# Why won't you switch?



## Kzach (Feb 14, 2008)

Apologies if this has been asked before but I did try and find a similar thread and couldn't. If it has, then feel free to ignore it 

Another thread in which 4E non-adopters were asked why they still perused this forum interested me and brought up the question of why people won't be adopting the new edition.

I get that these reasons have probably been stated in numerous threads, but no single thread collated them all.

Given that I'm essentially asking non-adopters of the new edition why they're not interested in it, I'm going to ask ahead of time that everyone keep it civil. There is no intention of sparking fires here, just genuine curiosity.

For me, I'm going to be picking up the new edition sight unseen with a pre-order. All the previews have given me significant confidence in the ability of the designers and almost everything I've heard thus far about the changes are positive in my mind.

From my perspective, there are a lot of intelligent and creative people putting a lot of thought and effort behind making the new system as fun as possible. The fact that they're actually examining each rule to determine what it brings to the game, positive or negative, and are remaking these rules to either be more fun or easier to use is fantastic in my mind.

It seems that there are a vast majority of people who have very similar ideas on what makes a good system and what they dislike about 3.x. And 4E seems to be catering to that by fixing everything most people seem to dislike and making it into what most people think is a good system.

So, with that said, and admittedly I think I'm turning into a fanboi due to my excitement and anticipation of the new edition, I find it puzzling why anyone would not want to switch.

Therefore I bring this question to you: why won't you switch?


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 14, 2008)

_Apologies if this has been asked before but I did try and find a similar thread and couldn't._

Dig a little more. Mostly, these threads have died out because they're repetitive and full of bile.


----------



## Delta (Feb 14, 2008)

Details for me are posted on my blog. Main topics:

(1) Continuity of rules 
(2) Digital initiative 
(3) Promise of OGL

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/10/probably-no-4e-for-me.html


----------



## maggot (Feb 14, 2008)

Basically, the new approaches, setting, races, etc. don't appeal to me.

The new edition feels too much like a whole new game: new rules, new setting, new races, new monsters, new characters.  I'm not looking for a whole new game.  I might be looking for tweaks to the existing game, but I'm not after a whole new one.

(Aside: That's why I'm excited about Monte's house rules.  I would also have been excited about a less comprehensive overall of the D&D experience.)

I've invested time and money in 3.E that won't be easily repeated.  I've developed an ease with 3.E that comes from years of experience running it.

Switching to 3E was compelling because 2E was so bad I had given up D&D and fantasy RPGs in general.  But for 4E, there is no compelling reason to switch for me at all.  In fact, the time and money investment makes choosing 4E less than compelling.  The fact that I don't care for the 4E direction makes it an easy call.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 14, 2008)

I don't know if this topic has been the object of a thread, but it has been broached. Just as in the 'why are you still here' thread, I think we can all be civil and not let this one degenerate. The key to this preservation will lie in posters' willingness to not criticize the reasons given.

I am not switching because:

1) Learning a new ruleset is a pain in the butt, first and foremost.

2) Switching is cost prohibitive in that I would lose both money and players.

3) I have seen little that cannot be 'cribbed' into 3.5 with a minimum of effort on my part. In fact, the mental exercise in conversion may well prove more intellectually satisfying than playing it as written.

4) I am entering a period of my life where I would rather invest in good board games than good role playing games.

5) I am naturally contrarian and will enjoy leaving the "mainstream" of this hobby.

6) If gnomes aren't cool enough for 4E PHB, I'm not either.

7) _ Based on what I have read and seen, _I do not believe that my DM'ing style is suited for the 4E rules, though I admit this is a weak reason because I haven't seen the entirety of the system yet.

8) I just subscribed to d20srd.org and haven't gotten a chance to use my coupon for a free rez. Not going to leave that money on the table.

9) In 5 years, I have bought a lot of stuff. I still have too much fun left to wring out of 3.5 before I could seriously think about switching.

10) Even then, I would be more apt to buy and play GURPS, particularly if the Studio Foglio's Girl Genius book EVER COMES OUT.

I actually have a lot more reasons than this (and a lot more reasons than I initially thought I had). I think this sums it up and would justify my position to any right-thinking member of this forum.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 14, 2008)

1) General opposition to edition churn in my hobbies
2) Specific objections to 4E

1) I don't enjoy playing a game thinking "What rules changes would make this game better?"  I don't play softball that way.  I don't play Scrabble that way.  I want RPGing to be a hobby like those, where I can pick them up after 10 years and play them basically like I always did.  I have two D&D systems that I love and that are good enough to provide me with gaming enjoyment for the rest of my life.  Getting back into that gearhead mindset of "what mechanical changes would make this RPG better" would leave me in a state of perpetual discontent.  Fun comes from a great gaming group and a great adventure and a "good enough" ruleset.  And if there is a really glaring problem, I'll be glad to house-rule it.  

I'm hopping off the edition treadmill, for good I think.  4E would be for me if neither 3.5 nor any previous edition was "good enough" and if it looked promising. 

2) I don't like most of the specific changes that 4E is making.  They're eliminating elements of D&D that I really like, leaving in the worst 3E innovations, and adding some new stuff that's just silly.  The designers comments about what they view as "problems" have been very revealing.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 14, 2008)

First reason: Dragon Magazine
 Second reason: Not enough time has passed.
 Third reason: No Gnomes. Maybe no Druids. Tieflings and Dragonborn Warlocks instead.
 Fourth reason: I don't like any of the "upgrades" mentioned so far. They haven't addressed what I and many of my friends didn't like in 3.x. Instead, they keep those and ditch the stuff we DID like.
 Fifth reason: I'm completely and utterly tired of Feat based systems. Which means, yes, that I am pretty much done with most 3.x OGL derived systems as well. No, please, don't tell me how much "better" Savage Worlds is and why I should be using it. Or True20. Or M&M.
 Sixth reason: Money.
 Seventh reason: Dungeon Magazine
 Eight reason: Digital Initiative. 

hth


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 14, 2008)

I won't be going to 4e, even though some house ruled mechanics are already very close to 4e.

Reasons:
1.)New edition seems too gamist with elements that break versimilitude
2.)PC/NPC rule divide, I'd had enough of that by the time I quit 2e and I won't start again.
3.)Changes in monster design are not to my taste
4.)Changes in basic magic system I really don't like.  I don't mean non-Vancian it's things like no SoD, dumping summoning/ necromancy/ polymorph spells when I never had problems with them.
5.)Could be prejudging the situation but they seem to be giving martial character powers I feel should be strictly magical in nature.  I'm willing to accept high-level non-spellcasters doing impossible inhuman things, but not hurling energy attacks.


