for D&D.  If this works, they've solved the issues with physically getting groups together.  And they'll make a ton of money doing it as well.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Hussar said:


> Heh, this is a little idea that's been bouncing around in my head since before 4e hit the shelves.  I look at it like this:
> 4e was playtested by the RPGA
> Many of the changes done in late 3e were informed by RPGA play
> While I don't think 4e gets in the way of world building, it doesn't really help that much either - and since RPGA play doesn't require world building....
> The DDI VTT will be a huge draw for the RPGA
> Very exacting language
> Very concerned by class balance
> Ejecting races that were ... underplayed
> Including races that were more played (Hey, it's not a secret why the Iconics for Paizo's Age of Worms included a Tiefling)
> Expanded rules for covering role play experience awards
> Streamlining rules to allow easier DMing
> 
> There's likely more, but that's what I can think of right now.
> 
> So, to me, if 4e turns you off, it's likely because you weren't a target for RPGA play either.  Or, rather, you don't play like people play in the RPGA.  If you like 4e, likely your playstyles were more in keeping with how the RPGA functioned at the table.
> 
> Honestly, from a corporate standpoint, I think WOTC's idea is full of win.  If they can hook just 10% of the RPGA into the DDI VTT, that's about 15000 players.  That's a smidgeon under 3000 groups, or to put it another way, an RPGA game starting every 5 minutes 24/7.  That's a massive draw for D&D.  If this works, they've solved the issues with physically getting groups together.  And they'll make a ton of money doing it as well.




To me, this is stretching things a bit. I would say that this perception is more a case of 3.5E being badly suited for the RPGA then 4E being designed for it.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E ... and tried to incorporate all facets of RPGdom, be them gamist, simulationist, or whatever simultaneously.



What's your criticism of 3e here in regards to incorporating all facets of RPGdom? This seems to be an inclusive policy so I'm not exactly getting where you're coming from. Is there something wrong with this?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Herremann the Wise said:


> What's your criticism of 3e here in regards to incorporating all facets of RPGdom? This seems to be an inclusive policy so I'm not exactly getting where you're coming from. Is there something wrong with this?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




In my opinion, trying to include everything waters the game down and makes it cumbersome. A tighter, more focused game runs smoother and does what it aims to do more successfully.


----------



## justanobody

Fifth Element said:


> I think you just won the edition wars. Or found the key to a peace accord?
> 
> Something like that, anyway.




There will be no peace as long as his US citizenship, and eligibility to run for office is in question!

Oh, wait! Wrong thread, wrong forum.

Some know what they want to the extreme, and that may be our problem. Not that we don't like change, but don't agree with the changes made or who made them.

Sad but true.

I think the only one that will ever win the edition wars is the copyright holder, as they can put out as many editions as will bring them in the last $1 until they get tired of it.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

The way I see it is that some people want one thing, while others want something different and exclusive. D&D has chosen a single path, and this path will displease some people.


----------



## haakon1

Crothian said:


> Are you not interested in the game or are you not buying because you think they aren't listening to you?




Both.  Age 39, and in the same boat.  Most likely, the 4e PHB I bought on the same day will be the last WOTC product I buy.  <shrug>


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Hussar said:


> Heh, this is a little idea that's been bouncing around in my head since before 4e hit the shelves.  I look at it like this:
> 
> 4e was playtested by the RPGA
> Many of the changes done in late 3e were informed by RPGA play
> While I don't think 4e gets in the way of world building, it doesn't really help that much either - and since RPGA play doesn't require world building....
> The DDI VTT will be a huge draw for the RPGA
> Very exacting language
> Very concerned by class balance
> Ejecting races that were ... underplayed
> Including races that were more played (Hey, it's not a secret why the Iconics for Paizo's Age of Worms included a Tiefling)
> Expanded rules for covering role play experience awards
> Streamlining rules to allow easier DMing
> 
> There's likely more, but that's what I can think of right now.
> 
> So, to me, if 4e turns you off, it's likely because you weren't a target for RPGA play either.  Or, rather, you don't play like people play in the RPGA.  If you like 4e, likely your playstyles were more in keeping with how the RPGA functioned at the table.
> 
> Honestly, from a corporate standpoint, I think WOTC's idea is full of win.  If they can hook just 10% of the RPGA into the DDI VTT, that's about 15000 players.  That's a smidgeon under 3000 groups, or to put it another way, an RPGA game starting every 5 minutes 24/7.  That's a massive draw for D&D.  If this works, they've solved the issues with physically getting groups together.  And they'll make a ton of money doing it as well.



You could very well be right. i did not know the numbers for RPGA before reading your posts, but given those numbers I'm covinced of your case and I also know 7 or 8 older gamers would sigh up for DDI to get back in touch with old gamer buddys would be an added bonus for WoTC. 
Also a subscription model would give a more predictable revenuw stream than the current one.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

ardoughter said:


> To the OP. well Jeff, did  you find anything helpful in all the fire and smoke.



Given that I've come to think that maybe my original question -- which I'm still not sure I expressed well (and might be inexpressible) -- is unanswerable, I'd say that, strictly speaking, "helpful" didn't happen.  "Interesting" and "insightful" did, though, and those are at least as good, me being me.

Although I don't have a philosophical problem, personally, with edition war threads, I'm disappointed that this thread devolved into one -- albeit for the most part a remarkably polite one! -- which is why I stopped posting.  Although I don't like 4E, I'm really not interested in slamming it (or defending 3E), and I honestly don't think the particular edition has anything to do with the question I was trying to ask.  But, again, I'm not sure I ever successfully asked the question.



Hussar said:


> 4e is the RPGA edition.  [...]  Jeff, were you fired as a fan?  Nope, but, I'll bet dollars to donuts you weren't an RPGA member.



I was (past tense) a member, but only because of the free stuff that was available just for reporting sessions of home-game play.  I tried Organized Play on two or three separate occasions over the last eight years and found it disastrously "not my thing" each time.  The difference in playstyle, between what I enjoy and what I saw (and was told) to be necessary for OP success, was huge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

justanobody said:


> Until the classes are balanced against each other so that each class can hold its own against a mixed group then you have not reached a state of balance and are relying on the balance of functions of the group at each level, which still causes specific classes/roles within the party to work better that others at certain levels. You have just taken wizards overpowered at higher levels to make them overpowered in the odd levels* and underpowered in the even ones to make it more spread out.



Actually I think this is the type of balance 4E was not aimed at. 

I think an all Defender (or even all Fighter) party will work, but I suppose nobody tried it.

The concept of roles both for monsters and classes seems to be an intentional element to say: "This is what makes them different. Consider this when building encounters or forming a party". 

The latest Arena/Gladiator articles have some interesting content regarding duels and the strengths of the different class rolls against monster roles. 

The goal of class balance in 4E is that no class overshadows another class. You don't see the Wizard wreaking havoc and the Fighter feeling useless. 

It doesn't matter for balance that an All-Rogue or All-Striker party will have different strength and weaknesses then a mixed party or an All-Leader or All-Warlord party. 

Balance is not the same as homogenity. 

Earlier editions created a "balance over the level range" model - low level spellcasters are weaker then low level fighters, but excel over them at higher levels. But this balance was deemed "flawed" since groups didn't always cover all levels, and even if they did, their weakness and strength lasted to long. The "imbalance" between roles just means that the Defender will shine more in the first encounter this game session, and the Controller more in the second. The time you "suck" or the time you "rule" are shorter.


----------



## jdrakeh

thecasualoblivion said:


> So, because Mouseferatu is espousing an opinion you don't like and giving good news that you'd rather not believe he's being deceitful?




I think it has less to do with Ari than it does with the strong belief held by some that 4e is bad in all ways and, therefore, anybody who says anything positive about it at all is either lying and/or misinformed. For example. . . 

Staunch haters were calling Mike Mearls a liar when he posted the sales figure comparison between 4e and 3e some months back simply because they refused to believe that 4e was selling well. 

And, of course, some haters have accused ENWorld, Paizo, RPGNet, and other independently owned RPG sites of being in WotC's hip pocket because they aren't actively engaging in a campaign to smite 4e from store shelves. 

Basically, the entire hobby is currently operating in a climate of paranoid fear and prejudice. This will largely come to pass in the near future, but some people who can't let a grudge go will form their own, insulated, communities of frothing hate. 

We're basically experiencing the post-3x release fallout all over again. We're simply more exposed to it this time around, because what was then an entertainment luxury (the Internet) is now a common household fixture.


----------



## Windjammer

Psion said:


> Just as I had feared.
> I guess we share a pet.




I strongly disagree with you guys. Something the designers officially confessed cannot possibly termed a "conspiracy theory". 



			
				KoboldQuarterly5 said:
			
		

> *Wolfgang Baur*: Why does Wizards use the Delve format for adventures designed for home consumption? Isn’t it more of a
> tournament format?
> *Andy Collins:* Here’s the question I’m going to answer. It’s my best guess for what you’re trying to learn: “Why does Wizards use the same encounter layout in published adventures as in Delve-style events?” The encounter layout aims to make it as easy as possible for a DM to see all the relevant information he needs to run the encounter—to minimize page flipping and book references, for example. Delve-style events at conventions led the way in identifying this need. DMs running such events often have no time to prep before rolling initiative. We saw that all DMs could use a more helpful format for encounter presentation. Few among us have as much time to prep for games as we used to, so making the game easier to run is helpful no matterwhere you’re playing.
> *James Wyatt:* This format was designed to give you (the DM) everything you need to run an encounter on a single spread of two pages, and that’s just as helpful in a home game as it is at a convention. (The name “Delve format” does come from the fact that it’s an outgrowth of using it for our Dungeon Delve at GenCon—but the goal was to get it on a single page that would be on the DM’s clipboard.)
> You’ve got enough going on behind the screen without having to shuffle back and forth between a map on one page, room descriptions on another page, and stat blocks on still another page — which is what our previous format made you do.
> *Wolfgang Baur*Well, it’s a question from the readership, and I admit it’s a little opaque. I think the real question behind- the-question might be more like “Why do you use the Delve format/layout when I don’t like it?”.
> But moving swiftly on...




Another RPGA regular:


			
				Chris Mortika said:
			
		

> Looking over _Races and Classes_, I'm not convinced that D&D 4th Edition is going to be a poor game. It looks like some reasonably smart people, who care about the gaming experience, have been working hard to release...
> ...a game that I'm not interested in picking up and playing.
> 
> To explain why, I have to give a little backstory.
> 
> Years ago, during the young days of AD&D 2nd Ed., I helped the RPGA run modules at conventions, and the reality of the situation was that the directors and probably the module writers were expecting the DMs to come to the table either not having read the adventure beforehand, or --at best-- cursorily glancing through it fifteen minutes earlier that day.
> 
> That reality imposed drastic restrictions on the complexity of adventure plotlines and the kind of encounters DMs could handle. Every RPGA module I ran had a very straightforward, "railroady" if you like, plot, with typical and unsurprising encounters.
> 
> And it is those conditions for which WotC designed the Delve format. They had a cadre of volunteer DM's running pre-generated PC's through a dungeon at Gen Con, and they needed an efficient way to deliver the right kind of information, clearly and quickly.
> 
> When I decide to run players through a pre-written adventure in my home campaign, I expect to sit down, read through things ahead of time, and take notes; I try to anticipate my players' tactics ("Going through the front door of a Hill Giant lair? Oh, please. They're far more likely to try to cut through the thatched roof.") and look up relevant rules.
> 
> In short, I don't need a Delve format.
> The crunch changes in 4th Ed. looks to me as if they came from the same perspective that gave us the Delve format: making it easier to run and play the kind of D&D you find at conventions.
> 
> Everything I've seen of Fourth Edition suggests that the game that WotC wants to sell me is a tactical combat game, with some role-playing to make it cool. Like Warhammer, or Chainmail, or DragonDice. And I already own DragonDice.
> 
> It may be a perfectly good game, but it's not one I'm interested in buying.



To summarize:

"Delve-style events at conventions led the way in identifying this need. DMs running such events often have no time to prep before rolling initiative." (Andy Collins)

"(RPGA) Module writers were expecting the DMs to come to the table either not having read the adventure beforehand, or --at best-- cursorily glancing through it fifteen minutes earlier that day. That reality imposed drastic restrictions on the complexity of adventure plotlines and the kind of encounters DMs could handle. Every RPGA module I ran had a very straightforward, "railroady" if you like, plot, with typical and unsurprising encounters."(Chris Mortika)



			
				Mike Mearls on Theory in a Closet (paraphrase) said:
			
		

> Question: How do you deal with customer feedback.
> 
> *Mike Mearls*: So-so. We get and look out for a lot of feedback, but it's not that simple. I mean, you guys say one thing and do another. Stephen Rodney-McFarland has a good story about that back from the times when he organised RPGA. Lots of people complained RPGA only had hack and slash modules. So the RPGA put up roleplay heavy modules. Guess what: no one downloaded them. So the RPGA switched back to where it had been.




No wonder. If I only got 15 minutes to prepare a module, I'd hardly run something like Standing Stone.

Linear module design comes from the delve format WotC used for convention play. They then enforced convention standards to home groups. WotC effectively wants to cater for DMs with 15 minutes of prep time, meaning, the module cannot be written in such a way that, upon glancing it through quickly before you run it, you don`t get all the potential connections between core events in the game. (I can attest that you can run the H-series modules in exactly that way.) As a result, 4E modules almost exclusively are zips from one place to the next, where "place" is a euphemism for a tactical combat encounter.

I should say, however, that I do not think this approach to module design is inherent in the ruleset to a degree that you can't go around it. But the bias towards convention-friendly play is undeniably there, for better or worse.


----------



## Samuel Leming

jdrakeh said:


> Basically, the entire hobby is currently operating in a climate of paranoid fear and prejudice. This will largely come to pass in the near future, but some people who can't let a grudge go will form their own, insulated, communities of frothing hate.
> 
> We're basically experiencing the post-3x release fallout all over again. We're simply more exposed to it this time around, because what was then an entertainment luxury (the Internet) is now a common household fixture.



There will always be loudmouths, but I don't think there are really that many of them. Not enough that we can really say the entire hobby is infected with this fear and prejudice.

From what I see, the 4e transition is not proceeding at all like 3e did. By this time back then most of the groups I knew that had tried 3e had switched over. With 4e people I know are giving it a spin but I'm not seeing very many people switching over(except on a couple of message boards). It really doesn't seem to be any real emotional thing to it. Just kind of a 'feh' attitude.

Sam


----------



## jdrakeh

Samuel Leming said:


> From what I see, the 4e transition is not proceeding at all like 3e did. By this time back then most of the groups I knew that had tried 3e had switched over. With 4e people I know are giving it a spin but I'm not seeing very many people switching over(except on a couple of message boards). It really doesn't seem to be any real emotional thing to it. Just kind of a 'feh' attitude.
> 
> Sam




I think you might be viewing the past through rose-colored glasses  I  am in the unique position of having once been as rabidly anti-3e as some people here are currently rabidly anti-4e. 

I can say with certainty that myself and other, like-minded, folks were still actively trolling ENWorld with madness similar to what people are now posting here about 4e well over a year after the game (3e) had been released. 

Indeed, even after the release of 3.5, there were _still_ small groups of posters here who were _very_ vocal about how much 3x sucked and posted almost exclusively to remind others of that (although by that time, I wasn't one of them). 

Those folks claiming that there wasn't such a huge schizm back when 3x was released, really do need to go back and pour over the old ENWorld and RPGNet forum archives. Therein, ye shall find nigh-legendary asshattery!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

jdrakeh said:


> Those folks claiming that there wasn't such a huge schizm back when 3x was released, really do need to go back and pour over the old ENWorld and RPGNet forum archives. Therein, ye shall find nigh-legendary asshattery!




_My hat is 3e is nigh-legendary!_ Edit: Note this is not my actual position...

This is a really interesting thread, and I tend to agree with Kamikaze Midget (although I'd like to add something):

There is no such thing as "the D&D audience", and if there was, it wouldn't know what it wanted.

D&D players cover such a wide range of playstyles, and D&D DM's cover another wide range, that *whatever* WotC would have come out with would have made a subset of those people very angry and upset that they weren't being catered for.

I'm fortunate that I'm one of the ones that 4e does cater for - but it could easily have gone a totally different way, say, if they'd included a dice pool system a la White Wolf.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Can we please stop talking about Ari and go back to Edition Wars?
> 
> For my milage: WotC probably formed 4e based on customer feedback, but that doesn't mean that the release went exactly as planned. It's quite possible that *the D&D audience has no idea what it really wants*



I think I agree with that. I didn't know I would like hit points until I tried them for a while with 3E, for example. (I started RPGs with Shadowrun, which uses a "realistic" wound system and a death spiral)

Until I tried the Iron Heroes villain classes, I didn't know that what I wanted and needed was simpler stat blocks for monsters and NPCs. I used to think I liked this simulation stuff (of course, I didn't know of this term then.)

But maybe I am special. There was a time I didn't believe I'd like Pizza, either... *ahem*


----------



## Psion

Windjammer said:


> I strongly disagree with you guys. Something the designers officially confessed cannot possibly termed a "conspiracy theory".




1) Who called it a "conspiracy theory"? I, in the post I linked, was expressing my reasons to fear the shape of 4e. And in retrospect, it seems I was right.
2) The designer confessed it, but you disagree with us? So, you disagree with the designer?


----------



## Psion

jdrakeh said:


> I think it has less to do with Ari than it does with the strong belief held by some that 4e is bad in all ways and, therefore, anybody who says anything positive about it at all is either lying and/or misinformed.




You know, considering that you have a history of assuming people are "trolls", I don't think you are in the best position to judge others for making assumptions about people's goals and motivations.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> 1) Who called it a "conspiracy theory"? I, in the post I linked, was expressing my reasons to fear the shape of 4e. And in retrospect, it seems I was right.
> 2) The designer confessed it, but you disagree with us? So, you disagree with the designer?




That had me wondering for a while to - what he means is that he disagrees with the idea its a conspiracy theory since it was said out in the open. I am not sure anyone called it directly conspiracy theory (I think Hussar might have, but I am to lazy to go back now), but, well. In a way it always comes off as such as long nothing is backing it up. But there is stuff backing it up.


----------



## DaveMage

Psion said:


> 1) Who called it a "conspiracy theory"? I, in the post I linked, was expressing my reasons to fear the shape of 4e. And in retrospect, it seems I was right.
> 2) The designer confessed it, but you disagree with us? So, you disagree with the designer?




Hmmm....I think he was actually agreeing with you.  

(And thanks for that post, Windjammer - yet another reason why 4E is unappealing to me - I don't do tournament play.)


----------



## Kid Charlemagne

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That said, I'm sure they're learning from this experience, and I wouldn't be too shocked if the next "wave"  of supplements tried to bring in to the game exactly what some people are complaining isn't in there. I expect a concentration of fluff and old-school-ness to pop up in a year or two once they have time to form and publish a reaction. It won't be crazy, it won't reject 4e's assumptions, but it will try as much as possible to work within them.




This is very possibly true; WoTC folks have often said that books are in prep well over a year before they come out, so any feedback from the 4E release will not show up in products until fall of '09 at the earliest.

I personally would be thrilled if this happens.  There is a LOT about 4E that I like, but the things I dislike are prevalent enough that they keep me from buying in (primarily I'm talking about the powers system).

RE: 4E design and the RPGA - It resonates with me that with the way the RPGA is set up, and the kind of events that are run, if WoTC is using them as their primary focus group they're going to end up creating a game that is less likely to appeal to me.

And now a note from your friendly neighborhood moderator:

Lets drop the accusations of trolling and lying and of frothing communities of hate.  This thread is wobbling around in a generally decent direction, but the last few pages have veered off into some mean-spiritedness.  Lets nip that now.  Thanks!


----------



## AllisterH

I think the recent posts highlight "WHEN" the change went over.

I fully suspect it wasn't JUST the RPGA driving the changes but also my hunch that the wider audience no longer has the time to spend on D&D. If D&D isn't a "pickup and play" game, chances are you won't generate enough interest for players to actually play an entire campaign across the years.


----------



## Sunderstone

Psion said:


> You know, considering that you have a history of assuming people are "trolls", I don't think you are in the best position to judge others for making assumptions about people's goals and motivations.





^this
and Im not a Hater as well. 

That said, its the nature of the beast on a public forum. On other forums like in WoW People will often create forum "alts" to hide behind because they feel they might get flamed on their opinions if they post on their "mains". Often times, their "mains" are respected members of the community and they dont wish to disrespect other members of their guilds by posting forum drama. 

Im not saying that im the alt poster above, Im not. I dont feel the need to hide here. But I do think that this forum like most other forums tend to slant a certain way and my opinions might receive nothing more than flames. Its normal. 

I do think he/she may have  gotten the point across without being so hard on Ari. I like Ari's work too, but I can see where some of this may be coming from. 
First off I doubt Ari as a "freelancer" has access to WotC's true numbers. Second, I doubt WotC would tell us if their "baby" wasnt selling as well as it should. After all, it was WotC that went on and on about how our game was broken and 4E was going to be so much better, etc, etc. so that they could sell us on the new hotness that is 4E. I doubt they would tell us if it didnt sell as well as they thought it would. Again this is all my opinion.

As for someone getting hammered because of his "grain of salt" comment, Im in the same boat. I see it as any developer "freelance" or otherwise, might have a slant on his/her opinions because they want to keep getting work  from the big fish in the pond that is WotC. Its no secret that folks at WotC visit this site. If I was looking for work with WotC, id try to sell it as well. I could care less if I preferred 3.5 If I thought 4E work would pay my bills. My personal game would remain 3.5, while I developed for 4E to keep paying my bills.

Again, Im not saying Ari is lying. He may like 4E and be vocal about it for genuine reasons. Im glad hes enjoying it. Ill continue to take any comments from any developer with a grain of salt regardless.


----------



## ShinHakkaider

Sunderstone said:


> Again, Im not saying Ari is lying. He may like 4E and be vocal about it for genuine reasons. Im glad hes enjoying it. Ill continue to take any comments from any developer with a grain of salt regardless.




As we should. I don't think that it's a slight against Mouse that some of us are STILL LISTENING TO HIM but then tempering what he's saying with the fact that he's a very vocal proponent of 4E and a freelancer for WOTC.


----------



## Sunderstone

ShinHakkaider said:


> As we should. I don't think that it's a slight against Mouse that some of us are STILL LISTENING TO HIM but then tempering what he's saying with the fact that he's a very vocal proponent of 4E and a freelancer for WOTC.




Agreed.


----------



## jdrakeh

Psion said:


> You know, considering that you have a history of assuming people are "trolls", I don't think you are in the best position to judge others for making assumptions about people's goals and motivations.




Typically, those weren't assumptions, but observations based on posts that constitute trolling at pretty much every website under the sun. I mean, unless posting threads with such topical commentary as "X edition sucks ass and you're all 3etards/4orns/WotC tools!" isn't trolling. 

[Edit: Kid Charlegmagne, I just saw your post after responding to Psion and assume that it was directed at me because of the "communities of frothing hate" remark, despite my not accusing anybody specific of trolling or lying. I shall refrain from posting further to this thread, despite my misgivings.]


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Heh, this is a little idea that's been bouncing around in my head since before 4e hit the shelves.  I look at it like this:
> 4e was playtested by the RPGA
> Many of the changes done in late 3e were informed by RPGA play
> While I don't think 4e gets in the way of world building, it doesn't really help that much either - and since RPGA play doesn't require world building....
> The DDI VTT will be a huge draw for the RPGA
> Very exacting language
> Very concerned by class balance
> Ejecting races that were ... underplayed
> Including races that were more played (Hey, it's not a secret why the Iconics for Paizo's Age of Worms included a Tiefling)
> Expanded rules for covering role play experience awards
> Streamlining rules to allow easier DMing
> 
> There's likely more, but that's what I can think of right now.
> 
> So, to me, if 4e turns you off, it's likely because you weren't a target for RPGA play either.  Or, rather, you don't play like people play in the RPGA.  If you like 4e, likely your playstyles were more in keeping with how the RPGA functioned at the table.
> 
> Honestly, from a corporate standpoint, I think WOTC's idea is full of win.  If they can hook just 10% of the RPGA into the DDI VTT, that's about 15000 players.  That's a smidgeon under 3000 groups, or to put it another way, an RPGA game starting every 5 minutes 24/7.  That's a massive draw for D&D.  If this works, they've solved the issues with physically getting groups together.  And they'll make a ton of money doing it as well.




There are some elements of the playtested by the RPGA/informed by the RPGA that I would take with a grain of salt. For one thing, 3e was largely playtested by the RPGA as well, so that's not exactly a new influence.  

As far as things being influenced by the RPGA, it's a useful forum for figuring out how a character's mechanics work and don't work divorced from a regular game environment. A regular game, with a consistent bunch of players, has a dynamic quite a bit different from a game with a scratch group of players from all over the region at a Con. A DM of a regular game can make adjustments because Mark doesn't like that kind of encounter, or Vicki always hangs back and sneaks around despite not being well-built for it, while Glenn is a huge powergamer. A con DM probably doesn't know his players very well and can't plan for such allowances. And the same goes for the individual players. As a result, each player is going to have to be able to stand on his own and that's going to reinforce any pressure coming from regular groups to make each PC as individually balanced against every other PC.

As far as exacting language and streamlining, I think the old rules forum around here and the arguments of RAW vs RAI is argument enough that improvement in that area would always be welcome. The more clarity in the rules, the less likely they will be misinterpeted, the fewer rule arguments and less lawyering, and the more uniform the D&D experience.... as far as the rules go. That would be a plus for Con-style gaming and, in fact, has been a goal of AD&D since the 1st edition came out. The idea there was to provide more structure and codification than the more table-idiosyncratic D&D so that the game could have that more consistent play experience and, by working over the rules in a consistent fashion, actually become progressively better.


----------



## Shadeydm

Well that was quite a read.

To the OP: you are not alone in the feeling of being left behind by the current direction of the game. FWIW I am 40 and have played and DMed every edition since ADnD.

I own the core 4E set mainly because of how deeply discounted it was on Amazon but also out of curiosity. I have played about 8-10 4E sessions as a player and they were all fun and yes they all felt like playing DnD perhaps a very different flavor of the game but still DnD. 

Since the group is pretty pumped about 4E it looks like the game I will be playing for the forseeable future but I doubt I will ever run the game or buy anymore books. In the end I both enjoy the style of, and respect the skills of the other DMs in the group so I am sure things will continue to be fun.

I doubt WotC intentionally left us behind, instead I believe they remade the game in an image that they believed would have as wide an appeal as they could. Not a conspiracy just a way to make more money which is what they get paid to do in the end.

Personally, I just hope they find a way to bring those left behind back into the fold. Who knows, perhaps with the next edition. Either way just keep playing DnD and having fun with your friends after all thats really what its all about anyways.


----------



## The_Gneech

This thread really exploded overnight.  So it's a little late for me to respond to this, but I don't want to have just "vanished," either. 



MrMyth said:


> While not familiar enough with Saga to know what you are looking for - what 'unfashionable play style' do you feel 4E is somehow against?




At this stage, I don't know how to answer this in a way it hasn't been already. Heck, the whole thread has been more or less on this topic. Much as I love to hear myself talk (or read my own text?) even I don't want to hear it again.



MrMyth said:


> I have found the 4E class building system to have a remarkable level of versatility and customizability. The opening of skill access and former class features via feats allows one to adapt to almost any character concept they might have.




I'm willing to admit it might be there, and that I just haven't seen it. Really I am. It could be that if the game was stripped down to pure mechanics and all the other stuff that irritates me was out of the way, I could see it, but until there's some way to see the rules removed from their context, I'm not sure I can force myself to do the in-depth study it would require.



MrMyth said:


> You mention being frustrated that others forced your fighter to act as meat-shield - that is a group problem, not part of 4E.




It wasn't other players, it's right there in the text. The fighter's job is to suck up damage. The ranger's job is to do damage. The warlord's job is to buff. And so on. _Yes,_ those roles were implied in previous editions, but they were only implied and could be completely ignored without the "you're doing it wrong" vibe.

Maybe it's the writing in 4E I don't like?



MrMyth said:


> Each class can generally fit into several roles, even if they have some specific ones they default to. Fighters are Defenders with a bit of Striker, and can just as easily be heavy-hitting warriors as meat-shields. If you want to play a Fighter as a damage-dealing machine, the system is more than ok with that




If that's truly the case, it would help me feel better about the whole thing. I sure didn't get that impression in my attempts to read the PHB.



MrMyth said:


> the only thing standing in your way, apparently, is the group you play with.




Again, it wasn't my group. I'm one of two people in my group even willing to _look_ at 4E.



MrMyth said:


> Only in the same way that 3.0 was bad for roleplaying because you couldn't play a Dragonborn Warlord/Warlock.




Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer.  I don't object to the _addition_ of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the _removal_ of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"



MrMyth said:


> And that, at least on this topic, feels like the important thing to me. The core multiclassing rules for 4E seem better suited to building character concepts than in 3rd Edition.




I'll re-read the multiclassing rules when I get the opportunity and see what I'm missing, then -- everything I saw suggested that multiclassing was "Here, you get one power from the other class, now don't bother us you weirdo."

-The Gneech


----------



## Andor

thecasualoblivion said:


> 3E was just as bad in terms of editing errors, bad examples, and unclear verbiage, especially the splats.




Really? Could you tell me where in 3e the rules examples use what were plainly earlier iterations of the ruleset as the 4e PHB does on page 276? Or had to errata an entire damage subsystem in the first month after release?



thecasualoblivion said:


> As for the inbredness, it can't be worse than 3E, which tried to be both a class-based and a classless system at the same time, and tried to incorporate all facets of RPGdom, be them gamist, simulationist, or whatever simultaneously.
> 
> In my opinion, trying to include everything waters the game down and makes it cumbersome. A tighter, more focused game runs smoother and does what it aims to do more successfully.




I'm confused here, are you agreeing or disagreeing?

In any event you misunderstand me, I think. I'm not saying that including elements of different game types is bad, I'm saying they got so caught up in the gamist elements of what they were creating that they forgot to make sure it was still an RPG.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Here is my take on the edition wars:












Take your own lesson from this.


----------



## jensun

The_Gneech said:


> Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer.  I don't object to the _addition_ of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the _removal_ of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"



The change from 1e to 2e removed half orcs, Illusionists as a seperate class, Monks and Assassins amongst other things.  Things change between editions, railing against it is really quite pointless.


----------



## Hussar

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That had me wondering for a while to - what he means is that he disagrees with the idea its a conspiracy theory since it was said out in the open. I am not sure anyone called it directly conspiracy theory (I think Hussar might have, but I am to lazy to go back now), but, well. In a way it always comes off as such as long nothing is backing it up. But there is stuff backing it up.




I did call it my personal little conspiracy theory because I hadn't read any supporting evidence from the designers.  

Nice to know I called that one all on my own.  Heck, I posted about this months before the release of 4e.  Whee.  

Sorry, didn't mean that there was anything nefarious going on.  I called it a conspiracy theory because I had no supporting evidence, not that there was any actual conspiracy going on.


----------



## ssampier

Sunderstone said:


> When Hasbro started dreaming they could tap into the WoW market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit* fwiw, they lost me when they made all these crazy splats (imho, the early attempts at WoW- type munchkinism). My WotC buying dropped sharply, but 3rd party publishers picked up more of my money.
> To everyone, try not to take my post as flame bait. Its my opinion.
> 
> 2nd edit* Im 39 as well in case anyone is keeping track.




I am a bit like you. I picked up 3.0, liked it. I was really disappointed by the splat books. I like core games, mostly. d20 publishers were my new friend. They produced products with my kind of flavor in them. After Wizards dropped the ball the 3.5 and d20 publishers dried up, I pretty much gave up buying anything new. With 4e and the more restrictive GSL, same situation. As for the WoW market, how is that working out for them by the way? My cynic in me says it might not be the cash-boon they hope for.

I am 27, almost 28.


----------



## Delta

WayneLigon said:


> Because the biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D.




I must say, a year or two ago my biggest fear was that "D&D is being taken over by people who fundamentally _don't like_ D&D". Observations like this are pretty good confirmation of that.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Delta said:


> I must say, a year or two ago my biggest fear was that "D&D is being taken over by people who fundamentally _don't like_ D&D". Observations like this are pretty good confirmation of that.




There are so many different and conflicting opinions on what _IS_ D&D that this would have been true no matter what happened. They had to **** off somebody.


----------



## MrMyth

The_Gneech said:


> At this stage, I don't know how to answer this in a way it hasn't been already. Heck, the whole thread has been more or less on this topic. Much as I love to hear myself talk (or read my own text?) even I don't want to hear it again.




I honestly haven't seen a specific answer on this topic, aside from the standard claim that 4E is somehow less accepting of roleplaying (which, I think, has been pretty largely shown to be a meaningless claim.)



The_Gneech said:


> It wasn't other players, it's right there in the text. The fighter's job is to suck up damage. The ranger's job is to do damage. The warlord's job is to buff. And so on. _Yes,_ those roles were implied in previous editions, but they were only implied and could be completely ignored without the "you're doing it wrong" vibe.
> 
> Maybe it's the writing in 4E I don't like?




That might be it, but like I said - I feel this was more of a problem in previous editions. I saw countless games where debates broke out over clerics being forced to play as healers, and other roles definitely were equally present. 

Yes, 4E has suggested roles, but there is not in any way a "you're doing it wrong" vibe except the one you are yourself placing into the text. The vast majority of classes have secondary roles they fill. Healers have been made so they can actually interact in combat while doing their thing. And all the classes really participate in winning every fight. 

Sure, you might get a bad group of players that for some reason can't imagine a paladin designed to deal damage - but that is a problem with the players, not the edition. 



The_Gneech said:


> If that's truly the case, it would help me feel better about the whole thing. I sure didn't get that impression in my attempts to read the PHB.




Like I said, I really do think this might be an issue that some elements were viewed through a biased lens, and made it harder to see what is there. I can certainly understand your concerns - they just aren't supported by the experiences of anyone I know playing the game, or what the rules themselves seem clearly capable of. 



The_Gneech said:


> Considering that neither dragonborn nor warlocks were core elements before 4E, I don't think that's a very compelling answer.  I don't object to the _addition_ of dragonborn, tieflings, warlords, and warlocks to the toolbox, but I do object to the _removal_ of gnomes, half-orcs, bards, and druids. And I'm certainly not happy about them being "sold separately!"




But why is the elements you prefer somehow the better ones? Is the concept of a minstrel more core to the D&D fantasy elements than a warleader? The concept of someone who channels the power of nature more core than the concept of someone who bargains with dark forces for power? Are gnomes and half-orcs really more worthy, or was it simply that they were there first?

I can think of countless elements I might have liked to see in the 3.0 core rules that weren't there. But I don't see their absence as a flaw in the games - there simply isn't enough room in the rules to contain every player's personal preference, and deciding arbitrarily that one thing is 'required' over another is, frankly, ridiculous. Claiming that your personal preferences are what define a system as complete is entirely absurd. You can certainly claim it is what makes you prefer one system over another! But stating it is somehow an objective failing of the game is a completely meaningless criticism. 



The_Gneech said:


> I'll re-read the multiclassing rules when I get the opportunity and see what I'm missing, then -- everything I saw suggested that multiclassing was "Here, you get one power from the other class, now don't bother us you weirdo."




What is it you want out of a multiclassed character? Is it a character who is equally adept at multiple elements? Because 4E lets you do that, and well. You don't get to stack class features from every class, admittedly. But I don't think that has anything to do with _concepts_ - just, once again, mechanics. 

But the multiclassing is only part of the character customizability - for that, we need to look at 4E feats, which have become vastly more useful for defining characters. You can use Skill Training to become good at whatever skills you want without needing to multiclass. Without doing any multiclassing, you can have a fighter who picks locks, hides in shadows, and evades fireballs. You can have a wizard who wields a greatsword and wears heavy armor. Redefining basic elements of a character is much more feasible in 4E - and that, combined with the multiclassing system, is what I think helps make it more versatile than it might initially appear.


----------



## Fifth Element

Brown Jenkin said:


> Here is my take on the edition wars:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own lesson from this.



Okay, *you* win the edition wars.


----------



## Mallus

My counter-question is...

"When did we start asking ourselves questions like 'am I still Company X's target audience?' instead of questions like 'Do I like this product and does it suit my needs?'"

I'd ask David Foster Wallace, but, sadly, he passed away a short time ago (god rest his soul).


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Mallus said:


> My counter-question is...
> 
> "When did we start asking ourselves questions like 'am I still Company X's target audience?' instead of questions like 'Do I like this product and does it suit my needs?'"
> 
> I'd ask David Foster Wallace, but, sadly, he passed away a short time ago (god rest his soul).




As I pointed out in my forked thread, it isn't about whether or not somebody likes the game. Its about wanting the D&D brand to be the game you want it to be. People want their game to have the D&D label and the high profile and drawing power that comes with it.


----------



## Delta

thecasualoblivion said:


> There are so many different and conflicting opinions on what _IS_ D&D that this would have been true no matter what happened. They had to **** off somebody.




This is not about what D&D is or is not. It's the difference between:
(A) People who say "I like D&D (1975-2005)".
(B) People who say "I do not like D&D (1975-2005)".


----------



## Halivar

The_Gneech said:


> I'll re-read the multiclassing rules when I get the opportunity and see what I'm missing, then -- everything I saw suggested that multiclassing was "Here, you get one power from the other class, now don't bother us you weirdo."



The multi-classing rules in 4E is the single best improvement over 3.x that exists in the edition change. The powers you get from the other class with a multi-class feat are just as powerful as a character with that class would receive.

In 3.x, if you play a 10th-level wizard who takes a level of fighter (and assuming you have the same STR score as an optimized fighter), you have the attack bonus of a 6th-level fighter.

In 4E, if you play a 10th level wizard who takes the fighter multiclass feat, you not only get the fighter (rather potent) marking ability, you get the same attack bonus as a fighter of your level.

In the Wednesday night game I DM, one of my players has an eladrin wizard who is stocking up on fighter multiclass feats and is having a ball of it. I'm rather jealous, having failed so miserably at making an effective Ftr-Mu with 3E core.

In the game I play in, I decided my paladin was not going to be a defender. The class roles my look like straitjackets, but they aren't. Creative use of race/class combos and feat selection can turn any class into a stand-in for any other class. In my case, I turned my paladin into a striker/leader. No one even noticed that our warlord was gone.

The trick is to think outside the box: if multiclassing = having levels in multiple classes, then yeah, it's a disappointment. If multiclassing is being able to thematically and tactically represent more than one class _effectively_, then 4E beats 3.x in my game.


----------



## Fifth Element

Delta said:


> This is not about what D&D is or is not. It's the difference between:
> (A) People who say "I like D&D (1975-2005)".
> (B) People who say "I do not like D&D (1975-2005)".



What about all the other D&D players who do not fit into your categories? Say, someone who likes 2E and 3E but no other edition? Or someone who only likes OD&D?


----------



## Mallus

Delta said:


> It's the difference between:
> (A) People who say "I like D&D (1975-2005)".
> (B) People who say "I do not like D&D (1975-2005)".



There is no singular "D&D (1975-2005)". It's effectively many different games enjoyed by many different people.


----------



## Windjammer

Psion said:


> 1) Who called it a "conspiracy theory"? I, in the post I linked, was expressing my reasons to fear the shape of 4e. And in retrospect, it seems I was right.
> 2) The designer confessed it, but you disagree with us? So, you disagree with the designer?



Psion, you see the button next to your name in this post? That will take you to the post the quote is from. Problem on EnWorld is that everytime I quote you, I miss out all the bits that were quotes in your post. (Beat's me why that should be so, but there it is.) Here is the post I was quoting from. It shows that you agree to someone else calling the RPGA influence on 4E to be a conspiracy theory.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ds-coasts-target-audience-12.html#post4520332

People should be aware that the RPGA altered its principles since 4E was chartered, and in some respect made it more like non-tournament play. For instance, the DM is allowed to alter the CRs (hence monsters, traps, ...) of the encounters _depending on how much the group is struggling with it_. So (a) the influence of RPGA standards on 4E play at home isn't as ugly as it were if the RPGA would have kept their standards unaltered, and (b) everything I just said adds to the theory that RPGA play set a fundamental standard for how 4E was designed: WotC using 4E to bring tournament and home play (of D&D) into closer proximity of each other.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Delta said:


> This is not about what D&D is or is not. It's the difference between:
> (A) People who say "I like D&D (1975-2005)".
> (B) People who say "I do not like D&D (1975-2005)".




This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.


----------



## Psion

Windjammer said:


> Psion, you see the button next to your name in this post? That will take you to the post the quote is from.
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ds-coasts-target-audience-12.html#post4520332




Okay, looking back, I can see he said "conspiracy". I guess I missed it because, well, I captured his intent as not meaning it in the "sinister hidden from the public" sense, but the "I can see how this came about sense." Kept the intent, not the words.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

jdrakeh said:


> Those folks claiming that there wasn't such a huge schizm back when 3x was released, really do need to go back and pour over the old ENWorld and RPGNet forum archives.




Honest question: could someone find some of these on ENWorld?

I did a quick check at the archives here but only found the ones that go back to the Great Server Change of 2002. 

I'm pretty sure that there was nowhere near as great a schism as there is now on ENWorld. On rpg.net, I have little idea. I wasn't reading it as frequently. My impression is that rpg.net had a lot more angst and strife over the 2e/3e change. But as for ENWorld, I'd like to see the old threads. I'm sure there were several, but I don't remember anything like it is now. Certainly, I don't remember a ban on discussions over the editions like we had this time. I am happy to be shown otherwise however. My google-fu is just too weak to show myself, I guess!


----------



## Maggan

Ycore Rixle said:


> But as for ENWorld, I'd like to see the old threads. I'm sure there were several, but I don't remember anything like it is now.




Well, EN World started as a 3e news site, and as such this site was probably more pro-3e than others. I'm basing my conclusion that there was a lot of animosity towards 3e on observations at other sites, such as Dragonsfoot, RPGnet and minor sites I frequent.

/M


----------



## Allister

re: People that don't like D&D playing D&D.

That's not exactly true if you didn't see 3E as true D&D. Like I pointed out in another post, 3E may look similar to 1e/2e but the underlying system has such a vast change and is partly why I thought it was broken.

They basically copied everything from 1e/2e to 3e and changed stuff without understanding the ramifications of what they were doing (spellcasting being the big one)


----------



## Delta

Fifth Element said:


> What about all the other D&D players who do not fit into your categories? Say, someone who likes 2E and 3E but no other edition? Or someone who only likes OD&D?




Missing the point.

The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005".

Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.


----------



## Mallus

Delta said:


> The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005".



That's a silly conjecture. People who made statements like "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005" wouldn't *be* creating the next iteration of the brand.

That's like believing in the Manchurian Designer, who was brainwashed by Angela Landsbury and surreptitiously inserted into a position of power at WotC so they could assassinate D&D.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Delta said:


> Missing the point.
> 
> The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005".
> 
> Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.




So, solely because what has been done displeases you means you get to make stuff up?


----------



## billd91

Halivar said:


> In 3.x, if you play a 10th-level wizard who takes a level of fighter (and assuming you have the same STR score as an optimized fighter), you have the attack bonus of a 6th-level fighter.
> 
> In 4E, if you play a 10th level wizard who takes the fighter multiclass feat, you not only get the fighter (rather potent) marking ability, you get the same attack bonus as a fighter of your level.




Doesn't quite compare. You'd have the exact same attack bonus as a fighter of your level even without picking up the fighter multiclass. The 3e wizard, in part, picks up some fighter levels to improve his attack bonus. Certainly a valid reason for doing so made moot by the changes in attack bonus for 4e. 

Of course, there are other things he gets too like the fighter bonus feat, access to martial weapons, armor proficiencies...


----------



## justanobody

Windjammer said:


> KoboldQuarterly5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Andy Collins:* Here’s the question I’m going to answer.
Click to expand...



I despise people that twist words. This is where the lack of any real information or answers come from when people ask about these things. Anything somebody says after they twist a question around just makes me ignore them as there "answer" more than likely has no validity, and really doesn't answer the question asked.

What if all people went to some interview and just asked and answered their own questions?

It just seems like their is attitude in there that shouldn't exist when people answer a question in that manner.


What little I did read of his "answer" seems to point that 4th edition was designed for convention use, not home use.


----------



## The Little Raven

Delta said:


> The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005".




Andy Collins - Worked at TSR since 1998. Credited with additional design and contribution on the 3e core books. Tons of 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.

Rob Heinsoo - Worked with WotC since 2000. Credited with design contribution and editorial assistance on the 3e core books. A few 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.

James Wyatt - Worked with WotC since 2000. Credited with design contribution on the 3e core books. Tons of 3e credits from 2000 onward, including involvement in 3.5.

Mike Mearls - Worked with WotC since 2005. Before that, he has credits on a vast amount of d20 products, many of which received much acclaim from the d20 community.

Rich Baker - Worked with TSR since 1992. Credited with more contributions to D&D than you can shake a +1 stick at.

Bill Slavicsek - Worked with TSR since 1988. Tons of credits in D&D products, including being Director of RPG R&D during the development of 3e.

So yeah, this whole "2005 takeover" nonsense has what... one guy that was hired around that time, with all the rest having been a part of D&D development since the inception of 3rd Edition (or earlier). This conjecture is certainly not based on the history of these people's careers in the industry, and especially not their actual time developing D&D. I'm sorry, but this claim that they all spent years (decades in some cases) developing games they don't like is really silly, since you're essentially saying that they hate their own work.


----------



## The Little Raven

justanobody said:


> What little I did read of his "answer" seems to point that 4th edition was designed for convention use, not home use.




Perception is a funny thing.

From his answer, I get that 4e was designed for _ease of use_, which translates equally well at home or convention.


----------



## Jack99

thecasualoblivion said:


> This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.




Wow! And here I thought I was the only one of a kind


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Mallus said:


> That's like believing in the Manchurian Designer, who was brainwashed by Angela Landsbury and surreptitiously inserted into a position of power at WotC so they could assassinate D&D.




Just you wait, just you wait.







Now Kill D&D


----------



## Henry

Delta said:


> The conjecture is this: The people that took over around 2005 were fundamentally the ones in the category who stood up and said, "I _don't like D&D_, any of it, from 1975-2005".
> 
> Per that conjecture, all of the sub-categories you mention are equally barred from the new game design/business group under the "kill all sacred cows" philosophy.




I pretty much categorically disagree with that conjecture. If they didn't like it, they wouldn't have been playing it day in and day out, at conventions, at their homes, in the office, etc. Mike Mearls wouldn't have started up an OD&D game just for the fun of it, among some of the office staff. Whatever direction they took the game in for the 4th edition, I cannot say that they don't like D&D, because there's no evidence for it, other than the game not being to your personal liking, or my personal liking.

Heck, find out how many people over at Dragonsfoot would say, "I like ALL D&D from 1974 to 2005." Doubt you'll find very many, though some might. (Catch me over there on the right day and you'll have at least one.)

On the other hand, what's so different between someone who doesn't like it after 2005, and someone who doesn't like it after 1999? or 1988? Game philosophy changed pretty radically between 1997 and 2000, too. The 2E change is one thing, it wasn't as drastic in terms of mechanics as the change from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 4. However someone who liked it up until 4 has a lot in common with someone who liked it up until 3 -- pretty vast change in systems and design. The only difference now is the OGL impetus to keep going with what we already have, which is a great thing. It was a great thing for not just 3E, but for the versions which came before, too, as the so-called "retro clones" have discovered new life among people playing them, too.


----------



## Stereofm

The Little Raven said:


> This conjecture is certainly not based on the history of these people's careers in the industry, and especially not their actual time developing D&D. I'm sorry, but this claim that they all spent years (decades in some cases) developing games they don't like is really silly, since you're essentially saying that they hate their own work.




Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like. 


But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?

After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?


----------



## The Little Raven

Stereofm said:


> Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.




Do anything of them work for an industry that barely registers on economic radars, where a lack of enjoyment of the actual product you produce will not allow you to be successful? The RPG industry isn't like other industries in that regard.



> But aside from that, I get your point, so what IYO made them change their order of battle regarding play style ?




The fact that people and their tastes change over time. I loved 3e when it came out, but that love faded over time because of issues that cropped up during my time playing it. It's a good game, but it's not a game I want to play any longer.

People are not unchanging monoliths.



> After all, plenty of other gamers and deisgners did not feel the need to change, so why would they, especially since the then D&D was, as you point out, their child ?




Uhhh, because not everyone agrees, and different people have different opinions? As evidenced by things like Pathfinder, and Monte Cook's BOXM, a lot more people than you suggest did feel the need to change... it's just a matter of what direction the changes will take the game that differs.


----------



## AndrewRogue

Herremann the Wise said:


> What's your criticism of 3e here in regards to incorporating all facets of RPGdom? This seems to be an inclusive policy so I'm not exactly getting where you're coming from. Is there something wrong with this?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




I was waiting until I got to the end of this topic to post, but this one jumped out at me.

The problem is that, while you'd think trying to incorporate all facets of RPGdom is a positive thing, the fact is that it doesn't work. For example, as it stood, I found levels ~5-~15 to be the only playable ones, and that was with extensive house ruling. So... I got to use about half the game, and even less when you consider that I had to overhaul magic and make extensive custom material to cover things I wanted to work.

So, essentially, by trying to include everything and the kitchen sink... 3.X made it incredibly difficult to play anything in particular. Sure, the potential was there, but it was more a shiny core that you had to build around and excise other things from. In other words, it was the danger of generalization. Sure, it could do a lot, but it didn't do anything GREAT, which leaves players who want a specific game type kinda hanging.


----------



## CaffeineBoy

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that hasn't really turned out to be the case, has it?  4E fractured D&D fandom, sure, but many people who bought many 3E books have started in again with 4E books.  Right?  Also, I'm relatively certain that if 4E had been an evolution of 3E -- fixing its problems, introducing some new systems -- I'd still be buying.



I feel for you, Jeff. I began my gaming career with 1e AD&D (I'm 44) and I hated the way 2e developed. I felt very much abandoned by TSR and gave them none of my cash. I was temporarily reenergized by 3.x but, dang, the weight of prep work and the creep of expansions began to rip at my sanity. I stopped buying years ago. And frankly, if the new edition had simply been an evolution of 3.x, I'd be sitting this round out as well. As much as it appealed to me initially, now with a wife, kids, work and precious little free time, I have no interest in following down that road (be it with WotC, Pathfinder, Necro or whoever).



Jeff Wilder said:


> I recognize that it's very subjective, but I honestly feel that it's not that I decided to stop buying WotC products, but rather that WotC decided to stop making products that I want to buy.



And that's absolutely true, as Ben Kenobi would say, from a certain point of view. Conversely, they decided to *start* making products that I'm extremely excited about buying. I have multiple copies of the core books (for myself, my son, my group), a gajillion plastic minis bought off ebay (and I'm aquiver with delight over the new direction the minis are going -- WotC is actually going to see some of my cash, rather than the ebayers), magnetic status markers from Alea Tools, a brand new magnet-friendly battlemat from Dark Platypus, two notebooks full of stuff I've printed out of the Dragon, and I've got cash set aside for two hardcover books coming out next month that can't get here soon enough!

This is all to say, life is cyclical. Gaming is too. WotC's choices have sent you packing for a while... I've been there and it sucks. But it ain't so for everybody. I haven't been this excited about D&D since 3.0 was a baby, and maybe not since AD&D was. I feel like a teenager again, stealing time to flip through my Monster Manual or devouring the latest Dragon. And that means, from my point of view, WotC did the right thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Stereofm said:


> Well, I know plenty of people doing work they don't like, not everybody is gifted with a job they like.



The RPG business is not the kind of business you want to go into if you don't like your work. Because it is hard to earn a lot of money. And then you need also talent to even get to the places where you can earn money full-time.


----------



## Silver Moon

megamania said:


> I remember when 3x came out the people playing before (long time veterans) felt they were ignored as a "new" audience was targeted.  They went on about....(fill in complaint here).



I remember that vividly.  I also remember the exact same thing happening when 2nd Edition came out.   And you know what, we'll see it again in around eight years when 5th Edition makes its appearance.


----------



## Gothmog

thecasualoblivion said:


> This statement is very presumptuous considering how differently people play D&D, not to mention various editions. Personally, I find 4E more "D&D" than any other edition, with 2E a close second and 3.x dead last.






Jack99 said:


> Wow! And here I thought I was the only one of a kind




Nope, you guys aren't the only ones- that's my opinion as well.


----------



## justanobody

Which is quite funny as 1st-2nd edition was not D&D, but a whole new game as noted by the name change to Advanced D&D, while the actual game D&D was still being released at the same time initially.

So 2nd edition AD&D being more like D&D than Basic seems a bit absurd to me to say the least.


----------



## Greg K

Mallus said:


> "When did we start asking ourselves questions like 'am I still Company X's target audience?' instead of questions like 'Do I like this product and does it suit my needs?'".




For myself,  it was when I started realizing the following:

a)  I liked products from numerous third party companies including Adamant, Green Ronin, and RPGObjects; 

b)  I considered only 17 WOTC 3e DND supplements to be  worth purchasing;

- 8 of them without requiring a  discount (Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Fiend Folio, Book of Vile Darkness, Fiendish Codex I, Lords of Madness, Heroes of Horror, Stormwrack)

- and another 9 (Arms and Equipment Guide, Complete Arcane, Complete Warrior, Complete Mage, PHB2, DMG2, Dragonomicon, Sandstorm, Savage Species) provided that I could buy them at a minimum of  75-80% off the cover price. And, even then, less than 50% of the material in these  products would be used.  To date, I still don't own any of these, because other books have priority.

(Note: To be fair, I haven't seen Cityscape or Ghostwalk so they might fall into one of the above categories);

c) I didn't like d20 Star Wars (with the exception of its treatment of the force) or  Star Wars:SE with its per encounter abiities, over consolidated skill lists, and removal of skill points ( a shame, because  I like some of the other elements of SE like talent trees and the condition track); and 

d) I disliked WOTC's d20 Modern supplements (to be fair, I found d20 Future to be mediocre. Also,  I haven't seen d20 Apocalypse or d20 Cyberscape so perhaps they are worth buying);


----------



## Gothmog

justanobody said:


> Which is quite funny as 1st-2nd edition was not D&D, but a whole new game as noted by the name change to Advanced D&D, while the actual game D&D was still being released at the same time initially.
> 
> So 2nd edition AD&D being more like D&D than Basic seems a bit absurd to me to say the least.




I think this may be part of the disconnect people have when talking about D&D, and their perceptions of 4e or earlier editions.

To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game.  Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters.  But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest.  We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now.  The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays.  That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x.  3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily.  3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play.  I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.

D&D to me is about the gameplay.  Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D.  All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this.  Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.


----------



## justanobody

Gothmog said:


> I think this may be part of the disconnect people have when talking about D&D, and their perceptions of 4e or earlier editions.
> 
> To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game.  Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters.  But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest.  We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now.  The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays.  That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x.  3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily.  3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play.  I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.
> 
> D&D to me is about the gameplay.  Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D.  All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this.  Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.




Yes you could take the Shakespearean approach and go "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or you could realize that just because it looks like one a bidet is NOT a toilet. The names are different to actually tell people what you are actually talking about and thus why they are different.

So by just calling anything D&D, you never really know what another person is talking about when you meet someone new and discuss it and could be meaning very different things.

I used RPGs before ever playing D&D, and dice, classes, and races had little to do with their use. Well actually in the situation race played a very important part in their use as they were to be aimed only at one race and not your own, otherwise you were using the RPG incorrectly. 

So trying to lump all things together only does a disservice to everyone as it doesn't really identify the subject you are talking about but just an over generalization of it.


----------



## Dragonblade

Gothmog said:


> To me, D&D isn't about the mechanics of the game.  Sure, polyhedral dice are important, and the d20 for to hit is a staple of D&D, as are classes, HP, AC, and monsters.  But how those are implemented in game aren't that important to be honest.  We've gone from having lower AC be better to high AC being better now.  The game evolves, and so do the mechanics, but they still have the same end result- how the game plays.  That said, mechanics can get in the way of the game- which is what happened with me and my group with 3.x.  3.x didn't feel at all like D&D to me- it felt like leaping through overly complicated mathematical hoops to achieve a result that could be reached much more easily.  3.x kept jerking us out of the game and it felt like we were playing a computer simulation where metagaming and character build mattered more than the actions during play.  I understand some folks might find 4e's mechanics jarring in the same way I found 3.x's mechanics jarring- to each their own.
> 
> D&D to me is about the gameplay.  Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D.  All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this.  Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.




Well said. I sort of disagree with you on the details. I think the rules matter. But I agree with your sentiment. And I also believe that 4e is hands down the best version of the game to date.

I was recently asked to play in a 3e game, and I started flipping through the 3e PHB and I just couldn't bring myself to go back. 4e is just that much more fun to play and DM.


----------



## Delta

thecasualoblivion said:


> So, solely because what has been done displeases you means you get to make stuff up?




You did notice that someone earlier in this thread said "The biggest problem with D&D is that it's D&D"? Did I make that up?


----------



## firesnakearies

Target audience, eh?  Hmm.

For the last six or eight years, WotC's "target audience" for D&D seems to have been including more and more cute young girls.  Since they've managed to achieve this without making the game less fun or appealing for an old-school gamer like myself, I consider all of the changes to be a fantastic move.

Game still rocks, plus heaps of cute girls want to play it now?  Win.  Here's my money.


----------



## Tetsubo

I considered myself to be part of the target demographic for D&D for thirty years. Then, with the release of 4E, I ceased to be part of the demographic. I literally spent thousands of dollars on official D&D products. WotC lost a loyal and valuable customer. 

As someone once pointed out, I was "fired as a customer". I haven't really forgiven WotC for that. I don't think I am likely too any time soon.

I hope that 5E returns the game to a form that I can once again enjoy.


----------



## firesnakearies

Tetsubo said:


> I considered myself to be part of the target demographic for D&D for thirty years. Then, with the release of 4E, I ceased to be part of the demographic. I literally spent thousands of dollars on official D&D products. WotC lost a loyal and valuable customer.
> 
> As someone once pointed out, I was "fired as a customer". I haven't really forgiven WotC for that. I don't think I am likely too any time soon.
> 
> I hope that 5E returns the game to a form that I can once again enjoy.





I don't get this.  What did they do to suddenly eject you from their customer base so forcefully?  Is there something about the new edition of the game that you find completely abhorrent, or what?


----------



## Psion

Gothmog said:


> D&D to me is about the gameplay.  Exploring old ruins, solving mysteries, combatting ancient evils, discovering fabulous treasures, moments of intenst and riveting roleplaying, visiting and laughing with friends- THAT is D&D.  All editions of D&D allow you to do this, but for me and my group, 4e makes it by far the easiest and most enjoyable means by which to accomplish this.  Plus, the designers tried (and succeeded I think) to capture the old school feel and tone of D&D.




To me, since with 4e the transition from "dungeon exploration game" to "combat skirmish game" is complete, looking at your above criteria, to me 4e is the least D&D of all published editions.


----------



## the Jester

Rasalom said:


> People have come to see you as a biased source of information on all things WotC, with too much at stake to say anything negative, and indeed being glowingly positive about it in the face of any negative news because you’ve gone the route of 4e or poverty given you freelance for a living and I suppose you feel loyalty to WotC, or you just hope that being such an ardent supporter and pimp of 4e will send more work your way.




People who?


----------



## Rel

Psion said:


> To me, since with 4e the transition from "dungeon exploration game" to "combat skirmish game" is complete, looking at your above criteria, to me 4e is the least D&D of all published editions.




Could you cite for me the parts of the game that make "dungeon exploration" more difficult than in previous editions?

As for the broader question, I've never considered myself to be an audience that D&D is or isn't catering to.  That seems to imply inaction on my part.  I've got tastes in gaming that have changed considerably over time.  Early on I played D&D.  I tried MERP and Rolemaster and liked the more complex skill system so I switched to that.  After a dozen years the complexity became more than I wanted to deal with and 3.0 D&D came out so I changed to that.  I'm now identifiying some features of 4.0 that work really well for our group so I'm shifting to that.

But honestly, 6 months ago, I was SURE that I'd be using Savage Worlds for my next campaign.  It was still a bit of a tossup because I really like SW but I think that 4e is a better fit for our group as a whole.

I was totally ready to fire D&D as my game of choice and I've fired them before.  I guess I don't view them as owing me any particular loyalty.


----------



## Jack99

the Jester said:


> People who?




Maybe he has two accounts?


----------



## rgard

DaveMage said:


> I can't answer your question, Jeff, since I'm sitting in the same boat with you.  (Although I'm much younger than you at 38.    )





Youngins.  Same boat but 47 here.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty

I feel the same way as the OP.


----------



## Halivar

justanobody said:


> Yes you could take the Shakespearean approach and go "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet", or you could realize that just because it looks like one a bidet is NOT a toilet. The names are different to actually tell people what you are actually talking about and thus why they are different.



This smacks of "sure, you can do it wrong, if you want." The implication is either that he's blind, or willfully ignorant.

4E is D&D at his table. And mine. And bunch of other people, too. We are not calling a bidet a toilet. We are not "doing it wrong." 4E doesn't capture the same game you've been playing previously. We get that. It does for us, though, and it would be more helpful to the discussion if the non-switchers would accept that and stop telling us we're living in La-La Land.


----------



## Andor

Rel said:


> Could you cite for me the parts of the game that make "dungeon exploration" more difficult than in previous editions?




Speaking just for myself... The increased distance between the game system and any sort of imagineable reality reduces my immersion in character. So instead of feeling like a bold explorer pushing back the darkness I feel like I'm moving a token in a boardgame and asking if I have LOS to the new combat yet. 

It's entirely a matter of perception, as are all matters of taste.


----------



## Quantarum

Andor said:


> It's entirely a matter of perception, as are all matters of taste.




So in other words we're wasting our time and angst over something that can't be resolved. Good to know.

-Q.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Andor said:


> Speaking just for myself... The increased distance between the game system and any sort of imagineable reality reduces my immersion in character. So instead of feeling like a bold explorer pushing back the darkness I feel like I'm moving a token in a boardgame and asking if I have LOS to the new combat yet.




This distinction between "dungeon exploration" and "combat skirmish" really nails it for me.  D&D 4e definitely feels more like a boardgame than any previous edition, by far.  It feels like most of the time in combat the goal is to choose the correct "power card" to enable you to move an opponent "one square" or whatnot.  A long way away from how it used to be.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## scruffygrognard

firesnakearies said:


> I don't get this.  What did they do to suddenly eject you from their customer base so forcefully?  Is there something about the new edition of the game that you find completely abhorrent, or what?




In my case, and in the case of EVERY gamer I know personally (20 to 30 people), 4th Edition just doesn't fill the bill for sating the craving for D&D.  

Gameplay is too different (the gamey feel of powers, the loss of utility spells, the diminished differentiation between how classes work, the reliance on combat grids and abilities that shift units in combat, what races and classes are core, etc) from past versions of D&D for me to consider it D&D.

At the same time, I enjoy plenty of non-D&D games (Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu, DC Heroes, Deadlands, Feng Shui, Shadowrun and so on) so it's not just a case of me adhering to D&D and its "sacred cows" out of close-mindedness.

D&D, to me, should be a fairly generic fantasy roleplaying game with fairly generic races and classes at its core.  4th edition has moved away from this and away from what I've grown to consider as classic D&D tropes over the last 25 years.  As a result, the game doesn't FEEL like D&D to me... whereas, warts and all, every other version of D&D has done so.

Am I angry or upset?  No

Am I going to support a game that I just don't enjoy?  No

I just hope that the D&D brand reverts back to a company that respects its roots and can innovate without reinventing the game in such a drastic manner.


----------



## Sunderstone

cperkins said:


> In my case, and in the case of EVERY gamer I know personally (20 to 30 people), 4th Edition just doesn't fill the bill for sating the craving for D&D.
> 
> Gameplay is too different (the gamey feel of powers, the loss of utility spells, the diminished differentiation between how classes work, the reliance on combat grids and abilities that shift units in combat, what races and classes are core, etc) from past versions of D&D for me to consider it D&D.
> 
> At the same time, I enjoy plenty of non-D&D games (Pendragon, Call of Cthulhu, DC Heroes, Deadlands, Feng Shui, Shadowrun and so on) so it's not just a case of me adhering to D&D and its "sacred cows" out of close-mindedness.
> 
> D&D, to me, should be a fairly generic fantasy roleplaying game with fairly generic races and classes at its core.  4th edition has moved away from this and away from what I've grown to consider as classic D&D tropes over the last 25 years.  As a result, the game doesn't FEEL like D&D to me... whereas, warts and all, every other version of D&D has done so.
> 
> Am I angry or upset?  No
> 
> Am I going to support a game that I just don't enjoy?  No
> 
> I just hope that the D&D brand reverts back to a company that respects its roots and can innovate without reinventing the game in such a drastic manner.




^ This sums it up for me nice and neat, with the exception that Im currently not playing anything but D&D atm.


----------



## Psion

Rel said:


> Could you cite for me the parts of the game that make "dungeon exploration" more difficult than in previous editions?




It's not a matter of _difficulty_, it's a matter of _focus_. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.

EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> It's not a matter of _difficulty_, it's a matter of _focus_. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.
> 
> EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.




But do you think it will hinder the exploration approach? Or do you fear it will lead to people no longer being reminded of the exploration approach, and changing the "typical" play style for D&D? (Assuming there is one?)


What kind of rules support or focus more on exploration? 
Are it "utility spells" that help exploration (divinations, flight, trap detection/removal, invisibility?) (And that 4E Utility Powers and Rituals fail to power? If so, how do they not cover it?)

Or is it just no rules at all, and instead more a lack of rules, so there is no "I just roll Perception to see if their are any secret doors", but "I knock on all walls - anything sounding hollow?"

Or are it "strategic" resources - hit points or spells that you have to manage over more then just a single encounter? (And how do Daily Powers and Healing Surges not cover this?)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."

It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot. It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.

I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.

I enjoy 4E and I don't see it as a boardgame. We do roleplay just as much as we did in all previous editions. I see more than "pushing plastic" around the battlemat. I can envision the why around the how. I don't mind discussing pieces of 4E that people don't enjoy, just like we did about aspects of 3.x. What I am tired of is the implied claims that we aren't playing a true RPG or D&D or whatever, whether it is your humble opinion that we are or not.


----------



## teach

Psion said:


> It's not a matter of _difficulty_, it's a matter of _focus_. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.
> 
> EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.




Psion and Simon and Andor, I think you're absolutely right on the money with the idea that class abilities used to be balanced for the dungeon exploration, rather than with 4e, the encounter.  Look at classes like the thief (oh look can't sneak attack this undead, but there's a trapped treasure chest that we'll need to open after the combat that you shoudl look at) or the bard (you'll be our face for role-playing encounters in return you'll spend your time buffing us in combat)

Now, personally, I like the shift.  I hated playing a thief in the AofW campaign because there was so much undead, but we needed one because of the traps.  I also feel like it opens up the "dungeon exploration" aspect to more of the players around the table, because skills (pretty much the only non-combat abilities most characters have) seem to be well balanced between the classes.  I could see though how people who played earlier editions with games that focused more on the exploration part than the combat part would be frustrated with exploration crunch and fluff.  I think it's there (mostly in the skills section), just not in the places (class writeups) that it used to be. 

But I'm glad you said this psion and others, because it does help to explain to me what I like about 4e and the classes, and why some people who play the older versions don't like 4e.


----------



## teach

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."
> 
> It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot. It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.
> 
> I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.
> 
> I enjoy 4E and I don't see it as a boardgame. We do roleplay just as much as we did in all previous editions. I see more than "pushing plastic" around the battlemat. I can envision the why around the how. I don't mind discussing pieces of 4E that people don't enjoy, just like we did about aspects of 3.x. What I am tired of is the implied claims that we aren't playing a true RPG or D&D or whatever, whether it is your humble opinion that we are or not.




I think Vyvyan is correct here. The buzzwords that are used by some in their attacks seem to sidetrack any serious discussion about the differences between the editions, which I think is a shame because it's a really interesting and enlightening discussion.  I would hope that other people who want to have a serious discussion about this topic would seek to avoid to use the terms that Vyvyan has stated.  I'm sure that there are terms or phrases that 4e fan use that can cause the same reaction in fans of the older editions.   However, as I am a fan of 4e myself (getting stuff together to go DM the WEekend in the Realms as I type this post) I'm not really in a great position to state them.  I could imagine one would be the way that much of the early 4e promotion seemed to highlight things that were broken in 3e and thus imply that 3e wasn't a good game and needed to be scrapped.  My hope is that someone who is a fan of the older editions could let those of us 4e fans know what we say that can be taken negatively because of the words we use.


----------



## Psion

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But do you think it will hinder the exploration approach? Or do you fear it will lead to people no longer being reminded of the exploration approach, and changing the "typical" play style for D&D? (Assuming there is one?)




Let's just say, I see that in the absence of particular leaning of the group, 4e will produce a different style than 1e-3e*.

I don't remember if it was this thread or another one, but I recall someone recently posting to the effect that when creating a rogue for 4e, they almost felt like a different sort of character than they had when they created rogues in prior editions. The "reason" you need a rogue in 1e was principally because you needed someone canny in lock and traps. The reason you need one in 4e is because you need a striker.

I'm a fan of class based systems, but the reason I am so is that classes inform what the game is _about_. A change in the focus of the classes is tantamount to a change in the focus of the games AFAIAC.

* - I will admit here that this transition was already underway under 3e.


----------



## Thasmodious

Simon Atavax said:


> This distinction between "dungeon exploration" and "combat skirmish" really nails it for me.  D&D 4e definitely feels more like a boardgame than any previous edition, by far.  It feels like most of the time in combat the goal is to choose the correct "power card" to enable you to move an opponent "one square" or whatnot.  A long way away from how it used to be.
> 
> IMHO, of course.




But that's all on you.  Not the game.  D&D hasn't ever made players play above the mechanics, only encouraged it.  4e goes a long way to encouraging it with the flavor text for powers and abilities, to help players visualize what they are doing.  

Did you play 3e like this:

Fighter: Uh, my turn?  Okay, I move zig zagged like this so I don't provoke 1-2-1 and attack.  26 that hit?  16 damage.  Done.

Then 4e will likely play for you just like 3e did.  On the other hand, if your group puts narration ahead of the dice, the game is no more mechanical than any other.  Choosing to use magic missile in 4e is no different than in 3e, its a matter of description.  "I cast magic missile, hit 20, 8 damage" is the same in either edition and its a player position not a system one.  Same thing with "My fighter pushes him 1 square" as opposed to "My onslaught drives him back towards the edge of the cliff".  

For me, 4e plays no differently than any other edition.

Each time the holder of the D&D brand releases a new edition or version, some people in their "target audience" choose to get off the train.  It's happened at every edition of the game and will happen with 5e.  The last two editions have had the pervasiveness of the internet to give voice to the small group that gets off the train and many of them choose to rage, and rage, and rage until they've dealt with the anger stage of grief for a decision they made.  To each their own.  That decision is not based on some objective fault with the new version, but on the highly subjective snap judgments of the person.


----------



## Psion

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's terms like "rabid" and "fanboy" that stir the pot.




Absolutely.



> It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun.




That's where we begin to part ways. If that's how they said it... I might be able to see what you mean.

But to say that saying "4e feels/seems like a boardgame to me" is a perception. If you start attacking someone, attempt to prove them "wrong", based on their perception is an instance of accusing them of _badwrongfun_, because they fail to share your perception of what is _goodrightfun_.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

In terms of pro-4E or anti-4E people being jerks, I think you have to look at the anger.

For anti-4E, posting angry generally means that the game has changed in an unsatisfactory manner, you are angry, and you post angry.

For pro-4E, posting angry has nothing to do with the game. 4E has been released, is fully supported by WotC, and is the center of attention. All is right with the world. For pro-4E, posting angry involves responding to anti-4E people who post angry.


----------



## Jack99

thecasualoblivion said:


> In terms of pro-4E or anti-4E people being jerks, I think you have to look at the anger.
> 
> For anti-4E, posting angry generally means that the game has changed in an unsatisfactory manner, you are angry, and you post angry.
> 
> For pro-4E, posting angry has nothing to do with the game. 4E has been released, is fully supported by WotC, and is the center of attention. All is right with the world. For pro-4E, posting angry involves responding to anti-4E people who post angry.




The counter argument to that would be that some 4e fans are nervous because 4e is not a huge success, and thus afraid that more negative "press" on boards like these will create problems for 4e in the long run. That Pathfinder will be bigger than D&D etc.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Jack99 said:


> The counter argument to that would be that some 4e fans are nervous because 4e is not a huge success, and thus afraid that more negative "press" on boards like these will create problems for 4e in the long run. That Pathfinder will be bigger than D&D etc.




Show of hands: How many 4E fans are nervous because they think 4E is not a huge sucess?

(begins to count chirping crickets)


How many 4E fans believe internet opinion on message boards is largely a load of horse**** and doesn't really mean anything in the real world?

(personally raises hand)

P.S. Pathfinder being bigger than a game called D&D? I think even most 4E haters can admit this isn't a realistic possibility, no matter how much people may want it to be.


----------



## Jack99

thecasualoblivion said:


> Show of hands: How many 4E fans are nervous because they think 4E is not a huge sucess?
> 
> (begins to count chirping crickets)
> 
> 
> How many 4E fans believe internet opinion on message boards is largely a load of horse**** and doesn't really mean anything in the real world?
> 
> (personally raises hand)
> 
> P.S. Pathfinder being bigger than a game called D&D? I think even most 4E haters can admit this isn't a realistic possibility, no matter how much people may want it to be.




I never said it was a valid argument to me, merely that I know that some people on these boards use that argument.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But do you think it will hinder the exploration approach?




Yes, absolutely, and for the same reason that spending money on cheeseburgers means I won't have as much money to spend on pizza. The design time, word count, and play time per session are all fixed quantities. What is spent on one topic is perforce not spent on another. 

I agree with what Psion said. I also think there are specific cuts and changes that have been made to the game because of the focus on combat. Space and time warping whenever combat starts, for instance (1.4x = x, aka 1-1-1-1 instead of 1-2-1-2). This hinders exploration because when players explore the dungeon, they can never be sure which rules of physics apply, even in the absence of magic. How can they map? How can they use logic to solve puzzles, deduce motives, unmask ruses if self-consistency is tossed out the window? Can the warforged survive in the inhalable poison gas room? Yes, if he's not fighting; no, if he is fighting. That inconsistency - the bending of normal physical, chemical, and biological behaviors in the name of combat - hinders exploration.

The biggest reason that a combat-over-all focus hinders exploration is this: if there is no consistency to the world, what is there to explore? Not a world. Just a facade.

Who wants to explore a facade?


----------



## Rel

Psion said:


> It's not a matter of _difficulty_, it's a matter of _focus_. The central hallmark of what I thinking of here is how the class abilities have become principally about, and balanced around, combat.
> 
> EDIT: Simon Atavix and Andor also reflect perceptions I share.




I get what you are saying.  My first impression of the game was not terribly different than  yours.  I'll be one of the first to say that the page after page of powers in the 4ePHB seem to be where a lot of the focus is.

What changed my perception was putting together some characters for my wife and daughter and playing the game some*.  My understanding came to be that the Powers, which really only function in combat, were not the vehicle by which the exploration portion of the game came about.  Exploration is largely handled via other subsystems in the game (mostly Skills and, to a lesser extent, Rituals).

The games I ran felt incredibly similar to my 3.x games when it came to the exploration part of the game.  Sneaking, picking locks, searching for and disarming traps, forcing open stuck doors, figuring out riddles, all of that stuff that comes together in my mind as "exploration" worked nearly identically to 3.x.

It was really in combat where I could see most of the differences.  And, to me, these differences were mostly to the good.  It felt as though the powers were really just a more codified way of doing a lot of the stuff that was done in a standard 3.x combat (i.e. damaging, penalizing, incapacitating or moving an opponent, healing or buffing your allies as well as things like altering the battlefield in small ways).

Looking at your example of the Thief/Rogue, I still see them performing all the same original functions of that class in terms of the whole picking locks/disarming traps kind of dungeoneering.  Just with the added benefit of being able to do more damage in combat than many other classes.  I think the focus of the class is still enough on the idea of dungeon exploration for my tastes.

Anyway, I'm by no means trying to talk you (or anybody else) out of your position.  Only saying that it took me a long while to grasp the fact that, with 4e, I could really run just about any game I wanted that earlier versions of the game could run.  The tools are there for me, regardless of what parts of the classes take up a bigger page count.


*Don't interpret this  as me saying that if you made characters and played the game that you should have come to the same conclusions as I did.


----------



## Tetsubo

firesnakearies said:


> I don't get this.  What did they do to suddenly eject you from their customer base so forcefully?  Is there something about the new edition of the game that you find completely abhorrent, or what?




Yes. I fundamentally don't consider 4E to *be* D&D. I consider it a tactical miniatures game with a fantasy expansion pack tacked on. WotC got D&D *right* with the 3.5/OGL model. It wasn't perfect I admit. But it needed a bit of a tune-up, not a rebuild. 

Essentially 4E is the first edition of a brand new game that bares little resemblance to D&D. They kept the D&D identity for marketing purposes. I understand why of course, it's a valuable brand name.  But the game is too far removed from what I consider the most perfect version of D&D.

Thankfully with the OGL there is always the possibility that others will keep the game alive. It saddens me that future gamers who are introduced to D&D as a new game will see 4E  as D&D. Which I don't think it is.

We few grognards will have to school these younglings. 

Long live 3.5!


----------



## Banshee16

Jeff Wilder said:


> Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."
> 
> I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released.  I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets.  I bought the dungeon tiles.
> 
> Now I buy almost nothing from WotC.  I'm not interested in 4E.  The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis.  (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)
> 
> When did I stop being WotC's target audience?  And why?  Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them?  Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us?  Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...
> 
> It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience.  How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp?  Is it because I turned 40 in May?
> 
> It really seems to me that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't care what you think" has the cause and effect backward.  I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think.  So why and when did they stop caring?




I've had that question as well, given how loyal a customer I've been.  I'm sure that I've spent more than their average young customer.

Given I was purchasing a good amount of their books, I'd have thought I *was* who they'd want to market to.  But since the advent of 4E (and the months leading up to it, when there weren't many real products), my purchasing budget has gone to almost $0.  And because I'm not changing, my players aren't changing either, so they've lost 5 consumers, not 1.

The feel of the game is just changing too much for me to be excited about the new edition.

Looking at books like the new FR campaign, with the much larger type, bigger spacing, and greater use of large images, I can tell when I'm getting charged more for far less content, and that's adding to my inability to get excited about what they're doing with the game.

At this point, they money that I was spending has gone more towards electronic entertainment, at this point.  I guess if WotC is happy with that.

Banshee


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Psion said:


> Let's just say, I see that in the absence of particular leaning of the group, 4e will produce a different style than 1e-3e*.
> 
> I don't remember if it was this thread or another one, but I recall someone recently posting to the effect that when creating a rogue for 4e, they almost felt like a different sort of character than they had when they created rogues in prior editions. The "reason" you need a rogue in 1e was principally because you needed someone canny in lock and traps. The reason you need one in 4e is because you need a striker.



True. As far as I understood, The Thief/Rogue backstab ability was hard to pull off in earlier editions then 3rd. Trapfinding being a rogue-only ability (aside from a few PrCs and later classes) was certainly the primary thing keeping Rogue close to this base.

Since I have always been into this "encounter" mindset (and really, not just since D&D - when I played SR, I didn't like Deckers since they would not share the majority of their action and instead head their own mini-game), I appreciate the changes from 4E. 

4E still gives a reminder that its Rogue that search the traps, since its their class skill, but it lost all exclusivity.



> I'm a fan of class based systems, but the reason I am so is that classes inform what the game is _about_. A change in the focus of the classes is tantamount to a change in the focus of the games AFAIAC.



Yes, I can see that point.

In a way, 4E is a "quickly rotating spotlight" system. Every encounter requires and allows every player to contribute (and it's not just combat. Skill Challenges basically allow you to add your own PCs abilities to it and at least aid your allies.). Something like "Now I am playing the trap-finding game and you watch me do my thing" or "Now I am doing the face thing and talk with the Mayor" are gone. I prefer it this way, but there are certainly drawbacks to it - if you're not careful, you lose a certain degree of intensity. 



> * - I will admit here that this transition was already underway under 3e.



The CR/EL system was definitely heading the way for the transition. I suppose those "Wands of Cure Light Wounds" where also game changers.


----------



## justanobody

firesnakearies said:


> I don't get this.  What did they do to suddenly eject you from their customer base so forcefully?  Is there something about the new edition of the game that you find completely abhorrent, or what?




For some it is the simple matter of no backwards compatibility, rendering all previous product bought useless with the current system. May not be the case for that person, but for many it is.

All the older fluff can be used as long as you discard the new fluff in some instances, but all the older crunch is rendered useless with the totally new system. Like the problems 3rd gen gaming systems had to start with mass market because they were not backwards compatible, and not every can just abandon something that works and isn't broken and still usable just for the newest thing.

Even though it has been in use for half a century people still don't like planned obsolescence.


Halivar said:


> This smacks of "sure, you can do it wrong, if you want." The implication is either that he's blind, or willfully ignorant.
> 
> 4E is D&D at his table. And mine. And bunch of other people, too. We are not calling a bidet a toilet. We are not "doing it wrong." 4E doesn't capture the same game you've been playing previously. We get that. It does for us, though, and it would be more helpful to the discussion if the non-switchers would accept that and stop telling us we're living in La-La Land.




Then why generalize? You are calling a bidet a toilet, by not distinguishing between the two. Why say you play D&D and that be all, like it means the same thing to all people/editions?

Why not just say I play D&D 4th, 4th edition D&D, several editions of D&D, 3rd edition D&D, etc.

Are people so lazy that they have to be so vague or generalize?

Most thread on this forum use the class system to tell if a thread is an older grouping of D&D, 3rd/OGL, 4th/GSL, or D&D in general (edition neutral stuff). So why can it not be done in everyday speaking?

So all editions of D&D are not the same, and it can easily confuse people learning what the game is, just like a bidet is not used the same way a toilet is. They may have similar shapes, but the functions are very different!


----------



## Simon Atavax

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, combat skirmish game, boardgame, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.
> .




How is it a "hate buzzword" to describe 4e as being closer to a combat skirmish game and/or boardgame than previous editions?

If someone posts here and says, "4e is DAH sux.  It's all about POWRZ!!" then yes, call it a hate buzzword.