----------



## smootrk (Feb 14, 2008)

The posts up to now all cover aspects of my own choice to not upgrade, at least as a DM.  In addition to the cost of buying a new round of books, I was really soured by the loss of my beloved periodicals just to fuel WotC's corporate changes.

However, I do plan to purchase a PHB (only) so that when I need a gaming-fix I can go that route when necessary (when no alternatives are present), although it won't be my first choice.


----------



## Mamacat (Feb 14, 2008)

First and foremost, money.  I have a 2 year old, and am planning for another baby next year, so my money is tight.  I'd rather spend it on something that's going to be around a while, and I've already invested enough in 3.5 to play it for years.

Second, I'm not currently in a D&D game, so there is no immediate need for new books.

Third, space.  I have a LOT of books (I'm a librarian, after all), and a LOT of RPG books.  With four of us in a three bedroom house, there's just no room for a whole batch of new books.    

Fourth, I really don't like a lot of the rule changes, especially to the Druids and Rangers.  And I don't like the changes I'm hearing that are coming for FR as well.

Fifth, I have True 20, and I really, really like that system, and I'd rather invest in a few more books for that system then buy a whole new system.

Sixth, I miss Dragon Magazine.     

There's more reasons, but right now, those are the main ones.


----------



## joela (Feb 14, 2008)

*one BIG reason*

My players, who are my friends, don't want to switch. I'll be buying the books, though.


----------



## Gryffyn (Feb 14, 2008)

Oddly enough, for me it's the changes in resource management that have me down on the new edition.  I actually liked having to deal with limited resources, and being clever about getting the most out of them.  I know many people aren't fond of that, and I don't begrudge them wanting to eliminate the "15-minute workday."  In the end, the resource management challenges were a fundamental part of what made D&D different from its competitors in the FRPG market.


----------



## rgard (Feb 14, 2008)

Here you go...

1.  Too much money already invested in 3.0, 3.5 and OGL rules.
2.  Too much money already invested in D&D minis.
3.  I've yet to use all that I've purchased of the above.
4.  I really enjoy playing 3.0, 3.5 and OGL based games.

If WotC had delayed release of 4.0 until 2010, 2012 or beyond I would have kept buying their 3.5 stuff.  I'll continue to pick up non-WotC 3.5 compatible stuff.

I don't begrudge WotC's decision to release 4.0.  In fact, I believe they are doing the right thing for themselves and the hobby as a whole in so far as I believe it's the best way to attract new customers.  I hope this works out for them.

For me, I'm 46 and have been playing D&D since 1977.  I don't see going back to 1E or going forward to 4E.  I have my game...3.5/OGL hit the right spot for me.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 14, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> 1.)New edition seems too gamist with elements that break versimilitude
> 2.)PC/NPC rule divide, I'd had enough of that by the time I quit 2e and I won't start again.
> 3.)Changes in monster design are not to my taste
> 4.)Changes in basic magic system I really don't like.  I don't mean non-Vancian it's things like no SoD, dumping summoning/ necromancy/ polymorph spells when I never had problems with them.
> 5.)Could be prejudging the situation but they seem to be giving martial character powers I feel should be strictly magical in nature.  I'm willing to accept high-level non-spellcasters doing impossible inhuman things, but not hurling energy attacks.



Pretty much sums up my stance as well (though the jury's out on #3 and will be for a while, I think).  I'll add:
6.)Magic items: slotting taken too far, no low-level ring use, huge loss in creativity in what items do (e.g. magic footwear always involves movement), etc.

That all said; the reason trumping all these for me not to switch is that I've got over 25 years invested in building the system I use now, and I fully intend to keep using it.  That said, I'll almost certainly end up buying some 4e stuff (already started, in fact) for ideas and conversion, and to stay abreast of how the game is being played in the wider world.

Lanefan


----------



## dallas1 (Feb 14, 2008)

Several reasons why I'm not adopting the new edition and they have nothing to do with the actual content of the new game:

1) Not enough room in my library;
2) Little time to actually play any edition, so no real incentive to invest time, money and space in the new edition;
3) Still unexplored potential in the older editions.


Why am I still here?  I've played D&D for 25+ years and I enjoy following the evolution of the game.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm planning on picking up the core books; probably the FR campaign book.  Beyond that, I'm not planning on buying or playing.  I've been looking at alternative rulesystems, and will probably switch to True20.  I like it, I can convert now, and the cost for my players to buy in is alot less than D&D.

The mechanics of 4e aren't a big deal for me, but it's another straw on the camel.  I'm mid-30's, I'm too invested in 3e to throw out thousands of dollars worth of books, WOtC is ditching the OGL, and I'm just tired of the constant turnover in the game.  I want to work on my setting with a relatively simple set of rules that I can customize to my taste.

Also, the OGL is a big deal to me.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 14, 2008)

Cool. Interesting replies so far and am glad everyone is being civil 

Primarily it seems everyone is stating money as an issue. I have to agree this is even an issue for me as I'm not exactly rich. Finding the money to put in an order will be a challenge but then I didn't invest too much in 3.x so I'm probably not losing as much as others either.


----------



## DM_Jeff (Feb 14, 2008)

It's too soon.
I have yet to use 75% of my 3.5 material.
I have none of the problems with 3.5 so many tell me I must! ;-)
Too much $ invested. 
The game is exactly where I have wanted it for the past 30 years. 
3.5 alive.

-DM Jeff


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2008)

The rules I have seen so far make me quite certain that 4E will offer a whole lot less of what is fun to me.

I've got stacks of books for a game that I know I'll continue to find more rewarding, so it is a simple choice.


----------



## Hunter In Darkness (Feb 14, 2008)

theres a few resons
1 have more then enuff 3e books
2 have u seen what they did to FR
3 have u seen what they did to FR
4 lack of SOD effects, making it into rubber paddied safty dungeons
5 what i have seen of hp
6 wizard=envoker
7 dragonborn in the phb
8 boobies on dragon born
9 useing the naem tiefling with out bing tieflings
10 no gnomes,druids ,bards
11 have u seen what they did to FR
12 warlocks in the phb
13 WOW based magic level limits
14 self healing for everyone look mom im a mutant
15 stabbing people heals your friends from 5 ft away
16the DDI
17 the thing u now call dungeon and dragon mags
18 killing said mags
19 no negative ablity scores
20 4 ' kender.... i mean halflings
21 death of 30+years of fluff
22 makeing all my old books now useless
23 magic for everyone 
24 designers telling me i play wrong and my game could be even more supper cool fun
25 death of none combate ablitys
im sure theres more but this is all that came to mind right now
it comes down to really it does not look to be my style of play.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 14, 2008)

I also would like to thank, nay, _congratulate_ everyone in thread for maintaining civility by not saying anything too disparaging about 4E. It acquits us well to be nice to one another.