If someone posts here and says, "You know, 4e isn't doing it for me.  It seems more like a combat skirmish game than a dungeon exploration RPG," then I don't see where "hate" comes into it.


----------



## Andor

ycore rixle said:


> the biggest reason that a combat-over-all focus hinders exploration is this: If there is no consistency to the world, what is there to explore? Not a world. Just a facade.
> 
> Who wants to explore a facade?




qfgt


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Someone stated upthread that they feel "attacked" by "rabid 4E fanboys."




Well, let's see why that complaint comes about.



> It's claims that 4E is nothing but a boardgame or combat skirmish game that to me seem like thinly-veiled claims of badwrongfun. This is when 4E fans feel attacked and come to the defense of the game. Adding "IMHO" to a condescending implied "you're not really playing D&D" doesn't cut it.



So you're angry that people _disagree with you_?



> I see people discussing the specifics of what they like or don't like about 4E and everything goes fine. Its when people come in with the 4E hate buzzwords (too WoW, *combat skirmish game, boardgame*, pushing plastic) that imply that those who enjoy the new edition are playing the game wrong that the edition wars erupt again.



So those two bolded things?  Both were brought up in this thread in a non-insulting manner, in fully intelligent and understandable posts meant to encourage further discussion.  You have stated that these are nothing but buzzwords, and that the person who made those posts is just trying to attack others.  You have very pointedly reduced several posts with discussions following to nothing but an angry tirade.

That's why people refer to a rabid fanbase - because to you, "discussing 4e" equates to "not saying things I dislike."

Edit: Furthermore, I've seen several posters comment on new gamers refering to 4e as reminding them of WoW.  And you know what?  They said it in a _positive way_.  I'm sorry, but unless the poster IS making just an angry tirade, cutting their post and, more importantly, their thoughts and opinions, is what makes so many people here think of *RABIES*.  They don't see someone discussing a game at that point - they see someone defending it with gnashing teeth.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Halivar said:


> In the game I play in, I decided my paladin was not going to be a defender. The class roles my look like straitjackets, but they aren't. Creative use of race/class combos and feat selection can turn any class into a stand-in for any other class.




This is something that I think *bothers* a lot of folks about 4e.  The idea of the classes essentially being interchangeable; the idea that every class is a potent spellcaster (but instead of "Spells" they cast "powers"); the idea that the goal of the game is not to play a class, but to pile on powers to the point where "Class" ceases to be a meaningful term.



Halivar said:


> The trick is to think outside the box: if multiclassing = having levels in multiple classes, then yeah, it's a disappointment.




You just gave a good definition of what multiclassing has been, ever since AD&D 1e.  (Did it exist in OD&D? Not sure).  Now, of course, multiclassing means something different.  Another sacred cow slain . . .


----------



## Simon Atavax

Tetsubo said:


> We few grognards will have to school these younglings.
> 
> Long live 3.5!




Bah! You can't call yourself a grognard unless you dream of having a negative armor class! Now get off my lawn!


----------



## I'm A Banana

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm a fan of class based systems, but the reason I am so is that classes inform what the game is about. A change in the focus of the classes is tantamount to a change in the focus of the games AFAIAC.




I can really see this.

The "roles" in earlier editions weren't combat roles -- they were dungeon exploration roles. Some guy was the combat role (the Fighter), but combat being only part of what you do in the dungeon, there were other roles. There was the "scout" role (the mobility and trap-handling-ness of the thief/rogue), there was the "recovery" role (the cleric's ability to restore hp), and there was the "toolbox" role (the wizard's ability to pull out just the right spell for the job!).

These roles are not quite as refined as they were in other editions (partially because of a smaller skill set, or a universalizing of "recovery" or "toolbox" with healing surges and rituals).

4e is a combat game. The abilities and the descriptions and the _point_ of the game is combat. Combat was, before, part of somethng else you did -- that something else was dungeon exploration.

Now, that's not to say that 4e went the wrong way. Certainly making _every_ class able to contribute to all aspects of dungeon exploration in different ways would be a pretty admirable goal. You don't get complaints of "coardboard wizards," or of "fighters who can't do anything but swing swords."

But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to _combat_ in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!"). 

This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.


----------



## El Mahdi

Simon Atavax said:


> Bah! You can't call yourself a grognard unless you dream of having a negative armor class! Now get off my lawn!




In colloquial game use a _"grumbling"_ veteran of *any* past edition would be a Grognard, so both of you qualify.  However, for a more literal modern day definition, unless either one of you are the proud bearers of a DD form 214 (or foriegn equivalent), then neither one of you are.

Now get out of my LZ! (or flightline, flight deck, etc.)


----------



## El Mahdi

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The "roles" in earlier editions weren't combat roles -- they were dungeon exploration roles. Some guy was the combat role (the Fighter), but combat being only part of what you do in the dungeon, there were other roles. There was the "scout" role (the mobility and trap-handling-ness of the thief/rogue), there was the "recovery" role (the cleric's ability to restore hp), and there was the "toolbox" role (the wizard's ability to pull out just the right spell for the job!).
> 
> These roles are not quite as refined as they were in other editions (partially because of a smaller skill set, or a universalizing of "recovery" or "toolbox" with healing surges and rituals).
> 
> 4e is a combat game. The abilities and the descriptions and the _point_ of the game is combat. Combat was, before, part of somethng else you did -- that something else was dungeon exploration.
> 
> Now, that's not to say that 4e went the wrong way. Certainly making _every_ class able to contribute to all aspects of dungeon exploration in different ways would be a pretty admirable goal. You don't get complaints of "coardboard wizards," or of "fighters who can't do anything but swing swords."
> 
> But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to _combat_ in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!").
> 
> This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.




I agree with this.  Very well said.  Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.

However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve.  I believe it did.  They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM.  It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes.  Not WoTC fault though, there's no way they can please everyone.  This time it just wasn't me.  I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so.  And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.


----------



## Halivar

Simon Atavax said:


> You just gave a good definition of what multiclassing has been, ever since AD&D 1e.  (Did it exist in OD&D? Not sure).  Now, of course, multiclassing means something different.  Another sacred cow slain . . .



Mechanically, yes, that's exactly what it was (if you played a human). But this approach wouldn't work in 4E. Therefore, the challenge to designers is how to incorporate the themes and overall function of multiclassing within the new rules framework? It asks the question, "what do players want out of multiclassing, and how can we give it to them without kludging?" IMHO, the solution, while novel and unprecedented in D&D history, is elegant and effective. Is my player's Ftr-Mu really "multiclassed" in the traditional sense? No. He only has levels of wizard. But do the rules provide a mechanism for him to swing a sword, wear platemail, and use fighter abilities as good as a fighter could? Yes, and more effectively than in any previous edition. In my book, that's mission accomplished.


----------



## firesnakearies

I see a lot of THIS going on:


"I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is _not_ macaroni and cheese."


Just sayin'.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> "I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is not macaroni and cheese."




Y'know, I know this quote sounds familiar from somewhere...

Regardless, yeah, that is a problem for those concerned about where the world of cooking (or, in this case, the game of D&D) is going. 

It's not a problem for what you do in your own home, but this thread was never about what some guy does in his own home, and has been about trying to kind of puzzle out what WotC (or the Better Joy people) were thinking.


----------



## justanobody

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with this.  Very well said.  Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.
> 
> However, this isn't to say that 4E didn't accomplish the goals the designers set out to achieve.  I believe it did.  They made the game simpler, faster, and much easier to DM.  It's just that it's now too simple and easy for my tastes.  *Not WoTC fault though*, there's no way they can please everyone.  This time it just wasn't me.  I will be interested in where feedback takes the game in a year or so.  And also interested in what that may foreshadow about 5E.




Well they could have set out to make a roleplaying game instead of a combat simulation game, wherein the roleplaying game allows for combat, but a combat simulator doesn't need any roleplaying.

They could have made a second game. So I would say whatever 4th edition is, is 100% the fault of WotC. Be that good or bad, the player's didn't write the game, WotC did. So whatever becomes of it will be solely on their heads, and not something to try to blame on the customers with "we made it and they stopped buying it", or something similar if it ends.

So they will have to accept responsibility for it either way it turns out, just like every one else in the adult world.


----------



## Aeolius

firesnakearies said:


> ...the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is _not_ macaroni and cheese."




Mac & Cheese ain't got nothin' on:






I always thought Monterey Jack sounded like the name of an adventurer.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> So they will have to accept responsibility for it either way it turns out, just like every one else in the adult world.




Given that I'm sure every one of them worked their butts off to bring us the best game they could, and that no edition of D&D has ever _not_ been successful (barring goofy executive asshattery), I don't think they'll have a problem with this.

I'm not exactly sure what pushed them in such a combat-centric direction, but I'm sure it wasn't just one thing. Selling minis and internet compatibility were probably part of it. Customer feedback was undoubtedly part of it. RPGA may have been a part of it. And it might not have been a bad decision -- certainly the initial core book sales speak volumes about how many people are at least interested to learn about this new path. 

4e will almost certainly be a success, probably no matter how many people don't like it, because of the D&D name if nothing else. 

Pretty much all they'll have to measure against is "how much of a success is it?", but the metrics for that are pretty subjective and sometimes tough to determine. Regardless, I think everyone working at WotC has more than earned their keep on this, even if it doesn't turn out as well as they would have hoped. 

Living with it and accepting responsibility for it won't be a problem, because it is something to be proud of (even if it's not for me).


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> Well they could have set out to make a roleplaying game instead of a combat simulation game, wherein the roleplaying game allows for combat, but a combat simulator doesn't need any roleplaying.



You can play *any* prior version of D&D as only a combat simulator if you want to.


----------



## firesnakearies

Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.

Can someone explain, with specifics?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

firesnakearies said:


> I see a lot of THIS going on:
> 
> 
> "I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is _not_ macaroni and cheese."
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.




And other people see the differences as "Hey, uh, this cookbook lists the ingredients for Mac and Cheese as 'chicken breast and marinade.'  I like chicken breast, but how the hell is that Mac and Cheese?"


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> And other people see the differences as "Hey, uh, this cookbook lists the ingredients for Mac and Cheese as 'chicken breast and marinade.'  I like chicken breast, but how the hell is that Mac and Cheese?"



This might be an apt analogy if the cookbook did not clearly contain most of the same ingredients as previous editions. The spices have certainly been changed, and maybe they added a little something that wasn't there before or taken something away, but claiming that the ingredients have changed completely is ridiculous.


----------



## justanobody

firesnakearies said:


> Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.
> 
> Can someone explain, with specifics?




Name all the spells/powers that are not for use in combat.

Most say target enemy/ally IIRC.

The focus is on combat because those are the rules that are easier to define what happens when something occurs.

The rules cannot including something for every role-playing aspect, but the books do read a bit like many wargame rules books. Oddly many wargame rules books contain a LOT more fluff.

Maybe the lack of fluff making the PoL setting more open-ended to fit any playstyle, settings, or game make it seems _only_ focused on combat?

Add in one damnig thing such as distances measures in map grip squares that takes shift perspective from 1st person to 3rd person, so that things are looked at from the POV of the player making things seem less likely to put you into the action yourself and more like watching the action as you would a movie.

There are many other things people have said since 4th was released about what makes it more combat oriented, and the Wizards boards are full of threads about it if you can locate them.

Mostly it seems the prose in the books itself and focus on what is presented within them, or what isn't presented in them.


----------



## Thasmodious

Tetsubo said:


> Yes. I fundamentally don't consider 4E to *be* D&D. I consider it a tactical miniatures game with a fantasy expansion pack tacked on. WotC got D&D *right* with the 3.5/OGL model. It wasn't perfect I admit. But it needed a bit of a tune-up, not a rebuild.
> 
> Essentially 4E is the first edition of a brand new game that bares little resemblance to D&D. They kept the D&D identity for marketing purposes. I understand why of course, it's a valuable brand name.  But the game is too far removed from what I consider the most perfect version of D&D.
> 
> Thankfully with the OGL there is always the possibility that others will keep the game alive. It saddens me that future gamers who are introduced to D&D as a new game will see 4E  as D&D. Which I don't think it is.
> 
> We few grognards will have to school these younglings.
> 
> Long live 3.5!




Heh.  How many times did we see that exact same post (except a -1 to the numbers) when 3e came out, word for word, just replace WotC with TSR and add in a few references to the evil takeover that will end RPGs forever?


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.
> 
> Can someone explain, with specifics?




Not to be too snarky, but they're right above. This page, the previous page...lots of details about how 4e's material is, speaking in focus, on combat, in the core rules.

They do address other things, but every class power, every monster in the MM, and most of the words about set-up, encounter design, and rewards in the DMG, are about _combat_. The four roles are combat roles. Rituals aren't spells because spells are for combat. You don't have class/profession skills because they have no use in combat. The rogue is a ninja because it needs combat balance. Healing surges exist so that there can be more combats. Play sessions are combats chained together through dialogue. An encounter is either a combat or a skill-based combat (and the skill-based combat has mechanical problems pointed out elsewhere on the boards).

Perhaps the strongest case, the one that sold me, was that the roles were once "dungeon exploration" roles (trap guy, swiss-army-knife guy, fighting guy, recovery guy), and now they're expressly "combat" roles (fast guy, healing guy, crowd-control guy, damage absorbing guy). 

It can be (and has been) vastly overstated before, but I'm beginning to get why this impression is there. It is there because, yeah, combat is a bigger part of what the game is about in 4e. Even though it was always a huge part of what the game was about, it was never the ultimate end point, just an important part of getting to that end point. Now, it seems to be the endpoint. Everything is cleaned up and refined around that purpose.

For many critics, that is all well and good, but it leaves the parts of the game that the liked (exploration, for instance) by the wayside.


----------



## Thasmodious

firesnakearies said:


> Maybe I'm just dense here, but I've been playing D&D in all of its incarnations for 22+ years, and I don't see, at ALL, how 4E is noticeably more "combat-focused" than any previous version.
> 
> Can someone explain, with specifics?




The focus on the game is no more on combat than it always has been.  Combat has always been the central area of concern for D&D.  

The only difference with 4e is that the rulebooks don't include a designer approved set of extra subsystems (that have changed from edition to edition) to deal with what the designers at the time felt were needed subsystems outside of encounter resolution.  Those are left to sourcebooks and houserules.  

All versions of D&D have been combat focused, its the central element of the game.  Both the 3e PHB and the 4e PHB have a 7 page chapter on Exploration.  The 4e DMG has only 15 pages on combat and the rest is on building adventures, encounters, social situations, world building, the environment...

It's a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e.  The only real difference in 4e is that they trimmed the fight to present a concise system from which to build the edition over the life of the edition.  The design is modular.  As sourcebooks are released you can plug in new systems if you like, but their absence from the core rules takes away the weight of "official" to them, which is a good thing.  4e tells you - play the game the way you want - here's the rules for the core element of D&D gameplay: encounter resolution.  That doesn't force the game to focus on combat more.  When you play it, you see that simpler, more concise rules for combat means you have to focus on it LESS.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Thasmodius said:
			
		

> It's a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e.




It's actually originating from a real source, and denying that by attributing it to grognardism and agendas won't get at the real reason for it. 

This isn't an unreasoned attack on 4e by blind, ignorant barbarians who thunder and roar when exposed to fire like some sort of cartoonish Frankenstein's  Monster. "NNNG! 4E BAAAAD!"

No, this is a problem noted by a lot of very clever and very astute individuals, repeated time and time again. This is something more than unreasoned hatred. 

And for what it's worth, I can see how 2e trufans leveled that criticism against 3e, and how much more they can level that same criticism at 4e. This isn't a new problem, it's just a _worse_ problem.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I like the concepts of roles. I think it could - and maybe should be expanded to non-combat roles. In the 4e d20 modern idea thread this was once discussed. Roles could be guide, face, sage or tech. I hope these ideas will be explored in d&d 4 offshots or successors.


----------



## firesnakearies

I hate the concept of roles.  

Fortunately, they're usually nonsense and can be ignored by smart, creative players who want to build their team in their own way.


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> Add in one damnig thing such as distances measures in map grip squares that takes shift perspective from 1st person to 3rd person, so that things are looked at from the POV of the player making things seem less likely to put you into the action yourself and more like watching the action as you would a movie.



1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).


----------



## AllisterH

Fifth Element said:


> 1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).




Personally, I love that the movement is in squares as it is easy for me to translate that to MY frame of measurement.

I've been playing D&D for a long while now and I STILL can't think in Imperial. A mile/yard/inches measurement is ALWAYS a pain in the ass at my table...

EDIT: Combat

4E isn't more combat-focused than earlier IMO. What sets it apparent is that it doesn't separate the CLASSES into "better at combat/worse in non-combat" roles as before.

Everyone in 4E should be able to contribute in combat whereas before, this wasn't true YET in non-combat role, everyone is also expected to be able to contribute.

This is one of the reasons why I personally love 4E. No longer do I as a DM have to really worry "am I providing enough time for player A to shine". If I run a social non-combat investigative mission, even the fighter will be able to contribute more than in other editions.

This, I think, is what makes 4e truly different. It isn't the focus on combat, it's the acknowledgement that the classes shouldn't be divided on a combat/non-combat basis.


----------



## Thasmodious

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's actually originating from a real source, and denying that by attributing it to grognardism and agendas won't get at the real reason for it.
> 
> This isn't an unreasoned attack on 4e by blind, ignorant barbarians who thunder and roar when exposed to fire like some sort of cartoonish Frankenstein's  Monster. "NNNG! 4E BAAAAD!"
> 
> No, this is a problem noted by a lot of very clever and very astute individuals, repeated time and time again. This is something more than unreasoned hatred.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I can see how 2e trufans leveled that criticism against 3e, and how much more they can level that same criticism at 4e. This isn't a new problem, it's just a _worse_ problem.




The "real" source isn't what you think it is.  It's the same source that happened at the release of each and every other edition.  You could stat up the "haters" as a PC class, they would have maintained more consistency through the editions than the actual classes in the PHBs.

I never called anyone blind or ignorant.  Some people just react badly to change, even clever and astute individuals.  A relatively normal person, when faced with change, simply decides if that change works for them or not, makes their choice, and moves on.  A more deranged individual (and I mean that with love) believes that the whole world must feel the depth of their rage about the change, especially those who have embraced the change.

It remains, though, that the D&D game has always been a game focused on combat.  It's always been a game of killing things and taking their stuff.  Fighting and treasure have always been the core values of the game.  The other stuff is largely group dependent.  Some groups RP very heavily, some not at all, most in between.  Some spend hours on character background (despite never having a set of rules for backgrounds, gee, what a concept), some write "parents killed by orcs" and move on.  Some groups love dungeon crawls, some love urban settings, some love the wide wilderness, some love plane hopping, but all those elements lead to the combats and the treasure.  All those great classic modules from OD&D, 1e?  Mostly combat.  As ALWAYS the level of RP and backstory and other elements are DM and group dependent, not rules dependent.  Extra subsystems create more rules clash, problems for groups that don't enjoy those prescribed play elements, as cutting them out can have some reprecussions in other areas.  It's easier to add things than take them away.


----------



## Fifth Element

Thasmodious said:


> It remains, though, that the D&D game has always been a game focused on combat.  It's always been a game of killing things and taking their stuff.



We see this quite a bit and some people get offended by it. What it means, I think, is that the *game rules* are mostly about killing things and taking their stuff. It doesn't mean you're only "supposed" to do that when you play. But the non-combat stuff generally is far less rules-heavy. In any edition.


----------



## justanobody

Fifth Element said:


> 1E listed character movement rates in inches. Not inches that the character moved in the fantasy world, but inches that they moved on the battlemap (real or imaginary).




Yes a sad throwback from its wargaming roots, that people had thought and wished had been removed from the game, for the concept to rear its ugly head back in the terms of "squares" (1" no less) in 4th edition to devolve the game back to a state of near wargame, then add in the emphasis on minis, and all the combat oriented rules, and merging the newest miniatures line from being its own game, or even just an accessory to being something used to play D&D without needing any of the books to play with in some minis game delve format, has completed the circle in trying to revive for the third time the game Chainmail for 5th edition where D&D will cease to exist.



You don't like 4th. I think its ok, but too heavy combat focused in the books and some peoples minds. The facts about the combat orientation exist and have in the past. The sad part is HOW they are returning to try to turn back time when the game was selling better or some other reason.

I might as well play 1st edition rather than 4th to get the bits that 4th forgot to include from it as it grabbed bits from each other edition and put them into a blender and hoped something came out worth using.

Oddly it has those bits from many editions that give it quirks that are fun, and full of combat. They just need to add more to balance out the books focus on combat. Plain and simple.


----------



## Fifth Element

justanobody said:


> Yes a sad throwback from its wargaming roots, that people had thought and wished had been removed from the game, for the concept to rear its ugly head back in the terms of "squares" (1" no less) in 4th edition to devolve the game back to a state of near wargame <snip>



That's quite a spiel. "Sad throwback", "devolve" and "ugly head" are not exactly productive-discussion-friendly words.



justanobody said:


> You don't like 4th.



Are you referring to me, specifically? I've never played 4E. I don't judge games until I've played them.


----------



## AllisterH

Let me state again, I DESPISE IMPERIAL.

I simply can't think Imperial and it drives me and my players up a wall thinking in Imperial.

Squares are SO much easier to work with IMO.


----------



## justanobody

Fifth Element said:


> That's quite a spiel. "Sad throwback", "devolve" and "ugly head" are not exactly productive-discussion-friendly words.



It was an exaggeration.



> Are you referring to me, specifically? I've never played 4E. I don't judge games until I've played them.




I misread your sig to say "I am not some 4e fanboy" instead of "don't think I am a 4e fanboy".

Signatures don't show up on the quote page.....


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Thasmodious said:


> [That 4E is much more combat-centric is] a colored perception by people who want to see it that way, no more true than when the 2e grogs used the same line of attack against 3e.



Just out of curiosity, what is the _motive_ for this?  Why, exactly, do people who see 4E as they've described "want" to see it that way?  What do they gain from seeing it that way?

As far as I can tell, those people -- me, included -- who can't stomach 4E are (potentially and/or eventually) losing out on being able to find lots of healthy games with lots of players.  We're losing out on the fun of reading new D&D sourcebooks (because, yeah, like a poster way upthread mentioned, I enjoy reading D&D books -- pre-4E -- just to read them).

The only thing I can figure out that I, personally, have gained from my dislike of 4E is the end of purchasing new books, which is saving me quite a bit of money.  But (1) again, I enjoy reading gaming books, and (2) frankly, I have enough disposable income that the money I'm not spending just isn't that big a deal.

So why do we "want" to see 4E the way people have (IMO accurately) described it?


----------



## Thasmodious

Jeff Wilder said:


> Just out of curiosity, what is the _motive_ for this?  Why, exactly, do people who see 4E as they've described "want" to see it that way?  What do they gain from seeing it that way?
> 
> As far as I can tell, those people -- me, included -- who can't stomach 4E are (potentially and/or eventually) losing out on being able to find lots of healthy games with lots of players.  We're losing out on the fun of reading new D&D sourcebooks (because, yeah, like a poster way upthread mentioned, I enjoy reading D&D books -- pre-4E -- just to read them).
> 
> The only thing I can figure out that I, personally, have gained from my dislike of 4E is the end of purchasing new books, which is saving me quite a bit of money.  But (1) again, I enjoy reading gaming books, and (2) frankly, I have enough disposable income that the money I'm not spending just isn't that big a deal.
> 
> So why do we "want" to see 4E the way people have (IMO accurately) described it?




That's the million dollar question.  But many of the group that could be classed as the "haters" have hated 4e since months before its release.  A single detail or two that became known early was their first reason (powers, frost giants, 1-1-1, etc), but it snowballed as more things became known.  It's not really some big mystery.  People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary.  They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.  

You don't hear from many people who had an open mind all the way, looked forward to the release of a new edition, then thought it was complete crap and will never play it again.  People made their decisions months in advance.  I went the same route.  When I first heard the announcement, my reaction was negative.  Then I thought about it a bit, remembered how I've loved every edition of the game, even 3e, which I was very skeptical about before release.  So I decided to not sweat it this time around and just look forward to a new edition.

And yes, when people playing the game are telling those who "despise" it that despite their perception, the value of the ruleset is that it disappears into the background and it actually helps you play the game the way you want to play it, that is evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Thasmodious said:


> That's the million dollar question. [...] People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary.  They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.



Just to make sure I'm understanding, the reason people who dislike 4E "want" to perceive it as too combat-centric is because they're rationalizing other negative perceptions they've formed about 4E?

Okay ... so why did they "want" to form those other negative perceptions about 4E?

In your view, is it possible that people are saying they perceive 4E to be too combat-centric because they perceive 4E to be too combat-centric?

(Do people who perceive Ben & Jerry's Chocolate Fudge Brownie as "too chocolatey" _want_ to perceive it that way?)


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ProfessorCirno said:


> So you're angry that people _disagree with you_?




I'm open to reasoned discussion of why a person likes or dislikes any edition and at least implied as much in the post you quoted.



ProfessorCirno said:


> So those two bolded things?  Both were brought up in this thread in a non-insulting manner, in fully intelligent and understandable posts meant to encourage further discussion.  You have stated that these are nothing but buzzwords, and that the person who made those posts is just trying to attack others.  You have very pointedly reduced several posts with discussions following to nothing but an angry tirade.




I didn't reduce the post to an angry tirade. Many of those posts espoused detailed reasons for a dislike of 4E. But then used the buzzwords to sum up their point. Saying that an RPG like 4E is a "tactical wargame" or a "boardgame" belittles the game and by association belittles the players of said game. Discussing the specific changes made that lead you to hold this opinion doesn't offend players of the game as much as claiming that their RPG of choice actually isn't an RPG.



ProfessorCirno said:


> That's why people refer to a rabid fanbase - because to you, "discussing 4e" equates to "not saying things I dislike."




I have never said this. See above for ways to discuss the many flaws you see in 4E without pushing the buttons of those who enjoy the game. Some of those who enjoy the game might even agree with some of the elements you dislike.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Edit: Furthermore, I've seen several posters comment on new gamers refering to 4e as reminding them of WoW.  And you know what?  They said it in a _positive way_.  I'm sorry, but unless the poster IS making just an angry tirade, cutting their post and, more importantly, their thoughts and opinions, is what makes so many people here think of *RABIES*.  They don't see someone discussing a game at that point - they see someone defending it with gnashing teeth.




Re: WoW - Most people calling 4E "*too* Wow" are not saying it positively.

People tend to get angry and gnash their teeth when they feel someone else is belittling their favorite hobby. I have to admit I used to act the same way. I joked about "Magic: the Addiction" and LARPers. I tried the former and found it enjoyable. I realized that players of the latter enjoy the game. I don't need to understand why they do and I don't need to go on messageboards related to their hobby and belittle the game and its players.

And that's MY humble opinion.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Fifth Element said:


> This might be an apt analogy if the cookbook did not clearly contain most of the same ingredients as previous editions. The spices have certainly been changed, and maybe they added a little something that wasn't there before or taken something away, but claiming that the ingredients have changed completely is ridiculous.




No, *you* think the ingredients are the exact same.  Others do not.

That's why cookbook metaphors are bad.  because if we can't agree on what D&D is, do you really think we'll be able to agree on what metaphor to use? ;p

Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical *RABIES* from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.

I should trademark the whole all caps bolded *RABIES* thing...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Jeff Wilder said:


> Okay ... so why did they "want" to form those other negative perceptions about 4E?




I don't know about them, but I wanted to be very negative about 2E back in the day. I was out of work and didn't have the money to buy new books. I invested alot of time learning 1E and didn't want to learn all the small changes made to the game. So I found every issue I could with the game because I wanted to be negative about the game so I could stick with 1E and "justify" my decision. Who was I trying to justify my decision to? I really don't know. I feel it was very odd to negatively slam the new edition just because I wanted to play the previous. Especially in hindsight knowing that I eventually bought the books.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I didn't reduce the post to an angry tirade. Many of those posts espoused detailed reasons for a dislike of 4E. But then used the buzzwords to sum up their point. Saying that an RPG like 4E is a "tactical wargame" or a "boardgame" belittles the game and by association belittles the players of said game. Discussing the specific changes made that lead you to hold this opinion doesn't offend players of the game as much as claiming that their RPG of choice actually isn't an RPG.




But you're clinging to the buzzword and ignoring the three paragraph post.  Buzzwords don't exist because we nefariously want to use them to drive other people to extremes, buzzwords exist because human beings like to keep things simple.  That buzzword is there for the "tl;dr" people (though quite frankly I'd perfer they simply be booted off the internet entirely, personally).  it's a way to start your point of view: "I think 4e is mostly like a tactical wargame.  This is because blah blah blah."

Buzzwords are only bad if the poster ONLY uses buzzwords, or if the other party only pays attention to them.



> I have never said this. See above for ways to discuss the many flaws you see in 4E without pushing the buttons of those who enjoy the game. Some of those who enjoy the game might even agree with some of the elements you dislike.




Again, the problem is that the use of buzzwords isn't a bad thing unless, as I stated earlier, it's part of an angry tirade or the person is purposefully using them to be insulting.  You can't ignore a person's opinion just because he used a buzzword you dislike.  Well, you CAN, but it's a bad thing to do.



> Re: WoW - Most people calling 4E "*too* Wow" are not saying it positively.
> 
> People tend to get angry and gnash their teeth when they feel someone else is belittling their favorite hobby. I have to admit I used to act the same way. I joked about "Magic: the Addiction" and LARPers. I tried the former and found it enjoyable. I realized that players of the latter enjoy the game. I don't need to understand why they do and I don't need to go on messageboards related to their hobby and belittle the game and its players.
> 
> And that's MY humble opinion.




One person's belittling is another's honest perspective.  See...well, the posts right above yours, where one poster adamantly refuses to believe you can find something wrong with 4e without there being some ulterior or nefarious (I like this word) motive behind it.  Good lord, this is the attitude of a *cult member*, not a hobbiest.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

ProfessorCirno said:


> But you're clinging to the buzzword and ignoring the three paragraph post.  Buzzwords don't exist because we nefariously want to use them to drive other people to extremes, buzzwords exist because human beings like to keep things simple.  That buzzword is there for the "tl;dr" people (though quite frankly I'd perfer they simply be booted off the internet entirely, personally).  it's a way to start your point of view: "I think 4e is mostly like a tactical wargame.  This is because blah blah blah."
> 
> Buzzwords are only bad if the poster ONLY uses buzzwords, or if the other party only pays attention to them.




Buzzwords are dangerous to use for the very reason you state. They are the written equivalent of the focal point of a painting. A single buzzword can derail a person from reading your entire post and react in the way the buzzword has evolved. Some buzzwords here obviously anger other posters, yet some decide to continue to use them. I try to read around the buzzwords (even though their use irritates me personally) and get to the meat of the person's opinion. It is only when the poster only uses buzzwords that I get angry. So we agree on at least one point.


----------



## jensun

ProfessorCirno said:


> Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical *RABIES* from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.



Repeatedly saying something does not make it true. 

Personally I see more bile from a small number of people determined to hate 4e who crop up endlessly in threads about it to tell people how wrong they are to like the game.


----------



## Windjammer

justanobody said:


> Add in one damnig thing such as distances measures in map grip squares that takes shift perspective from 1st person to 3rd person, so that things are looked at from the POV of the player



I've heard that many times before, and I agree with those who don't think this observation is ultimately telling. Mind you, we had this debate when 3.5 came out and the chapter on combat in the revised 3.5 precisely had this switch from feet to squares. 

What bothers me is less the specification of in-game distance in terms of out-of-game distance than the quantities that go with those distances. *They all are arbitrarily nerfed to fit a skirmish game and don't give a hoot about in-game plausibility.* Take teleport. A seriously high-level "monster", like Graz'zt,  can only teleport 6 squares . How ridiculous is that? Completely. Because, you know, it would really suck in a skirmish game if the DM who controls Graz'zt, upon facing defeat, simply teleports away. And many 4E fans would chime in here and say "exactly! we want to avoid that!".

And here I don't follow. 4E seems written as if the rules need to tell the DM that he shouldn't teleport Graz'zt away since that takes away from the fun of the (skirmish aspect of) the game when
1. this is precisely the sort of thing a self-respecting RPG should leave to a self-respecting DM, and 
2. the reason for not teleporting Graz'zt away shouldn't be rationalized by recourse to a consideration that only concerns the skirmish game perspective.

But it's not just the DM who's now restricted in his mechanical choices by considerations that only pertain to skirmish games. It's the players too. I just watched "The Gamers II: Dorkness Rising", which has gone onto Youtube 5 days ago. At the end of the film, one of the players is granted an _Unlimited Wish_. The players go extactic because it's (quote) "the single most powerful element in the whole game". They also berate the player who was granted the Wish (her PC is level 8) for spending it on something (way) short of wishing herself to become an immortal.

And that's the very thing that couldn't even happen in 4E. I'm not saying how 4E is bad since it doesn't cater for players wishing to become deities at level 8. It's rather that 4E doesn't want the player to have _such a choice_ at her disposal. The game openly distrusts players to have resources that would take the skirmish game out of control. And that's where the RPGA influence comes in. RPGA needs to restrict the options mechanically available to players lest each game deteriorates into absolute chaos. And that would be because the most important factor which otherwise avoids these deteriorations is missing in any RPGA setup: the respect players and DM have for one another at a social level, their desire to have a good enough time at the table for this group to meet again the week after_. _The RPGA is all about being a place where players do not have to deal with (and hence can legitimately forego) those social constraints and consideration.  As I wrote elsewhere, the designers of 4E are very, very outspoken in their downplaying the fact that D&D at its core - this being the home table - is a primarily social game with social responsibilities where "the game" understood purely mechanically takes a back seat. (Contrast chess: I don't play chess with someone to enjoy his company, but to enjoy the challenge of the game.) This is really built into the mechanics, and no amount of assertion to the contrary in the DMG - the book which least impacts RPGA play - can argue that away. Because we're talking about things that need support in the mechanics, and not just be paid lip-service. In particular, a ruleset shouldn't be written with the aim to pre-empt the regulatory (and otherwise contributing) role of social considerations.

So yes, 4E very clearly limits the options on both sides of the screen, and it has its good reasons to do so. On some days, I share those reasons and play 4E; because, to be honest, it takes away of the whole aspect of continually having to play more cleverly as a DM than your players to outstrip their ways to break your game by recourse to elements the (3.5.) game allows. (The film I mentioned, The Gamers II, does a fantastic job at documenting this facet of 3rd edition play, as did its prequel.)
On other days I wince at the restrictions 4E places on my behalf, and happily go with playing 3E. WotC produced two very good games, and I treasure the fact that I'm not bound by time to play only one of them.

Hey, and now I'm off this board for the rest of the day because I'm heading over to the _Weekend in the Realms _ event, where I DM 4E RPGA play 9 hours non-stop. Wish me luck!


----------



## justanobody

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't know about them, but I wanted to be very negative about 2E back in the day. I was out of work and didn't have the money to buy new books. I invested alot of time learning 1E and didn't want to learn all the small changes made to the game. So I found every issue I could with the game because I wanted to be negative about the game so I could stick with 1E and "justify" my decision. Who was I trying to justify my decision to? I really don't know. I feel it was very odd to negatively slam the new edition just because I wanted to play the previous. Especially in hindsight knowing that I eventually bought the books.




I didn't like AD&D when it came out, but not because of the change of rules, but the books themselves. The covers were nice, but there were just a mess to read. The game play was great! But I still don't like the books.

Some people may just not like what they don't like as simple as that, and those people not liking certain things mean those things take the enjoyment out of an enjoyment product for them if they are included.

So maybe those people not liking something don't need to justify why they don't like it, but other people just need to accept that not everyone will like the same things?

Some don't like 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th, or various parts of them enough that the entire system turns them off of it. That is ok. They don't have to like it if they don't want, but others shouldn't treat them like some genital wart because they don't like it as much as they do.

@Windjammer: have fun running your Weekend in the Skirmish Realms!


----------



## SlyFlourish

*Straw Men and Actions Taken*

So I'm still reading from a lot of people who are disappointed in 4e for one reason or another. A lot of these post that they never either purchased the books or played a game of 4e. First, its hard to believe in people who say the system is totally flawed who haven't at least tried it out. They don't have to if they don't want to, but their judgement matters little. I can't judge how good or bad Mutants and Masterminds is without actually seeing how it runs at the table.

I also see a lot of straw-man arguments. It's too WoW like. It's just a tabletop mini game. It's a video game now. It's D&D Easy-Mode. These statements have no use at all for 4e is clearly none of these things. If it was too WoW like, I'd have to be playing it on my computer (Frankly, I wish I could).

Like any RPG, 4e is what you make of it. Want a story-focused or character-focused game? Steer it that way. Steer your players that way. Skip minis and tiles completely and do everything vocally. As long as your players and you can all accept that things will be played a little looser for cinematic reasons, I see no reason why this can't work.

I think its definitely safe to say that 4e has a lot more rigidity in combat with both movement and placement than previous versions have. There is no doubt that it was influenced by the minis game. It's also interesting to see that D&D formed from Chainmail, a tabletop strategy game and now seems to be moving back in that direction. However, there's a lot of roleplay in 4e as well. The system for skill challenges is one. I ran my first encounter in 4e in my living room with no figures and no table. It was just conversation and skill checks. It defined the whole rest of our adventure.

This isn't all to defend 4e or not, although I realize I'm steering that way. The point is, we can poke 4e in the eye all we want but it's here now. Wizards isn't about to switch back to 3.5 (or 2nd or 1st). They're going to be pumping out the books and the new minis lines. Other publishers will soon put out more 4e material. You don't have to buy it. There are dozens of systems out there to play. Sure, its hard to find a group for some of them, but all you need is a handful of people.

Whether you love or hate 4e, you need to decide what you're going to do about it. Just complaining for the sake of complaining serves little purpose.

Worse, it can hurt the hobby overall. When I read that someone wanted to run at 4e game at their FLGS but was ridiculed into leaving by old timers who decided they hated 4e and wanted no one around them playing it - that really hurts our hobby.

A lot of people find 4e to be a lot of fun. I know I do. I'm a lot happier with character growth and combat in 4e than I was with 3.5. I know there are a lot of people who feel the opposite. They like the system they had. There's no reason we all can't enjoy the games we enjoy without having to stretch out the other and stick it full of needles.

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Tetsubo

Thasmodious said:


> Heh.  How many times did we see that exact same post (except a -1 to the numbers) when 3e came out, word for word, just replace WotC with TSR and add in a few references to the evil takeover that will end RPGs forever?




You didn't see it from *me*. I fully embraced 3E as I knew that 2E was seriously broken. 3.5 is not seriously broken and did not need to be completely scrapped and replaced with a tactical miniatures game. Try again.


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> No, *you* think the ingredients are the exact same.  Others do not.



My point is essentially this: the differences between 4E and 3E are miniscule compared to the differences between 4E and Monopoly (both are games, or foods in the analogy, but very different types). The difference is in the details, not the essential parts.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical *RABIES* from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.



Professor, I think we're all getting tired of this. You've posted this in many 4E discussion threads, and it insults a great many posters, and misrepresents most of them. It doesn't help any discussion in any way.

Particularly when you post it in response to me, since I have never played 4E and haven't judged it yet. I'm getting tired of typing that but I've had to many, many times. I've sigged it but it doesn't help.


----------



## Fifth Element

ProfessorCirno said:


> Good lord, this is the attitude of a *cult member*, not a hobbiest.



And we get *this* from the guy claiming 4E likers are always attacking 3E likers.


----------



## Hussar

Windjammer said:


> Psion, you see the button next to your name in this post? That will take you to the post the quote is from. Problem on EnWorld is that everytime I quote you, I miss out all the bits that were quotes in your post. (Beat's me why that should be so, but there it is.) Here is the post I was quoting from. It shows that you agree to someone else calling the RPGA influence on 4E to be a conspiracy theory.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ds-coasts-target-audience-12.html#post4520332
> 
> People should be aware that the RPGA altered its principles since 4E was chartered, and in some respect made it more like non-tournament play. For instance, the DM is allowed to alter the CRs (hence monsters, traps, ...) of the encounters _depending on how much the group is struggling with it_. So (a) the influence of RPGA standards on 4E play at home isn't as ugly as it were if the RPGA would have kept their standards unaltered, and (b) everything I just said adds to the theory that RPGA play set a fundamental standard for how 4E was designed: WotC using 4E to bring tournament and home play (of D&D) into closer proximity of each other.




I responded to this already, and Psion hit it on the head.  It wasn't a conspiracy theory in that I thought anything nefarious going on.  It was a conspiracy theory because I didn't have any supporting evidence.  I was going with my gut and stringing together a number of observations.  But, nope, don't have anything concrete.

But, thanks for giving concrete evidence to me.  It's nice when a hunch bears fruit.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> /snip to get to the point I'd like to talk about:
> 
> Play sessions are combats chained together through dialogue. An encounter is either a combat or a skill-based combat (and the skill-based combat has mechanical problems pointed out elsewhere on the boards).




KM, do you run modules?  Do you read modules with any frequency.  If you did, you would see that pretty much every module ever produced for any edition (although there are exceptions of course) are nothing but combats chained together through dialogue.  Adventure design has followed this paradigm for decades and is nothing new.  The resolution mechanics might be new, but, the basic form is exactly the same.



> Perhaps the strongest case, the one that sold me, was that the roles were once "dungeon exploration" roles (trap guy, swiss-army-knife guy, fighting guy, recovery guy), and now they're expressly "combat" roles (fast guy, healing guy, crowd-control guy, damage absorbing guy).