I also was bummed about Dungeon and Dragon going away, though I hear Kobold Quarterly is doing a good job filling the void. In any case, the magazines' cancellation also factored into my decision.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 14, 2008)

Why won't I switch?  Well my final decision hasn't been made yet as I've signed up for a friends playtest when the rules come out.  But for now its looking like my interest in 4E is minimal at best.  I could go into specifics, but many of the reasons have already been mentioned.  So here are a few generalities.

-To start with I haven't seen any really innovative or exciting rules that I feel will improve my game either on its own or without an accompanying negative to a feature of D&D that I currently enjoy.  

-I've seen a number of new rules that appear very arbitrary and more designed for the sake of change than for any real improvement in our gaming experience.

-I've been very disappointed with how WotC has managed their customers expectations, and their overall level of support, responsiveness and service to the D&D community.  Especially those who raise anything but a totally positive voice to what they have seen so far.

-I'm also upset with many of the dramatic changes that have been made to the magazines, the Realms and other elements of "D&D" that were not directly linked to the system itself.  I see the iconic magazines turned into an atrociously managed (to date) collection of generally poor pdf articles ... I see another iconic element of D&D, Forgotten Realms, be hacked apart and then various pieces thrown away while others are tied together with thread from a really bad storyline... and I see honest efforts to communicate (even civilly at times   ) be ignored so often that it almost appears to be part of a business plan.

Even though I have a large collection of 3E books, the money is not an issue for me.  Gaming is my major vice and I usually like to buy a couple of new books each month.  Whether its new settings or new systems I like to read about them and play them.  But only the ones that can attract my imagination.

Unfortunately 4E doesn't just have to attract my imagination and sense of wonder, but WotC has to make me disregard all the negatives they have created.  Its not that I hold a grudge against 4E.  Its just that in todays market, with so many good settings, good systems and companies actually communicating & interested in making my gaming experience more enjoyable,  WotC & 4E aren't setting the standard anymore.  IMO, they are being measured against the competition, and in many places found lacking.

I hope I didn't ramble too much.


----------



## Jayouzts (Feb 14, 2008)

*Digital Initiative*



			
				Delta said:
			
		

> Details for me are posted on my blog. Main topics:
> 
> (1) Continuity of rules
> (2) Digital initiative
> ...




Your blog on the Digital Initiative is one of the best gaming-related pieces I have read in a while.


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 14, 2008)

The reasons are many and varied, in general.

..........You know what, I had typed up this long, descriptive post explaining my reasons, but after that I thought that it might somehow inflame the "4E is awesome and everything else is badwrongfun!" crowd, just because anything praising 3E with non-enthusiasm for 4E tends to do so.  So I deleted it. :\ 

In short, my reasons are mostly the same as some of the other posters already mentioned.  I was just going to be a lot more wordy and detailed about the "why" of each point.


----------



## PoeticJustice (Feb 14, 2008)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> The reasons are many and varied, in general.
> 
> ..........You know what, I had typed up this long, descriptive post explaining my reasons, but after that I thought that it might somehow inflame the "4E is awesome and everything else is badwrongfun!" crowd, just because anything praising 3E with non-enthusiasm for 4E tends to do so.  So I deleted it. :\
> 
> In short, my reasons are mostly the same as some of the other posters already mentioned.  I was just going to be a lot more wordy and detailed about the "why" of each point.




I heartily thank you for your exercise in restraint. As I said earlier, doing so acquits all community members on either side of the issue well.


----------



## Rabelais (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm probably going to make the switch... I'm still pretty ambivalent about it though.

First and foremost... It's the cost of the thing.  I've invested hundreds in source materials... It irks me that that money is expended

The problems about the game design qualms and it being gamist and such are certainly valid for many of the people likely to respond, but are not even secondary concerns to me.  It's dollars and cents for me, all the way.


Why AM I switching then?  I've played 3.x long enough... I want to play a different game for awhile.

not the best reason I guess, but it's all I have.


----------



## Delta (Feb 14, 2008)

Jayouzts said:
			
		

> Your blog on the Digital Initiative is one of the best gaming-related pieces I have read in a while.




Thank you!


----------



## Brennin Magalus (Feb 14, 2008)

I will look at 4E eventually but I am satisfied with 3E and I see no reason to switch as of yet.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Feb 14, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> All the previews have given me significant confidence in the ability of the designers and almost everything I've heard thus far about the changes are positive in my mind...
> 
> Therefore I bring this question to you: why won't you switch?



I could list many of the same things previous posters have mentioned, but it really boils down to this: my impression is almost the exact opposite of yours.  The previews I have seen have given me little or no confidence in the ability of the designers, and the majority of what I've seen and heard thus far about the changes to the game is negative in my mind.  <shrug>


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 14, 2008)

Let me try that one again. . . (sig now gone)

* I don't like what I've seen of 4e, on the balance of it, both in terms of 'crunch' and in terms of 'fluff'.
* The marketing effort and some of the decisions/events surrounding it have been by turns uninteresting and distasteful (to me.)
* I don't have a burning need for yet another version of D&D in the first place.
* In fact, I own systems of sufficient individual quality and collective scope, that I might not need another _system_, full stop.
* The advances in rules symmetry and transparency that finally came about with 3e (in D&D, for the first time ever) will be mostly done away with. I *very* strongly dislike that uh, 'feature' (i.e.,  slide backwards.)
* GSL != OGL, all the rest of that sorry state of affairs, and the implications of that.
* In order to run something I might like running, it might well be that I'd be waiting for a very long time indeed for all the sourcebooks to 'catch up'. No way am I waiting years to have D&D where I - being extremely optimistic here - might not be so limited by default that it would irritate me to the point of simply seeking and using a different, more complete system. Hm. . . 3e++? 

I think that pretty much covers it.


----------



## glass (Feb 14, 2008)

I won't be switching right away because I want to finish running Age of Worms (and we are currently only on the second adventure).

I'll probably switch after that is finished, though, depending on what the new rules look like and what my group thinks about it.


glass.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Feb 14, 2008)

I was going to switch right up to the point I read about the weird new diagonal movement rule.

If they're prioritizing simplicity over verisimilitude to that extent, I have serious doubts about the rest of the game.

If those doubts are justified, I won't want any part of it.


----------



## Mark Hope (Feb 14, 2008)

My reasons for not switching have very little to do with 4e itself, and plenty to do with 3e.

I'm not done with 3e by a long shot.  I have loads of material I have barely used and am looking forward to many happy years playing this stuff.  Its flexibility is a big draw for me and I see no reason to change from something I am happy with.  Plus I can't justify added expenditure when what I already have works fine for my needs.  3.5 alive!

From the 4e side, I just haven't been wowed by what I have read.  Simple as that.  And I'm not keen on the discarding of the classic D&D cosmology and changes to the assumed setting.  I didn't always use it, but I liked it a lot and think it's a shame that it has fallen by the wayside.

Oh, and I was irritated by the cancellation of _Dragon_ and _Dungeon_ and those elements of 4e marketing that tried to tell me that I wasn't having the right kind of fun, or that 3e was broken when I didn't think that it was.  These issues left a sour taste in my mouth that I have come to associate with 4e.  This isn't entirely rational of me but the effects of PR, good or bad, rarely are.  Oh well.

Still, there are clearly plenty of folks who are stoked about 4e and more power to them.  I have always hoped that fans of D&D can still hang out by the water-cooler and swap tall tales of high adventure, regardless of edition.  This thread gives me encouragement in that regard .


----------



## TessarrianDM (Feb 14, 2008)

1. To switch over to 3.0 and 3.5, I had to announce to the group we were changing, purchase everyone (9 players plus myself) Players Handbooks, and do all conversions. I choose not to invest that kind of time or money a third time.

2. My players are not interested.

3. I have spent too much time customizing my DMGenie program with non-core classes, spells, etc. to toss all of that work out and switch over.


----------



## delericho (Feb 14, 2008)

It's a fairly large topic. Where to begin...

Firstly, I was annoyed about the decision to end Dragon & Dungeon magazines. Academically, I understand why it was done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit. Given how badly they appear to have dropped the ball with the electronic versions of these magazines, that's a big strike against them.

Secondly, there was what felt like an excess of anti-3e statements coming from WotC with the 4e announcement. I have has a great deal of fun with that system over the last nine years, despite it's flaws; don't try to persuade me that the game was somehow broken or unfun because it just won't fly.

Thirdly, I don't like the Wizards policy of "spreading out the core". Again, this makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and I understand why it is being done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit.

Fourthly, they really have done a good job of un-selling me on the game. A case in point was the handling of the approved playtester comments thing. When Mouseferatu first commented on his positive experiences, it made a _huge_ difference - I had been about to give up hope on the game, but positive comments from a designer I respect led me to think that maybe I should withold judgement for a little longer. But then there came rumblings that maybe these comments were censored, that this was perhaps all goodfacts authorised by Wizards as part of their propaganda. And then it emerged that actually there _was_ an email. Now, the restriction to only pass on the positive, while reporting the negative to them is entirely sensible, and I accept that on a rational level. But marketing isn't about the rational, it's about perception, and the perception wasn't good.

Fifth, and this is nothing whatsoever to do with Wizards, it seems that every time a complaint about 4e is raised here, no matter how rational or well thought out, it was met by the "amen chorus", a bunch of posters who would not brook any criticism of the next big thing. Now, I should note that there is a set of anti-4e posters who are just as vehement (and there were people like Razz also, who had the effect of polarising discussion a great deal), but since I have been shifting to the anti-4e position myself, it was the rabid pro-4e posters who I found most irksome. The effect of this, anyway, was to make discussion of the upcoming edition less enjoyable, and by extension my enthusiasm for the edition waned a great deal.

Truth be told, though, these are all fairly minor things. Then there are the specifics of the game itself.

Sixth, there is a flavour element in the new game that I find offensive. That probably says more about me than the game, truth be told. But, as long as it's there, I'm voting with my wallet.

Seventh, I'm not keen on the new policy of monsters not being built on the same lines as PCs, as was the case in 3e.

Eighth, despite claims that the game is going to become simpler to play and run, there have been a number of hidden complexities. Elven aura powers, and those expanded terrain effects are easy to write, and seem simple on a read through, but in play they add a whole new layer of problems. What's my perception bonus? Well, no longer can I just look at my character sheet - at least one applicable bonus is on someone else's sheet.

Ninth, there are the reversals of cool things that I thought were going in. When we heard about wizard implements, and different implements affecting different spells differently, I thought that was really cool. Then we were informed that all implements would affect all spells the same. Bummer. The bugbear strangler uses a cool and exciting special maneuver in combat. Cool. Then it turns out that it is a unique ability to that monster, and the game won't really allow PCs to do that sort of thing. Bummer.

Tenth, and finally, there are the breaks with reality, which have become too bad in my estimation. The whole diagonal movement thing kills the game for me. Square fireballs, and round towers with corners in? Not for me, thanks. And while I can house-rule this (assuming, of course, they don't put another layer of rules in place to correct the mess they've made), this will take my list of definate house rules to a point where it is longer than any list I've ever used for 3e.

So, there it is. I don't expect many people to agree with all the points, and I suspect a lot of people won't agree with any of them (I just hope no-one is actually offended). And I know that they're not entirely rational in every case (can't blame Wizards for the state of discussion on message boards). Still, the question was asked, and that's the answer.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 14, 2008)

Expanding on my previous reply, now that I'm a little more coherent....


			
				Kzach said:
			
		

> Cool. Interesting replies so far and am glad everyone is being civil



I actually like alot of what I'm hearing about 4e.  I think the fluff changes are nice, and the planar changes are actually right in line with stuff I was doing or considering for my own campaign.  The amount of fluff that's apparently written into the core does concern me, however (and by this I mean racial origin stories, not planar relationships).

The mechanics also seem interesting. The diagonal issue isn't an issue for me.  Smoother combats would be great.  Dragonborn and tieflings aren't a natural fit for my campaign, but I could work them in.  So, like I said, I'm planning on buying the (first) core books and some supplements.  Playing it by ear, if you will.  I'd like to see the Martial Power sourcebook.