Sort of.  What you have now is a lot more blurring between those "dungeon exploration" roles so that you aren't forcing players to play certain classes.  "Oh, no thief/rogue, guess you're going to get screwed by this adventure.  Who has to play the cleric this time around? Etc".   



> It can be (and has been) vastly overstated before, but I'm beginning to get why this impression is there. It is there because, yeah, combat is a bigger part of what the game is about in 4e. Even though it was always a huge part of what the game was about, it was never the ultimate end point, just an important part of getting to that end point. Now, it seems to be the endpoint. Everything is cleaned up and refined around that purpose.
> 
> For many critics, that is all well and good, but it leaves the parts of the game that the liked (exploration, for instance) by the wayside.




Really?  Combat was never the ultimate point?  There were no "boss monsters" in adventures?  The end point was almost always combat.  I'd say always, but some pedantic bastard would come and make an issue out of it.  

Considering how easy it is to do conversions for modules, according to those who have been doing the converstions, and those conversions are now far closer to the earlier edition adventures, I'm going to say that the parts of the game you really liked, like exploration, are every bit as alive in 4e as they were earlier.


----------



## Keith Robinson

Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:

1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed.  They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection.  It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.

This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection.  Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.

I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use.  That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.

2) What does it matter what edition we play?  I love 3.5 and will continue to play it for as long as I have players who also want to play.  I think in many ways age does have something to do with it.  Each new iteration of the game is based on the pleasures of the present generation and maybe the system we like best simply reflects this.  I am 40 years old and I don't like the direction of 4ed - but, it simply reflects the demands of the 21st century - bigger, faster, cooler, louder (none of that meant as a criticism).  No one should begrudge that.  The game WILL move on, and when 5ed comes along, no doubts there will be plenty of people who hate it, as it won't reflect their ideas of how the game should be played (ideas which are more than likely entrenched in their own generation).

So, keep things simple: don't buy what you won't use and be don't be offended when the new generation don't like your old school ways.

I've already moved forward in standing still, and I'm very comfortable with myself right now in this regard.


----------



## Silver Moon

The Kyngdoms said:


> Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:




wow, a post with calm, cool and collected logic!




The Kyngdoms said:


> 1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed..... I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use.  That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.




Or alternately, learn to adapt the material.  I've had no trouble adapting material made for any edition to other editions.   Yeah, it takes some time, but that's far better than letting all your prior investment go to waste.  For example, the 3E module "Beast of Burden" from Dungeon #100 worked great with my 1st Edition group with minimal modification.  



The Kyngdoms said:


> 2) What does it matter what edition we play?  I love 3.5 and will continue to play it for as long as I have players who also want to play.



Exactly.   My 1st Edition group that began in 1982 still plays 1st Edition on a regular basis.  I've also played in 3E groups and have ongoing Gameday modules using other systems, both D20 and non-D20.   As long as you have players you can have a game, the books don't go bad.


----------



## Jack99

The Kyngdoms said:


> Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:
> 
> 1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed.  They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection.  It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.
> 
> This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection.  Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.
> 
> I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use.  That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.




While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to. 

I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.


----------



## Rel

A reminder to everybody to keep this conversation civil and polite.  Part of that includes not assigning motivations to those on the other side of the discussion, no matter which side that may be.


----------



## Vocenoctum

Banshee16 said:


> The feel of the game is just changing too much for me to be excited about the new edition.
> 
> Looking at books like the new FR campaign, with the much larger type, bigger spacing, and greater use of large images, I can tell when I'm getting charged more for far less content, and that's adding to my inability to get excited about what they're doing with the game.
> 
> At this point, they money that I was spending has gone more towards electronic entertainment, at this point.  I guess if WotC is happy with that.
> 
> Banshee




I posted a long time back, right around the time of release, of how this edition drove me to WoW. Every little kick pushed me from someone that bought 90% of the books, so someone that currently only owns the PHB.


----------



## Andor

Thasmodious said:


> You don't hear from many people who had an open mind all the way, looked forward to the release of a new edition, then thought it was complete crap and will never play it again.  People made their decisions months in advance.  I went the same route.  When I first heard the announcement, my reaction was negative.  Then I thought about it a bit, remembered how I've loved every edition of the game, even 3e, which I was very skeptical about before release.  So I decided to not sweat it this time around and just look forward to a new edition.




You don't? There are dozens of us on this board. I play dozens of different games. I've seen many different new editions. I was looking forward to 4e, bought the books, and have played multiple characters in multiple games. And I don't care for 4e. It's a nebish game in it's own right and it feels less like D&D than it does like Earthdawn. 

Furthermore I'm playing in a group that is new to gaming. The GM picked 4e because they had few e books and it was the new thing. And he is absolutely _floundering_ outside of combat. Has no idea what to do or how to resolve things. But roll initiative and suddenly everything works. 

I've never seen that before, and while I don't put all the blame on 4e, it surely doesn't help.


----------



## Psion

The Kyngdoms said:


> 1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed.  They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection.  It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.
> 
> This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection.  Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.
> 
> I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use.  That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.




Or alternately, pick an edition and stick with it.

3e/D20 is an embarrassment of riches for me, support-wise. I could run things for years (maybe even decades) and still not get to the stuff I have in my collection that I want to get to.



Silver Moon said:


> Or alternately, learn to adapt the material.  I've had no trouble adapting material made for any edition to other editions.   Yeah, it takes some time, but that's far better than letting all your prior investment go to waste.




It's my experience/opinion that only certain sorts of materials convert well or are worth the effort. I lurve Return to the Tomb of Horrors. Changes in the placement of creatures on the power spectrum made this a real bear to convert to 3e. Would I do this for a lesser 1e/2e module? I think not.


----------



## teach

Jack99 said:


> While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to.
> 
> I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.




I think I have the same view.  I don't view my purchasing habits as "supporting" an edition or WOTC, rather, I'm buying things that I will be able to enjoy and use. Eventually, though, these books are going to be sitting on my shelf more than being off it, because I'll have moved on to something new.  However, I still take my old planescape campaign boxed set off the shelf and reread it, but it's days as something I use at my gaming table are likely past.


----------



## Hussar

Andor said:


> You don't? There are dozens of us on this board. I play dozens of different games. I've seen many different new editions. I was looking forward to 4e, bought the books, and have played multiple characters in multiple games. And I don't care for 4e. It's a nebish game in it's own right and it feels less like D&D than it does like Earthdawn.
> 
> Furthermore I'm playing in a group that is new to gaming. The GM picked 4e because they had few e books and it was the new thing. And he is absolutely _floundering_ outside of combat. Has no idea what to do or how to resolve things. But roll initiative and suddenly everything works.
> 
> I've never seen that before, and while I don't put all the blame on 4e, it surely doesn't help.




See, this confuses me.

I look at my old Basic and Expert books and there is almost nothing in those books for what to do outside of combat.  Very, very little.  Yet, even when I was ten or eleven years old, learning to play without the benefit of any experienced gamers around me, and without the benefit of a plethora of other role play games, both computer and tabletop, I still got the idea of what to do outside of combat.

There's a very large amount of advice in the DMG on how to run an adventure or campaign that centers on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with combat.  Certainly far and away more than what I got when I started.

So, I kinda wonder how someone could fail to get the concept.  Assuming, of course, the person had been exposed to role playing in SOME form previously.


----------



## Halivar

Psion said:


> It's my experience/opinion that only certain sorts of materials convert well or are worth the effort.



This was certainly true of 3.x. Converting modules from 1e/2e was a complete *chore*. As much as I wanted to, I couldn't find the time to put in the effort. In 4E, I can convert a 3.x Dungeon adventure in minutes. Monster at the wrong level now? I remake it from scratch, easy as pie. As soon as the current story arc in my Wednesday game is finished, I plan on revisiting some of those 1e adventures to see what I can squeeze out of them.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Hussar said:


> ...I'm going to say that the parts of the game you really liked, like exploration, are every bit as alive in 4e as they were earlier.




I'll go back to my earlier point and say that without a self-consistent world to explore, exploration is not as alive as it was in other editions.

Hussar, I agree that a lot of modules in earlier editions of D&D focused on combat. But it seems clear that 4e does focus on combat more than earlier editions did. Just going by page and word count devoted to combat options, equipment list, magic items list, utility spells, animal companions, henchmen, leadership, cohorts, summoning spells, page and word count devoted to skills, page and word count devoted to default setting, page and word count deovted to back story of monsters, tables for getting lost, encountering wandering harlots, types of madness, types of gems, historical interpretations of side effects of herbs, rules for building castles, rules for establishing strongholds, level titles, bards, random dungeon trappings, planar setting information - it is clear that 4e core focuses more on combat than on exploration and other things as compared to earlier editions. I mean, that list took me literally a minute or two to type, off the top of my head - there are probably a zillion other non-combat, exploration things emphasized back in earlier editions moreso than in 4e.

Windjammer, great post. 



			
				Windjammer said:
			
		

> And here I don't follow. 4E seems written as if the rules need to tell the DM that he shouldn't teleport Graz'zt away since that takes away from the fun of the (skirmish aspect of) the game when
> 1. this is precisely the sort of thing a self-respecting RPG should leave to a self-respecting DM, and
> 2. the reason for not teleporting Graz'zt away shouldn't be rationalized by recourse to a consideration that only concerns the skirmish game perspective.
> 
> ...
> 
> So yes, 4E very clearly limits the options on both sides of the screen, and it has its good reasons to do so. On some days, I share those reasons and play 4E ...
> 
> ... On other days I wince at the restrictions 4E places on my behalf, and happily go with playing 3E




I'm in the same boat. 4E is a good game. It's fun. I play it, I DM it, and I enjoy it. 3.5e is also good, and fun, and I play it and DM it. They're just different, and frankly I wish that 4E would have blown 3.5e completely out of the water so I wouldn't have to keep the old ruleset in my head (along with all the other games I play!).


----------



## Hussar

Ycore Rixle - you are mixing a few editions together there, but, I see your point.

However, there's absolutely nothing in 4e that prevents you from having any of that.  Yes, it is not presented in the core books, that's true.  But, it can be done and done fairly easily.

The problem with your point is that you mix editions together and claim all this massive support.  A page on gems in the DMG is not massive support and the fact that it appears only in one editions DMG and no other pretty much speaks to how important it was to gamers or how much it got used at the table.

But, where I think the problem is is in the terminology.  To me, an "exploration game" is one where you start in the bottom right corner of the map and go forth and see the world.  Well, all that stuff about what's in that world is the DM's job to create.  

The rules are simply there to resolve events.  Nothing more.  When the results of a given action matter and are in question, that's where the rules should step in.  All that extra stuff that was in the DMG or whatever book, was just so much wasted space as far as I was concerned.

You bring up the gems for example.  How many people actually used that?  How many people actually use the rules for getting lost?  How many people actually rolled on the random harlot table?

I'm going to take a stab and say very few.  If it was lots, you'd see it still in use.

I've been harping on this for a while, but, to me, the best rules set is the one that you use and use often.  If it almost never comes up, do you really need rules for it?

Anyway, I've gotten a bit off topic.  My basic point is, for my definition of "exploration game" which is traveling in character into an unknown area and finding out what's there, I don't see how 4e is any different than any other edition.  Heck, I look at the World's Largest Dungeon, which I did run and realize that it would work considerably better using 4e rules.  That's about as "exploration game" as it gets.  20 3e levels of nothing but exploring the unknown.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Some people are insinuating that an exploration type game is impossible without heavy simulationism.


----------



## AllisterH

re: 4E is all about combat

No, the game isn't all about combat. The game has changed so that no CLASS is a combat-only role.

Let's say you have a standard party of rogue, wizard, cleric and fighter. In 4E, all 4 of these classes are expected to carry their weight in combat AND each one of them is expected to carry their weight in NON-Combat role.

Which I like.

re: 4e is WoW
Reason why I find this comparison meaningless is that 4E has actually moved away from WoW moreso than 3E. Translating 4E to a real-time game is pretty much impossible whereas a 3E conversion is just plain brute computing power.

Yet 4E is the WoW game? Do people really play WoW?

Now, if people had said, "4E is a Disgaea clone". THEN, we're talking about something that's valid...


----------



## Psion

thecasualoblivion said:


> Some people are insinuating that an exploration type game is impossible without heavy simulationism.




Impossible? Some people who?

Let's not play excluded middle here, or attribute things to people here that they didn't say.

Were you to say "some people don't find it satisfactory to do an exploration type game without mechanical support", that would be something that was said. No proclamation about what you would find satisfactory or that it wasn't doable at all.


----------



## Hussar

thecasualoblivion said:


> Some people are insinuating that an exploration type game is impossible without heavy simulationism.




Ahh, is that the link I'm missing?  I totally didn't get that then.

Interesting question.  Can you do exploration without heavy simulation?  I know you certainly can do it with heavy simulation.  How does it work without?

I guess, for me, because I would focus more on the encounters and the events that occur during the exploration, the whole sim part of things takes a bit of a back seat.  Not totally ignored, but, not the focus either.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Re: Assigning motives.

I'd like to be clear that I do not assume that people posting negative 4E buzzwords have a motivation to anger others. I was only trying to point out that buzzwords themselves invoke certain feelings. Politicians use them to invoke a positive image of themselves and a negative image of their opponent. Here on ENWorld I hope that people are innocently using them as shorthand for their argument. But the very nature of negative buzzwords can spark a flamewar faster than you could imagine. If that was the poster's original intent everyone knows that's not following the guidelines here. If that was not the poster's original intent, then they have caused something then didn't intend to cause. So, IMHO, the use of negative buzzwords has a detrimantal effect on these boards no matter the motives of the poster.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Psion said:


> Impossible? Some people who?
> 
> Let's not play excluded middle here, or attribute things to people here that they didn't say.
> 
> Were you to say "some people don't find it satisfactory to do an exploration type game without mechanical support", that would be something that was said. No proclamation about what you would find satisfactory or that it wasn't doable at all.




Mechanical support for background/setting information is simulationist.


----------



## Mad Mac

> Were you to say "some people don't find it satisfactory to do an exploration type game without mechanical support", that would be something that was said. No proclamation about what you would find satisfactory or that it wasn't doable at all.




  I'm curious. What sort of mechanical support are you missing? I can understand feeling that the game focuses mostly on combat, even if I disagree. But most of the building blocks for exploration are still there, as far as I can tell. You still have skills that work mostly the same as in 3rd edition, even though they've been consolidated a great deal. You still have rituals and utility powers that let you fly, turn invisible, enhance skill use, ect. These out of combat abilities are more limited then before, but they are still availible, in some cases earlier then ever. (Like the Eladrins teleport ability at level 1)

  You can still sneak around and poke things with 10' poles, and I think the trap rules are actually an improvement. What mechanics are you looking for exactly?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, there's absolutely nothing in 4e that prevents you from having any of that.




No one is saying that 4e is preventative, that it's impossible to have. 

People are saying that the rules don't support it as much out of the box as they once did. 

The thing no one is saying would be hyperbolic panic that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, and could probably be attributed to "NNNG! 4e BAAAAD!"

The thing that people *are* saying has a good chunk of evidence to support it.



> My basic point is, for my definition of "exploration game" which is traveling in character into an unknown area and finding out what's there, I don't see how 4e is any different than any other edition. Heck, I look at the World's Largest Dungeon, which I did run and realize that it would work considerably better using 4e rules. That's about as "exploration game" as it gets. 20 3e levels of nothing but exploring the unknown.




#1: Reduction of resource management to favor per-encounter balancing
#2: Lack of things to "discover" (monster fluff and gem types and whatnot)
#3: Same-ness in dungeon exploration roles (anyone can use rituals, everyone fights well, anyone trained in Persuasion makes a good "face," Healing Surges obliterate the need for long-term healing, anyone can find traps, traps pose a combat threat not a "gotcha" threat)
#4: Greater ambiguity about hit points (the old argument that if hps are abstract, why is the only thing that reduces them "hits" that would inflict physical damage?)

These problems, for instance, were much smaller (if they existed at all) in earlier editions than they are here. 

These problems help facilitate a game that is based around combat mostly because _that is what the 4e rules are based around, mostly_. They are at their best when you're shuffling little pieces of plastic around a mat. Everything else seems to be a secondary consideration. 

WLD being a "discovery" game is pretty weak, too. It certainly has that aspect, but WLD is a dungeon grind, and that means that it wants you to get in a lot of fights.


----------



## AllisterH

Kamikaze Midget said:


> #3: Same-ness in dungeon exploration roles (anyone can use rituals, everyone fights well, anyone trained in Persuasion makes a good "face," Healing Surges obliterate the need for long-term healing, anyone can find traps, traps pose a combat threat not a "gotcha" threat)
> .




Wow, this I really have to argue against.

Actually, this feature actually ENCOURAGES non-combat encounters. When only one or certain "class" can take part in a specific non-combat encounter, a DM is more likely to have COMBAT encounters than before.

Let's use a non-combat investigative encounter where there was a murder. A classic whodunit. By your own admission, any character could take part. One could be the face specialist, one can focus on rituals trying to solve the murder another can be the streetwise expert.

Yet in the previous editions, when of the classic 4 class party (thief, fighter, cleric and wizard) only 2 of them could take part you expect more DMs tp design said encounters?

I'll use another example. Deckers in the previous editions of Shadworun had their own sub-game and you know what? As a SR GM, I purposely would not have "hacking encounters" since the result at the table was that I would have 4 other players twiddling their fingers and only 1 player actually interested.

So guess what the new edition of SR did? It made hacking/decking no longer a one-class subgame.

We didn't game that often so the D&D way of "you will get to shine but you'll have to wait a few sessions"  was not something that worked for my group.

I fully believe that this is also one of the reasons for the redesign. WOTC has to cater to gamers that no longer satisfied with having a game where characters get to shine only at certain situations/levels.

So please, explain how the previous edition separation of noncimbat roles actually encourages a DM to make use of non-combat encounters because I'm truly not seeing it?


----------



## Mad Mac

> #1: Reduction of resource management to favor per-encounter balancing
> #2: Lack of things to "discover" (monster fluff and gem types and whatnot)
> #3: Same-ness in dungeon exploration roles (anyone can use rituals, everyone fights well, anyone trained in Persuasion makes a good "face," Healing Surges obliterate the need for long-term healing, anyone can find traps, traps pose a combat threat not a "gotcha" threat)
> #4: Greater ambiguity about hit points (the old argument that if hps are abstract, why is the only thing that reduces them "hits" that would inflict physical damage?)




Hmmm...

"Reduction of resource management to favor per-encounter balancing" and "Healing Surges obliterate the need for long-term healing" seem to contradict each other, in my mind. 

  Healing Surges spread the need for healing management out amongst the party members instead of placing it on the Cleric (or healing wand) HPs are still a limited resource that needs to be managed, more so than in 3rd edition where you could spend gold for highly efficient out of combat healing. Past the first few levels, there is argueably less healing availible in 4th edition than in 3rd. 

  Long-term healing isn't an issue in 3rd either, you either camp for the night so the Cleric can restore his healing spells, or so the party can regain their healing surges, or everyone can suck on the magic cure stick. Logistically speaking, there's no meaningful change, only in flavor. 

  Daily's are similar. You have daily powers spread out through the group instead of concentrated on the spellcasters. 4th edition spellcasters are certainly less hamstrung after blowing their daily powers, but I haven't seen a 4th edition group yet that didn't have to worry about when to spend their dailies, or if they were willing to press on without them. It's a change, but the basic element of resource management of daily powers and healing is still there, and still important. 

  #3 I don't really understand. I mean, in theory, everyone can use rituals, diplomize, find traps, ect. In practice, only 1-2 party members are going to handle each specialized task. You might have a Ranger who disarms traps, or a Warlock who handles rituals while the Warlord acts as the parties face, but that just means that out of combat roles are not restricted by class, not that everyone can do everything.


----------



## Psion

thecasualoblivion said:


> Mechanical support for background/setting information is simulationist.




Indeed it is; I never suggested it wasn't. You missed the part of your post I was objecting to.


----------



## Psion

Mad Mac said:


> I'm curious. What sort of mechanical support are you missing? I can understand feeling that the game focuses mostly on combat, even if I disagree.




If you understand that, you understand my point to the extent that I have stated it in this thread.

In the post you were responding to, I was responding to thecasualoblivion's mistatements of other posters, not restating any position of my own.


----------



## Thasmodious

Windjammer said:


> *They all are arbitrarily nerfed to fit a skirmish game and don't give a hoot about in-game plausibility.* Take teleport. A seriously high-level "monster", like Graz'zt,  can only teleport 6 squares . How ridiculous is that? Completely. Because, you know, it would really suck in a skirmish game if the DM who controls Graz'zt, upon facing defeat, simply teleports away. And many 4E fans would chime in here and say "exactly! we want to avoid that!".




There is no one claiming Graz'zt can't teleport to another plane or thousands of miles away.  But that is not a combat ability.  The monster stat blocks present combat abilities.  Battlefield teleportation is a combat ability.  Where some of the disconnect is, is that 4e tells DMs to service the story.  If the PCs are having their first confrontation with Graz'zt he's supposed to get away if he doesn't take them out.  So he does.  The DM doesn't need to be able to show the players a line in the MM that says he can do that.  Some do not like this approach, some do, but not understanding it at all is what leads people to think that 4e is a skirmish game.  To do so, you are ignoring a good deal of the DMG, wherein running campaigns, building stories, and the like are focused on.  

D&D was never simulationist, but it had simulationist nods.  It's always been gamist.  4e has dumped the simulationism for narrativism, and some don't like that.  But claiming that 4e is telling you that an epic level demon lord can't teleport represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been presented to you.



> And here I don't follow. 4E seems written as if the rules need to tell the DM that he shouldn't teleport Graz'zt away since that takes away from the fun of the (skirmish aspect of) the game when
> 1. this is precisely the sort of thing a self-respecting RPG should leave to a self-respecting DM, and
> 2. the reason for not teleporting Graz'zt away shouldn't be rationalized by recourse to a consideration that only concerns the skirmish game perspective.




1.  4e does leave this explicitly to the DM
2.  There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.




> At the end of the film, one of the players is granted an _Unlimited Wish_. The players go extactic because it's (quote) "the single most powerful element in the whole game". They also berate the player who was granted the Wish (her PC is level 8) for spending it on something (way) short of wishing herself to become an immortal.
> 
> And that's the very thing that couldn't even happen in 4E.




It could.  The DM is freed from the constraints of 3e, where everything had to be explained by something in a book.  If the DM wants a magic fountain that drinking from it gives the PCs a level, he can.  I don't mean he can in the sense of Rule 0, but in the sense that such things are actively encouraged by the game, explicitly stated as encouraged, and made easy to accomplish because you do not need a page reference to rationalize having a magic fountain, or an item grant a wish, or something like that.  Having things grant wishes is a staple of fantasy, having PCs cast wish daily is a bit much.  A wish in 3e was horribly nerfed to the point where it wasn't really a wish at all, out of necessity since it was an ability attainable by PCs.  

DMing the edition for RPGA events, D&D does become a skirmish game, and it always has.  The RPGA experimented with adding heavier RP elements to their games, and it didn't really work.  But, since it's inception, RPGA games focus on combat/adventure.  That's the nature of that beast.  4e plays well in that regard.  But if you only see it in that regard, you are ignoring the potential of the system.  A potential, again, explicitly stated in the DMG.


----------



## Thasmodious

Andor said:


> You don't? There are dozens of us on this board.




You can't say 'us', andor.  You hated 4e months before release and were arguing all over the 4e forums about every snippet of information that came out, while sometimes ending a post with a nod towards "seeing when it comes out".  You were one of the people I had in mind when I said that.


----------



## Andor

Thasmodious said:


> There is no one claiming Graz'zt can't teleport to another plane or thousands of miles away.




Uh... Windjammer claimed exatly that. You quoted him in your post. Perhaps you should avoid denying the existence of sentences you quote yourself... You might question the reasonableness of his claim, but is it unreasonable to claim that creatures can only do what they are presented as being able to do?



Thasmodious said:


> But that is not a combat ability.  The monster stat blocks present combat abilities.  Battlefield teleportation is a combat ability.  Where some of the disconnect is, is that 4e tells DMs to service the story.  If the PCs are having their first confrontation with Graz'zt he's supposed to get away if he doesn't take them out.  So he does.  The DM doesn't need to be able to show the players a line in the MM that says he can do that.  Some do not like this approach, some do, but not understanding it at all is what leads people to think that 4e is a skirmish game.  To do so, you are ignoring a good deal of the DMG, wherein running campaigns, building stories, and the like are focused on.




Could you cite for me please where in the DMG it instructs GMs to give new powers to BBGs if it suits the plot? Because a long distance teleport would certainly be a new power.

The DM does not need to point to a listing to give a monster a new power, it is true, but neither should he do so too liberally, if I decide that kobolds in my world have a 1 in 3 chance of exploding like a 10 megaton bomb on death I would anticipate player protests. 



Thasmodious said:


> D&D was never simulationist, but it had simulationist nods.  It's always been gamist.  4e has dumped the simulationism for narrativism, and some don't like that.  But claiming that 4e is telling you that an epic level demon lord can't teleport represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what has been presented to you.
> 
> 1.  4e does leave this explicitly to the DM
> 2.  There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.
> 
> It could.  The DM is freed from the constraints of 3e, where everything had to be explained by something in a book.  If the DM wants a magic fountain that drinking from it gives the PCs a level, he can.  I don't mean he can in the sense of Rule 0, but in the sense that such things are actively encouraged by the game, explicitly stated as encouraged, and made easy to accomplish because you do not need a page reference to rationalize having a magic fountain, or an item grant a wish, or something like that.  Having things grant wishes is a staple of fantasy, having PCs cast wish daily is a bit much.  A wish in 3e was horribly nerfed to the point where it wasn't really a wish at all, out of necessity since it was an ability attainable by PCs.




The irony of course is that rule 0 is from 3e. And that very rule 0 means all those 'constraints' in 3e exist nowere but in your head. Conversely I see no such 'check with your GM' rule 0 in 4e. Nor do I see any advice about crafting house rules in the DMG. Perhaps you could cite some page references for me?


----------



## Andor

Thasmodious said:


> You can't say 'us', andor.  You hated 4e months before release and were arguing all over the 4e forums about every snippet of information that came out, while sometimes ending a post with a nod towards "seeing when it comes out".  You were one of the people I had in mind when I said that.




... I don't appreciate being called a liar. I did not hate 4e, I feared it would disappoint. Nor did I come to a final conclusion until after I had seen and played the game. Do not presume the right to contradict me _about my internal feelings!_


----------



## Gothmog

Tetsubo said:


> You didn't see it from *me*. I fully embraced 3E as I knew that 2E was seriously broken. 3.5 is not seriously broken and did not need to be completely scrapped and replaced with a tactical miniatures game. Try again.




Maybe you never said or thought negative things about 3e, but some folks did.  The frothing nerdrage when 3e came out was just as silly and misinformed as the frothing nerdrage with 4e, its just coming from different folks.  I know for me and my group, 3e/3.5 was seriously broken, and we quit playing in 2005.  You have to realize there is no one real gold standard or right way to play, and each person has their own preferences.  Just play what you like, and don't worry what other people do.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Anyways, it's sad to see this thread devolve into the typical RABIES from a small select few who cannot abide to see anyone dislike 4e or even think that 4e might at some point have some flaws.
> ...
> Good lord, this is the attitude of a cult member, not a hobbiest.




You know, using langues like "rabies" and "cult member" doesn't do anything but stoke the ire of those you label with such terms, and in fact it demonstrates you can't get your message across without labeling and demeaning others, which weakens your arguement and makes others completely discount your opinions.  You realize when you respond in the same ways you accuse others of acting, other people will see you in the same light?  ProfessorCirno, I've seen you post enough to know you're a smart guy, so why go on with the needless antagonism?

Have some 4e fans overreacted and lashed out?  Sure.  But in every context I've seen, its been when someone else attacked their likes or playstyle as  "badwrongfun" (or with the implication its badwrongfun).  I'll admit to getting irked by some of the asinine things I've seen, but if I respond, I try to do so in a calm manner and explain myself.

As for why the edition wars continue, I think its for the following reasons:

1. Some people don't like 4e from a mechanical/tradition standpoint, and thats a valid criticism.  4e is quite a bit different in that it uses new mechanics for some things, and did break with some of the long-standing traditions of D&D.  I personally like what they have done, but I understand others might not.  Everybody has their own tastes, and 4e isn't a perfect system (and I know few who would say it is).  But for many of us, its more fun than 3.x, and we're having fun playing and running it.

2. Some folks feel like they've already spent too much time/money on 3.x, and don't want to invest in a new system.  Again, a perfectly valid reason to stay with something you know and already enjoy.

3. Some players thought 3.x was fine the way it was, and feel "betrayed" by WotC, and lash out at 4e as its successor.  Not based on the merits or faults of the system, but out of some personal angst.  This is where a lot of the frothing nerdrage posts come from IMO, because to be honest, a mentally stable person wouldn't get THAT upset about a game (and yes, I do understand this is the internet, and people overstate their opinions to the extreme).  Find something you like and play it, but don't demean others who don't share your views and deride them as having "badwrongfun".

Now, I do think some 4e fans tend to have a hair-trigger response when 4e is criticized because of the extreme name-calling and antagonism of the pro-3.x crowd instigated back when 4e was announced last fall, and that continues to this day by about half a dozen posters on this site.  After a while, its easy to get on the defensive, and see malice where none was intended.  Terms like "tabletop skirmsh/wargame", "WoW-like", or "boardgame" (to name a few), are not negative in and of themselves, but they are usually intended to demean 4e and its players as having "badwrongfun".  A lot of the "rabies" behavior you're seeing is coming from people who are sick and tired of having to defend their likes against constant attack, and being told they are playing "t-ball" D&D.  Most pro-4e posters aren't angry at all about the new edition, and in fact would post happily all day about how much fun we're having- there is no need for angst or angry flare-ups from the pro-4e crowd.  Its the constant claims of "badwrongfun" and infantile gaming that get the 4e supporters riled up.

If I have personally lashed out at you or anybody else during this time, I apologize, but I don't see why we can't treat everybody's opinions and likes with respect and discuss things rationally, rather than devolving into name calling and deriding others likes as infantile.


----------



## Psion

Gothmog said:


> Maybe you never said or thought negative things about 3e, but some folks did.  The frothing nerdrage when 3e came out was just as silly and misinformed as the frothing nerdrage with 4e, its just coming from different folks.
> (...)
> You know, using langues like "rabies" and "cult member" doesn't do anything but stoke the ire of those you label with such terms, and in fact it demonstrates you can't get your message across without labeling and demeaning others, which weakens your arguement and makes others completely discount your opinions.




Sort of like the term "nerdrage"?


----------



## Thasmodious

Andor said:


> Do not presume the right to contradict me _about my internal feelings!_




I did no such thing.  You made posts on a public forum.  I'm responding to those.  You do realize other people saw those, don't you?


----------



## Maggan

mshea said:


> Can't we all just get along?




I think a lot of grief can be avoided if people just ignore the push button posts and posters, and refrain from trying to present the same with "facts" to "defend" any edition of the game.

The push button posters aren't interested in facts. They are interested in pushing buttons. And as long as people let that happen, voila ... edition wars.

So forget about getting along. I think lots of people should just stop being a button that people feel the urge to push nilly-willy.

/M


----------



## Gothmog

Psion said:


> Sort of like the term "nerdrage"?




There's been some nerdrage on all sides, but its the term most appropriate for the situation at hand.  I personally couldn't care less what others are playing or what they believe, but the extreme opinions some people on both sides have shot out there can't be characterized as anything but irrational.

Maybe "desperate cries for attention" would be a more appropriate way to state it.


----------



## Thasmodious

Andor said:


> The irony of course is that rule 0 is from 3e. And that very rule 0 means all those 'constraints' in 3e exist nowere but in your head. Conversely I see no such 'check with your GM' rule 0 in 4e. Nor do I see any advice about crafting house rules in the DMG. Perhaps you could cite some page references for me?




Rule 0 is as old as gaming.  And in 3e, the DM was expected by his players to adhere to the same rules they were, since that was part of the point of the system.  Monsters/NPCs had to use the same feats as the PCs to do the same things.  The system was designed with the idea that the world maintained consistency through the rules.  

I guess you missed the section of the 4e DMG entitiled "Creating House Rules", huh?  It's on pg. 189.  Like I said - EXPLICITILY STATED -



> House rules are variants on the basic rules
> designed specifically for a particular DM’s campaign.
> They add fun to your D&D game by making it unique,
> reflecting specific traits of your world.
> A house rule also serves as a handy “patch” for a
> game feature that your group dislikes. The D&D rules
> cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns
> and play styles of every group. If you disagree with
> how the rules handle something, changing them is
> within your rights.


----------



## Rel

Ok, the snark level in here is on the rise.  Last warning before I shut the thread down.


----------



## justanobody

Thasmodious said:


> 2.  There is no statement that Graz'zt can't instant escape a battle and no need to rationalize such a story element.




Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.

This is the reason behind making spells/power uniform so that both the PCs and monsters are on level ground and not imbalanced towards the DM side.

So when monsters continually violate the powers rules, when to players and PCs get to do so?

There would need to be some ritual for teleporting farther distances that the players could also use to balance out the system. To make it fair. 

Powers state explicitly all that they can do. this prevents someone from trying to use Magic Missile on the darkness, and no more need to work if it has some force that can do damage to something. A powers limitations are included in its text.

So if something says "up to X squares", then that is as far as they can go with this combat power, otherwise they need to perform some ritual during combat to achieve the longer distance not provided by a power.


----------



## El Mahdi

Jack99 said:


> While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to.
> 
> I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.




I agree with this.  I actually bought more stuff for 2E than I did for 3E, and I switched as soon as I was able to get my grubby little hands on a 3E PHB, and I never looked back (that is except to convert 2E material).  I don't feel betrayed or left behind one bit because my old material is obsolete.  I don't feel that because my old material isn't obsolete.  In fact I feel I actually have an advantage over some kid just getting into the game with 4E.  They have such enjoyment and wonder because of the world that's just opened up to them, and that's great, but I know that what they are seeing is just the tip of the iceberg.  I have such a large library of reference materials and ready made inspiration, that I can't possibly view it as no longer useful.

And, like I said, I actually bought less 3E stuff than I did 2E, and still didn't switch to 4E.  4E just doesn't have the versatility and complexity I desire.  But, I don't feel betrayed or left-behind by 4E.  It just isn't for me, but even if it was, it would by no means nullify any of my previous material.  Fluff material is good for any edtion and, as said before, doesn't have an expiration date.  Even 3E crunch can still be kept around for 4E.  If there's things you don't like about a 4E rule, and want to houserule a fix, 3E material is a great place to go looking for guidance.  The truth is, 4E wouldn't be the game it is without 3E, just as 3E wouldn't be the game it is without 2E, and every other edition that came before.  The changes in the game aren't about planned obsolescence or even Darwinian evolution, as some have claimed, it's the evolution of concepts and ideas.  New ideas don't nullify old ideas, they build on top of the old ideas.  Sometimes they take detours that don't work or don't appeal to some.  And that's okay.  But it does not nullify or marginalize those older ideas.

And of course, what comes around goes around.  So, I'm more than happy to wait for 5E or even 6E.  Until then I'll use what works for me.  I'll even use some 4E ideas.  I won't disregard anything that can make my game better, regardless of where it comes from.  To do so would be spiting myself just to prove a point.


----------



## Halivar

justanobody said:


> Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.



#1 reason why 3.x should _never have been written_, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.

It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.

In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, _and it has always been thus._


----------



## justanobody

Halivar said:


> #1 reason why 3.x should _never have been written_, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, *completely new to the third edition*. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.
> 
> It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.
> 
> In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, _and it has always been thus._




This is where older editions, not new to 3rd, held some kind of balance in that NPCs were made the same way as PCs and had to use the same spells. They could have new versions, but most times, just used the exact same spell as the player could use.

This kept things fair because the DM was following the same rules with NPC magic as were the PCs.

While magic can and should be able to do anything, when two same level, INT, etc people using the exact same spell differ in min and max abilities of that spell for some reason, there is reason to question it. It is called unified mechanics.

So then why should the DM follow any of the same rules the player do? Why aren't monsters and NPCs just using a completely different system for everything including the way they attack, take damage, etc?

So I ask do you feel you should, as a DM, be held to allow your monsters to take damage, or they should be immune to damage from PCs because it "would turn [your] D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame".

Excessive use of "DM can do what they want" is what breeds contempt of player to create a DM vs Player attitude.


----------



## El Mahdi

Thasmodious said:


> But many of the group that could be classed as the "haters" have hated 4e since months before its release. A single detail or two that became known early was their first reason (powers, frost giants, 1-1-1, etc), but it snowballed as more things became known. It's not really some big mystery. People make snap judgments all the time and then go to great lengths to rationalize them, despite evidence to the contrary. They made the decision to hate it first, now they have a want to justify it.
> 
> You don't hear from many people who had an open mind all the way, looked forward to the release of a new edition, then thought it was complete crap and will never play it again. People made their decisions months in advance. I went the same route. When I first heard the announcement, my reaction was negative. Then I thought about it a bit, remembered how I've loved every edition of the game, even 3e, which I was very skeptical about before release. So I decided to not sweat it this time around and just look forward to a new edition.
> 
> And yes, when people playing the game are telling those who "despise" it that despite their perception, the value of the ruleset is that it disappears into the background and it actually helps you play the game the way you want to play it, that is evidence to the contrary.




I'm not sure I agree with all of this.  I've been pretty vocal about what I like and don't like about 4E (although I'll admit I've never gone as far as saying, or even feeling that I hate 4E).  But, when the anouncement came out for 4E, I was extremely excited.  Just as excited as I was about 3E.  Over the course of the year leading up to it's release, I was glued to every release and talk about what 4E would accomplish.  The whole reason I joined ENWorld was because I was looking for 4E info.  Every concept they talked about, every rules concept they released, sounded awesome.  I was really amped up for 4E.

Then I got my books.

As soon as I started reading the rules, I started realizing all of the things I couldn't do anymore (namely with character concept creation).  The underlying concepts I think are still awesome, however the execution just didn't work (for me).  I had been extremely excited about the new edition, even incorporating pre-4E rules concepts WoTC released into my 3E game.  I kept telling my players all the good things that were changing, and that some of the new things we were using in our 3E game would give us an idea of what our game would be like when we started using the new edition.  Then reality hit home when I actually saw the concepts as they applied them.  Needless to say, that was when we decided not to switch.

However, I'm not saying I'm in a majority, but there are more open minded people that followed all the pre-release material and then were disapointed when they got the books, than you might think.


----------



## Thasmodious

justanobody said:


> Unless a player gets upset that they also cannot teleport outside of the restrictions on the spell built for encounter purposes.
> 
> This is the reason behind making spells/power uniform so that both the PCs and monsters are on level ground and not imbalanced towards the DM side.
> 
> So when monsters continually violate the powers rules, when to players and PCs get to do so?




I'm not talking about powers.  I'm talking about what a monster can do outside of combat.  The MM stats are not the end all of the monster any more than the stats are the end all of the PCs.  I think you missed what I was getting at.  PCs at that level can teleport with rituals.  Epic demon lords have the ability to get around the cosmos.  You have no need to justify it in relation to the rules for PCs, anymore than you have to justify a magic fountain and grants a +1 str when you drink from it.


----------



## Benimoto

justanobody said:


> So I ask do you feel you should, as a DM, be held to allow your monsters to take damage, or they should be immune to damage from PCs because it "would turn [your] D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame".
> 
> Excessive use of "DM can do what they want" is what breeds contempt of player to create a DM vs Player attitude.




No one's made the suggestion that the DM should just ignore the teleport speed listed and have Grazzt constantly teleporting around the battlefield in violation of the general rules of the game.  Nor that monsters should ignore the HP mechanic.  The only thing that's been specifically suggested is that if the plot demands it, Grazzt should be able to use some sort of instantaneous, long-range teleport to escape.

I agree with your last statement, but you're taking the position that one single use is excessive.


----------



## Thasmodious

Halivar said:


> #1 reason why 3.x should _never have been written_, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition. I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.
> 
> It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge. That, more than any other mechanic, would turn my D&D from an immersive, epic narrative into into an adversarial boardgame.
> 
> In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, _and it has always been thus._




Exactly what I was getting at (other than feeling 3e should have never been written  ).  That particular legacy is something I could definitely live without.  An epic demon lord will always have the ways and means to get around the cosmos in my games.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Benimoto said:


> ...The only thing that's been specifically suggested is that if the plot demands it, Grazzt should be able to use some sort of instantaneous, long-range teleport to escape.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm...I think such a plot-driven thing without giving the players some form of chance or option to nullify it leads to unsatisfying gameplay. By making it up on the fly while the PCs have no power to nullify it, just to stick to a pre-determined plot gets my toot toot alarm happening.
> 
> I think this is the deeper issue at hand and the line in the sand. To what extent do you econimize stats so they are useable and don't bloat options or gameplay, and where does the line of commonsense (at least in fantasy terms) fall? Grazzt should have certain abilities, but as read in the MM, he doesn't. Perhaps this is where 4e stutters at high levels?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise
Click to expand...


----------



## DaveMage

Jack99 said:


> While it applies for some people, it's nowhere true for all. I had at least 90% of all released 2e material, yet I was more than happy to switch to 3e. I had at least as much 3e material as well (Official that is) and yet, I had no issues with switching to 4e. In fact, I was more than happy to.




Uh, just a math correciton here...

There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.

There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.


----------



## Windjammer

Thasmodious said:


> Rule 0 is as old as gaming.
> ...
> I guess you missed the section of the 4e DMG entitiled "Creating House Rules", huh?  It's on pg. 189.  Like I said - EXPLICITILY STATED -



Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the "plotline" should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another. 

House rules are rules. Rules, by definition, aren't designed to cater for one-off needs (whether of the DM or the players) - 4E DMG p.189 explicitly warns you to avoid that temptation - but are intended to regulate all future occasions of relevant similarity. 
Also, rules are for both parties to agree on and hence, by definition, cannot be decreed by the DM only and for the sole use (or worse, exploitation) by the DM. The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration (which doesn't compromise his final authority on the matter).

The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did _if you bring that mindset with you_. Because that mindset doesn't come across to players, especially, who have just read the Players' Handbook. Heck, it's only the DM who actually knows he can allow in-game actions not covered by the rules. In my book, that should be in the players' book. But kudos to 4E for having a section on that (DMG, p.42) in the rulebooks at all. What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM).


----------



## Greg K

Halivar said:


> #1 reason why 3.x should _never have been written_, IMHO: player entitlement. The idea that the DM is beholden to same rules as the players is, IMXP, completely new to the third edition.



(Edit: Much of the following assumes access to the 3.0 DMG as I am not familiar with the 3.5 version).

I never had this problem. Nor, has anyone else that I personally know.  I don't doubt it exists, because it comes upon the internet.  However, it tells me that either:
 a) there exists players that are selflish thinking of themselves and not the good of the campaign (a player problem)
 b) many DMs are too afraid to tell their players no (which is a problem with  the DM- not the game) ; and/or
 c) the DM didn't read the DM guide, because the 3e DM tells the DM that is ok to deviate and make changes. From the 3e DMG :


- "Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering. (Don't tell anybody, okay) The secret is your're in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6)  and "You decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6).

- "Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" (3e DMG/ p.9)



> I can't even believe we had a thread a couple years back on whether a DM could "cheat" or not.




And, the answer to that question is in the DMG.

 "Do you cheat? The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your right to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or keep things running smoothly." (3e DMG/ p.18)



> It is absolutely ridiculous for me, as a DM, to be expected to adhere to a player's expectations from meta-knowledge.




Then don't adhere to hit. If a player has a problem with it, take a rolled up newspaper (or the DMG) and smack them on the nose.  Then, if necessary, show them
a) Rule 0 in the phb;
b) the above sections from the DMG; and 
c) the following sections in the DMG:

"Every rule in the Player's Handbook was written for a reason. That doesn't mean you can't change them for your own game" (3.0 DMG p. 11); and

"As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and *monsters*!" (DMG/p. 11) (emphasis mine).

(Or , just show them the door and avoid battery charges).





> In my game, monsters have powers that aren't listed in the MM, _and it has always been thus._




And, there was nothing stopping you from doing this in 3e.  How does the player know that this is not a new monster specific to your setting, that you didn't put a template (WOTC or otherwise) on it , add a class, or whatever.  They don't!

The "permission" to make changes was in the  DMG all long, you either didn't see it or chose to ignore it.


----------



## Benimoto

Herremann the Wise said:


> Hmmm...I think such a plot-driven thing without giving the players some form of chance or option to nullify it leads to unsatisfying gameplay. By making it up on the fly while the PCs have no power to nullify it, just to stick to a pre-determined plot gets my toot toot alarm happening.



Ah, well that's true.  I admit, I was just, on general principle, defending the ability of the GM to make plots happen without regard for the statblock.  I hadn't really considered whether the scenario as presented made for satisfying adventure design, and you're right, it doesn't.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Benimoto said:


> Ah, well that's true.  I admit, I was just, on general principle, defending the ability of the GM to make plots happen without regard for the statblock.  I hadn't really considered whether the scenario as presented made for satisfying adventure design, and you're right, it doesn't.




Not sure I agree with you there, Benimoto.

Powerful entities like demon lords, arch-devils, and the like have been around for millennia, and they've faced foes as powerful as the PCs (even epic PCs) before, and survived. Not only _can_ they have means of escaping from deadly situations, they _must_, or they'd already be dead.

Now, if it's absolutely impossible for the PCs to kill Graz'zt, I agree with you; that can be an unsatisfying adventure. But neither should they be able to just wander into his domain and attack him, and expect to be able to kill him even if they're strong enough to beat him. There has to be a middle ground, wherein the PCs investigate and research their foe, figuring out if he indeed has such a means of escape, and if so, how to overcome it. PCs (and players) who do their due diligence should be rewarded by having a fair shot at accomplishing whatever they're trying to accomplish (within reason, of course). But PCs who don't, who expect to kill a demon lord as easily as any other monster, haven't earned a fair shot at success, IMO.

Satisfying adventure design--again, IMO--allows the possibility of both; it makes the PCs earn their victories in whatever method is going to create the most interesting game-play experience and story, and the rules are followed, or broken, as best serves that goal.


----------



## Andor

Thasmodious said:


> Rule 0 is as old as gaming.  And in 3e, the DM was expected by his players to adhere to the same rules they were, since that was part of the point of the system.  Monsters/NPCs had to use the same feats as the PCs to do the same things.  The system was designed with the idea that the world maintained consistency through the rules.
> 
> I guess you missed the section of the 4e DMG entitiled "Creating House Rules", huh?  It's on pg. 189.  Like I said - EXPLICITILY STATED -




Good, I'm glad to see it's there, although I think page 189 of the DMG applies less emphasis than page 1 of the PHB.

Monsters and NPCs did not _have_ to do anything, but the tools were there to allow them to operate by them same rules as the PCs beause this adds depth and verisimilitude to the world. 

I've been gaming for a long time and one of the things I always hated about 'Old school' rpgs were that there were frequently things that NPCs could do that PCs could not. Not monsters, nobody expects to be able to learn to imitate a beholder's anti-magic eye or a medusa's gaze. But I never understood why some 3rd lvl putz of a necromancer could have a hoarde of undead following them around but my PC never could no matter how powerful he got, or what he tried to learn.

In 3e I at least had the expectation that if a human NPC from the same town as my human PC could do something I could not that there would at least be some kind of in game explanation like "He sold his soul to the demon prince Bubba-Joe." 

But I've never even heard of any player anywhere demanding the right to audit the NPCs that you seem to fear. If an NPC does something unusual asking if they could do that? Yes. GMs have to remember a lot and it's easy to forget you didn't mean Joe the Bartender to have Improved Disarm. The GM either says Yes or No and either way that's the end of the story. Demanding to know how many feats an NPC has? That they were constructed with the appropriate number of skill points? Never.

In any event I don't think either of us are claiming that a GM cannot do whatever he needs to to a monster in either edition.


----------



## cougent

The Kyngdoms said:


> Two points struck me as I've been reading (some of) this thread:
> 
> 1) Those buyers who help support an edition by buying the vast majority of it are always going to be the ones that get screwed.  They buy all the kit and help the edition be successful, only to feel totally abandoned when a new edition comes along, invalidating huge swathes of their collection.  *It's hugely ironic that those that buy the least (and by proxy, do the least to help support the game) are always the ones that lose the least.
> 
> This isn't a criticism in any way - just a reflection.*   Many people who are right now stuffing their shelves with 4ed books will one day find themselves in exactly the same situation and are likely to feel just as abandoned.



Coming full circle back to the OP message it also seems to be a strong perception that the group you mentioned and I emphasized becomes the new target audience.  I know I felt that way early on, but after a while I adopted more of this attitude:


Jack99 said:


> I guess it how you look at things. When I buy D&D books, I do not expect to be using only them for the rest of my life. Just as with my computers, my TVs, my kitchen utensils, my cars, I buy them fully accepting that at some point, within a foreseeable future, they will have to be updated, if I wish to have the newest stuff.



No one held a gun to my head and said "You must buy it all or else!", I became a collector out of my own free will, so there really is no one to blame for this sense of loss other than myself.  Also the sense of loss is only that the material I already own is now not current, yes it can be converted, and yes it can still be played, so no it has not really lost anything.  It is just a perception of loss.


I have also made a choice to follow TK's other wisdom for financial reasons in the future as well, which is also ironic because it will now move me from the group who fully support the game (buys everything) to the group that marginally supports the game... and quite possibly move me back towards that target audience for future editions.


The Kyngdoms said:


> I guess the answer is - keep your purchases to a minimum and buy only what you need and will use. That way, when the system changes, you'll be happy that you haven't lost too much and that you've got good use out of what you did buy.



This reminds me of the model for software products.  I have some brand new stuff and some that is several years old that newer versions are available, but the old version is still working just fine. [My ability to "word process" is hampered far more by my typing than any software]




The Kyngdoms said:


> 2) What does it matter what edition we play? I love 3.5 and will continue to play it for as long as I have players who also want to play. I think in many ways age does have something to do with it. Each new iteration of the game is based on the pleasures of the present generation and maybe the system we like best simply reflects this. I am 40 years old and I don't like the direction of 4ed - but, it simply reflects the demands of the 21st century - bigger, faster, cooler, louder (none of that meant as a criticism). No one should begrudge that. The game WILL move on, and when 5ed comes along, no doubts there will be plenty of people who hate it, as it won't reflect their ideas of how the game should be played (ideas which are more than likely entrenched in their own generation).



I agree completely with this, and see a close paralel here to music.  I still like the music I liked 30 years ago as a teenager, and that is still the bulk of the music that I do like and own.  That does not in any way make it better or worse than music produced within the last 30 years, in fact I like much of that as well.  I don't expect a new group to try and sound like a 30 year old group, even on a remix or cover.  I think of 4E as the latest trend in music, neither good nor bad, just not my interest at the moment.



> So, keep things simple: don't buy what you won't use and be don't be offended when the new generation don't like your old school ways.
> 
> I've already moved forward in standing still, and I'm very comfortable with myself right now in this regard.



Exactly!  I may buy 4E sometime, just as I may buy a new group's CD tomorrow, but until then I will enjoy my 3E and my old LP's.

I accept that what WotC does and what significantly smaller 3PP do have to be very different in scope and scale.  It may just be that the target audience I am a part of has become too small for WotC, but may be perfect for a 3PP market (PF/AE).  That doesn't make WotC evil, but neither does it make me bad for not following along.


----------



## justanobody

Benimoto said:


> No one's made the suggestion that the DM should just ignore the teleport speed listed and have Grazzt constantly teleporting around the battlefield in violation of the general rules of the game.  Nor that monsters should ignore the HP mechanic.  The only thing that's been specifically suggested is that if the plot demands it, Grazzt should be able to use some sort of instantaneous, long-range teleport to escape.
> 
> I agree with your last statement, but you're taking the position that one single use is excessive.




The problem will occur when it happens with this one person to an excess.

I feel most times if BBEG shows up he should be able to be taken down then, or otherwise should be able to kill the whole party. The party should not be presented with BBEG until they can fight the final battle.

Now once before the final battle may be ok, but many continued times of BBEG teleporting away to safety in the nick of time cheeses me off. Don't even put BBEG there if he is just going to run away. Leave any message from him in some other manner.

So IF there is not during combat a chance for BBEG to teleport away without using the teleport rules: LOS, etc, then the players should have options also to be able to violate those rules when not in combat as well.

I could come up with a hundred reasons for BBEG to "appear" to have teleported away, but you have to keep the view for the players consistent even if the PCs don't realize what is going on. When the PCs can realize what is going on with a powerful teleport that violates their own capabilities or those of other people, then questions arise and the game can break down.

It is a problem with magic, and the new edition both. In the past it was a new spell that was created by BBEG and no one else knew it, and he would take it to his grave. Now I wouldn't even know how to make a new spell/ritual for it for during combat.

In the case of a device, then odds are BBEG dies and the players inherit that device and then what happens?

Consistency is important to me during the game from both perspectives. When something seems to violate known concept, and answer is needed as to why. That reason being so BBEG can just get away "this time" isn't always enough and sometimes offensive. So the DM needs to use caution when breaking from standard conventions.


----------



## Simon Atavax

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like the concepts of roles. I think it could - and maybe should be expanded to non-combat roles.




The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.  

They term they used back then was "Class".


----------



## Benimoto

justanobody said:


> Now once before the final battle may be ok, but many continued times of BBEG teleporting away to safety in the nick of time cheeses me off. Don't even put BBEG there if he is just going to run away. Leave any message from him in some other manner.



I tend to agree.  I also think this is what I was trying to say and what Mouseferatu said a little better in terms of adventure design.



justanobody said:


> So IF there is not during combat a chance for BBEG to teleport away without using the teleport rules: LOS, etc, then the players should have options also to be able to violate those rules when not in combat as well.



During most games, I think these sorts of things happen.  The players may encounter teleporting (or other) effects, even in combat, that don't follow the rules of any published ritual or power.  Encounters with the strange and unusual are a cornerstone of the exploration parts of the game.  Nobody playing the game, either players or DM, should expect that every strange effect is modeled by an existing rule, and neither should they expect that only effects that exist in the published rules should appear.

The dividing line here is, in today's gaming jargon, who has narrative control over these sort of non-rules-arbitrated effects.  In a game like D&D, it's problematic to give players unlimited control over these sorts of things.  Most adventures are presented as a series of problems or obstacles, and giving players unlimited control of the plot usually does not lead to a satisfying resolution.  (Although DMG p. 28 gives a counter-example where it does.)  Giving the DM control of these things is, I've always thought, one of the assumed rules of the game, and I'm a little disappointed that the 4e DMG doesn't directly address it.  As Mouseferatu mentioned though, the DM using his narrative control to make the obstacles of the adventure insurmountable is not good adventure design either.



justanobody said:


> Consistency is important to me during the game from both perspectives. When something seems to violate known concept, and answer is needed as to why. That reason being so BBEG can just get away "this time" isn't always enough and sometimes offensive. So the DM needs to use caution when breaking from standard conventions.



I agree with the principle here, if not the details.  To me the key is not "consistency" precisely, but believability.  It's believable that a demon lord would have a way to move around his realms, beyond his listed teleportation speed.  In fact, it's unbelievable that he does not, which is what sparked this whole thing.

I'm not a fan of the attitude that if an enemy can do it, so should the players be able to.  I agree with the posters who have said that 3e tended to foster such an attitude, and that 4e was right to attempt to dispel it.  The players should not be able to do everything that the monsters can.  As an example in the RAW, there's several enemies that can dominate their foes (as in inflict the "dominated" condition), and yet no player power to do so.  Is this a problem?

You say that you have trouble coming up with a spell or ritual to have Graz'zt teleport away as the adventure demands.  May I suggest that you simply treat it as if that were one of his listed powers?  Perhaps even insert it into his statblock:


> *Infernal Escape* (standard, when Graz'zt is in mortal peril but the DM wants him to live, and when the PCs have not invested enough in negating this power; encounter) *Teleportation*
> Graz'zt teleports to anywhere within his domain.​



There, is that an unbelievable power for a demon lord to have?  Is it inconsistent, aside from with his published stat block?


----------



## Halivar

Simon Atavax said:


> The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.
> 
> They term they used back then was "Class".



I got a string of 3E and 3.x fighter character sheets that would like to disagree with you. 

Fortunately, all you have to do is hide behind a lamp post, or something, and they'll never find you.


----------



## justanobody

Benimoto said:


> There, is that an unbelievable power for a demon lord to have?  Is it inconsistent, aside from with his published stat block?




The problem would arise when it happens of popping in and out of battle from one location to another, which makes you wonder then where in initiative order he comes, does he get surprise on his side when returning since he was effectively removed from battle, etc.

This is the problems I was having with it.

I don't see it far fetched to think that a PC could not do anything with magic that a DM controlled persona can do. It is magic after all, and a big reason why it should be open or close-ended within the system to have the restraints set for all or none.

I also don't think it has anything to do with narrative, or the story, but fairness of the game and what the player can be able to affect through the characters actions. I don't consider that narrative.

The dividing line is when the story needs outweigh the player needs. Those being can you believe it to be so without some arbitrary reason for the player and the character.

Should on the plane of fire a fire creature be able to move around his own area, sure. Can the players learn to do so? Sure, if they have some way of living in the flames to do so. Do it need to be the exact same way it is done, maybe not, but the option for players to perform magic not only allowed to the gods is one of the attractions of the game.

Magic is a fickle thing.


----------



## Hussar

Simon Atavax said:


> The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.
> 
> They term they used back then was "Class".




Really?  What non-combat role did a Fighter have?  Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have?  What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role?

What combat role does a bard have?  What combat role does a rogue have when facing a golem or undead or a plant?  

Heck, about the only non-combat feature any class has exclusively is spells.  Oh, and find traps.  Sorry, forgot that one.  Whoo, that took a long time to list.

The arguement, at least what I understand of it, is that because any class can potentially have non-combat features, all of the PC's at the table will automatically have all of them, creating characters that are mechanically identical.

This is completely false.  One player might do "face" while another might do "knowledge guy".  Which is identical to 3e.  The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class.  So, you can be a "face" fighter or a "knowledge guy" paladin or a "trap finder/problem solver" cleric.

Isn't this a win for 4e?  That you have more concepts open to you than you had in 3e?  In 3e, if you wanted to be a trap finder/problem solver, you took rogue.  Period.  Only.  No other class could do it (ignoring non-core for the moment).  So, if you wanted to play MacGyver, you had to play a rogue.  Now, I can play MacGyver with any class.

Doesn't that mean that I have more options in 4e?


----------



## Hussar

justanobody said:


> The problem would arise when it happens of popping in and out of battle from one location to another, which makes you wonder then where in initiative order he comes, does he get surprise on his side when returning since he was effectively removed from battle, etc.
> 
> This is the problems I was having with it.
> 
> I don't see it far fetched to think that a PC could not do anything with magic that a DM controlled persona can do. It is magic after all, and a big reason why it should be open or close-ended within the system to have the restraints set for all or none.
> 
> I also don't think it has anything to do with narrative, or the story, but fairness of the game and what the player can be able to affect through the characters actions. I don't consider that narrative.
> 
> The dividing line is when the story needs outweigh the player needs. Those being can you believe it to be so without some arbitrary reason for the player and the character.
> 
> Should on the plane of fire a fire creature be able to move around his own area, sure. Can the players learn to do so? Sure, if they have some way of living in the flames to do so. Do it need to be the exact same way it is done, maybe not, but the option for players to perform magic not only allowed to the gods is one of the attractions of the game.
> 
> Magic is a fickle thing.




And that's what Rituals are for.  Ritual that allows Word of Recall sort of magic.  Heck, the True Portal ritual allows you to do exactly what is being discussed here.  Grazz't has a magic item, single use, that allows him to create a True Portal in one round.  

Poof, end of problem.  Can the players do it?  Sure.  If they want to.  Why not?


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:


> Really?  What non-combat role did a Fighter have?  Heck, how much of a non-combat role did a Barbarian have?  What CLASS FEATURES, not skills, not feats (which any class can access) does a fighter or a barbarian or a paladin for that matter, have that give him a non-combat role?



Why are you not counting class 3e skills?  


> This is completely false.  One player might do "face" while another might do "knowledge guy".  Which is identical to 3e.  The only difference between 3e and 4e in this is that in 4e, your non-combat role is not dictated by your class.  So, you can be a "face" fighter or a "knowledge guy" paladin or a "trap finder/problem solver" cleric.




And the phb, both 3e and 3.5, provides a small section customizing characters.  It may have used the fighter as an example, but some of used it as a guideline for creating other fighter variants as well as swapping skills to create other class variants like urban barbarians and wilderness rogues (pre UA).


----------



## Thasmodious

Windjammer said:


> Is the page you cited is your base (or worse, sole) evidence for the fact that 4E encourages the DM to forego RAW on a particular occasion if, on that occasion, this would fit his understanding of where the "plotline" should be heading? If it is, then I think you risk confusing two things which have nothing to do with one another.




Andor asked me to quote a page number in the 4e DMG where it stated the DM could houserule.  I'm not confusing anything.  Encouragement to forego RAW for what works is littered throughout the 4e books.  Reflavoring powers, houseruling, making things up on the fly...and various tools exist to help you do that in a way that gels with the system (pg. 42 DMG being the biggie).



> The DMG p.189 explicitly discourages the DM to shift the rules without consulting his players - which I think is a highly sane consideration




I agree completely with this, its sound DMing.  If the players don't know the rules they operate under, or they constantly shift, the game seems random and they victims of the whims of the DM.  The rules THEY operate under.  They don't get to look under the hood to see how the DM operates.  The important thing for the DM, is the same as for the fantasy author, to maintain internal consistency.  The DM needs to know how Graz'zt teleports, what limits it might have, if it funcions just like the ritual, but without components and time, etc.  And he needs to apply that consistently.  But he isn't restricted from setting those rules in the first place, even if its on the fly.  As long as its consistent the next time, verisimilitude is maintained.   



> The thing you mention is rather 'the DM is allowed to make up stuff on the fly'. It's the thing I enjoy most as a DM, and I agree that the easy go grasp core mechanics of 4E provides for that to a much better degree than 3E did _if you bring that mindset with you_.




Word



> What should be clear to all involved, however, is that that aspect of the game doesn't apply to Graz'zt, and never intended to be so. Anyone who thinks so is bringing something to 4E that is (a) wonderful in my estimate and (b) not part of 4E (whether PHB or DMG or MM).




There I disagree, except for the part about me being wonderful.  

The idea that an epic level demon lord can only do, throughout his entire day, throughout the millenia as he hatches his evil, cosmos spanning schemes, that the only things he is capable of doing are the few combat/encounter powers listed in his MM entry.  That is so clearly not the intent.  The evidence is in the simplicity of the stat blocks and the design style throughout the edition, which fully encourages the DM to, well, DM the game.  More direct evidence is coming in the Draconomicon or whatever its called this time around.  Undoubtedly the book will contain whole chapters on things dragons do when they aren't slaughtering parties.  The stat block is needed for a fight, it is not the end all be all of the creature.  Your kobold wyrmpriest or an orc Eye of Grummsh can perform rituals, your epic demon lords find some way to travel between planes and to show up when the PCs least expect him.  It doesn't matter that those things aren't in their stat blocks.  The section of the DMG detailing NPCs has this as #10 on their steps to building NPCs:



> 10. Choose Rituals: Giving your NPC certain
> ritual scrolls might be appropriate, especially if he or
> she is an ally of the characters. Ritual scrolls work well
> for NPCs that aren’t ritual casters. Remember that villains
> can perform powerful rituals “off camera” to help
> drive your narrative.


----------



## Hussar

The reason I'm not counting skills is because we're discussing how classes expand on non-combat roles.  Since skills (by and large) are available to all classes, they are not exclusive to any single class.  Thus, I don't count them when discussing how class creates non-combat roles. 

Nothing about being a fighter lends itself to non-combat roles.  Actually, if you include skills in the equation, being a fighter actively works against non-combat roles since you only have 2 skills per level to work with.  Sure, you can give fighter class access to diplomacy, for example, but, at the end of the day, he's still only going to get two skills.

You can have a fighter with a diplomacy of 15 or a rogue with a diplomacy with 15.  Either way, the class had nothing to do with your non-combat role.  Neither class gives any bonuses or benefits to having a diplomacy score.

That's why I refute the idea that class in 3e lends itself to non-combat roles.  If anything, it works against it because of the limitations on how many skills you get per level and cross class skills.


----------



## Thasmodious

Halivar said:


> I got a string of 3E and 3.x fighter character sheets that would like to disagree with you.
> 
> Fortunately, all you have to do is hide behind a lamp post, or something, and they'll never find you.




Nice, very nice.


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:


> Nothing about being a fighter lends itself to non-combat roles.  Actually, if you include skills in the equation, being a fighter actively works against non-combat roles since you only have 2 skills per level to work with.  Sure, you can give fighter class access to diplomacy, for example, but, at the end of the day, he's still only going to get two skills.




Reread the 3.0 section on customizing characters again. Not only does it provide the fighter with extra skills, but *the character now receives 4 skill points per level.*


----------



## Greg K

Hussar said:


> You can have a fighter with a diplomacy of 15 or a rogue with a diplomacy with 15.  Either way, the class had nothing to do with your non-combat role.  Neither class gives any bonuses or benefits to having a diplomacy score.



You might not get a bonus, but if it is a class skill, you have can have more ranks than someone else. And, Diplomacy 15? That would probably be the spokesman/face or whatever?


----------



## Thasmodious

Andor said:


> Monsters and NPCs did not _have_ to do anything, but the tools were there to allow them to operate by them same rules as the PCs beause this adds depth and verisimilitude to the world.




I completely disagree with that.  What it adds, is pain in the DMs ass and an huge increase in prep time.  Making everything jive on the same power framework was a nice theory (and one new to 3e, it was not this way in previous editions).  It was put into the arena and tested, and, imo, failed.  It added mounds of prep work for the game to maintain because everything had to be built on the most complex system of any RPG (or most) - the PC.  Since the PC is the unit by which the player interacts with the game, it is, by necessity, complex.  Monsters that are meant to be killed and NPC merchants that are not, do not need to be built on that same scale.  They need to be built to perform their game functions - dying and servicing the PCs.  It is not necessary to know the exact craft score of the NPC blacksmith who is crafting the fighter's shiny new.  The PCs shouldn't have that information, and the DM doesn't have a need to make die rolls for the NPCs to do things when the PCs aren't there.  It's a lot of needed work for nothing.  It was the idea I was most excited about with 3e, but the one that worked the least, again, imo.



> But I never understood why some 3rd lvl putz of a necromancer could have a hoarde of undead following them around but my PC never could no matter how powerful he got, or what he tried to learn.




You're not supposed to learn he's third level.  Demanding explanations for metagame concerns doesn't sound like the secret to versimilitude to me.  Now, if you wonder how he controlled all those undead... yes, that requires explanation, if the PCs want to know it.  But that explanation doesn't have to be on pg. xx of the DMG.  It's an ingame, story explanation.   The real reason is "because I wanted him to, because it is cool, whatever."  An evil talisman and some dark rite, a bargain with a devil, the necrotic pillar the the PCs destroyed to defeat the undead menace...  It needs explaining.  



> In any event I don't think either of us are claiming that a GM cannot do whatever he needs to to a monster in either edition.




Word.


----------



## justanobody

Greg K said:


> You might not get a bonus, but if it is a class skill, you have can have more ranks than someone else. And, Diplomacy 15? That would probably be the spokesman/face or whatever?




You might say that person would be the _leader_ of the party.


----------



## Jack99

DaveMage said:


> Uh, just a math correciton here...
> 
> There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.
> 
> There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.




Percentage-wise. Meaning I had 90% of the official WotC-stuff of 3.x. Not the same amount of books


----------



## Windjammer

Thasmodious said:


> The idea that an epic level demon lord can only do, throughout his entire day, throughout the millenia as he hatches his evil, cosmos spanning schemes, that the only things he is capable of doing are the few combat/encounter powers listed in his MM entry.  That is so clearly not the intent.  The evidence is in the simplicity of the stat blocks and the design style throughout the edition, which fully encourages the DM to, well, DM the game.



Again, that's a mindset I find laudable, but I see no evidence in the RAW for it. Appealing to the stat block's simplicity doesn't tell either way. And, as I said, I find it telling that the p.42 in the DMG is solely designed to cater for "actions" *of the PC* "the rules don't cover". 


Thasmodious said:


> More direct evidence is coming in the Draconomicon or whatever its called this time around.  Undoubtedly the book will contain whole chapters on things dragons do when they aren't slaughtering parties.  The stat block is needed for a fight, it is not the end all be all of the creature.



Ah, here lies the source of the trouble. Where 3E erred on the side of covering _every_ tedious bit of the game by the same rule mechanics, this leading to an extreme quantative inflation of rules, 4E is hard to digest because it provides rules _only for combat_, leaving the remainder of the game not integrated into the core mechanic; or, to put it otherwise, leaving the relation the remainder of the game bears to that "core part" unclear and up to the DM. I had never understood and grokked that until I read  this mind-blowing review of 4E, which really sold me on 4E. You see, 4E critics are right that 4E is in a sense about "combat only": it only provides rigid mechanical rules for combat. (Note how much this argument relies on the 3E mentality of "if it's not codified in the rules, it's not in the game.") Every other aspect of the game is entirely left for the DM to administer, skill challenges being a case in point. Now that's what makes 4E liberating to DM. But I also find this design approach a pain in the back, since the complete separation of those two "halves" of the game - combat and non-combat - causes a high level of arbitrarity (and hence, of arbitration on my part) when I retroactively insert new elements into the game. Because the relation of those new elements to the mechanically defined "core (skirmish) game" isn't just left uncodified (which is a blessing, compared to 3E), I'm not given any sort of guideline whatsoever. To be honest, I think a great amount of DMs will be discouraged by this complete shift of responsibility from 3E to 4E. 1E, to mention another creature, was much better in that regard, in that its core mechanics was much more general in approach, so when you added rules you didn't feel you altered the tone of the game. With 4E it definitely feels that way - I arbitrarily stick arbitrary elements onto the game as written. 

And it's here that I find this type of response to the problem I raised (with Graz'zt limited teleport ability) deeply unsatisfactory. I raised a problem about the RAW, because simply that's the only common ground we'll ever get on a board to discuss the merits and demerits of an edition. So to bring in "but you can forego/delete/arbitrarily add on to the RAW" isn't a defense of the RAW in my book. Not by a long shot.



Thasmodious said:


> The section of the DMG detailing NPCs has this as #10 on their steps to building NPCs:



Good point there. It would be nice, though, if this aspect of the game were mentioned in the entries of the respective "monster" or "demon" or what have you. See above: 4E's disintegration of what happens on the battle map and what happens off the battle map is both a blessing and an obstacle.


----------



## Psion

Simon Atavax said:


> The fascinating thing about pre-4e editions of D&D is that they did, in fact, have a range of both combat and non-combat roles.
> 
> They term they used back then was "Class".






Hussar said:


> Really?  What non-combat role did a Fighter have?




I think (a) you are taking a joke too seriously, and, (b) even if it were meant seriously, your response doesn't correlate to what Simon said:

Previous EDITIONS had COMBAT ROLES and NON-COMBAT ROLES. They're called CLASSES:

COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Fighter
NON-COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Thief

Get it?

The answer to "what non-combat role does a fighter have" would, by Simon's definition, be "none... unless he's multi-classed."


----------



## Tetsubo

I think we can agree that there are differences between 3.5 and 4E.

For the people that like the direction that 4E has taken the game, these differences are a positive move and are being eagerly embraced.

For the people that don't like the direction 4E has taken the game, those differences are absolute deal breakers. They have taken the game into a direction that (to some) it ceases to be D&D.

I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.

For me, 3.5 is D&D done right. It isn't perfect but it is as close as the game has ever come to being perfect. I lament that my favorite edition of the game is no more. I won't ever again see an official new D&D book in print. All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.


----------



## Tetsubo

DaveMage said:


> Uh, just a math correciton here...
> 
> There were approximately 600 2E products released from TSR/WotC, and less than 200 for both 3E and 3.5 combined.
> 
> There's no way you had anywhere near the "official" number of products in 3E that were released in 2E since, well, that amount is very different.




But 2E didn't have the third party support that 3E did. There was some, but nearly on the same scale.


----------



## JeffB

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.




I started with the LBBS. I support 4E, and the only previous edition of D&D that "failed" for me was 3E. 

I played all of them to have fun. I played/play other games too. 3E was tons more work and very little fun, so I stopped playing it. 

I feel pity for gamers who think their pet version of a game, is the only "true way" and somehow others will be deprived because they dont feel the same way. It's a  *GAME*, ya know? I don't take games all that seriously.

The only thing I actually feel deprived of was all the countless hours lost prepping for 3E games


----------



## DaveMage

Jack99 said:


> Percentage-wise. Meaning I had 90% of the official WotC-stuff of 3.x. Not the same amount of books




Ok then.  



Tetsubo said:


> But 2E didn't have the third party support that 3E did. There was some, but nearly on the same scale.




Yes, but he used the word "official" which is why I made the comment.

I did some checking and did you know that there were over *70 BOX SETS* for 2E?  I think in 3E (including 3rd party) there were about 10.  Ah, the good old days.


----------



## Halivar

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.



Because it was the best available. With 4E, we believe the best got better.

BTW, I have new players in my game who have never played 3.x. They're having a blast, and they don't need your pity.


----------



## Psion

DaveMage said:


> I did some checking and did you know that there were over *70 BOX SETS* for 2E?  I think in 3E (including 3rd party) there were about 10.  Ah, the good old days.




Wow.

I had noticed boxed sets fell out of vogue. Even before 3e. I recall the Council of Wyrms boxed set was republished as a hardbound.

I still lurve some of my 2e boxed sets.


----------



## FireLance

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.



I think Dragon magazine was a key factor in my remaining loyal to whatever was the current version of D&D over the years. Unlike other systems, which were self-contained in one book or a small number of books, or which had irregular supplements, D&D promised a continuous, relatively inexpensive, monthy stream of new material, ideas and inspiration. Starting from 3e, I also started getting Dungeon, for pretty much the same reason.

Plus, what Halivar said.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Holy crap. _Seventy?!_ Wow. And here I am with only, what. . . 3? Eesh. Plus some 1e, a couple for 3e. . . it is high time I went hunting for more boxiness, methinks. Boxy goodness, w00t! 

I love the ones with stuff in them. Like, non-booklet stuff. Maps, counters, whatever. Love it.


----------



## Stormtower

Tetsubo said:


> For me, 3.5 is D&D done right. It isn't perfect but it is as close as the game has ever come to being perfect. I lament that my favorite edition of the game is no more. I won't ever again see an official new D&D book in print. All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.




I know how you are feeling.  To me, 3.5E is also "D&D done right," despite its warts (which I am in the process of houseruling away, little by little with my magical rules-emery-board).  

However, 4E is a really solid game in its own right.  It's versatile enough to run as a homebrew (see pg. 42 and the general attitude of empowering the DM to make stuff up on the fly, quickly and easily), but it's balanced enough to make it the best edition ever for RPGA/organized style play.

When you say new, 4E-exclusive players won't know what they're missing, I say in return: it's up to us as DMs, as the torchbearers of pre-4E D&D culture (whatever that may mean to you individually, it's cool with me) to help new players who are brought on board by 4E to understand the game's roots and not allow the RP traditions and imaginative storytelling parts of the game to die off.  4E can be a heavily tactical boardgame-style kill fest, it can be a sublime RP experience (IMO this part is system-independent), or it can be a hybrid.  

Existing hobbyists who want to help provide direction to D&D, IMO, have a responsibility to define the game and its culture to new hobbyists.  One way to do this is recruit new players and teach them about the roots of the game, while also exploring the new directions that 4E takes the game.

There's nothing to fear here.  D&D never dies as long as people are playing their edition of choice, expanding our hobby into new social circles, and helping define the culture of the game one interaction at a time.


----------



## Cadfan

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.



Because I liked 3e quite a lot.  I just like 4e more.


Tetsubo said:


> For me, 3.5 is D&D done right. It isn't perfect but it is as close as the game has ever come to being perfect. I lament that my favorite edition of the game is no more. I won't ever again see an official new D&D book in print. All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.



I pity you in return.  Your inability to see how remarkably similar 3e and 4e happen to be is sad, and is much more attributable to you than to the game.


----------



## Windjammer

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I did some checking and did you know that there were over *70 BOX SETS* for 2E?  I think in 3E (including 3rd party) there were about 10.  Ah, the good old days.



Hey, can you tell me what those ten are? I've got the two from Goodman Games which I love to bits (Saga of the Dragon Cult, and Heroes Arise), recall WotC' Players Kit and the Necromancer's Wilderlands and City of Brass being boxed sets - but where are the other five?


----------



## Zustiur

Psion said:


> I think (a) you are taking a joke too seriously, and, (b) even if it were meant seriously, your response doesn't correlate to what Simon said:
> 
> Previous EDITIONS had COMBAT ROLES and NON-COMBAT ROLES. They're called CLASSES:
> 
> COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Fighter
> NON-COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Thief
> 
> Get it?
> 
> The answer to "what non-combat role does a fighter have" would, by Simon's definition, be "none... unless he's multi-classed."



Thank you! For a few minutes I was thinking I was the only one who understood his post that way.
In previous editions roles (classes) encompassed the character's place in the team for the whole game, not just for combat. Now it is more like everyone is the same outside of combat. I admit 3E was moving in that direction already, but to me, and it seems many others, 4E took it to the extremity.

Class used to define so much more than how you behaved in combat. We had combat roles and non combat roles. Taking the 4 'classics' we had:
Fighter - good in combat. Good for knocking down doors.
Thief - good at exploring, stealth, dealing with traps and dealing with shady NPCs
Cleric - good at healing, ok as a backup in combat, and good at dealing with nobles and other NPCs
Magic User - Good in combat, and occasionally useful for non combat reasons. Including dealing with haughty intellectual type NPCs.

Bear in mind that I joined in 2E, so my understanding of the above may be incorrect in the fine detail. But that is the gist of it. 
Each class had their distinctions, and many were not strong in combat. That has clearly been altered. Now all classes 'must have an equal role to play in combat'. That simply does not fit right with my understanding of 'what DnD is'.

As for the original question - 
I'm 25 and I evidently am not WotC's target audience. And that stems from two assumptions that 4E is built on.
1) The 'best' part of previous editions was 5th to 12th level.
2) Characters are 'already heroes' when they are 1st level.
My games rarely went beyond 6th level, and always started at 1st. Because it was the early formative stage of the game that interested me and my fellow players. That part of the game seems to have been almost surgically removed. With my group, once the characters are powerful enough to be considered heroes, it's time to think about the next campaign. 

It doesn't take many sessions of playing with the 4E HP model to realize that play style doesn't fit anymore. If the _wizard_ cannot be felled by a single blow at 1st level, something about the game has drastically changed. An 'average' wizard in 4E will have 20 HP. The highest damage dice for a single weapon blow is what? 2d6? 1d12?
Those damage dice used to be scary, and with good reason. Being hit by a greataxe SHOULD have a good chance of killing or maiming you. But I suspect by stating that I'll be labeled as a simulationist.


----------



## La Bete

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.




Well, the various versions of D&D fulfilled my needs from a D&D-type game -*at the time*.

I loved playing D&D 1e and 2e - then those games began to stagger under the weight of all the house rules we created to make it more suitable, as our requirements changed. 

Then 3e came out and addressed most of the issues we had house-ruled 2e for (mainly skills), and we moved to 3e.


Now 4e has come out, and addresses some of the issues I've had with 4e (mainly the fact attempting to add and subtract the various buffs in a  climactic fight caused one of my players to have an epiliptic fit!)

That said, neither 3e or 4e is perfect for me - I still miss the 2e speciality priests!


----------



## Psion

I forked the 2e Boxed set discussion. This one (3e/D20 boxed sets) might deserve a fork, but I'll start here, and if the discussion drags, someone can fork it:



Windjammer said:


> Hey, can you tell me what those ten are? I've got the two from Goodman Games which I love to bits (Saga of the Dragon Cult, and Heroes Arise), recall WotC' Players Kit and the Necromancer's Wilderlands and City of Brass being boxed sets - but where are the other five?




Necromancer Games also had *Rappan Athuk Reloaded*

Goodman Games also had *Castle Whiterock*

Green Ronin had *Hamunaptra*

That's all I can recall in addition to yours.


----------



## Rel

Psion said:


> Previous EDITIONS had COMBAT ROLES and NON-COMBAT ROLES. They're called CLASSES:
> 
> COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Fighter
> NON-COMBAT ROLES IN 1E: Thief




I think that is very clearly stated.  Unfortunately it's probably why I stopped playing D&D in favor of other systems that allowed for characters to be more broadly defined.



Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.




In my early days I played because that's what everybody was playing.  Back then the "other options" were very few, and most of them catered to other genres of gaming.  But when I did have another option to AD&D, I took it.  For the record, the option I went to was Rolemaster, which allowed me to make characters who had a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role".

When 3.0 came out, I bought it and played it and found it superior (for me, at that time) to Rolemaster.  That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role" BUT it also was vastly less complicated compared to RM.

When 4.0 came out, I bought it.  And then I didn't like it very much.  And then I played it and found it superior (for me, at this time) to 3.5.  That was because it allowed me to make characters with a broad array of skills beyond simply their "combat role" BUT it also was rather less complicated (certainly from a GMing perspective) compared to 3.5.

Hmm...maybe my tastes haven't changed as much as I thought they had. 



> All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.




That seems rather condescending.  As you've already said, if they play it and don't have fun, there are TONS of other options available to them out there.  I would assume that they have the wherewithal to obtain and play alternatives if they suit them better.  One of those alternatives will be 3.5 D&D if they so choose.  If they have fun with 4e, well, good for them.


----------



## DaveMage

Windjammer said:


> Hey, can you tell me what those ten are? I've got the two from Goodman Games which I love to bits (Saga of the Dragon Cult, and Heroes Arise), recall WotC' Players Kit and the Necromancer's Wilderlands and City of Brass being boxed sets - but where are the other five?