> Primarily it seems everyone is stating money as an issue. I have to agree this is even an issue for me as I'm not exactly rich. Finding the money to put in an order will be a challenge but then I didn't invest too much in 3.x so I'm probably not losing as much as others either.



This is a big one for me.  I've got well over a thousand dollars, maybe over two thousand, in 3x pdfs alone.  My print library is similar or larger.  I look at that, and I look at my (post-buying spree) daughter, and my bills, and I just can't justify throwing out that much of an investment. I can't resell pdfs, and with the change from the OGL to the GSL, it's unlikely I'll be able to legally take OGC from the 3rd-party books & pdfs I have and upgrade it to work with 4e.  My wiki is OGL compatible, and even though I'm not a "publisher", I like it legal.  Gives me reassurance that I'm not abusing some company's policy towards fan material.

Finally, while I've had the True20 rules for awhile, I've only just started really exploring it, and I've discovered that it's got the right mix of structure and customization for me.  I can easily define custom roles and paths for my campaign, and I can use my OGC library for new material.  Also, the cost for players to join is significantly less (I expect a pdf of the new core True20 book will be $15-$20 or so).  And, finally, I can start tweaking True20 right now.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 14, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Primarily it seems everyone is stating money as an issue.



That's really not what I get from looking at the responses here.  Maybe a poll would be a good idea?  "What are your reasons for not switching to 4E (pick up to 3)"?

If you wanted to do that, here's how you might break it down:
1) I am happy with an existing system and don't feel the need for a new one
2) I am unhappy with the mechanical changes or game design principles
3) I am unhappy with the flavor changes
4) I can't afford to buy a new set of books
5) I have a lot of material for other systems that I want to try out first before picking up a new system
6) I am annoyed at some specific actions WotC has taken
7) My gaming group doesn't want to switch
8) It doesn't change enough from 3E
9) I want to wait for more supplements to come out
10) Other


----------



## Ourph (Feb 14, 2008)

1) 1e was Gygax's D&D, 2e was Zeb Cook's D&D, 3e was Monte, Jonathan and Skip's D&D.  4e is just going to be some other group of developer's version of D&D.  The fact that it's the one to come latest doesn't make it any better or more innovative than what has come before.  I'm just not that interested in seeing another person's vision of D&D.
2) I already have at least 2 editions of D&D I'm happy with.  I don't see any reason to spend money on another D&D.  I have better things to spend that money on.
3) Since 1e, I have liked each subsequent edition less than the one that came before it.  I am doubtful that 4e will reverse this trend.
4) There are a number of other new, innovative games available that I'm more excited about trying out than 4e.
5) I was actually interested in the concept of the online gaming table for a while, but the digital initiative rollout and subsequent insights into WotC's progress in the online realm have left me with the impression that early adopters are likely to get hosed.  At best I will wait a few years until they get all the wrinkles ironed out.


----------



## EricNoah (Feb 14, 2008)

It isn't 4E that's keeping me from switching to 4E.  For me, it's about timing (I have tons of 3E stuff and am in fact still in a campaign that was started when 3E first came out!), and it's about lack of faith in WotC's ability to pull off a decent electronic character/monster generation tool (I was along for every painful step of Master Tools / eTools -- and e-tools did in fact become useful enough to me that I don't want to go to anything less capable than it).  

These factors can be fixed.  Time goes by; in 2, 5, 7 years I might be ready for a new edition and 4E will be  there.  And maybe WotC will really knock my socks off with their character generator.  

Part of me is disappointed that I won't immediately be playing a Mearls/Wyatt/Noonan D&D version.  But not disappointed enough to switch.


----------



## JediSoth (Feb 14, 2008)

I'll preface my answer to this question by saying that I switched to 3rd edition (and, indeed, was eager to) because the previews I read in Dragon magazine indicated many changes were things I was already doing through house rules. Plus, I felt the "flavor" hadn't changed significantly. Also, I was not really an active gamer at that point, so it was much easier to switch from that standpoint.

The first strike (for me) against 4E was when the license to publish Dragon and Dungeon was yanked from Paizo and the print magazines were canceled. That really put a bad taste in my mouth towards WotC as I had been collecting these magazines since the mid-80s; I grew up with them and they were, in my opinion, of excellent quality.

It took me a year to make the switch from 3rd edition to 3.5, largely because I felt it was unnecessary and a money-grab by WotC. For the most part I felt the changes helped, but it was pretty close on the heels of 3rd edition (based on the time between 2nd and 3rd edition). Plus, I just really don't like this half-version number stuff...feels too software-ish.

I have invested over $1,000 in various supplements for 3rd edition and I have yet to explore even half of that content. From what I've read, 4th edition will be sufficiently different that conversion will be time consuming. Time is a commodity that is very precious to me.

I don't like the flavor changes that are being made with the new edition. I think feat names need to be short and descriptive, like Power Attack not Singing Wyvern Strike (I made that up, I'm sure, but you get my point). If I can't tell what a feat does just be hearing the name, then that's something else I have to learn, again taking time. Plus, when you start implying a certain feel by naming the feats, that makes it harder to integrate them into a homebrew setting that is radically different from the default setting. Sure, you can change the fluff, but then you have to spend more time noting all of those changes and disseminating them to your players.

Several things are being "fixed" that I don't feel are broken. I don't have a problem with 1-2-1 diagonal movement, nor do I have a problem with grapple. The concepts aren't that difficult and some of the aids I've picked up over the years (various Battleboxes, etc.) make them even easier to use. Things like this feel like "changes for the sake of change." Plus, several things that I felt were sacred cows were slaughtered, like gnomes and bards...I don't like the class name "Warlord" (that's more a title to me, not a profession), I don't think Warlocks should be a core class. I don't agree with a lot of the design decisions, and feel I had no input. At least I got to fill out a survey before the switch from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. After leaving GenCon '07, I had a VERY strong feeling that a lot of the changes in 4E were being done to pander to the RPGA players (whether or not that's true is immaterial, but that's the impression I got). I don't like the RPGA style of play.

I also felt the WotC 4E announcement video was very condescending and the first push of the marketing of 4E was very strongly in the Wrong-Bad-Fun category, if you actually were having fun playing 3.5. I got the sense that I was being told that 3.5 was OK, but it now sucks because 4E is coming out and I'm a loser for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon. As someone who has spent a good portion of my disposable income with this company, I don't appreciate that. Plus, the French Guy in the video said it's the same game. Sure, it's the same, except they're taking out Gnomes and Bards. Except Grapple is changing. Except the magic system is changing. Except the default setting is changing. Except, except, except. With that many exceptions, it's not the same. That's blatent false advertising, in my opinion. Reprinting the PHB with new art and a new cover would be "the same game." (Obviously I'm way too literal and anal-retentive to be a marketing person...that's why I didn't major in Journalism or Marketing).