I forgot about those two from Goodman, but the others I know of are:

Other Box Sets
D&D Basic Game (WotC)
DCC #35 (Aereth Campaign Setting, Goodman)
Caslte Whiterock (Goodman Games)
Midnight Box Set (name is eluding me (Fury of Shadow?), Fantasy Flight Games)
Rappan Athuk Reloaded (Necromancer)
Egyptian Adventures (Hamanaptra, or something like that, Green Ronin)
Ruins of the Dragon King (I think that's the title, Mongoose Publishing)


----------



## Gothmog

Tetsubo said:


> I think we can agree that there are differences between 3.5 and 4E.
> 
> For the people that like the direction that 4E has taken the game, these differences are a positive move and are being eagerly embraced.
> 
> For the people that don't like the direction 4E has taken the game, those differences are absolute deal breakers. They have taken the game into a direction that (to some) it ceases to be D&D.
> 
> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.
> 
> For me, 3.5 is D&D done right. It isn't perfect but it is as close as the game has ever come to being perfect. I lament that my favorite edition of the game is no more. I won't ever again see an official new D&D book in print. All future new players are going to view 4E as the default version of D&D. And I pity them for that. They don't know what they are missing.




I played D&D in previous editions because I liked it, and still enjoy it.  I'd gladly run or play a 1e or 2e AD&D game again, as well as RC D&D.  My group and I saw D&D 3.x as an abberation, and not continuing the traditions or feel of D&D, and it was far more work and less fun to play than other games, so we quit playing it.  IME, D&D 3.x was more about builds, optomization and winning the meta-game of character building, and less about actual play.  I know others will disagree with that assessment, but I saw the same excessive powergaming and pre-planning through 20 levels of advancement time and time again during the time I played 3.x, and from folks who usually are NOT prone to powergaming like that.

For me and my group, 3.x was D&D done wrong, but 4e D&D took the best aspects of 3.x (feats, skills, more flexible classes, standardization of d20+mod to beat a DC, etc), streamlined them, and did D&D right.  Obviously, everybody has their own opinions, but there is no "right" way to play D&D- just individual preferences.


----------



## Jack99

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.




Who says that prior editions failed to meet our needs? First of all, I am 20 years older than when I started to play D&D. I am pretty sure my taste and what I want has changed over the years, or at least affected how I view my games. Also, just because a game doesn't meet all my needs, it doesn't mean I won't switch to another game, if one comes out that meets all my needs. So, in short, I played D&D because it in it's different versions always has been the game I felt suited my needs the most. Although 3.x might have been a mistake for me, it's debatable. 



JeffB said:


> I feel pity for gamers who think their pet version of a game, is the only "true way" and somehow others will be deprived because they dont feel the same way. It's a  *GAME*, ya know? I don't take games all that seriously.



Amen! 



DaveMage said:


> 70 BOX SETS for 2E



Yeah, you wouldn't believe the number of boxes I had..


----------



## DaveMage

Jack99 said:


> Yeah, you wouldn't believe the number of boxes I had..




No, I'd believe it - I still have them.


----------



## Fifth Element

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.



This is such an unfair question. There are many possible answers anyway, from "it was the best thing available at the time" to "tastes change over time, you know" to "all my friends played D&D".


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Tetsubo said:


> I have a question for the supporters of 4E. Why did you ever play D&D? If all previous editions (prior to 4E) failed to meet your needs or wants, why did you play it? There are literally hundreds of other options.



I started with a game that was a combination of 2e and 1e rules.  It was after 2e came out but was our group didn't like all the rules in it, so they used some replacement rules from 1e.  I was taught the rules by the rest of the group and it wasn't until a couple of YEARS after I started playing that I noticed all the rules from 1e we were using.

At any rate, I like D&D because it is fun to gather together with my friends, take on a role and kill monsters.  I get to be the sneaky thief, the tough fighter, the holy cleric, the mysterious wizard, and so on.  I get to save people, be heroic, be powerful...all the things I'm not in real life.

When we switched from 2e to 3e we liked a lot of the changes.  We had a lot of fun with the new rules.  Some didn't go over that well.  I remember some people hating the lack of "realism" in that you couldn't backstab people anymore, because it was impossible to get behind them.  I remember an argument about flatfootedness early on where one of my friends thought it was so stupid that he wouldn't try to dodge out of the way of attacks that were coming towards him simple because the game told him he was "flatfooted".

But mostly, it was good changes.

Monsters used the players rules so they were tougher.  We found that monsters died way too easy in 2e and often combat was a tedious dice rolling exercise.  No one except the wizard and cleric had anything to do but roll and attack roll and damage each round.  No other choices.  We didn't bother using minis before because it didn't really matter where you were.  If you were close enough to an enemy, you made an attack, if you weren't, you had to move that round.

But now combat had all sorts of options.  You could grapple people, bullrush them, use cool powers.  As a rogue you could get better damage EVERY round instead of being restricted to getting a backstab in once every couple of combats when you happen to be hidden before the combat and could somehow stay hidden and make it behind the enemy.  It was more interesting, more dynamic.  Because other options were so substandard or caused so many headaches for the DM, we had simplified combat in our 2e games to pointing at a player and having them respond with two numbers: AC hit and damage dealt.  Init had been simplified to one roll to a side, go around the table clockwise.

And there was very little we disliked about 3e.  At first.  With the more interesting combats came more complication.  A lot more complication.  There were SO many different options that it took hours to make characters.  We had to search through 10 different books for feats, for spells, for new weapons, for PrC, and so on.  We had to consider each level completely separately since 9th level might be better to be taken as a Fighter level, followed by a Rogue level at 10 and a PrC at level 11.  And rules worked together in weird, unforeseen ways.  If you allowed a player to get the Dark template from one book, suddenly he was able to Hide in Plain Sight, allowing him to essentially stay invisible continuously with no way of stopping it.  He got sneak attacks on every one of his attacks(Or did he?  Does hiding go away after you attack even if it is in plain sight?  What if someone has Darkvision so there was no concealment for darkness?  And how did that work with other classes powers and some PrC powers and some feats?  And...so on).

It started causing some other problems.  Now that the game was more balanced, we started noticing the imbalances.  Wizards are too powerful, Clerics are way too powerful, Bards suck.  Frenzied Berzerkers could outperform most other characters.

Creating a monster that could challenge PCs who spent 6-7 hours making up their characters was difficult.  You needed to pick and choose feats just as carefully as they did.  You needed to spend 6-7 hours making a monster to counter it.  And the monster would still die in 2 rounds of combat.  Also, players could come up with spells that would completely bypass all the interesting challenges I'd come up for them.  They'd use Scrye and Teleport in order to skip 6 encounters I had carefully planned.  They'd use Dispel Magic to disable an interesting magic trap instead of solving the puzzle I planned.

So I stopped writing adventures.  I would only run published adventures, since I no longer wanted to do that amount of work for so little payoff.  Only there were still problems with that.  Whenever a monster had spell-like abilities, I'd need to have the full text of those powers memorized or I'd have to look them up at the table.  Otherwise, if I tried to work from memory, my players would notice.  I'd forget the range of Dispel Magic or I'd forget that the area version only effects one spell on each target in the area.  I'd forget SOMETHING and have my players remind me.  Since their pool of knowledge amongst the 5 of them was greater than mine.  I'd need to know what all the feats in the game did since the monster could have any of them.  I'd often forget what one did and just not use it to avoid slowing down the game.  Then find out afterwords that without the feat, the monster was a lot less powerful.

I really missed the ability to improvise.  If I attempted to add a unique magic trap to the game to provide a bit of a change of pace, my players would be wondering why they can't Dispel it, why they can't just teleport to the other side, why their special ability didn't seem to stop it, how someone could build a trap like that when it seemed more powerful than 9th level spells, how someone could afford to make an epic spell that did it and why would an epic level wizard be creating traps in the first place.  The game was consistent, the rules were the same for players and monsters, so if the players had to be 26th level and pay 2.7 million gp in order to create a trap, so did the monsters or NPCs.  If Dispel Magic could dispel an effect, it had to work on ALL effects, not just ones the DM wanted the PCs to pass that easily.  If a spell didn't exist for something, then it couldn't be done(or at least it couldn't be done without complaining from my players who thought it was unfair that NPCs had spells that they didn't).

I took so many steps to speed up combat because each round was an exercise in math.  Which effects ran out this round?  What effects were added this round?  How does my increase of strength increase my to hit and damage?  Did you remember the Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Bard Song, Prayer, Heroes Feast, Bull's Strength, Bless, and Marshal Aura?  What does that make the total modifier on your attacks?  Which ones stack?

It didn't stop us from playing it.  We still loved the combats, even if we were disappointed at how short they were(in terms of number of rounds) and how we had to play second fiddle to the Frenzied Berzerker and the Cleric.  We loved saving people, being heroic, and having cool powers despite all the rules arguments over how they worked together.  I liked running games despite all the work I had to put into it.

But when 4th came out, it was a breath of fresh air.  It had all of the things I liked about the switch from 2e to 3e(no more THACO, actual prices for magic items, simplified mechanic, interesting tactical combat, cool powers) without the stuff that caused the headaches for me(multiclassing being so open that it added a large amount of time to character creation, most of the skill in the game being to combine rules in ways that make them more powerful, the massive stacking of effects, the large amount of prep time, having to consult rules constantly, page long descriptions for spells filled with exceptions, monsters that go down in one hit, monsters that kill you in one hit, save or dies...and so on).

But it still lets me be a sneaky thief, a tough fighter, a mysterious wizard, holy cleric and it still gives me cool powers to save the princess, kill the bad guy and be heroic.


----------



## Mallus

Thasmodious said:


> I completely disagree with that.  What it adds, is pain in the DMs ass and an huge increase in prep time.  Making everything jive on the same power framework was a nice theory (and one new to 3e, it was not this way in previous editions).  It was put into the arena and tested, and, imo, failed.



I agree with your disagreement completely. While depth and verisimilitude are nice goals, I don't see how a unified character-building framework does anything at all to increase either.

I get depth and verisimilitude from the way I characterize and perform NPC's, from the way (and reasons why) they _act_, not from how I represent them with the game mechanics. Claiming that the build rules add to verisimilitude in an RPG is a little like claiming a novel has believable characters because each character's length is given in centimeters.


----------



## DaveMage

DaveMage said:


> I forgot about those two from Goodman, but the others I know of are:
> 
> Other Box Sets
> D&D Basic Game (WotC)
> DCC #35 (Aereth Campaign Setting, Goodman)
> Caslte Whiterock (Goodman Games)
> Midnight Box Set (name is eluding me (Fury of Shadow?), Fantasy Flight Games)
> Rappan Athuk Reloaded (Necromancer)
> Egyptian Adventures (Hamanaptra, or something like that, Green Ronin)
> Ruins of the Dragon King (I think that's the title, Mongoose Publishing)




A couple more: 
Treasure Chest (Paizo)
Hall of Many Panes (Troll Lord)


----------



## Greg K

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And there was very little we disliked about 3e.  At first.  With the more interesting combats came more complication.  A lot more complication.  There were SO many different options that it took hours to make characters.  We had to search through 10 different books for feats, for spells, for new weapons, for PrC, and so on.  We had to consider each level completely separately since 9th level might be better to be taken as a Fighter level, followed by a Rogue level at 10 and a PrC at level 11.  And rules worked together in weird, unforeseen ways.  If you allowed a player to get the Dark template from one book, suddenly he was able to Hide in Plain Sight, allowing him to essentially stay invisible continuously with no way of stopping it.  He got sneak attacks on every one of his attacks(Or did he?  Does hiding go away after you attack even if it is in plain sight?  What if someone has Darkvision so there was no concealment for darkness?  And how did that work with other classes powers and some PrC powers and some feats?  And...so on).
> 
> It started causing some other problems.  Now that the game was more balanced, we started noticing the imbalances.  Wizards are too powerful, Clerics are way too powerful, Bards suck.  Frenzied Berzerkers could outperform most other characters.




And, that you or your DM, if it was someone else, didn't control the *optional * material being used at the gaming table is the game's fault?



> I really missed the ability to improvise.  If I attempted to add a unique magic trap to the game to provide a bit of a change of pace, my players would be wondering why they can't Dispel it, why they can't just teleport to the other side, why their special ability didn't seem to stop it, how someone could build a trap like that when it seemed more powerful than 9th level spells, how someone could afford to make an epic spell that did it and why would an epic level wizard be creating traps in the first place.  The game was consistent, the rules were the same for players and monsters, so if the players had to be 26th level and pay 2.7 million gp in order to create a trap, so did the monsters or NPCs.




The ability to do all that stuff is available to you  in 3e.  If you need some official justification, refer the players to rule 0. Furthermore, there are several  passages in the first twenty pages of the DMG (well, at least the 3e version) that tell the DM
a) that they are in charge of the rules
b) they determine the material that gets used;
c) they can create new monsters, new spells, and new traps; and
d) they can even change the rules.
e) good players recognize that the DM is in charge and can change the rules

If necessary quote the relative passages once to the players.  If they argue continue to complain, smack them on the nose with a rolled newspaper or the DMG- or just remove them from the table.



> If Dispel Magic could dispel an effect, it had to work on ALL effects, not just ones the DM wanted the PCs to pass that easily.  If a spell didn't exist for something, then it couldn't be done(or at least it couldn't be done without complaining from my players who thought it was unfair that NPCs had spells that they didn't).




Nope, tell them it was a special spell (the DM guide let's you create new spells). If they want to research it, let them. Just remember,  nobody says the research has to be easy.



> I took so many steps to speed up combat because each round was an exercise in math.  Which effects ran out this round?  What effects were added this round?  How does my increase of strength increase my to hit and damage?  Did you remember the Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Bard Song, Prayer, Heroes Feast, Bull's Strength, Bless, and Marshal Aura?  What does that make the total modifier on your attacks?  Which ones stack?



 Stacks can be a problem and something that needed to be addressed, I definitely give you that.  However,  I think that there are other ways that they can be handled beginning with the DM controlling the options that come into the particular game they are running. The other is with the mechanics of buffs and halving the bonus and just using that as a modifier to appropriate rolls.


----------



## Thasmodious

Windjammer said:


> Again, that's a mindset I find laudable, but I see no evidence in the RAW for it. Appealing to the stat block's simplicity doesn't tell either way. And, as I said, I find it telling that the p.42 in the DMG is solely designed to cater for "actions" *of the PC* "the rules don't cover".




There is no rule #278: Monsters are more than their stat blocks.  But their is ample evidence, from the MM and the DMG that this is so.  

Page 7 of the MM says monsters have healing surges, but very few monsters have a way to spend them in battle, so they are not included in the stat blocks.  That right there shows that monsters have attributes outside of the stat block.  Many of the creatures are Outsiders, yet their stat blocks don't detail how they came to this place.  The Aboleth hails from the Far Realm but on the Prime they live in the Underdark.  Imps often serve human masters, but no details or ritual is listed as to how that comes about.  The most devout Deathpriests of Orcus can summon Aspects of Orcus, but the Deathpriest stat block contains no mention of this ability.  



> Ah, here lies the source of the trouble. Where 3E erred on the side of covering _every_ tedious bit of the game by the same rule mechanics, this leading to an extreme quantative inflation of rules, 4E is hard to digest because it provides rules _only for combat_,




Well, let's be clear here, 4e provides rules for _encounter resolution_ not just combat.  This includes the mechanical side of social encounters, skill challenges, terrain hazards, stand alone traps...   




> leaving the remainder of the game not integrated into the core mechanic; or, to put it otherwise, leaving the relation the remainder of the game bears to that "core part" unclear and up to the DM. I had never understood and grokked that until I read  this mind-blowing review of 4E, which really sold me on 4E. You see, 4E critics are right that 4E is in a sense about "combat only": it only provides rigid mechanical rules for combat. (Note how much this argument relies on the 3E mentality of "if it's not codified in the rules, it's not in the game.") Every other aspect of the game is entirely left for the DM to administer, skill challenges being a case in point. Now that's what makes 4E liberating to DM.




Some interesting points.  I agree that some of the critics that are heavy 3e champions could well be objecting over the rejection of that 3e mentality by the new edition.  Hence the cries of "4e doesn't allow roleplaying" and "4e is only about combat", which they have to know is simply not the case (unless they haven't read the books at all and only listened to others, much like how the anti-D&D hysteria of the 80s spread).

The review is an interesting piece.  I don't agree with the reviewer at all that 4e is "not any D&D you know".  I think it's very much D&D, with a healthy dose of the old school, an infusion of modern RPG development, and a rejection of what I see as the failed experiment of 3e's PCs/Monsters/NPCs-same thing.  I do agree it is markedly different from every other edition.

The author is right that 4e is a combination of a more free form style of RP mixed with a more codified tactical combat system.  But the two are not seperate.  4e's grand experiment is to combine the two into a seamless RPG.  In my games, thus far, it's been successful.  We'll have to see how it plays out over the course of the edition for final judgment, but I think that is clearly the attempt.  The hard rules in the core books exist to service encounter resolution and the guidelines exist to aid building the game world, encounters, adventures... the usual suspects.  

I think the DMG does an excellent job of encouraging the DM to "take flight" and embrace the traditional role of the DM, and this is where much of its old school flavor comes from.  I'm not sure if it does such a good job of taking a completely new RPG player, picking up D&D for the first time, and conveying all this to that person.  It would be a difficult task, as no one qualified to do that can see from the perspective of the new player.  Maybe the DMG or MM should state more explicitly that a stat block is not the extent of the monster, it is just his combat stats.  Again, I think this is heavily implied, if not ever clearly stated. 



> But I also find this design approach a pain in the back, since the complete separation of those two "halves" of the game - combat and non-combat




As I mentioned above, I don't they are seperated.  I think the goal is integration.  This is seen in things like pg.42, skill challenges, 'the DMs friend' mechanic and other elements present in the books.  Now, with a heavy dose of free form, they certainly could be seperate, but that is really a group design, a playstyle thing.  Groups that enjoy heavy RP will find it easier to integrate with the system, the DM quietly running a skill challenge during a tense negotiation played out through RP, for example; while groups that don't want to RP much at all will be left with a solid tactical combat game, with a mechanical substitution for RP in skills and skill challenges.



> To be honest, I think a great amount of DMs will be discouraged by this complete shift of responsibility from 3E to 4E.




I hope not.  I know myself and many others here have found it remarkably freeing.  To me, that's what DMing is about.  The freeness, combined with how easy and quick prepping encounters and adventures have become has resurged the joy I get from DMing.



> And it's here that I find this type of response to the problem I raised (with Graz'zt limited teleport ability) deeply unsatisfactory. I raised a problem about the RAW, because simply that's the only common ground we'll ever get on a board to discuss the merits and demerits of an edition. So to bring in "but you can forego/delete/arbitrarily add on to the RAW" isn't a defense of the RAW in my book. Not by a long shot.




We disagree about what the RAW is.  I think the clear implication is that monsters can do things outside of their stat blocks.  I'm not talking RAI, either.  The books may not state it outright, in a concise, clear statement (and I agree perhaps they should have), but the reality of that position is everywhere.  And, conversely, no statement exists to contradict the stated notion that such things are the DMs responsibility.

Interesting and productive discussion, sir.  This is a much more productive means to wage edition war


----------



## Thasmodious

Zustiur said:


> In previous editions roles (classes) encompassed the character's place in the team for the whole game, not just for combat. Now it is more like everyone is the same outside of combat. I admit 3E was moving in that direction already, but to me, and it seems many others, 4E took it to the extremity.




It did, but not to the extremity you think.  Earlier editions - your class defined your character.  A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief.  They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much.  Esepcially outside of combat.  3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills.  But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting.  Fighters could still only fight.  You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example.  To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.  

4e doesn't say all fighters are the same.  They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat.  But the character himself is left to the player.  The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku.  The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system.  Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles.  He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him.  4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player.  

No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again.


----------



## The_Gneech

Thasmodious said:


> I think it's very much D&D, with a healthy dose of the old school, an infusion of modern RPG development, and a rejection of what I see as the failed experiment of 3e's PCs/Monsters/NPCs-same thing.




This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.

-The Gneech


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Greg K said:


> And, that you or your DM, if it was someone else, didn't control the *optional * material being used at the gaming table is the game's fault?




IMO, yes. Most absolutely. I will explain further in response to your other points.



Greg K said:


> The ability to do all that stuff is available to you  in 3e.  If you need some official justification, refer the players to rule 0. Furthermore, there are several  passages in the first twenty pages of the DMG (well, at least the 3e version) that tell the DM
> a) that they are in charge of the rules
> b) they determine the material that gets used;
> c) they can create new monsters, new spells, and new traps; and
> d) they can even change the rules.
> e) good players recognize that the DM is in charge and can change the rules




My biggest problems with 3E ended up being multiclassing and stacking. The multiclass rules seemed like a really good idea at first, but added to my aggravation every time I wanted to add a new element to my game. I like new options, whether I created them or found them in a new splat book. But the ability to cherry-pick Prestige Classes made it very hard to balance any new option. Add in the fact that the designers seemed to ignore their own Stacking rules, leaving new bonuses unnamed more times than I care to remember. Every new addition was just begging for the min-maxer to create his new uber-combo.



Greg K said:


> If necessary quote the relative passages once to the players.  If they argue continue to complain, smack them on the nose with a rolled newspaper or the DMG- or just remove them from the table.




Their has to be a balance though. A draconian DM will soon find himself with no players.



Greg K said:


> Nope, tell them it was a special spell (the DM guide let's you create new spells). If they want to research it, let them. Just remember,  nobody says the research has to be easy.




Except the rules never gave any guidance on how to make research difficult. And some players just don't care. Whatever they have to go through to get that new piece to maximize their build, they will.



Greg K said:


> Stacks can be a problem and something that needed to be addressed, I definitely give you that.  However,  I think that there are other ways that they can be handled beginning with the DM controlling the options that come into the particular game they are running. The other is with the mechanics of buffs and halving the bonus and just using that as a modifier to appropriate rolls.




Or you could create a system where one option takes the place of another and stacking is reduced to nearly a non-issue. That is how I view 4E (so far). From the 4E books and previews that have emerged so far all I see is new options, not new ways to create that new monster combo build.


----------



## Greg K

Thasmodious said:


> Fighters could still only fight.  You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example.  To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.




Reread the PHB section on character customization  again.


----------



## billd91

Thasmodious said:


> It did, but not to the extremity you think.  Earlier editions - your class defined your character.  A thief was not a fighter was not a wizard, but a thief was a thief was a thief.  They were all really the same, and didn't account for character much.  Esepcially outside of combat.  3rd edition attempted to account for character with the rules system, specifically skills.  But trying to dance the line between leaving the thief role of skill monkey intact and balancing the other classes around that left the system very limiting.  Fighters could still only fight.  You had to multiclass to have a fighter that was knowledgable and capable of being a military leader (solid cha, diplomacy, knowledge skills, etc), for example.  To pull of many character concepts you had to multiclass.
> 
> 4e doesn't say all fighters are the same.  They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat.  But the character himself is left to the player.  The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku.  The most some of those take to pull off is a feat for a necessary skill, but much of that isn't confined by the encounter-centered skill system.  Thieves are good at thievery and have a style of combat that fits them well, the thief character can be anything else and still be good at his core adventuring roles.  He can be the face, the grifter, the bard, the burglar, the jack of all trades, whatever, and the system doesn't confine him.  4e says adventuring classes define adventurer roles, character is left to the player.
> 
> No two characters have to be the same outside of combat ever again.




And in 3x (or any previous edition) all characters had to be the same outside of combat? I find it interesting that you're basically taking the complaint that a lot of people direct at 4e--that it's combat focus to the detriment of role-playing--and throwing the same cannard at earlier editions.

Characters have _never_ been limited to their statistics, though their stats may  inform the success they have at game-relevant tasks. Every character in every edition has had a lot of potential to be unique depending on how the stats are spread around and how the character chooses to present the character. Non-combat skill systems have added ways to give those different presentations some teeth over the years so that players can see actual, in game, benefits of their different development choices.

You could always have played a fighter skilled as a blacksmith or a smooth talking military leader or samurai skilled at haiku and knowing something about history. That really hasn't changed, just the mechanics for representing such things has changed from time to time. From being basic background and fiat, to non-weapon proficiency, to skill ranks, and back to a mix of skill ranks and basic background and fiat, the ability has been there. Claiming that's new to 4e is really a non-starter.


----------



## MrMyth

Greg K said:


> And, that you or your DM, if it was someone else, didn't control the *optional *material being used at the gaming table is the game's fault?




Clerics and Wizards and Bards are optional now?

But even when considering all the various optional material - what if a DM _wants_ to have that extra content, but doesn't want the skewing of balance that comes with it? Shouldn't that be a worthwhile goal to works towards - especially setting a framework in place that handles additional content much more smoothly? 



> The ability to do all that stuff is available to you in 3e. If you need some official justification, refer the players to rule 0. Furthermore, there are several passages in the first twenty pages of the DMG (well, at least the 3e version) that tell the DM
> a) that they are in charge of the rules
> b) they determine the material that gets used;
> c) they can create new monsters, new spells, and new traps; and
> d) they can even change the rules.
> e) good players recognize that the DM is in charge and can change the rules
> 
> If necessary quote the relative passages once to the players. If they argue continue to complain, smack them on the nose with a rolled newspaper or the DMG- or just remove them from the table.




Sure, you could just do what you wanted - but I think it hard to deny that 3.5 encouraged an equalizing of power between the DM and the players, and encouraged having the DMing following closely to the same rules players are bound by. Traps and encounters and monsters are supposed to be carefully constructed using the various formula for doing so, not thrown out or improvised on the spot. 

You certainly could ignore this and do as you wanted anyway, and change monsters as desired, and let PCs do crazy stunts or pursue creative solutions, etc. But 4E _actively supports_ that sort of improvisation and DM control of elements that should be defined more by plot than by formulas. 

This isn't to say this is the only way to play - as the Gneech points out, some people will prefer a game where the mechanics are the same for everyone, and others prefer a game where that isn't the case. This is definitely one area when there are clear pros and cons of both, and nothing wrong with it simply being a matter of personal preference as to which one enjoys more. 

But I think it is also clear that 3.5 favors the game where everything is more strictly defined, while 4E favors putting more control back into the DMs hands. You could certainly run either edition otherwise - you can run a 3.5 game via DM improvisation, or create a 4E game where you have carefully detailed every single element of how powers interact, with various changes in place to put PCs and monsters on identical playing fields. But, in the end, that isn't the natural direction of either system.


----------



## Greg K

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I
> My biggest problems with 3E ended up being multiclassing and stacking



Multiclassing and stacking was my big issue as well  only from the beginning.(if I liked DND above level 12, my biggest issue would have been Wizards, Clerics, and druids).  



> But the ability to cherry-pick Prestige Classes made it very hard to balance any new option.



And PrCs were optional. They weren't required to be used. Furthermore, they were intended to be tailored/included by the DM based on their individual campaign setting.  That DMs ignored this is not the game's fault.



> Add in the fact that the designers seemed to ignore their own Stacking rules, leaving new bonuses unnamed more times than I care to remember. Every new addition was just begging for the min-maxer to create his new uber-combo..




And, it is the DM's responsability, for the sake of campaign, to slap uber combos down if they had a negative effect on the game, because the designers have no idea what you are allowing at your table.


----------



## Allister

This thread has been very insightful. I know exactly WHY I like 4E so much.

I like the fact that outside of combat, classes don't determne role as much.
I like the fact that monsters and players are built on different assumptions.


----------



## Tetsubo

Cadfan said:


> Because I liked 3e quite a lot.  I just like 4e more.
> 
> I pity you in return.  Your inability to see how remarkably similar 3e and 4e happen to be is sad, and is much more attributable to you than to the game.




As I said, there are differences between 3.5 and 4E. For me those differences are deal breakers. 4E "fixed" things that I didn't think needed to be "fixed". It made changes to the game that take the system in directions that I do not think it should go in. In addition I think many of those changes were made so that the two versions would not be backwards compatible. Designed to specifically drive sales of 4E at the cost of the game and the hobby.

If you enjoy tactical miniature games with a fantasy element, 4E seems to be the system for you. 

It simply doesn't suit my idea of what a role-playing game is.


----------



## Greg K

MrMyth said:


> Sure, you could just do what you wanted - but I think it hard to deny that 3.5 encouraged an equalizing of power between the DM and the players, and encouraged having the DMing following closely to the same rules players are bound by. Traps and encounters and monsters are supposed to be carefully constructed using the various formula for doing so, not thrown out or improvised on the spot. .




If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0.  However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG.   Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.

However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run.  And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).


----------



## Benimoto

The_Gneech said:


> This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.




I saw it as a partial success.  The system gave PCs class levels while monsters had hit dice, which were sort of like levels, but worse.  Monsters made up for how bad their hit dice were by getting a lot of them, and by getting powerful racial modifiers to ability scores and AC.  The systems interacted together in sometimes unintuitive and non-transparent ways, and when combined, produced unpredictable CR results.  And then you added templates on top of it, which generally bypassed the whole hit dice/level system, and just added a bunch of bonuses and abilities instead of levels.

It meant that while you could make almost any monster function like a PC, it was troublesome to have PCs who were monsters.  Templates, similarly, worked okay on monsters, but were often terrible for PCs.  It meant that to have powerful humanoid NPCs, you had to give them class levels, which meant equipping them like PCs.  And since the whole concept of adding PC levels to monsters worked in with the multiclass system, improving monsters with levels meant that they started at the beginning of the level system, no matter how tough they were overall.  So adding fighter levels worked well and adding spellcaster levels usually didn't.

A 4th level fighter is a guy who's taken 4 levels of fighter.  A minotaur 4th level fighter is a minotaur who's taken 4 levels of fighter.  That worked.  But in a lot of ways, the game tried to say that a minotaur was something (what exactly?) that's taken 6 (or 4 or 8, depending on if you look at HD, CR or EL) levels of minotaur.  That didn't work.  Can a fighter start taking levels of minotaur?  Can an orc?

So it wasn't a success.  PCs and monsters were still very different things, despite their similarities.  And, as people have mentioned, it made generating or improving monsters a big, overly-complicated mess.


----------



## Cadfan

Tetsubo said:


> As I said, there are differences between 3.5 and 4E. For me those differences are deal breakers. 4E "fixed" things that I didn't think needed to be "fixed". It made changes to the game that take the system in directions that I do not think it should go in. In addition I think many of those changes were made so that the two versions would not be backwards compatible. Designed to specifically drive sales of 4E at the cost of the game and the hobby.
> 
> If you enjoy tactical miniature games with a fantasy element, 4E seems to be the system for you.
> 
> It simply doesn't suit my idea of what a role-playing game is.



I'll agree that someone who enjoys tactical miniature games is more likely than not to enjoy 4e, and that someone who dislikes tactical miniature games is more likely than not to dislike 4e.  I do believe that an intentional decision was made to make combat more like a tactical miniatures game.  I've written elsewhere on this decision, but the short version of my longer rant is that I believe that all RPGs have to make a _serious decision_ about what their combat will be.  RPGs that fail to do so are like automobiles powered by gerbils on a wheel.  It doesn't matter how snazzy the exterior, because the interior won't make the thing move.

Where I get off the bus is all the rest of the stuff people add to the "combat is like a boardgame" line, stuff about 4e not having roleplaying anymore, or any of the other alarmist junk that floats around this place.

Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game.  I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel.  The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game.  And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever.

That would be a legitimate way to handle combat in an RPG.  All it needs now is some fine tuning, a setting, character building rules, and some plot hooks, and I've got an Indie release already designed.  Never thought it would be that easy!

Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG.  I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me."  If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so.  And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG _to me_," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Greg K said:


> If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0.  However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG.   Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.
> 
> However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run.  And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).




What I am trying to say is that a DM should feel secure in adding rules supplements designed by the company that makes the game without having to worry about them breaking the game. I believe 4E has been designed in a way that supplements can be added with less of a worry that it will break the game for four reasons:

1) Multiclassing is limited. You can no longer cherry-pick abilities from 100's of different prestige and base classes.
2) Limited stacking.
3) Power structure equalized. Every character has the same number of power options available. New supplements and more options to choose from, not more powers to stack on your uber-combo.
4) Feats have been diminished in power. They now provide small bonuses instead of granting you entirely new powers as they could in 3E.


----------



## MrMyth

Greg K said:


> If we are going to limit it 3.5 equalizing power, maybe. They removed Rule 0. However, I haven't seen the 3.5 DMG. Now, on the website, yes, WOTC seemed to feed the idea that DMs should allow everything with designers contradicting earlier stances about the DM tailoring the rules and reeked of cross marketing to the detriment of the game.
> 
> However, WOTC is not the DM and does not control what goes on at the game table. Many DMs, out of fear of losing players, simply handed over power they had and let selfish players ruin their campaigns and make the game unfun to run. And, from what I can tell from message boards, it began in 3.0 (well, not really, there have always been players like this in previous editions. I just think the internet has put a magnifying glass to the situation).




Yeah, I should have been clearer, but I do think it was alll of 3rd Edition that really had this emphasis. And yes, no one was _specifically bound_ by it, and a DM could stick with Rule 0 as desired - I just think there was a much stronger emphasis on abiding by a closed, joint system for the players and DM, while 4E has a stronger emphasis on a more free-form guidance by the DM and more encouragement of non-standard actions that the rules might not strictly define.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Cadfan said:


> Suppose I made an RPG where all combat was handled through a card game.  I could do it in about half an hour, I bet- I'd make it a western and have combat resolution work through a poker-like game, themed in-game as a gunfighter duel.  The bluffing element of a gunfighter's duel would be built right into the game.  And maybe, as your character leveled up, your deck could customize- replace all your 2s with Aces or something when you learn the Quickdraw power or whatever.




All I'd like to say to the above is: When and where can I buy your game? 



Cadfan said:


> Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG.  I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me."  If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so.  And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG _to me_," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.




I think you've got it here. This is what sticks in my craw the most, that others are inferring (or outright saying) that the RPG I enjoy is not an RPG, not a real RPG, or even just not an RPG to them.


----------



## Cadfan

Dude, I'm seriously going to have to develop that idea some more.

I don't think I can do actual poker if I want everyone to have their own deck.  But what's the core of poker?  Looking at your hand, estimating how good it is, deciding whether to be in or out, and having to give up information if you choose to ask for more cards?  I think I could make this work.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think you've got it here. This is what sticks in my craw the most, that others are inferring (or outright saying) that the RPG I enjoy is not an RPG, not a real RPG, or even just not an RPG to them.




There is a word for this, and it is badwrongfun. Saying this sort of thing is very self-centered, as if your opinion of what an RPG is is more important than others. Saying that 3E is better than 4E is one thing, I personally say the reverse. Saying that 4E isn't worthy of consideration as an RPG is something else.


----------



## Lacyon

Benimoto said:


> I saw it as a partial success. The system gave PCs class levels while monsters had hit dice, which were sort of like levels, but worse.
> 
> ...
> 
> And then you added templates on top of it, which generally bypassed the whole hit dice/level system, and just added a bunch of bonuses and abilities instead of levels.




I think these two points are at the heart of the Monsters as PCs issue. Regardless of the fact that they were supposed to be similar, monster abilities were _in practice_ almost completely decoupled from Hit Dice (levels) except for attack bonus, hp, skill ranks, and saves (all of which could be adjusted by racial bonuses anyway). If you did build them to be just like PCs, they became just as equipment-dependent as PCs. In reality, none of them were.

(This was also the root of the problem with 3E polymorph, IMO. The spell was limited by the base HD of the creature you were emulating, but granted you _none_ of the characteristics that actually were coupled with monster HD and (nearly) all of the characteristics that _weren't_.)


----------



## Fifth Element

Cadfan said:


> Now, if you hate poker, I would not expect you to like this hypothetical RPG.  I would not feel offended if you said, "I do not like Poker, therefore, Cadfan's Poker-engine-based RPG is not appealing to me."  If, however, you said "Cadfan's so-called RPG is really just Poker, and not a real RPG at all," I would be angry, and I think justifiably so.  And I wouldn't really care if you later change that to "its not a real RPG _to me_," because I don't think you get to make up personal definitions of words.



You hit the nail on the head in a nice, concise way here. The method of, or rules-focus of, encounter resolution has nothing to do with whether something is an RPG.

And no, people don't get to make up their own definition of an RPG, especially if they're going to be using the term in a public discussion forum.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a word for this, and it is badwrongfun. Saying this sort of thing is very self-centered, as if your opinion of what an RPG is is more important than others. Saying that 3E is better than 4E is one thing, I personally say the reverse. Saying that 4E isn't worthy of consideration as an RPG is something else.



Well said! A question though in regards to this thread.

What is _fantasy _to you and does 4E embody it?

I think a chunk of people (I'll include myself in this group) got into fantasy rpgs through a variety of mediums way back when including D&D. Firstly there are the books of which Lord of the Rings most likely stands at the front, although obviously there are a stack of others. For me you can include the Fighting Fantasy Game books (City of Thieves and Deathtrap Dungeon being standouts, Iain McCaig's illustrations too), Magician by Raymond E. Feist, but then some more recent and older expanded influences (Martin, Leiber, Howard, Erikson, Williams etc.). You can then include a whole heap of images and visuals - the AD&D Monster Manual II cover is a big one for me here, but there's a whole stack of others.

Previous editions of D&D have been able to be shoe-horned to fit this reasonably easily. Magical Items have been perhaps trivialised moreso than I like but that was easy enough to fix. 4E however presents a few basic issues for me in terms of fitting in with my idea of fantasy. Most importantly, where my suspension of disbelief sat has been forced to move. A lot of the simulationist elements of the game have been replaced, moved or just simply gotten rid of. I can hear Mike Mearls voice saying something like: "Some things that were in the game just weren't fun, so we got rid of them. Replaced them with things that we thought were fun." His interview with the Theory from the Closet guy was very interesting... and I suppose it did make me feel in a strange way that the designers were leaving my fantasy world behind for something different.

In terms of marketing the game, you could almost see the guys around a table looking at things from a GNS perspective and thinking: well every one likes games, games are cool so we'll definitely include that. Narrative is like story stuff, and that's kind of cool too. Everyone likes stories. Ah... guys... what about simulationism though? What do you guys think? [The table goes quiet for a minute before someone has a thought] You mean like the dudes who wear viking helmets to games, talk in elvish (Quenya or something) and dress up in armor and beat each other up with swords on weekends. Hmmm... way uncool... dorks even. Perhaps thats what D&D needs to get away from? And so that meeting went...

Unfortunately while I'm really enjoying the game that 4E is with my group, there is definitely a disconnect there with the fantasy I enjoy and the 4E rules as written - all hinged where my suspension of disbelief was sitting, and where it has been forced to move to. The logic behind the world that the game presents has scattered; been moved at the expense of cleaning up mechanics. I guess that for people in that "chunk" that I mentioned before, this is something that you can either accept and move on with (like I suppose I have) or it becomes something that you cannot accept. Something that I suppose means that your D&D journey has ended. And that's a sad thing people.

Some have mentioned that the 3E to 4E change is the same as the 2E to 3E change, it is just that people are forgetting the acrimony of the time, the pervasiveness of the internet now compared to then and all that.

I disagree.

The change from 3E to 4E mechanically speaking is in some ways much less than the mechanical changes from 2E to 3E. However, the ethos behind the changes is dramatically different. Is it just as simple as saying that 4E has left a lot of the simulationist baggage behind (and a chunk of people at the same time)? Or is it bigger than that? I have a bad feeling that it might be.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## HelloChristian

The_Gneech said:


> This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.
> 
> -The Gneech




I'm with you on this. It's one of the things I like about generic systems, like GURPS. Monsters, NPCs and PCs are all built with the same toolkit. There a transparency and universality of 3.5 that I like.


----------



## Windjammer

Thasmodious said:


> Interesting and productive discussion, sir.  This is a much more productive means to wage edition war



I'd just like to reciprocate that compliment. For many people*, the edition wars have been a wonderful if emotionally highly charged opportunity to get even clearer about how to decipher general design principles and match these with (or against) personal preferences. 

* Or should I say, [ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM]"for us few, us happy few"[/ame]?


----------



## Intense_Interest

Herremann the Wise said:


> What is _fantasy _to you and does 4E embody it?
> 
> I think a chunk of people (I'll include myself in this group) got into fantasy rpgs through a variety of mediums way back when including D&D. Firstly there are the books of which Lord of the Rings most likely stands at the front, although obviously there are a stack of others. For me you can include the Fighting Fantasy Game books (City of Thieves and Deathtrap Dungeon being standouts, Iain McCaig's illustrations too), Magician by Raymond E. Feist, but then some more recent and older expanded influences (Martin, Leiber, Howard, Erikson, Williams etc.). You can then include a whole heap of images and visuals - the AD&D Monster Manual II cover is a big one for me here, but there's a whole stack of others.
> 
> Previous editions of D&D have been able to be shoe-horned to fit this reasonably easily. Magical Items have been perhaps trivialised moreso than I like but that was easy enough to fix. 4E however presents a few basic issues for me in terms of fitting in with my idea of fantasy. Most importantly, where my suspension of disbelief sat has been forced to move. A lot of the simulationist elements of the game have been replaced, moved or just simply gotten rid of. I can hear Mike Mearls voice saying something like: "Some things that were in the game just weren't fun, so we got rid of them. Replaced them with things that we thought were fun." His interview with the Theory from the Closet guy was very interesting... and I suppose it did make me feel in a strange way that the designers were leaving my fantasy world behind for something different.
> 
> In terms of marketing the game, you could almost see the guys around a table looking at things from a GNS perspective and thinking: well every one likes games, games are cool so we'll definitely include that. Narrative is like story stuff, and that's kind of cool too. Everyone likes stories. Ah... guys... what about simulationism though? What do you guys think? [The table goes quiet for a minute before someone has a thought] You mean like the dudes who wear viking helmets to games, talk in elvish (Quenya or something) and dress up in armor and beat each other up with swords on weekends. Hmmm... way uncool... dorks even. Perhaps thats what D&D needs to get away from? And so that meeting went...
> 
> Unfortunately while I'm really enjoying the game that 4E is with my group, there is definitely a disconnect there with the fantasy I enjoy and the 4E rules as written - all hinged where my suspension of disbelief was sitting, and where it has been forced to move to. The logic behind the world that the game presents has scattered; been moved at the expense of cleaning up mechanics. I guess that for people in that "chunk" that I mentioned before, this is something that you can either accept and move on with (like I suppose I have) or it becomes something that you cannot accept. Something that I suppose means that your D&D journey has ended. And that's a sad thing people.
> 
> Some have mentioned that the 3E to 4E change is the same as the 2E to 3E change, it is just that people are forgetting the acrimony of the time, the pervasiveness of the internet now compared to then and all that.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> The change from 3E to 4E mechanically speaking is in some ways much less than the mechanical changes from 2E to 3E. However, the ethos behind the changes is dramatically different. Is it just as simple as saying that 4E has left a lot of the simulationist baggage behind (and a chunk of people at the same time)? Or is it bigger than that? I have a bad feeling that it might be.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




While I understand that you can be feeling like D&D is moving away from your personal idea of what fantasy is, you spent a thousand words without actually saying how this is so.

You need to spend less time being a politician / demagogue and actually contribute to the discussion by providing meaningful examples.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> 4e doesn't say all fighters are the same. They say fighters all have similar approaches to combat. But the character himself is left to the player. The fighter can be a highly skilled blacksmith, or a smooth talking military officer or a samurai warrior steeped in history and haiku.




Y'know, the same thing could be said about 2e and 1e, to a greater or lesser degree (and even to a great degree in 3e). 

But that, for me, is a problem. That's one of the big reasons I don't frequently play 1e or 2e (or 4e). 

Because by not providing me many rules for what my character is outside of combat, they have effectively made me (and everyone else at the table) disinclined to do many things other than combat. 

It's like the "you can Roleplay Monopoly!" counter-argument. Sure, you can role-play during Monopoly, but the game doesn't really care if you do, it doesn't advocate it, and so if you do, you're kind of going against what the rules declare is the *point* of the game (to take all the moneys). 

You can be a haiku-spouting fighter in 4e, but the game doesn't care if you do, it doesn't advocate it, and so if you do, it seems to be against what the rules concentrate on (to beat up the goblins and get their XP). 

I want a game that *cares* about the fact that my fighter can spout haikus, and that does so without me having to add anything. 

As far as editions of D&D go, 3e fits that need a lot better than 4e, because 4e doesn't really care about me unless I'm beating faces in (and then it seems to care WAY TOO MUCH about some very fiddly bits, but that's more of a rant about grid-based minis combat than about the wrought iron fence made of tigers).


----------



## Shroomy

I'm sorry, but how exactly does 3.x support a haiku-spouting fighter better than 4e?  The Perform (Haiku) skill?  IMO, 3.x would mechanically discourage this, given the Fighter's lack of skill points and the relevant skills not be class-skills.  Its such an incidental thing, that 4e's open-ended, discretionary system would be better served (hell, a 4e style ability check + half level probably would work better if you really needed to roll for it).


----------



## Toras

I also like the idea of a unified rule system, such as the GURPs or Mutants and Masters minds based ones.  Honestly, I would have loved to have D&D use something like that point based design with possibly something like modern's careers for backgrounds and templates for the classes.


----------



## Halivar

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I want a game that *cares* about the fact that my fighter can spout haikus, and that does so without me having to add anything.



I'd rather find a *DM* who cares about my haiku-fighter.

In one of my old 3.x groups, we ran what could be best described as a PvP arena boardgame, simply because that was the nature of the group. The real "fun" there was the character min-max meta-game _in between_ sessions. The game itself was merely the conflict resolution mechanic whereby we determined whether we had successfully broken the power curve _more_ than the other players.

My Saturday 4E DM is a storyteller. Perhaps 4E is _supposed_ to be a tactical combat boardgame; in which case, we are using it _wrong_, and happy to do so.

IMXP, it is not the rules that dictate whether there will be in-depth, immersive roleplay and diverse, interesting characters; rather, it is the people at the table with you.


----------



## Fifth Element

Halivar said:


> I'd rather find a *DM* who cares about my haiku-fighter.



Well said.


----------



## billd91

Shroomy said:


> I'm sorry, but how exactly does 3.x support a haiku-spouting fighter better than 4e?  The Perform (Haiku) skill?  IMO, 3.x would mechanically discourage this, given the Fighter's lack of skill points and the relevant skills not be class-skills.  Its such an incidental thing, that 4e's open-ended, discretionary system would be better served (hell, a 4e style ability check + half level probably would work better if you really needed to roll for it).




Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all. And whether or not it's a worthwhile purpose is going to depend a lot more on the individual campaign. I could imagine a campaign in which craft (poetry) might be used more than ride, handle animal, climb, or jump.
There's _nothing_ in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.


----------



## Intense_Interest

billd91 said:


> Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all. And whether or not it's a worthwhile purpose is going to depend a lot more on the individual campaign. I could imagine a campaign in which craft (poetry) might be used more than ride, handle animal, climb, or jump.
> There's _nothing_ in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.




How about if a DM said that you had to either use a Knowledge (Literature) or Craft (Poetry) skill to find or make a poem, respectively, but a Perform (Poetry) to actually say it aloud?  Again, we're drifting far down the "Roleplaying isn't a Game system decision" stream.


----------



## Fifth Element

billd91 said:


> Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all.



Looking at the examples given for Craft and Perform, it's very clear which one poetry falls under. All of the Craft skills involve making something for which the physical form matters. A haiku is a series of words. The way it's written matters not.

From PHB p.70: "_All crafts require artisan's tools to give the best chance of success_." The type of pen you're using doesn't affect the quality of a poem.

So yes, it would be cross-class. Unless you just had a DM who cares about your haiku-fighter.



billd91 said:


> There's _nothing_ in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.



Well, yes there is really. The fact that fighters get very few skill points, and the fact that poetry would be cross-class (it is not a craft). And since the cross-class skill sucks up so many skill points, you'd have far less skill ranks in other, more useful (mechanically) skills.

The best way to do it would probably be a fighter/bard, but that carries a whole lot of other baggage you might not want.


----------



## Shroomy

billd91 said:


> Craft (poetry) could, arguably, be used. Not cross class at all. And whether or not it's a worthwhile purpose is going to depend a lot more on the individual campaign. I could imagine a campaign in which craft (poetry) might be used more than ride, handle animal, climb, or jump.
> There's _nothing_ in the mechanics that discourages spending points on being a good poet. It's all a question of the campaign in which the character will be playing.




I agree that in some campaigns, the ability to compose and/or perform poetry would be more useful than his physical skills, but that's beside the point (and even then, you're probably talking about a minority of campaigns).  I'm not even sure if Craft would be the correct skill in this case (personally, I would lean towards Perform since from my reading, the Craft skills seem to cover actually building an object), but I would argue that low skill points that a fighter receives is more or less a disincentive to choosing these type of RP skills.  At least, that seemed to be the designer's intent, even if enterprising players and DMs could adapt the system to serve their specific purposes.

In 4e, if the ability to compose poetry became mechanically relevant to the game (and in most cases, IMO, it won't be), an ability check + half level against the appropriate ability check DCs (which come in easy, medium, and hard and are scaled differently than skill check DCs due to the lack of training and skill focus) seems to me a better form of general mechanical support for these types of situations.  Also, the DMG pretty much encourages you to give circumstance bonuses in these types of situations if you have a good reason, and being a haiku spouting fighter seems like a good reason to give a +2 bonus to the roll, at least to me.


----------



## Allister

I'm curious as to WHY having roles that dictate both combat and non-combat is considered a GOOD thing. I keep seeing people saying this is a good thing but I'm not sure how.

Seriously, as a DM I hated this since I had to always keep in mind that the other guy whose class was weak in combat needed non-combat encounters to shine.

However, that led to the SR problem where only that character took part (Deckers) and just like Shadowrun, I found it actually discouraged non-combat encounters.

If, for example, I wanted to design a social encounter where the PCs had to cajole, convince some nobles, in 4E, I can be reasonably certain that everyone can contribute due to the skill challenge mechanic and the inherent nature of the skill system.

In 3E? Looks like only the bard is taking part since the rogue has spent points on "dungeon-exploration" and the fighter has only points in the class skills.

So why would a DM actually be encouraged to run non-combat encounters when there's a good chance that the other people in the group are just going to be fiddling their thumbs?


re: 4E's design focus
I still believe that one of the main reasons why 4E switched its focus was due to 2 things.

a) fantasy has changed
It's hard to deny that the LotR movies actually are more "wahoo" than the books and the influence of anime on the target audience can not be underestimated. To many in the target audience, it is no longer LotR the novels, but LotR, the movies.

b) less available time
I think this is another factor that gets underestimated. Pre 4E (and mostly pre-3E), the classes were balanced on the fact that over the course of a campaign (a couple years if not more), each class would get a chance to shine.

I don't think this is true anymore. WOTC's target audience is no longer one that has the time is my hunch to have the classes be balanced over time. Each class, be it in combat or noncombat is supposed to be able to contribute to that encounter.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I'd rather find a *DM* who cares about my haiku-fighter.




You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?



> IMXP, it is not the rules that dictate whether there will be in-depth, immersive roleplay and diverse, interesting characters; rather, it is the people at the table with you.




I'm not speaking about dictums. There's nothing in Monopoly that tells you you can't have immersive roleplay, either. Still, few people do it because _there is no reason to_. The rules certainly don't tell you to.

By having less rules for how well my fighter can spin haikus than 3e, 4e gives me less support. That's not to say I can't add it, of course I can. That is to say that 4e doesn't *give* me that.

I can add haikus to my fighter like I can roleplay in Monopoly, and, in both cases, there isn't enough incentive or payoff for me as a player. I certainly don't create fighters who can compose haikus just to amuse myself. I want an effect on the game, because it is the game that amuses me. 4e doesn't give me that, and while I can certainly force it in, it doesn't make the game better because it excludes it. In fact, for me, it makes the game worse.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Allister said:
			
		

> Seriously, as a DM I hated this since I had to always keep in mind that the other guy whose class was weak in combat needed non-combat encounters to shine.




I agree with this being a problem in most D&D editions.

But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to *exclude* combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.

Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other. 

It's possible, here, to have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?
> 
> I can add haikus to my fighter like I can roleplay in Monopoly, and, in both cases, there isn't enough incentive or payoff for me as a player. I certainly don't create fighters who can compose haikus just to amuse myself. I want an effect on the game, because it is the game that amuses me. 4e doesn't give me that, and while I can certainly force it in, it doesn't make the game better because it excludes it. In fact, for me, it makes the game worse.




Two questions:

What game has done rules for performing haikus well?

What effect on the game did Perform (Haiku) have in 3E if you were a Fighter?


----------



## Shroomy

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I agree with this being a problem in most D&D editions.
> 
> But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to *exclude* combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.
> 
> Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other.
> 
> It's possible, here, to have your cake and eat it, too.




I'm having delicious cake every Monday (well not tonight, because our DM's wife got really sick).  While our fighter is pretty much just a fighter, our warlock is the party face (Striker-Negotiator, he even re-trained a skill to be better at Diplomacy) and my artificer is the craft guy and skill monkey (Leader-Crafters).  Our DM makes liberal use out of the non-combat encounter sections of the DMG, while we use our skills and non-combat feats all the time.  Hell, our new wizard player took the Linguist feat twice and now speaks all but two of the languages in the game (next level, he'll get the feat again and speaking everything).


----------



## Fifth Element

Kamikaze Midget said:


> By having less rules for how well my fighter can spin haikus than 3e, 4e gives me less support. That's not to say I can't add it, of course I can. That is to say that 4e doesn't *give* me that.



I don't think you can really argue that 3e does support this specific case any better. We can't even agree which skill it falls under. In 4e, it would fall under an ability check.

3e certainly suffers from the perception of "if it's not in the rules, you can't do it". 4e expressly goes with the "say yes" approach.


----------



## Psion

The_Gneech said:


> This is another of those "don't speak the same language" things -- I saw the 3E PC/monster/NPC sameness experiment as a spectacular success.










I've related this tale before, but it's what _sold_ me on 3e. Prior to that, I was ambivalent about 3e. I bought the MM, saw how monsters were done... and went on to run campaigns that matched or surpassed any that I ran in the "old days". Because the system supported what I was trying to do.


----------



## Fifth Element

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to *exclude* combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.
> 
> Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other.



I'm sorry, are you saying that 4E offers *no* support for nature skills, negotiating and rituals?


----------



## Andor

Fifth Element said:


> I'm sorry, are you saying that 4E offers *no* support for nature skills, negotiating and rituals?




As compared to it's support for combat? Perhaps not none, in the strictest of senses.


----------



## Allister

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I agree with this being a problem in most D&D editions.
> 
> But in some hypothetical 4e that took noncombat roles into account, that doesn't need to *exclude* combat roles. We could still have Strikers and Leaders and Controllers. But now we would have Striker-Negotiators, and Leader-Crafters, and Defender-Naturalists, and Controller-Ritualists. And we would have rules and powers and abilities to use for negotiating and crafting and wandering around in the wild and performing the "swiss army knife" of rituals that equals importance with the rules for marking and healing and opportunity attacks and hit points.
> 
> Rather than a complete suite of rules for one half of the game, and nothing for the other.
> 
> It's possible, here, to have your cake and eat it, too.




Actually, you can't have DEFINED non-combat roles as that leads to the same problem.

Unless everyone has a chance to contribute in a non-combat encounter, you're NOT going to have DMs actually use said encounter.

Let's take a dungeon-exploration non-combat role. How much can the non-combat "party face" role actually contribute?

That' why I strongle disagree with non-combat roles as non-combat unlike combat, encapulates more than 1 distinct thing.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Allister said:


> This thread has been very insightful. I know exactly WHY I like 4E so much.
> 
> I like the fact that outside of combat, classes don't determne role as much.
> I like the fact that monsters and players are built on different assumptions.




Do you like the fact that inside of combat, classes determine role as much? Or more, if the designers did what they wanted to do?

If so, why do you like class determining role in combat, but not like class determining role outside of combat?


----------



## Halivar

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm not speaking about dictums. There's nothing in Monopoly that tells you you can't have immersive roleplay, either. Still, few people do it because _there is no reason to_. The rules certainly don't tell you to.



The Monopoly comparison is tired. Monopoly doesn't have a chapter on how to craft a character. 4E does. To say they have equivalent rules-based incentive to roleplay simply isn't true.


----------



## Allister

Ycore Rixle said:


> Do you like the fact that inside of combat, classes determine role as much? Or more, if the designers did what they wanted to do?
> 
> If so, why do you like class determining role in combat, but not like class determining role outside of combat?




Because out of combat, there's more than 1 possible scenario and it pretty much impossible to have the roles actually enable anyone and everyone to take part.

Take combat for example. Every class has a role and brings something unique to the table. As a DM, I don't really have to worry about "can Peter take part in this combat encounter?".

Contrast this with the other examples I listed for noncombat. The thing is, even the Shadowrun designers realized this ad I think the WOTC designers did as well.

How does Craft (haiku) help in the non-combat dungeon exploration route or the agatha christie murder style plot?

The thing is, I don't consider combat and non-combat THAT different. There just both forms of encounter resolution but it is just that it is much eaier to get combat "defined". How does one make rules for say an encounter where the goal is to convince the court to send oldiers to the frontier?


----------



## Cadfan

1. It is possible for Perform: Haiku to be a useful skill.  Ok, this is a true statement.
2. One can imagine a campaign in which Perform: Haiku was just as important to a character's survival as Swim or Jump.  Ok, I guess I can.
3. Therefore Swim or Jump and Perform: Haiku are equivalent, equally deserving of mechanical support, and inclusion in the core rules.  NO! BAD! STOP!

1. It is possible for a duck to be useful.
2. One can imagine a situation where a duck could be more useful than a map or a tire guage or a flashlight.
3. Therefore you should always have a duck in your glove box.


----------



## billd91

Fifth Element said:


> From PHB p.70: "_All crafts require artisan's tools to give the best chance of success_." The type of pen you're using doesn't affect the quality of a poem.




But a thesaurus or dictionary might. A masterwork set of artisans tools for craft (poetry) could be just that and not the pens at all.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Allister said:


> Because out of combat, there's more than 1 possible scenario and it pretty much impossible to have the roles actually enable anyone and everyone to take part.




Not sure I'm understanding you here. Forgive me, it's late.  But you seem to be saying that outside of combat, roles cannot be made that will allow everyone to shine. Whereas, in 4e combat, roles allow everyone to shine.

I disagree. I can think of roles that will enable anyone and everyone to take part. How about these for dialogue roles. 1) The Leader. He inspires people, he motivates people, his words have the power to make people move and believe and do. 2) The Joker. He deals with everything with humor. 3) The Soother, or the Peacemaker. He eases tensions, makes people forget about things, washes away differences - or maybe he's just softening them up for the Closer. 4) The Closer. He gets what he wants, he convinces others to follow him, he's rude and unlikable but he gets results.

Is that what you were getting at? I really don't see why you couldn't have roles outside of combat when you can have them inside. Or if you meant that we can't have a single role-category for everything that is outside of combat, couldn't we just have roles for dialogue, roles for chase scenes, roles for mass battle scenes, roles for court scenes? I just don't see why roles are good in combat but not good in other places. I enjoy games with and without defined roles, so I see merits and demerits to the idea of roles. But I see the same merits and demerits in roles everywhere, whether it's in combat or in another type of scene.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Fifth Elephant said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, are you saying that 4E offers no support for nature skills, negotiating and rituals?




No, just that it doesn't support those things as well as it supports, say, the Striker role.

The level of attention the Striker role is paid in the rules obviously, overwhelmingly, trumps the amount of attention that a character designed to be a Negotiator gets. 

A Striker has a way to contribute to every combat, in every session.

A Negotiator might not get to roll a Persuasion check for months at a time, depending on the campaign.

There's a disconnect there that doesn't need to be there. 



			
				Allister said:
			
		

> Unless everyone has a chance to contribute in a non-combat encounter, you're NOT going to have DMs actually use said encounter.
> 
> 
> Let's take a dungeon-exploration non-combat role. How much can the non-combat "party face" role actually contribute?



It's a pretty simple thing to design non-combat encounters so that every non-combat role can contribute. Heck, they already have a basic system. If I just steal the skeleton of the combat system, it gives me a starting point.

In combat, the Striker will roll CHA vs. Will to do a flashy attack. They deal damage and gain an edge.

In exploration, the "Negotiator" will roll CHA vs. Society to talk her way past some goblins. She makes progress toward the exit and gains a map for later use.

In combat, the Defender will roll STR vs. AC to penetrate the armor. They deal damage and gain an edge.

In exploration, the "Scout" will roll DEX vs. Traps to negotiate the difficult deadfalls and rockslides ahead. He makes progress toward the exit and manages to re-set the trap so that other monsters will have to deal with it. 

This isn't impossible, if you make it a goal. 



			
				Halivar said:
			
		

> The Monopoly comparison is tired. Monopoly doesn't have a chapter on how to craft a character. 4E does. To say they have equivalent rules-based incentive to roleplay simply isn't true.




It's not an equivalent, but where a minis wargame is one end of a continuum and LARPing is the other, 4e slides you toward the wargame from 3e's ever-so-slightly-more character/world focused stance, because its rules for dealing with things that aren't putting pointy objects into squishy things that scream are more lacking than 3e's were (and 3e's were hardly a bastion of good resolution to begin with, but they were better than a broken Skill Challenge system). 

That, ultimately, is the kernel of truth in these "4e feels more like a boardgame"-style observations. They aren't all just gut-reaction 4e-bashing. 

And I wouldn't be too surprised to see 4e designers try to handle these concerns in the next 2-3 years. I'd be more surprised if they didn't do anything about it, actually.


----------



## Cadfan

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's not an equivalent, but where a minis wargame is one end of a continuum and LARPing is the other, 4e slides you toward the wargame from 3e's ever-so-slightly-more character/world focused stance, because its rules for dealing with things that aren't putting pointy objects into squishy things that scream are more lacking than 3e's were (and 3e's were hardly a bastion of good resolution to begin with, but they were better than a broken Skill Challenge system).
> 
> That, ultimately, is the kernel of truth in these "4e feels more like a boardgame"-style observations. They aren't all just gut-reaction 4e-bashing.



The continuum you describe is absurd.  Removing rules for noncombat, nonadventuring skills, and replacing them with ad libbing and DM/player consensus, doesn't make a game less like a LARP.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I just noticed this, and I think it's a fun question:



> What game has done rules for performing haikus well?
> 
> What effect on the game did Perform (Haiku) have in 3E if you were a Fighter?




I'd prefer some abstract, gamist haiku rules, but I haven't seen any.  

And one big effect that Perform (Haiku) had in 3e if I was a fighter was that I could roll to see how well I did, and have a "mortal baseline" to compare it against. I could challenge wandering minstrels to Haiku contests in exchange for precious information. I could roll well and deliver a well-crafted Haiku in the presence of the suspicious baron who thinks that all adventurers are trashy vagabonds who make a mess. And if I multiclassed into Bard, I could use it for my Bardic Music. And if it was a big part of my character, maybe my DM and I could synch up on some Haikunomancer PrC that helped me multiclass Bard and Fighter without being too gimped. I could gain (and quest for!) several Perform or Cha-enhancing magic items, many of which I could use with much more skill than any other fighter. 

But perhaps the most significant thing I could do with Perform (Haiku) in 3e that I can't do out-of-the-box in 4e is actually have and use a Perform (Haiku) skill. 

3e's system might not have been amazing, but, compared to 4e's system, it gets the job done better.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> The continuum you describe is absurd. Removing rules for noncombat, nonadventuring skills, and replacing them with ad libbing and DM/player consensus, doesn't make a game less like a LARP.




You're right, but this was the point:

A LARP is all about playing your character's personality, almost to the exclusion of combat.

A minis game is all about playing your characer's combat capabilities, almost the the exclusion of playing the personality. 

That's the continuum. 

The slide in 4e is perceived as a slide in _what the game is about_, moving from playing a character toward playing a game.

That perception has a grain of truth in it. 

That, ultimately, was what I was getting at.


----------



## Cadfan

It only has a grain of truth if you accept a sort of wacky zero sum view of RPGs, where more complex combat rules automatically shove something else out.  I don't accept that point of view, though I have heard it a lot on this forum.  I have grouped it, and a few other views motivated by similar attitudes, in my mind.  I refer to them mentally as the "this is why we can't have nice things" arguments.


----------



## Hussar

KM said:
			
		

> No, just that it doesn't support those things as well as it supports, say, the Striker role.
> 
> The level of attention the Striker role is paid in the rules obviously, overwhelmingly, trumps the amount of attention that a character designed to be a Negotiator gets.
> 
> A Striker has a way to contribute to every combat, in every session.
> 
> A Negotiator might not get to roll a Persuasion check for months at a time, depending on the campaign.
> 
> There's a disconnect there that doesn't need to be there.




Wait, which edition are you talking about here?  That's entirely up to the DM and his campaign, in any edition.  If you spend the ranks in Diplomacy but wind up in a dungeon full of mindless constructs, you aren't going to be using those skills for months at a time.

So, what's the difference?


----------



## Cryndo

I think it's fair to say that Hasbro can't listen to everyone.  I'm certain they would love it if you would continue to support 4th edition, however they know they will lose a certain percentage of their 3E customers with the transition to 4E.  They also know that many "old time" D&Ders who haven't been playing for years will come back into the fold and they hope to bring in numerous new players as well.

Now, because Hasbro didn't make the new edition in a manner that was consistent with your tastes, do you think that all "completist collectors" feel the same as you?  I'm certain a lot of hardcore buyers of 3E products will be hardcore purchasers of 4E products as well.  Unfortunately they can't make everyone happy.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Hussar said:
			
		

> Wait, which edition are you talking about here?



That was Theoretical 4e, where as much attention was given to non-combat aspects of the game as was given to combat aspects of the game.



> That's entirely up to the DM and his campaign, in any edition. If you spend the ranks in Diplomacy but wind up in a dungeon full of mindless constructs, you aren't going to be using those skills for months at a time.
> 
> So, what's the difference?




That 4e saw a problem with rogues not being able to sneak attack for months at a time, but didn't see a problem with negotiators not being able to negotiate for months at a time.

To me, in my campaigns, sneak attacks and negotiations are both pretty important. 

4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?




I will post more later, but I think it is in the rules.  It's there in the Exploration (dungeon, wilderness, town) - Encounter (combat or non-) - Reward (XP and treasure) - Exploration (deeper in the dungeon, wilderness, or town) cycle.

The key is the bridge going from Encounters to Exploration again - that key being Quests.


----------



## Thasmodious

Kamikaze Midget said:


> You know, if it was in the rules (and well done in the rules), I'm sure there'd be more DM's who cared about it. Or at least, those who were even inclined to care about it would be persuaded to bring it out. Don't put the cart before the horse -- the core rules tell you what the game is about, and if they don't care about the haiku-fighter, why should your DM?




Repeating things often doesn't make them true.  You continually state this about 4e, yet the PHB opens with a chapter on roleplaying and character building, the DMG has very little actual rules crunch, but a lot on world building, roleplaying, DMing a complete game (including an extensive section on building your game to reflect your players interests and playstyles), handling non combat encounters.  They even provide mechanical weight to roleplaying through the skill challenge system.  Your claims are spurious at best.


----------



## Phaezen

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That 4e saw a problem with rogues not being able to sneak attack for months at a time, but didn't see a problem with negotiators not being able to negotiate for months at a time.
> 
> To me, in my campaigns, sneak attacks and negotiations are both pretty important.
> 
> 4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.




Granted, if you ignore the fact that all classes can now be effective negotiators and are not limited due to skill points and cross class skill limits, and that the skill challenge system allows for skills other than diplomacy, intimidate and bluff to be used in said negotiation.

Phaezen


----------



## Snoweel

Don't forget the fact that the players play the game primarily by talking. They are already far more engaged with the mechanics of resolving a negotiation encounter than they are with resolving a combat encounter.

Thus, negotiation requires less scope in its arbitration mechanics than does combat; which by its nature is far removed from the actions of the players sitting around the table.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.




You mean like the Skill Challenge section in the DMG where they describe in detail a negotiation between the characters and a duke? And its not just between the "face" and the duke, the sample negotiation encounter involves the whole party.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Thasmodius said:
			
		

> the PHB opens with a chapter on roleplaying and character building, the DMG has very little actual rules crunch, but a lot on world building, roleplaying, DMing a complete game (including an extensive section on building your game to reflect your players interests and playstyles), handling non combat encounters. They even provide mechanical weight to roleplaying through the skill challenge system.




All that verbiage does very little if the game doesn't pay attention to it in mechanics, and 3e paid more attention to it than 4e does, thus encouraging it more (I outlined a few of the ways it did that above). 

Can you go a session or two or three or four without a Skill Challenge? Can you go that same length of time without a combat?

There's also the point that the Skill Challenge is mechanically a bit unhinged, so that if you are using it a lot, you will start to notice imbalance. And that the open-ended nature of it rarely enhances the idea of a noncombat archetype, being that you can use many diverse skills to accomplish the same goal. 



			
				Paezen said:
			
		

> Granted, if you ignore the fact that all classes can now be effective negotiators and are not limited due to skill points and cross class skill limits, and that the skill challenge system allows for skills other than diplomacy, intimidate and bluff to be used in said negotiation.




All classes being effective and other skills being useful is kind of like giving all characters the healing powers of a Leader, the marking abilties of a Defender, the area-effect of the Controller, and the damage output of a Striker and saying everything is good.

It's a valid design choice, but it lacks a certain variety that the defined roles contribute. A lack of variety in the rules implies that it isn't often to be used, because it's going to require more work to make it more interesting in repeated usage. 

And it certainly reduces variety (however flawed) from 3e, stepping away from these character details in favor of a sort of noncombat socialism of equally distributed skill. 



			
				Snoweel said:
			
		

> Don't forget the fact that the players play the game primarily by talking. They are already far more engaged with the mechanics of resolving a negotiation encounter than they are with resolving a combat encounter.
> 
> Thus, negotiation requires less scope in its arbitration mechanics than does combat; which by its nature is far removed from the actions of the players sitting around the table.




If I don't have mechanics for how my character performs these things I'm talking about, I'm less inclined to waste time talking about them. If spouting haikus is important for my fighter, I want to represent that without having to be a master of spontaneous haiku myself, while still having the detail that makes me feel like that is important.

Basically, just talking about it isn't good enough, if it's important to me. I want to play the game, which involves using the mechanics, and if there's no "talk mechanics," then talking doesn't seem to be part of the game, and it gets ignored.



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> You mean like the Skill Challenge section in the DMG where they describe in detail a negotiation between the characters and a duke? And its not just between the "face" and the duke, the sample negotiation encounter involves the whole party.



No, I mean like allowing my negotiation skills to come to the fore several times in every session by weaving them into the fabric of the game like Sneak Attack does.

Skill Challenge is okay if you don't look too closely at it, but if you try to make noncombat a big part of your game, it quickly shows itself to be in need of fixing, and lacking in variety and strategy.

Unlike, say, combat, which works pretty well, and has a lot of variety and strategy.

Also unlike 3e, which at least had mechanical variety in the kinds of things you could do outside of combat, and where I could make a fighter with Perform (haiku) who was truly made different by that skill. 

Why fix Sneak Attack but not Diplomacy, Craft, Perform, Profession, or a host of other skills? In my book, it's because they thought SA was more important. This leads to a game where SA is usually the better, more entertaining, more balanced option to resolve an encounter than Diplomacy is. A more combat-focused game. 

It's not a direct force, but it's something of an invisible, guiding hand. Which is part of why it doesn't fit me as well as 3e did, in the non-combat department (especially given that 3e had 8 years of development and 3rd party supplements to enhance this angle, while 4e doesn't quite have any of that, at the moment).


----------



## thecasualoblivion

People complaining about noncombat things in 4E keep complaining about skills. Either, bizarre lame corner case skills(haiku) or greater skill specialization(skill monkey/diplomancer classes?). 3E core really didn't have any more mechanics on skill use than 4E does, and 4E's skill system is easier to use/build characters with and is far more inclusive of the entire party. I really don't see the complaint here.

Whining about the 4E skill system as compared to 3E is dancing around the real argument, and what people are really missing. That is the removal of 3E noncombat _SPELLS_. Not ritual type problem-solving, but spells that can be cast quickly in a tactical noncombat/social situation. 

In other words, complaining about how they miss spellcasters having a bag of "I win" buttons outside of combat as well as inside. Nobody has specifically said this, but I'm pretty sure this is at the core of the 4E noncombat "problem".

However much nonspellcasters were overshadowed by spellcasters in combat, outside of combat it was much worse. Skills and the odd class feature weren't even on the same planet as utility spells.


----------



## Windjammer

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Skill Challenge is okay if you don't look too closely at it, but if you try to make noncombat a big part of your game, it quickly shows itself to be in need of fixing, and lacking in variety and strategy.



How dare you imply that 5 players rolling d20 + a fixed ability stat (+5 if trained) under the name of 17 entries is less varied and challenging than 300 combat powers with highly varied effects and conditions? Also, your claim is easily devalidated by having a look at the extent of creative development skill challenges have seen in the past 5 months in Dungeon magazine. Repetition of old material in the DMG? Non existant.

*Interrogation/Negotiation: roll high on Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, or Intimidate!*


Interrogate a captive (Social); Level 1, Complexity 2, 200XP, Dungeon 156 (Rescue at Rivenroar), page 17
Interrogate a captured monster for specific information (Social); Level 12, Complexity 2, (1400XP); Dungeon 156 (Kincep Mansion), ‘Development’ page 49
Questioning Cultist Townsfolk (Social); Level 8, Complexity 1, (350XP); Dungeon 156 (Last Breath of Ashenport), sidebar page 79
Questioning Cultists in Temple (Social); Level 8, Complexity 1, (350XP); Dungeon 156 (Last Breath of Ashenport) sidebar page 82
Gain assistance from an NPC (Social); Level 1, Complexity 2, 200XP; Dungeon 156 (Rescue at Rivenroar), page 16
Negotiate terms of adventuring contract (Social); Level 3, Complexity 2, (300XP); Dungeon 157 (Siege of Bordrin) ‘Slow Start’ page 9
Interview/Investigate 4 Eladrin nobles suspected of corruption/treason while attending a party (Social); Level 12, Complexity 4 (2,800XP with chances for additional XP). Note: The adventure describes this as really 4 separate skill challenges rolled into one. Dungeon 157 (Dark Heart of Mithrendain)
“Initial Negotiation: The Mayor”; Negotiate for more money and supplies from a prospective employer (Social); Level 3, Complexity 2 (500XP), Dungeon 158 (Tariff of Relkingham) Page 87
“Negotiation: Founder Neelani”; Convince a religious leader to change her mind (Social); Level 3, Complexity 2 (500XP), Dungeon 158 (Tariff of Relkingham) Page 88
“Distrustful Villagers”; Convince “angry” villager mob to let you go without a fight (Social); Level 3, Complexity 5 (806XP) Note: normally a challenge of that level/complexity should be 750XP. It is giving more to account for the higher gains of actually fighting, so that both options grant the same XP reward. Dungeon 158 (Tariff of Relkingham)

*Gather Information: roll high on Streetwise!*


Discreetly gather information from cultists; Level 5, Difficulty 3, 600XP; Dungeon 155 (Heathen), page 44
Gather information from frightened miners about disappearances (Social); Level 12, Complexity 1 (700XP), Dungeon 157 (Depths of Avarice) Page 59
Gather information from an unfriendly town (Social); Level 8, Complexity 2 (700XP), Dungeon 157 (Massacre at Fort Dolor)
Canvas a city looking for information about a person, and receive mostly prefab rumors (Social); Level 4, Complexity 4, 700XP; Dungeon 158 (Shadow Rift), Page 11
Canvas a city looking for information, and receive prefab rumors (Social); Level 6, Complexity 4 (1,000XP), Dungeon 158 (Shadow Rift) Page 27

*Wilderness: roll high on Nature and Endurance!*


Follow an NPC’s trail across the borderlands; Level 5, Difficulty 5, 1,000XP; Dungeon 155 (Heathen), page 32
Track goblins to their mountain lair; Level 1, Complexity 3, 300XP; Dungeon 156 (Rescue at Rivenroar),  page 18
Travel between 2 known towns; Level 1, Complexity 1, 100XP, Dungeon 156 (Rescue at Rivenroar), sidebar page 20
Navigate mountains while heading to a monastery; Level 3, Complexity 1, (150XP); Dungeon 157 (Siege of Bordrin) page 27
Find a system of tunnels deep in a mountain; Level 3, Complexity 2, (300XP); Dungeon 157 (Siege of Bordrin) page 40
Find a Kuo-Toa lair under the sea; Level 15, Complexity 1 (1,200XP), Dungeon 158 (Sea Reavers) Page 64
Sneak into a city and make your way inside a castle; Level 16, Complexity 1 (1,400XP), Dungeon 158 (Sea Reavers) Page 78
“The Blizzard”; Make your way through a magically created blizzard; Level 2, Complexity 3 (375XP), Dungeon 158 (Menace of Icy Spire) Page 8


----------



## Fifth Element

Kamikaze Midget said:


> The level of attention the Striker role is paid in the rules obviously, overwhelmingly, trumps the amount of attention that a character designed to be a Negotiator gets.
> 
> A Striker has a way to contribute to every combat, in every session.
> 
> A Negotiator might not get to roll a Persuasion check for months at a time, depending on the campaign.
> 
> There's a disconnect there that doesn't need to be there.



I do see what you're saying, and it is an interesting thought. I think I'll fork it to a new thread to discuss.

Edit: forked thread is here http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...zards-coasts-target-audience.html#post4526065.


----------



## Aluvial

Jeff Wilder said:


> Since the release of 4E, and most recently in some threads about the upcoming change in the D&D miniatures lines, I've read many times (not always in direct response to me) that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't really care what you think."
> 
> I bought every 3.5 book WotC ever released. I bought multiple cases of most of the miniatures sets. I bought the dungeon tiles.
> 
> Now I buy almost nothing from WotC. I'm not interested in 4E. The 4E cross-pollination with DDM means I dropped the skirmish game and cut way, way back on buying the minis. (I am still buying the dungeon tiles.)
> 
> When did I stop being WotC's target audience? And why? Why did WotC decide to forego the money I was giving them? Are people like me so rare that WotC actually can't make a profit from us? Considering how much I spent on a monthly basis, I find that difficult to believe, but I guess maybe ...
> 
> It seems very, very, very (yes, three verys) odd to me that I was a WotC completist for eight years, and then -- bam! -- I'm no longer their target audience. How can it be that the division between "consumer" and "irrelevant" is so sharp? Is it because I turned 40 in May?
> 
> It really seems to me that "you aren't WotC's target audience, so they don't care what you think" has the cause and effect backward. I stopped buying WotC's stuff because it became clear that they didn't care what I think. So why and when did they stop caring?



I'm in absolutely the same boat... A game I love and no hope of a return.  Worse, there isn't any support.  Pathfinder is nice; for now, but with the changes they are making, I won't stick with them either.  

Awful.  Luckily (after buying up as much 3.5 stuff I can), I have plenty for campaigns for years to come, BUT...  I miss the magazines, I don't like the new miniatures plan at all (I have painstakenly traded for all of the complete sets) and think the new version of the game is too...   something; I don't know, simple is all I can really think of off the top of my head.  I've tried it a handful of times, at various levels.  There are a very few things that I do like, but most of the powers thing irritates me.  

Anyhow, I'm not buying the magazines, and as an alternative I'm just going to go back and reread my subscription.  

Aluvial


----------



## Gothmog

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That was Theoretical 4e, where as much attention was given to non-combat aspects of the game as was given to combat aspects of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> That 4e saw a problem with rogues not being able to sneak attack for months at a time, but didn't see a problem with negotiators not being able to negotiate for months at a time.
> 
> To me, in my campaigns, sneak attacks and negotiations are both pretty important.
> 
> 4e doesn't really think negotiations are that important, or they would've designed the game with it in mind like they designed it with sneak attack in mind.




Well, I've been running a 4e campaign for five months now, and my games haven't suffered because a of a lack of crafting, profession, or social interaction skills.  In fact, I put them back in for one player who wanted them- I give all PCs two trained skills at first level that are some kind of hobby/interest/professional skill (so smithing or painting for example).  I tend to run RP-heavy, investigation/exploration/mystery type games, with maybe 2-4 combats per adventure (any quite a few times we've gone with 0 combats, and all roleplaying).  Using the rogue you cited above, the rogue in my game gets to sneak attack probably half a dozen times per adventure, but he also uses Bluff, Diplomacy, Streetwise and his skills at least twice that many times.  I can offer you direct proof you can run a RP-heavy game in 4e, and the system not only handles it well, it makes it easier to run this kind of game.

I think what the 4e designers realized was something I realized about five years ago too: having hard-wired rules for roleplaying in a game actually detracts from and limits roleplaying.  Even otherwise good roleplayers have a tendency to start playing to get the bonus, the syngery effect, and thinking in terms of difficulty of the roll rather than assuming the role of a character.  3.x had this problem, and even nWoD does as well unless you're careful (playing to your Vice for Willpower can result in some WEIRD situations).  For me, leaving the roleplaying end of things more freeform and not constrained by rules means you'll get better roleplaying- thats certainly been my experience with 4e vs. 3.x.  I don't think the designers of 4e thought roleplaying was unimportant, they thought it was better to focus on those things that did need improvement in the rules (combat, skill challenges, and ease of prep), and not try to provide rules for something that doesn't need it (roleplaying).  Hell, the 4e PHB even opens with a chapter devoted to roleplaying and character building- the longest and most involved discussion of it of ANY version of D&D.


----------



## LostSoul

Kamikaze Midget said:


> All that verbiage does very little if the game doesn't pay attention to it in mechanics, and 3e paid more attention to it than 4e does, thus encouraging it more (I outlined a few of the ways it did that above).
> 
> Can you go a session or two or three or four without a Skill Challenge? Can you go that same length of time without a combat?




Yes, you can go that same length of time without a combat.

Here's an interesting thing about 4e: you can go four sessions without a combat encounter _and expect to level up._  The same isn't true about 3e.

Since "level ups" are where your character grows and changes, I would say that the game _does_ pay attention to it in the mechanics in a way that 3e only paid lip service to.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If I don't have mechanics for how my character performs these things I'm talking about, I'm less inclined to waste time talking about them. If spouting haikus is important for my fighter, I want to represent that without having to be a master of spontaneous haiku myself, while still having the detail that makes me feel like that is important.
> 
> Basically, just talking about it isn't good enough, if it's important to me. I want to play the game, which involves using the mechanics, and if there's no "talk mechanics," then talking doesn't seem to be part of the game, and it gets ignored.




4e has ways to make spouting haikus important to the game and to your fighter.  Let's start from the top: how do you play 4e?

Exploration
In exploration mode, the characters move throught the adventure setting, making decisions about their course and perhaps searching for traps, treasure, or riches.  The game spends a lot of time in exploration mode.  It's what usually fills the space between encounters.  It usually ends when an encounter begins.​
Most of the DMG is about Exploration mode.