I feel there is a great deal of doublespeak, and part of this might just come from reading too many message boards. I'm told I can play D&D with just the books, but only by subscribing to DDI will I get the full experience? Why would I not want to get the full experience? That's not really playing the same game, is it? (You might argue that it is, but these are my thoughts, feelings, and opinions). Plus, I'm not a big fan of the subscriber model for extra content, especially with the way it looks like things are going to be nickel-and-dimed. Granted I pay for an MMORPG, but I can play that every day (or nearly so), and I know my money is needed for server maintenance and to pay programmers and graphic artists to build additional content. I know my money towards DDI will be spent similarly, but then again, I play D&D once every two weeks at best, in my basement, around a table, with my friends, not with a computer (except for mood music playback and to access the SRD and PDFs).

Clearly, I'm not the target audience for 4E: I play too infrequently and have way too much invested in 3E to want to give it up. I never did like the Dungeonpunk look of 3E, and I don't care much for the look of 4E. I don't have the time or energy to convert my current settings and adventures to be usable with 4E. There's lot of other systems that have been spawned from 3.0/3.5 (Mutants & Masterminds, d20 Modern, Star Wars d20), plus other games I want to play (Savage Worlds) and I have a hard enough time getting people to play those; I don't need another version of D&D in there as a distraction.

4E might be an awesome game. I might even like it mechanically, even I don't like the fluff. But still, it takes work to strip out the fluff. If someone gives me the books as a gift, I certainly won't toss them out. If people I like to game with run games of it at GenCon, I'll almost certainly play. But I'm in no rush to switch; I don't feel a new edition is called for at this time. I will admit, certain types of high-level play is a pain in the butt with 3.5, but I think a lot of that comes from the types of adventures that have been written for high-level play. 

I'm not on the fence. I'm looking over the fence towards 4E and seeing someplace I don't really want to go. I was really excited over Star Wars Saga edition until I read about the changes that were made and I just lost all enthusiasm. By many reports, SWSE was a mechanics preview of 4E. I just don't like enough of what I see.

Maybe I'll strip-mine 4E for ideas (like new undead turning rules), but I'll stick with 3.5 until I at least get in at least one more Ptolus campaign, maybe run Shackled City and Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and get to play in or run an Eberron campaign. I'm sure the industry will leave me behind, but that's OK. We don't ALL have to play the same version to all be Gamers.

JediSoth


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 14, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Primarily it seems everyone is stating money as an issue. I have to agree this is even an issue for me as I'm not exactly rich. Finding the money to put in an order will be a challenge but then I didn't invest too much in 3.x so I'm probably not losing as much as others either.




At present I'm on the fence about 4e. It'll no doubt have things I'll grow to like, although at present those seem far and few between. Despite this, I'm giving it a benefit of the doubt and will make a final decision when the product is released. I'm by no means enthused or excited about it, so it's really a 'meh' thing for me. I see what it's like when it comes out, but there hasn't been the greatest vibe about the whole thing, probably because of the division between those who like it and those who don't.

Anyhow, to come back to the point, you raise an important issue. A lot of people, like myself, have invested a lot in 3.5e, a system that there's nothing really wrong with. People have been playing it for many years. Money for the conversion is not so much an issue as - why switch from a system that's good and still got years of playing material? And, as others have mentioned, convincing a whole group of players to switch is even harder.

Pinotage


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 14, 2008)

> ... nor do I have a problem with grapple... ...Things like this feel like "changes for the sake of change."



I respect people's right to like the 3e grapple rules, and to not want them changed.  But when a great many people have been clamoring quite vocally for a very long time about wanting a change to a particular rule, it is not fair to refer to changes to that rule as "changes for the sake of change."  It can be "changes I don't like," or even "changes I don't think YOU will like once you really get a chance to use them," but what it is NOT is "changes for the sake of change."


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 14, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> It seems that there are a vast majority of people who have very similar ideas on what makes a good system and what they dislike about 3.x. And 4E seems to be catering to that by fixing everything most people seem to dislike and making it into what most people think is a good system.
> 
> So, with that said, and admittedly I think I'm turning into a fanboi due to my excitement and anticipation of the new edition, I find it puzzling why anyone would not want to switch.



And there's your problem. "Most", "vast majority", fixing "everything" are terms that probably won't get you very far. That might certainly contribute to your "puzzlement".



> Therefore I bring this question to you: why won't you switch?



Some of our reasons, since you did ask the question:

- My players aren't interested in "learning a new system", and they refuse to purchase any new books. Regardless of any other reasons, it puts the kibosh on everything right there.

- For us, the fluff sucks. Bad. Every single bit of it.

- While a lot of the mechanics look pretty good (IMO; my players are far less generous), there are some assumptions as to what is and is not "fun" that we do not agree with. (For example, we really like the resource management aspect of the game, among other things.) We're definitely at a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation for our particular group.

- Finally, for me, personally: I no longer have the time nowadays to make the necessary rules conversion for our long-running campaign. Conversions are no longer in the cards due to my 'life situation'. (This also relates to item 2, above.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2008)

Other people have given many of my reasons, but here's one I haven't seen come up yet:  

If I'm having fun doing something, switching is not my default position.  I will switch _if given sufficient reason to switch_.  WotC hasn't given me sufficient reason to switch.

On top of that:

(1)  Move away from OGL.  I think that the OGL provided the most innovative 3e products.  I will not pay for a new, non-OGL version of the game.

(2)  The Flavour Sucks.  I know that this is a subjective position, but it is mine.  Some bits of flavour I quite like.  On the whole, though, blech!

(3)  Assumptions about fun.  I like Vancian magic.  I like resource magic.  I like verisimilitude.  The farther the game moves from those things, the farther it moves from me.

(4)  WotC Policies.  There are some recent WotC policies, including those leading to the Gleemax/WotC site TOU, the non-OGL nature of 4e, and the misleading or contentless advertising re 4e, that I simply cannot support.  In a capitalistic society, you vote with your wallet, and saying No to 4e is the clearest message I can send about how WotC seems to currently view its relationship with gamers.