Conversation
In conversation, the PCs are exploring the infomartion inside an NPC's head, rather than exploring a dungeon room.  It's not a social skill challenge, with specific goals and a real chance of failure.  The PCs ask questions, and the NPC responds.​
I call this "royale with cheese".

Encounter
Encounters are the exciting part of the D&D game.  They have tension and urgency about them and a chance of failure.​
There is another mode in the game, one that's not laid out explicitly as such, but it follows from the others: Reward.  This is where you gain XP and treasure.  This is where the characters _change._

The cycle of game play in 4e is like this: Exploration (Conversation) -> Encounter -> Reward -> Exploration, on and on.  Read each arrow as "leads to".


Now, how does this make haiku-spouting important to the game?

Your "haiku-spouting fighter" feeds directly into the cycle of game play.  It does so by introducing Quests.

Quests are the bridge between Encounters -> Reward -> Exploration.  Quests are resolved by Encounters, give you Rewards, and change what is being explored in Exploration mode.

If you are so inclined - if "haiku-spouting" is important to you - your fighter might have a Quest to "win the title of Master Haikuster at the secret competition".  Suddenly the game _does_ care that your fighter spouts haikus.  Your "haiku-spouting" is what is driving the cycle around and around again.


What it sounds like you are missing is fine-grained _character-build_ choice, saying "I think Perform (Haiku)" is more important than Spot.  4e doesn't give you that choice to make, and if that's an important one for you, I can see how you'd miss it.

This doesn't mean that haiku-spouting is not important to the game.  Because of how Quests and character motivation feeds back into the game cycle, I think haiku-spouting is _more_ important to the game than ever.


----------



## Greg K

Kamikaze Midget said:


> And one big effect that Perform (Haiku) had in 3e if I was a fighter was that I could roll to see how well I did, and have a "mortal baseline" to compare it against. I could challenge wandering minstrels to Haiku contests in exchange for precious information. I could roll well and deliver a well-crafted Haiku in the presence of the suspicious baron who thinks that all adventurers are trashy vagabonds who make a mess..




KM, where are your priorities, man? You forgot the most important thing... have  the haiku win your character  the affections of the hot noble chick (or dude, for those readers are so inclined) and gain various "favors".


----------



## thecasualoblivion

The moment that performing a haiku is as important in the game as a spot check or combat is the moment I stop playing D&D.

I don't think I am alone in this.


----------



## Rel

thecasualoblivion said:


> The moment that performing a haiku is as important in the game as a spot check or combat is the moment I stop playing D&D.




You especially don't want to play that sort of game with Ovinomancer.  Fair warning.


----------



## Fifth Element

thecasualoblivion said:
			
		

> The moment that performing a haiku is as important in the game as a spot check or combat is the moment I stop playing D&D.
> 
> I don't think I am alone in this.



Methinks you have missed the point. It can be important is *some people*'s games.


----------



## Imaro

Fifth Element said:


> Methinks you have missed the point. It can be important is *some people*'s games.




QFT, I could definitely see something like this being important in a feudal era Japan inspired game.  In fact I think it would probably be cool to play in something like this.


----------



## Scribble

Imaro said:


> QFT, I could definitely see something like this being important in a feudal era Japan inspired game.  In fact I think it would probably be cool to play in something like this.




I think it would be interesting if done in a skill challange sort of way...

Maybe a good roll on streetwise helps you understand what things are important to a society.

A little history lets you know what things to include.

Diplomacy to actually pull it off...


----------



## Rel

Fifth Element said:


> Methinks you have missed the point. It can be important is *some people*'s games.




And I'm afraid you missed my joke.  It's a running joke over at Circvs Maximvs that Ovinomancer is a total nazi about what is and isn't a haiku.

Believe me, I'm not one to be tossing about any accusations about "badwrongfun" based on what people like in their games.

Personally I like ones with strippers.


----------



## Thasmodious

Phaezen said:


> Granted, if you ignore the fact that all classes can now be effective negotiators and are not limited due to skill points and cross class skill limits, and that the skill challenge system allows for skills other than diplomacy, intimidate and bluff to be used in said negotiation.
> 
> Phaezen




What would midget want to allow for such considerations as these when they completely defeat his argument?  Can't let such things stand in the way of perfectly valid, baseless rants, now can we?


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Fifth Element said:


> Methinks you have missed the point. It can be important is *some people*'s games.




Sure, it can be important in some peoples games. D&D should not be that game, at least not in the core rulebooks. Such a situation is the definition of what houserules are for.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's also the point that the Skill Challenge is mechanically a bit unhinged, so that if you are using it a lot, you will start to notice imbalance. And that the open-ended nature of it rarely enhances the idea of a noncombat archetype, being that you can use many diverse skills to accomplish the same goal.




I like the fact that the DM is encouraged to allow diverse skill use to accomplish a Skill Challenge. It fosters player creativity.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> All classes being effective and other skills being useful is kind of like giving all characters the healing powers of a Leader, the marking abilties of a Defender, the area-effect of the Controller, and the damage output of a Striker and saying everything is good.




It is nothing like that. It may allow the options to excel at a greater vartiety of skills, but by no means is every character good at every skill.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a valid design choice, but it lacks a certain variety that the defined roles contribute. A lack of variety in the rules implies that it isn't often to be used, because it's going to require more work to make it more interesting in repeated usage.




I enjoy running skill challenges. And I run them off-the-cuff to make them more interesting. I allow the players to decide what their characters want to do and with which skill they attempt to do it. Then I employ the "say yes" attitude to come up with interesting results of success or failure. The DMG suggests a model of being more prepared for a skill challenge, but also suggests being open to possibilities that hadn't occurred to you in preparation. I leave myself open to any possibility because I have decided to prepare nothing except possibly the goal of the skill challenge.

Use of this method has increased my table's roleplaying skill and creativity.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And it certainly reduces variety (however flawed) from 3e, stepping away from these character details in favor of a sort of noncombat socialism of equally distributed skill.




Even if this is true, it increases participation, which previous editions sorely lacked IMO.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> If I don't have mechanics for how my character performs these things I'm talking about, I'm less inclined to waste time talking about them. If spouting haikus is important for my fighter, I want to represent that without having to be a master of spontaneous haiku myself, while still having the detail that makes me feel like that is important.




I would ask you what you wanted to accomplish by spouting haikus and then work your haiku-spouting into the mechanics.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> No, I mean like allowing my negotiation skills to come to the fore several times in every session by weaving them into the fabric of the game like Sneak Attack does.
> 
> Skill Challenge is okay if you don't look too closely at it, but if you try to make noncombat a big part of your game, it quickly shows itself to be in need of fixing, and lacking in variety and strategy.
> 
> Unlike, say, combat, which works pretty well, and has a lot of variety and strategy.




Non-combat situations are the ultimate in variety! They are everything your character does except fight. Making specific rules for one specific activity your character involves himself in makes sense. Making specific rules for an infinite number of activities does not, a more open-ended approach needs to be taken to give you the tools needed to resolve each particular situation.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Why fix Sneak Attack but not Diplomacy, Craft, Perform, Profession, or a host of other skills? In my book, it's because they thought SA was more important. This leads to a game where SA is usually the better, more entertaining, more balanced option to resolve an encounter than Diplomacy is. A more combat-focused game.




To me the fix was to make the skills broader and more open-ended. Not to have a chart that tells me your pimped-out 5th level bard with a +30 Diplomacy modifier can make even the most vile of demon lords with new best friend.


----------



## Fifth Element

Rel said:


> And I'm afraid you missed my joke.



Oh, I wasn't responding to you but mr. oblivion.

Edit: Ha. Just checked my post and noticed I quoted the wrong post. My apologies.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Kamikaze Midget said:


> 1) And one big effect that Perform (Haiku) had in 3e if I was a fighter was that I could roll to see how well I did, and have a "mortal baseline" to compare it against.
> 
> 2) I could challenge wandering minstrels to Haiku contests in exchange for precious information.
> 
> 3) I could roll well and deliver a well-crafted Haiku in the presence of the suspicious baron who thinks that all adventurers are trashy vagabonds who make a mess.
> 
> 4) And if I multiclassed into Bard, I could use it for my Bardic Music.
> 
> 5) And if it was a big part of my character, maybe my DM and I could synch up on some Haikunomancer PrC that helped me multiclass Bard and Fighter without being too gimped.
> 
> 6) I could gain (and quest for!) several Perform or Cha-enhancing magic items, many of which I could use with much more skill than any other fighter.
> 
> 7) But perhaps the most significant thing I could do with Perform (Haiku) in 3e that I can't do out-of-the-box in 4e is actually have and use a Perform (Haiku) skill.
> 
> 8) 3e's system might not have been amazing, but, compared to 4e's system, it gets the job done better.




1) I would inform you as a player in my game that your ability to perform haikus is covered as a Cha check. If you wrote a solid background that incorporated the use of haikus in an interesting way I would give you anywhere between a +2 to +5 bonus depending on their imporatance in your background. I couldn't have done this in 3E without you having to devote one of your two skill points to Perform (haiku) or you would have never improved in your haiku-spouting.

2) Goal: Gather information. You would use an appropriate skill to gather the information. By tying the skill into an important piece of your background under appropriate circumstances I would give you a +2 bonus to your roll.

3) Goal: Diplomacy (or Bluff if you really are trashy vagabonds). Again with a possible +2.

4) I specified Fighter, not Bard.

5) You could co-develop a Paragon Path and/or Epic Destiny based on haikus with me.

6) Most published 3E magic items that required perform skills required a specific one. I feel safe saying that Perform (haiku) was not a requirement of any published one. So, you and your DM would have to develop one. We could do the same in 4E.

7) See #1.

8) We obviously disagree. 

Now to answer my own question:

I would have my fighter spout haikus in battle to try to demoralize enemies. I'd want my enemies to wonder who this wacko is spouting ominous poetry in the midst of warfare.

Goal: Initimidation. I'd tie my haikus into my skill to initmidate.


----------



## Psion

Fifth Element said:


> Just checked my post and
> noticed I quoted the wrong post.
> My apologies.




Not a haiku!


----------



## Fifth Element

Psion said:


> Not a haiku!



Oh, but so close and unintentional at that.

Just checked my post and
saw I quoted the wrong post
my apologies.


----------



## firesnakearies

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And there was very little we disliked about 3e.  At first.  With the more interesting combats came more complication.  A lot more complication.  There were SO many different options that it took hours to make characters.  We had to search through 10 different books for feats, for spells, for new weapons, for PrC, and so on.  We had to consider each level completely separately since 9th level might be better to be taken as a Fighter level, followed by a Rogue level at 10 and a PrC at level 11.  And rules worked together in weird, unforeseen ways.  If you allowed a player to get the Dark template from one book, suddenly he was able to Hide in Plain Sight, allowing him to essentially stay invisible continuously with no way of stopping it.  He got sneak attacks on every one of his attacks(Or did he?  Does hiding go away after you attack even if it is in plain sight?  What if someone has Darkvision so there was no concealment for darkness?  And how did that work with other classes powers and some PrC powers and some feats?  And...so on).
> 
> It started causing some other problems.  Now that the game was more balanced, we started noticing the imbalances.  Wizards are too powerful, Clerics are way too powerful, Bards suck.  Frenzied Berzerkers could outperform most other characters.
> 
> Creating a monster that could challenge PCs who spent 6-7 hours making up their characters was difficult.  You needed to pick and choose feats just as carefully as they did.  You needed to spend 6-7 hours making a monster to counter it.  And the monster would still die in 2 rounds of combat.  Also, players could come up with spells that would completely bypass all the interesting challenges I'd come up for them.  They'd use Scrye and Teleport in order to skip 6 encounters I had carefully planned.  They'd use Dispel Magic to disable an interesting magic trap instead of solving the puzzle I planned.
> 
> So I stopped writing adventures.  I would only run published adventures, since I no longer wanted to do that amount of work for so little payoff.  Only there were still problems with that.  Whenever a monster had spell-like abilities, I'd need to have the full text of those powers memorized or I'd have to look them up at the table.  Otherwise, if I tried to work from memory, my players would notice.  I'd forget the range of Dispel Magic or I'd forget that the area version only effects one spell on each target in the area.  I'd forget SOMETHING and have my players remind me.  Since their pool of knowledge amongst the 5 of them was greater than mine.  I'd need to know what all the feats in the game did since the monster could have any of them.  I'd often forget what one did and just not use it to avoid slowing down the game.  Then find out afterwords that without the feat, the monster was a lot less powerful.
> 
> I really missed the ability to improvise.  If I attempted to add a unique magic trap to the game to provide a bit of a change of pace, my players would be wondering why they can't Dispel it, why they can't just teleport to the other side, why their special ability didn't seem to stop it, how someone could build a trap like that when it seemed more powerful than 9th level spells, how someone could afford to make an epic spell that did it and why would an epic level wizard be creating traps in the first place.  The game was consistent, the rules were the same for players and monsters, so if the players had to be 26th level and pay 2.7 million gp in order to create a trap, so did the monsters or NPCs.  If Dispel Magic could dispel an effect, it had to work on ALL effects, not just ones the DM wanted the PCs to pass that easily.  If a spell didn't exist for something, then it couldn't be done(or at least it couldn't be done without complaining from my players who thought it was unfair that NPCs had spells that they didn't).
> 
> I took so many steps to speed up combat because each round was an exercise in math.  Which effects ran out this round?  What effects were added this round?  How does my increase of strength increase my to hit and damage?  Did you remember the Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, Bard Song, Prayer, Heroes Feast, Bull's Strength, Bless, and Marshal Aura?  What does that make the total modifier on your attacks?  Which ones stack?





This.


I started with Basic D&D and 2nd edition AD&D, and I liked them, but even at the time, I felt that they were pretty flawed and messy.

When 3rd edition came out, I was astounded and amazed and in love.  I wanted to kiss everyone at Wizards of the Coast, I was calling them geniuses and gods.  (And prior to this, I was a big-time WotC hater, having always despised Magic and feeling like they were a bad thing for D&D.)

3.5 also made me really happy.  I remember the day I got my 3.5 core books, and I just spent all day looking through them with awe and glee.  What a perfect, elegant, wonderful system!  The best ever, made EVEN BETTER!

And it was, at low levels.  And at mid levels.  And at ANY level, really, if you were PCing.  But it was when I finally got to the point where I was DMing high-level 3.5 play that I began to really feel bogged down by the system, and ultimately stopped playing.

4E has rejuvenated my interest in D&D again, and seems, thus far, to have done away with most, if not all, of the logistical nightmares which high-level 3.5 D&D play presented.  All of the things that Majoru Oakheart stated are exactly the issues and feelings that I struggled with eventually when DMing the previous edition.

4th edition isn't perfect, and there are things I'll probably tweak and house rule, but I'm as amazed and impressed at how it managed to smooth out some of the big, glaring obstacles to fun from the prior edition as I was when 3.0 did the same thing compared to 2nd edition.


----------



## Shroomy

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I would inform you as a player in my game that your ability to perform haikus is covered as a Cha check. If you wrote a solid background that incorporated the use of haikus in an interesting way I would give you anywhere between a +2 to +5 bonus depending on their imporatance in your background. I couldn't have done this in 3E without you having to devote one of your two skill points to Perform (haiku) or you would have never improved in your haiku-spouting.




I would also allow an Int-based check (or maybe a Dex-based check for performing a musical instrument) in this type of situation, my point being that a narrative (DMG p11) and ability check (DMG pg 42) based system IMO is much more flexible and conducive to mechanically modelling non-combat abilities not directly covered by the rules than a nebulous set of skills tied to a specific attribute (for example, I've met many people who were very skilled at building things but who were complete idiots).  In addition to 4e ability checks with a +2/-2 circumstance modifier, the three tier DCs, while not unique to 4e, also adds an additional level of detail that can mechanically model these situations (at 1st level, sitting around the fire coming up with haikus DC 5, trying to impress a girl DC 10, trying to win a poetry contest DC 15, etc.).


----------



## MichaelSomething

Call me a believer in the Free Market System.  As long as WOTC gives people what they want, then they'll get customers.  If no one was buying this stuff, would WOTC keep making it?  

My opinion on the subject matters little since I tend not to buy a lot.  I only get stuff I will use.  It also helps that I game with people who tend to buy a lot of the splats.  

Also, I can fork threads too!


----------



## firesnakearies

Cadfan said:


> 1. It is possible for a duck to be useful.
> 2. One can imagine a situation where a duck could be more useful than a map or a tire guage or a flashlight.
> 3. Therefore you should always have a duck in your glove box.




Ahahaha!  Awesome.  This made me happy, sir.


----------



## Andor

Te question this thread makes me ponder is: What is it about 4e that makes me dislike it?

It's not the 1-1-1 movement, I could are less.

It's not Dragonborn and tieflings although they do move the look-and-feel away from D&D as we knew it.

It is I think two things:

1) The characters experience never changes. This is the 'sweet spot' effet and was a deliberate design goal of 4e. But... the 'hero's journey' has always been about growth and change. The hero starts off a normal dude, maybe marked by destiny, maybe with a funny birthmark, but still a farm boy. Then he grows into a hero and does great deeds and experiences great victories and losses. And when he has ahieved greatness his role changes again and he becomes a leader or a teacher. - And this is what 4e takes away from the characters in pursuit of the 'sweet spot'. 

2) Character classes in D&D have always varied wildly. Some had fixed abilities or limited choices (1e fighter, 3e Barbarian), some had weird and wacky abilities (1e and 3e monk), Some had awesome magical might and flexibility (1e wizard, 3e cleric). Now character classes are a fixed set of slotted silos. So many at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers. For everyone. Always. Sure the stuff in the slots varies somewhat within the limits of role and holy balance, but ... I think for me not having a range of 'class work loads' to choose from was one sacred cow too many. 

just my 2¢.


----------



## MrMyth

Andor said:


> 1) The characters experience never changes. This is the 'sweet spot' effet and was a deliberate design goal of 4e. But... the 'hero's journey' has always been about growth and change. The hero starts off a normal dude, maybe marked by destiny, maybe with a funny birthmark, but still a farm boy. Then he grows into a hero and does great deeds and experiences great victories and losses. And when he has ahieved greatness his role changes again and he becomes a leader or a teacher. - And this is what 4e takes away from the characters in pursuit of the 'sweet spot'.




I think you are juxtaposing a mechanical 'sweet spot' with a thematic one. 

My characters in third edition didn't transcend into advisors and leaders as they left the sweet spot - they transcended into combat slowing machines with complicated abilities or instant kill switches. If they did transcend into leaders or advisors, it wasn't due to any rule mechanics, but due to the story, the plot, the adventure itself. 

4E may have shifted the 'sweet spot' to cover all levels, but that has nothing to do with a character's ability to progress through a story and grow as a character. Indeed, the game actually emphasizes that more than ever, with the progression from Heroic to Paragon to Epic tier. 

Now, I'll concede that 4E does take a step back from the 'starting point' of characters as farm boys who might be a hero one day, or might die to the next orc they meet on the road. And, yes, that is going to be an area of preference from player to player, so that is a perfectly valid reason to prefer 3rd Edition to 4E. But I think claiming that making the game mechanically functional at all levels of play also removes any possible character development or growth... is a pretty absurd claim, just about any way I look at it.  

If the character's experience isn't changing, that isn't due to the system, but the DM, the adventure, and the players themselves.


----------



## The Little Raven

Andor said:


> The hero starts off a normal dude, maybe marked by destiny, maybe with a funny birthmark, but still a farm boy.




So, you started out as a farm boy... who was proficient in every type of armor and every martial weapon on the planet? A normal guy is able to pick up nearly any kind of axe, sword, bow, or polearm and use it with equal proficiency, despite having spent his young life farming corn? A kid who chases chickens and somehow knows the proper way to dress in and wear plate armor?

0-level, or maybe that apprentice-level stuff from 3e, is much closer to being a normal guy or farm boy. But when a 1st-level "farm boy" begins with more martial weapon training than a well-trained modern martial artist, or the ability to throw fire from his hands or mend wounds with a prayer, he's not really "just a farm boy."


----------



## Simon Atavax

LostSoul said:


> I call this "royale with cheese".




PULP FICTION! PULP FICTION!

Sorry to interject, but I had to brag about recognizing a cultural reference.  Ahem.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Andor said:


> 2) Character classes in D&D have always varied wildly. Some had fixed abilities or limited choices (1e fighter, 3e Barbarian), some had weird and wacky abilities (1e and 3e monk), Some had awesome magical might and flexibility (1e wizard, 3e cleric). Now character classes are a fixed set of slotted silos. So many at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers. For everyone. Always. Sure the stuff in the slots varies somewhat within the limits of role and holy balance, but ... I think for me not having a range of 'class work loads' to choose from was one sacred cow too many.




It was the different sub-systems used to differentiate character abilities and the multiclassing rules of 3rd Edition that ramped the power curve up too high for me to enjoy myself anymore. Each new splat book offered interesting aspects that I wanted to add to my game, but too often there were unforseen abuses hidden within the new options. Not with the individual new option, but how it interacted with other portions of the game. With unified power structures I can see a better way to add options without adding a power curve due to combinations of two innocuous powers. I'm not saying we won't see power creep in 4E, but I believe the designers have better tools to work with so they can focus on the design of an individual power and how it compares to others of its kind without having to anticipate how it interacts with a growing library of options.


----------



## Tian Zi

Kamikaze Midget said:


> But 4e didn't pursue that goal. they wanted every class to contribute to _combat_ in different ways. In narrowing the focus like that, they've lost sight of many of the reasons that people played D&D -- not to fight goblins, but to plumb the lair and uncover their mystery. This involved combat, sure, but it also involved avoiding deadly traps ("gotcha monsters!"), and communicating with friendly slaves ("what's the use of Charisma, anyway?!"), and figuring out how to escape from the tomb you've been sealed in ("I'm a wizard, so I can walk through walls!"), and, ultimately, beating up the goblins ("I'm a fighter! I put pointy things into squishy things!").
> 
> This is, I think, for me, part of why 4e doesn't seem as "rich" as previous editions. Like it's a step back and down, away from possibility toward selling minis and internet toys, and designing a system that can handle minis and internet toys better than previous editions.




SoooOOoooo... 

How is dungeon exploration more 3.5 than 4.e?
How are traps more 3.5 than 4.e?
How is communicating with friendly slaves more 3.5 than 4.e?
How is "possibility" not part of 4.e?


----------



## Shroomy

Andor said:


> 1) The characters experience never changes. This is the 'sweet spot' effet and was a deliberate design goal of 4e. But... the 'hero's journey' has always been about growth and change. The hero starts off a normal dude, maybe marked by destiny, maybe with a funny birthmark, but still a farm boy. Then he grows into a hero and does great deeds and experiences great victories and losses. And when he has ahieved greatness his role changes again and he becomes a leader or a teacher. - And this is what 4e takes away from the characters in pursuit of the 'sweet spot'.




I'm not sure I completely understand what type of experience are you getting at.  I mean, I think I see what you are getting at in terms of low-level play followed by a steep upwards power curve, but 4e's introduction of paragon paths and (especially) epic destinies seems to take care of the second type of role change that you describe.


----------



## Tian Zi

El Mahdi said:


> I agree with this.  Very well said.  Couple this with the feeling that classes are defined by powers, with less flexibility to imagine different character concepts with the mechanics, and that would pretty much sum it up for me.




How were 3.5 characters defined?  If not by Powers, than what?  In anticipation of your answer, how are Feats, Class Abilities, etc... Powers by any other name?  If not 3.5, answer which edition you prefer... I'd love to hear how 2e characters were not defined by Powers.

How does 4.e mechanically limit your imagination?  It's *your* imagination.  You want a stumpy dwarf with a lisp?  Have it.  it's yours at the DM's discretion.  Imagination =/= rules.  What in the rules would encourage your imagination?  What in 3.5 encouraged your imagination?


----------



## Tian Zi

firesnakearies said:


> I see a lot of THIS going on:
> 
> 
> "I have read the new Better Joy Cookbook and I am devastated to my very core. Their macaroni and cheese recipe, the very macaroni and cheese I've been making since I was in college, has been ravaged and disfigured and left bleeding on the page. Where once it contained only cheddar cheese, now the recipe calls for a mix of cheddar and Colby. It may contain macaroni, and it may contain cheese, but it is _not_ macaroni and cheese."
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.




LOL, yes!  And I have a hunch a fair amount of those complaining about the mac n cheese haven't prepared it with the new recipe.  But ya know, you can just *feel* it by reading the recipe


----------



## Tian Zi

Fifth Element said:


> You can play *any* prior version of D&D as only a combat simulator if you want to.




Indeed, however, as we age, the rosy colored glasses get more and more... rosy for the past.

I loved that post though, got a good chuckle out of it.  How is 4e NOT a RPG?  Heck, that begs the question... how WAS 3.5 a RPG game?


----------



## Tian Zi

Andor said:


> Furthermore I'm playing in a group that is new to gaming. The GM picked 4e because they had few e books and it was the new thing. And he is absolutely _floundering_ outside of combat. Has no idea what to do or how to resolve things. But roll initiative and suddenly everything works.




Good thing he has 4.e to help him out!  Running 3.5 combats, especially after, say, 8th level, is a nightmare.  Perhaps if he read the DMG, or maybe has a natural inclination for RPGing, he'd be a better a DM.

Or, you know, DMing is hard regardless of the edition.  It takes practice and time.  No edition can help that.


----------



## MrMyth

Shroomy said:


> I'm not sure I completely understand what type of experience are you getting at. I mean, I think I see what you are getting at in terms of low-level play followed by a steep upwards power curve, but 4e's introduction of paragon paths and (especially) epic destinies seems to take care of the second type of role change that you describe.




To hop back in on this idea, I thought it was awesome that one of the FR Epic Destinies, the Mythic Sovereign, gives out properties and estates as a class feature, which very much felt like the way high level characters in older editions formerly gained strongholds and the like. 

Now, not every Epic Destiny gives out property - but they all do seem to represent becoming an important figure. One character becomes the king of their nation and a powerful ruler; another the preeminent archmage, training apprentices in the ways of magic; another approaching divinity itself as the greatest champion of their faith. 

Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies actually feel relevant and defining, as opposed to the scattered Prestige Classes of 3.5, which often simply became tools for PCs to pick and choose from. They didn't have to be, mind you - I've been running a campaign where characters only get 1 prestige class, and every prestige class has specific in-game requirements to be met to acquire it. But making them feel that special and unique, while it may have been the original intent of prestige classes, required some active focus on my part as DM - energy and effort that I find Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies to not require, in order to yield the same result.


----------



## Greg K

thecasualoblivion said:


> 4E's skill system is easier to use/build characters with and is far more inclusive of the entire party. I really don't see the complaint here..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, apparently, you never will understand, but the over consolidation of skills and sacrficing of skill rank purchase is deal breaker for many people and, one of the leading reasons why 8 groups I know won't touch 4e.
> 
> Had 4e kept the diversification of skills (although, I doubt anyone would miss use rope, but may be wrong), skill rank purchases (giving some classes more skill points per level) and used the 4e skill challenge (or the 3e version in UA), they would have been happy. For these players, its about better reflecting the character as they envision it.  They don't care if they have to sacrafice keeping more commonly used skills maxed out to put points into other skills that may rarely come up as it's not abut "gaming" the system. It's about having the abiity to fine tune their vision of the character based upon the character's background and organic growth.  4e's over consolidated skills and automatic level bonuses is an impediment to this approach.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mallus

Greg K said:


> And, apparently, you never will understand, but the over consolidation of skills and sacrificing of skill rank purchase is deal breaker for many people and, one of the leading reasons why 8 groups I know won't touch 4e.



Aren't skills 'over-consolidated' in 3e? Rope Use (oh red-headed stepchilde of D&D skills) covers everything from a rodeo cowboy tying a lasso to rigging a tall ship. Diplomacy covers everything from a slick confidence man ingratiating himself to a mark to an Imperial courtier ingratiating himself to the court. Decipher Script lets you decipher _any_ script, at all.  

Skills in D&D have always been big, catchall categories that made 'fine-tuning' difficult, unless the player voluntarily limits themselves; using their skills in fewer circumstances than the rules state they would apply. Which, of course, is exactly how you fine-tune a PC's skills in 4e...


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Greg K said:


> It's about having the abiity to fine tune their vision of the character based upon the character's background and organic growth.  4e's over consolidated skills and automatic level bonuses is an impediment to this approach.




I don't think you are giving the 4E skill system a fair shake. It's definately different than what you are used to, but in many ways it can be used to achieve the goals you have in mind for your PC. See my post above for ways that I, as DM, would help a player incorporate the use of haikus into the system. I don't need a Perform (haiku) skill to make it useful and meaningful. Nor do I need skill point granularity to make a robust and interesting skill system. Most players I have met don't have 5 ranks in "Perform (Haiku)" on their 8th level Fighter becuase they have fine-tuned it to that point. They have that number of ranks because they are working within the confines of the 3E skill system. What they really want is for the performance of haikus to be important to their PC for some reason and by working together with them to achieve their haiku-spouting goals I believe I can provide them with a more satisfying experience in 4E than 3E.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Greg K said:


> And, apparently, you never will understand, but the over consolidation of skills and sacrficing of skill rank purchase is deal breaker for many people and, one of the leading reasons why 8 groups I know won't touch 4e.
> 
> Had 4e kept the diversification of skills (although, I doubt anyone would miss use rope, but may be wrong), skill rank purchases (giving some classes more skill points per level) and used the 4e skill challenge (or the 3e version in UA), they would have been happy. For these players, its about better reflecting the character as they envision it.  They don't care if they have to sacrafice keeping more commonly used skills maxed out to put points into other skills that may rarely come up as it's not abut "gaming" the system. It's about having the abiity to fine tune their vision of the character based upon the character's background and organic growth.  4e's over consolidated skills and automatic level bonuses is an impediment to this approach.




I don't see why D&D should spend this much effort trying to please people who would probably be happier playing GURPS or HERO.


----------



## Greg K

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I don't think you are giving the 4E skill system a fair shake. It's definately different than what you are used to, but in many ways it can be used to achieve the goals you have in mind for your PC..



I have played many different games with different skill systems.  I will no longer play games with automatic skill increases based on level or very consolidated skill lists.  I find them unsatisfying.



> See my post above for ways that I, as DM, would help a player incorporate the use of haikus into the system. I don't need a Perform (haiku) skill to make it useful and meaningful.



I had . I consider it using attribute checks even with an arbitrary small modifier unsatisfying and would avoid such a game.



> Most players I have met don't have 5 ranks in "Perform (Haiku)" on their 8th level Fighter becuase they have fine-tuned it to that point. They have that number of ranks because they are working within the confines of the 3E skill system.



Then, they don't view their character as seeking out haiku (or poetry) in his or her travels to become the best haiku (or poetry) master. However, if haiku (or poetry in genral) is appropriate for the campaign setting I and other players are going to want some means of representing just how good the character is and the player to increase ranks as appropriate (and the DM having situations in the travels where such skill may be useful).


----------



## Mallus

Greg K said:


> I have played many different games with different skill systems.



Out of curiosity, which ones do you like?

For the record, I currently prefer systems with small lists of broadly applied skills (and when needed, simple ability checks) like 4e.


----------



## Greg K

Mallus said:


> Aren't skills 'over-consolidated' in 3e? Rope Use (oh red-headed stepchilde of D&D skills) covers everything from a rodeo cowboy tying a lasso to rigging a tall ship.



You missed where I said this is one skill that they probably mind going away.



> Diplomacy covers everything from a slick confidence man ingratiating himself to a mark to an Imperial courtier ingratiating himself to the court.



I might actually use bluff if the confidence man is not sincere.

Decipher Script lets you decipher _any_ script, at all.  



> Skills in D&D have always been big, catchall categories that made 'fine-tuning' difficult, unless the player voluntarily limits themselves; using their skills in fewer circumstances than the rules state they would apply. Which, of course, is exactly how you fine-tune a PC's skills in 4e



First, we introduced new some skills and/or treated some skills like Perform or Knoweldge in that you chose a specialty.  Second, the consolidation in 3e is not nearly to the degree of 4e.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Greg K said:


> I have played many different games with different skill systems.  I will no longer play games with automatic skill increases based on level or very consolidated skill lists.  I find them unsatisfying.




What I don't see is the need for D&D to be this sort of game. I've played games with these sort of skill systems in Rolemaster(about a year and a half), and arguably I'd call Vampire/WoD(played for 5 years) this sort of game. Given my experiences with Rolemaster and WoD, and having owned both Champions and Hero and read them well enough to be familiar, I don't think 3E did a good job with this sort of skill system. It tried to, but it didn't really work well in game. 

D&D has always been the straightforward, easy to play action adventure RPG. Trying to be everything to everybody was 3E's experiment, and one they've thankfully decided to abandon.

RPG players who want something different than D&D are going to have to get used to playing non-D&D games again, or playing 3E some more.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Greg K said:


> Then, they don't view their character as seeking out haiku (or poetry) in his or her travels to become the best haiku (or poetry) master. However, if haiku (or poetry in genral) is appropriate for the campaign setting I and other players are going to want some means of representing just how good the character is and the player to increase ranks as appropriate (and the DM having situations in the travels where such skill may be useful).




They may view their character seeking to become a haiku master. But if they play a straight Fighter in 3E they can't. Only a class with Perform as a class skill can accomplish that.

Another question: Why are automatically increasing skill points a deal-breaker for you when all 3E classes have automatically increasing BABs and saves? Why does every fighter excel at fighting at the exact same rate?

Other systems work all character talents into a rank system and give better granularity than 3E. So why would you choose a system that constrains you to advance automatically in some of your talents (fighting, avoiding danger) while making you spend skill resource points on other talents, while choosing other talents outright (feats)? Even Earthdawn leaves most things to Ranks (excluding only passive defenses).


----------



## Tian Zi

Tetsubo said:


> If you enjoy tactical miniature games with a fantasy element, 4E seems to be the system for you.




Really?  I thought that was DDM Skirmish, the game they just cancelled.  Hmmm, I must have bought the wrong rulebooks and be playing with the wrong people.


----------



## Henry

Greg K said:


> Then, they don't view their character as seeking out haiku (or poetry) in his or her travels to become the best haiku (or poetry) master. However, if haiku (or poetry in general) is appropriate for the campaign setting I and other players are going to want some means of representing just how good the character is and the player to increase ranks as appropriate (and the DM having situations in the travels where such skill may be useful).




I like what Rel was thinking of doing with his proposed 4E game; just extending the skill system to skills that the PCs specifically want so that they can have that customization. In his case, his original plan was, 

Question 1: What did your Character do before taking up adventuring?
Question 2: What does your character do when he's not adventuring?

So 4E can have those former Blacksmiths who take up basketweaving in their off-hours, or Sailor/aspiring coin collectors who check the dragon's hoard for numismatic value.


----------



## Mallus

Greg K said:


> You missed where I said this is one skill that they probably mind going away.



No I didn't (but I mentioned it because it served as a good example of the generality of the 3e skill system). 



> I might actually use bluff if the confidence man is not sincere.



Nitpick: that's an incorrect use of Bluff. A Bluff is a short-duration lie ("these aren't the the droids you're looking for" minus the Force). Ingratiation is Diplomacy. 



> First, we introduced new some skills and/or treated some skills like Perform or Knoweldge in that you chose a specialty.  Second, the consolidation in 3e is not nearly to the degree of 4e.



The problem with a big list of more specialized skills is that the whole skill system loses utility (unless you start handing out a *lot* more skill points). You end up with a group of skill specialists sidelined until there particular area of knowledge comes into play.

For example: Knowledge: history made seem absurdly broad... but Knowledge: history (of a particular region and era) is basically useless unless the whole campaign is based around there/then.


----------



## Greg K

Mallus said:


> Out of curiosity, which ones do you like?
> 
> For the record, I currently prefer systems with small lists of broadly applied skills (and when needed, simple ability checks) like 4e.




My skill lists preferences

Number of skills between that of 3e  or d20Modern and RMSS and that allow players to assign points to purchase just how good they are. 3e and d20M are closest to what  I like, but could use a few extra skills and applying perform like subskills to a few of them.  RMSS is a little on the heavy side, but not enough that  I will not play it.

Set levels of difficulty with explanations of just hard a particular  DC is? What is an easy task? what is an average task? What is hard? etc.  And these should be set levels (edit:  (e.g, DC 30 is x difficulty).  This is unless an action is complicated by someone opposing the character in which case the relative skill levels should modify the difficult.).

Preferably it should have a list of how good a specific rank is.  What is a novice/beginner, what is professional level? What is an expert? What is the best in a region? A nation? The best in the world?

Games that I find are too consolidated for my tastes include 4e, Cinematic Unisystem (however Buffy and Angel soucebooks make an ok reference), and Savage Worlds.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Greg K said:


> My skill lists preferences
> 
> Number of skills between that of 3e  or d20Modern and RMSS and that allow players to assign points to purchase just how good they are. 3e and d20M are closest to what  I like, but could use a few extra skills and applying perform like subskills to a few of them.  RMSS is a little on the heavy side, but not enough that  I will not play it.
> 
> Set levels of difficulty with explanations of just hard a particular  DC is? What is an easy task? what is an average task? What is hard? etc.  And these should be set levels
> 
> Preferably it should have a list of how good a specific rank is.  What is a novice/beginner, what is professional level? What is an expert? What is the best in a region? A nation? The best in the world?
> 
> Games that I find are too consolidated for my tastes include 4e, Cinematic Unisystem (however Buffy and Angel soucebooks make an ok reference), and Savage Worlds.




It sounds like you are looking for a point based system, and not a class and level based system.


----------



## Greg K

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> They may view their character seeking to become a haiku master. But if they play a straight Fighter in 3E they can't. Only a class with Perform as a class skill can accomplish that.




Check your PHB (3.0/p.94 and 3.5/p.110).  There is an example of giving the figher more skill points and some additional class skills.



> Another question: Why are automatically increasing skill points a deal-breaker for you when all 3E classes have automatically increasing BABs and saves? Why does every fighter excel at fighting at the exact same rate?



They are something tolerable, because there will probably be a lot more fighting and saving throws whether you are in a dungeon, in the wilderness, in an urban center, etc.  Although myself, I thought they should have kept the four levels of combat proficiency from 1e and 2e.  That doesn't mean that I would not have preferred a switch to assigning ranks to attack abilities.


----------



## Greg K

thecasualoblivion said:


> What I don't see is the need for D&D to be this sort of game.




I have found 3e do be a good middle point that the DND players and RM/GURPS/HERO players I know can both enjoy.


----------



## Greg K

thecasualoblivion said:


> It sounds like you are looking for a point based system, and not a class and level based system.




Nope. 3e and d20 Modern both give me the basic of what I want  which is something in the middle - especially for fantasy. They also have a good core mechanic.  However, beyond the core books, I turn  to UA and 3pp for support products, because they help me tailor the game. 

Which is not to say there are not a few things that I would have loved to have seen from 4e in 3e.


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Greg K said:


> I have found 3e do be a good middle point that the DND players and RM/GURPS/HERO players I know can both enjoy.




And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.


----------



## Greg K

thecasualoblivion said:


> And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.




Let me clarify. I meant groups that had previously mixed preferences prior to 3e.  My own group had one or two people that would not play RM and two or three that would not play pre-3e dnd.  That meant no DND at all.  With 3e the pre-3e DND people liked it much better than previous editions and the RM players liked it almost as much or equally to 3e.  So, they all became DND players.


----------



## The_Gneech

thecasualoblivion said:


> And yet WotC chose as a business decision to make D&D for the D&D fans, and let RM/GURPS/HERO players play those games.




So "_D&D_ fans" didn't like 3E? News to me.

There's no reason why a well-made game can't appeal to both sub-sets.

-The Gneech


----------



## Cadfan

I honestly wouldn't mind a craft, profession, or perform system, if they actually DID something.

That was my problem with the 3e system.  Other than perform, which tied to bardic abilities, these skills didn't do anything.  They gave you an arbitrary number, and you used that number to... well... usually do nothing.  If you had to actually make a skill roll (which didn't happen often because you could usually take 10 or 20) you rolled against a totally arbitrary number the DM made up.

It accomplished one meaningful thing- it made "is a blacksmith" an _official_ character trait, instead of "just" backstory.  But I'm not sure how important that is.

So, I dunno, maybe 5e will have a really great craft/profession/perform system, and in eight years you'll be hearing me laugh about how inferior "just ad lib it" is as a system.  But I'm going to have to actually _see_ that better system before I endorse it, and I'm not going to complain that 4e has the actual, existing "just ad lib it" system instead of the hypothetical, imaginary "system that fixes 3e's problems and is totally better in every way."


----------



## thecasualoblivion

Cadfan said:


> I honestly wouldn't mind a craft, profession, or perform system, if they actually DID something."




There is also the issue that craft, profession, and perform are rarely group activities in a RPG. I'm not saying they can't be, but I've never seen or heard of it.


----------



## Zustiur

thecasualoblivion said:


> What I don't see is the need for D&D to be this sort of game. I've played games with these sort of skill systems in Rolemaster(about a year and a half), and arguably I'd call Vampire/WoD(played for 5 years) this sort of game.



I don't see the need for D&D to be totally balanced inside combat. I don't see the need for D&D to have fighters with a menagerie of powers to choose from. That didn't stop it happening.

Just because you don't see the reason, doesn't mean the reason doesn't exist.


----------