There are many good things about 4e (or, at least there are if the system does what WotC claims it will do).  But, IMHO, the negatives of the four points outlined above outweigh the good by a considerable amount.  As I believe firmly that switching should be something you do only if you are strongly pulled to do so, I don't intend on switching.

RC


----------



## Agamon (Feb 14, 2008)

My problem isn't mentioned much, though it's not really unique to me.  I won't be switching in the event of some earth-shattering cataclysmic event happening before June.  Or if I die before then, I guess.  Otherwise, I'm willing to weather the storm.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 14, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> I won't be switching right away because I want to finish running Age of Worms (and we are currently only on the second adventure).




If I knew then what I know now (we're at the 2nd last adventure, right now), I'd be looking forward to June...this high level stuff blows (that said, everything up to and including _The Prince of Redhand_ was fun).


----------



## DrakkenKaiser (Feb 14, 2008)

There are a few reasons why I'm avoiding the change-over to 4e...

1. Money. Everyone else has said it, and I'll say it too. Not really a lot to expound on that hasn't been elsewhere. I was fortunate with the switch to 3.5 that my local game store offered credit towards the 3.5 books if you traded in your 3.0 books. I seriously doubt they're going to do this again.

2. Peer Pressure. Nobody else that I game with is going to adopt to 4e unless it's truly something special. A few are going to pick up the PHB at some point, and usually follow up that statement with a "just in case _someone else_ is running it." I'd probably be in the same camp if it weren't for reason #1.

3. There Are No RPG Police. Wizards is not going to come kick in my door if I keep playing 3.5 and send me packing. This isn't like some shareware that bombs out after 30 hours of use, and it's kind of silly for them to treat it like software when they can't conceivably enforce it as thus, or depend on the newest update of Windows or MacOS to kind of _force_ people to upgrade... it's not like I will need to buy new dice to play 4e, right?

4. Other Games. There are a lot of other games out there. A lot of good games, too. OGL allowed for an enormous explosion of material, and the companies that have solidified themselves a position produce some real quality stuff without the same expense that it sounds like 4e is going to require. I have this funny feeling you're going to see some of these companies switch to their own in-house system. 

5. But is it Fluffy? This is kind of minor icing on the cake after contemplating everything above, but... I don't really like the direction they're taking the fluff. For years, little has changed, and now suddenly it's necessary to alter their existing worlds and cosmologies _completely_? Is this _because_ of 4e, marketing, or a real need for change? I'm not sure.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 14, 2008)

I do not plan to play 4E at the launch. My gaming group has been playing in a continous campaign for the past few years -- it's often slow going with a group of working 30-something professionals with other time constraints, including one player with a kid and another couple planning a wedding -- and we intend to finish that campaign. 

The WotC previews have showed me some things about 4E I don't like (the Marketing mantra chimes in "don't worry, things are still in flux and could change before the final version hits the shelves") and some things I do like (my inner cynic chimes in here "but again, things are still in flux and could change before the final version hits the shelves"), but the designers have pretty much explicitly said not to bother trying to convert my 3E game to 4E. So I won't.

I intend to pick up a PHB when it comes out and read it thoroughly to see if the new edition is for me. That's what I did with 3E as well. I was pretty much against switching to 3E -- "why should I change systems when I'm still having fun with the 1E books I own plus my house rules?" I remember asking -- until I got a copy of the PHB for Christmas and read it. Six months later I found a group and I've been playing 3E/d20 ever since.

In the meantime, I'm importing the fluff I like from the previews into my 3E game and continuing to tinker with house ruling approximate mechanics -- fewer skills and second winds, for example.

I'm not against 4E on principle. And I know far too little about the game mechanics to know if I'll think it's as cool and fun as the designers want me to believe. I am dissatisfied with the marketing surrounding 4E and I'm beginning to feel I've bought more gaming books than I'll ever need, so I doubt I buy into the entire system and all the future source books, but I'll probably pick up the first 3 books eventually.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 15, 2008)

DrakkenKaiser said:
			
		

> This isn't like some shareware that bombs out after 30 hours of use, and it's kind of silly for them to treat it like software when they can't conceivably enforce it as thus



Oh can't they my friend? You just wait until June. All I'm saying is you might want to be in a different room from your D&D collection.

The explosive charge is small but quite powerful.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 15, 2008)

TessarrianDM said:
			
		

> 1. To switch over to 3.0 and 3.5, I had to announce to the group we were changing, purchase everyone (9 players plus myself) Players Handbooks, and do all conversions. I choose not to invest that kind of time or money a third time.



They made you buy them all new books?

I'd find new players instead...


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 15, 2008)

All of the above sounds good. I find it disturbing how often I read people replying to negative comments about 4E rules with 'house rule it' away. If I have to house rule half the core rules, its not worth my money or time.


----------



## Sunderstone (Feb 15, 2008)

My main reason for not switching is the flavor of 4E as other posters have stated. Too much deviation from the classic D&D elements (imho). Also some rule changes , particularly magic and Wizards. Each revision also becomes more miniatures heavy as well. While I like using minis for some main battles, I hate the way it slows down a game for  every other battle.

Also imho, most broken things in D&D come from poorly-balanced Splatbooks. Be it combat options, classes and PrCs, high-powered races, spells etc. At least we have the option of not having to use it. Then with all these options we get rules bloat as well. So what does WotC do... they say the game is broken (when they are the ones that broke it) and we need to make a new edition because all of us arent having fun. 

So instead of releasing a new edition with better (faster?) rules, they want to change everything now, even the stuff alot of us like. AND they will now add Splat into the core because it might sell better to the younger more mainstream crowd. 

Then theres the WotC "our way or the highway" steamroller...
1) DDI - now we have to pay a monthly fee for access to additional material, no more free enhancements. 
2) Paying for a "preview" of 4E. I still laugh at this blatant money grabber. "Please waste your money and pay us for a peek at what we have in store for you. Even though it all may change before release". Previews like brochures should be free if you are trying to sell folks on something that may or may not be needed at this time.
3) Charging other publishers $5k for an early draft of 4E. They should be giving these out to these companies at no charge with an NDA. It will only help them sell more 4E anyway.  And alot of us know some of these independant folks put out really good material, in some cases better material than the in-house WotC staff. 
4) The OGL thing.
5) The "No negative comment" policy.


3.5 is fine for us. My group pretty much is Core only anyway even though I allow the environmental books, Planar Handbook and the XPH (which no one has used yet). We even stopped using the PH2 because of the "warcrafty-ness" (and all but one of us play warcraft pretty much daily).

P.S. Grappling might be a tad clunky in 3.5, but it works fine for us.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 15, 2008)

JediSoth,

Thank you. That is one of the best posts on this subject I have ever read.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2008)

1) A new edition is a significant investment in money, time, and thought.  I've already invested quite abit into the 3rd edition.  To move from it, I need an actual compelling reason.  I haven't got that so far.  I'm simply not going to move just because its the latest new thing.  I'm rather surprised at how many people said that they would move to the new edition sight unseen.

2) The new edition seems to heavily emphasize D&D as a board game or tactical wargame.  Quite a few people on the board have praised that, but if I wanted to play a skirmish game or a board game I would.  I want more depth from the rules set, more 'simulation' if you will, when I'm playing a RPG.  If I think they are getting in the way of the players imagination, I'll remove the minatures from the board.  With the heavy emphasis on shoving the enemy around the board to line them up in your area of effect, it seems like it will be even harder to abstractly run 4e without minatures than it was in 3e.  All I really had to worry about in 3e was conceptual adjecency (to run AoOs).

3) The new edition seems to be going for streamlining the rules set.  Rather than fixing problem areas in the rules, the general design paradigm seems to be 'if it causes complexities' do away with it.  I want a complex game.  There is always a loss in resolution by going simplier.  Third edition seemed to me to be a very happy balance between ease of play and preparation, and simulation depth.  I know alot of people wanted a 'simplier' game.  I wasn't one of them.  

4) The new edition is wedding way to much fluff to thier crunch.  It's redefining alot of the games historic elements.  This is perfectly fine if you are a new player or you just play WotC games 'out of the box', but some of us have been playing for more than 25 years now and we have existing ideas about flavor, setting, and other conventions.  Adopting 3e invalidated almost all of my 1e house rules, but it didn't invalidate my flavor.  That's not clearly true about 4e.

5) To be honest, Mearls is not my favorite designer in the WotC stable.  He's got interesting ideas, but I don't like alot of where he takes them.  Specifically, I see 'Mearlsian' design as featuring lots of tokens to keep track of (only Mearls would think 'petrification tokens' are an elegant solution to 'flesh to stone), a balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters by making all classes spellcasters in everything but name, and having a sweet spot geared toward the introductory part of the game.  His stuff looks like it plays great at 1st level - probably better than D&D has ever played at that level.  But I'm not so sure that its actually simplier or better than what we already have at higher levels.

6) The game seems to be tamer and safer than what I'm used to playing.  Alot of the things that made success difficult are being removed from the game.  This is highly conjectural on my part, but I have a strong feeling that the new edition is relying heavily on 'tactical illusionism'.  Normally 'illusionism' refers to a DM technique where the players are made to feel that the have free will because they are being presented with a great many choices.  However, the DM is secretly dictating that every choice actually leads to the same outcome.  For example, the PC's encounter a fork in the road.  The two roads look very different and head in very different directions.  But not matter which one they take, that road will lead to the 'Lost City of Foorgidor' and the DM will adjust his map accordingly.  By 'tactical illusionism', I mean presenting players with a reasonable number of seemingly relevant choices in combat, however none of these choices is actually both critical and difficult to discern.  The player feels like they are making crucial choices, because they achieve a great deal of success, but in fact there isn't much difference in outcome between highly skilled players and novices.  I can think of several games that are like this, for example, Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, and several variaties of dominoes.  The game superficially appears deep and is emmensely fun at first, but after playing it a while you realize that for various reasons it really isn't that interesting.  I think 'per encounter powers', the removal of effects that tend to steal 'turns' from participants, the standardization of what you can do in a turn (it seems everyone has a move and a attack), and so forth lends itself to this sort of illusionism.  Once you realize that in every fight you are basically doing the exact same thing (a feature probably hidden by the rumored rapid advancement), I think its going to wear.

7) Some of thier specific choices seem really wierd.  I can somewhat understand doing away with Vancian magic, but replacing it with a highly inflexible and limiting 'per encounter' system when much more flexible options had been devised for 3rd by various vendors seems bizarre.  The notion that clerics 'need' to attack every round, and so hense thier successful attacks heal thier allies just irritates me as someone who enjoyed playing clerics in 3rd.  Apparantly 1st level PC's will have multiple HD, but we don't seem to expect 1st level NPC's to have multiple hit die.  This is just a wierd way of stating that starting PC's are actually (in essense) third level (especially because we can assume that they have other advantages over NPCs).  I pretty much know why rings can't be used by characters below 10th (we'll have to get used to refering to 9th as 'low level'), but even if I understand the reasoning taken altogether it just seems wierd and out of place.

8) I don't like the 'take it up to 11' they've been doing with fiends.  It appears that 'Orcus' was in fact a quite suitable codename for the project.  I know alot of people think this is much of what makes 4e cool, but it just seems lame to me.    

9) Probably lots of stuff I forgot.  (Like for example, reading through some other people's post I'm reminded how much I HATE the art previews I've seen, and how much they seem to tell me about the age of 4e's target audience.)


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 15, 2008)

DrakkenKaiser said:
			
		

> 3. There Are No RPG Police. Wizards is not going to come kick in my door if I keep playing 3.5 and send me packing. This isn't like some shareware that bombs out after 30 hours of use, and it's kind of silly for them to treat it like software when they can't conceivably enforce it as thus, or depend on the newest update of Windows or MacOS to kind of _force_ people to upgrade... it's not like I will need to buy new dice to play 4e, right?



Are you sure?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 15, 2008)

Celebrim, I pretty much completely agree* with your post (#54) here...you've saved me a bunch of typing.

* - Except you lost me on the very last sentence.  The art - at least, what I've seen of it so far - of 4e is a *huge* improvement over 3e.  So far, I've bought exactly one 4e-related thing, that being Worlds + Monsters, and I bought it only for the art. 

Oh, for what it's worth, I may be one of the few non-switchers to whom money is not a significant reason for the choice not to switch.  In fact, I'll probably end up buying at least the PHB and DMG regardless, to plunder ideas out of....

Lanefan


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (Feb 15, 2008)

It has nothing to do with edition hate or fear of change.  It's all economics.  My players and I talked about it at length, and while I'm sure I'll buy the 3 core books for the sake of owning them, we'll not be switching.  We've just invested too much money in 3.x to make the switch attractive to us.


----------



## HeinorNY (Feb 15, 2008)

Why I wouldn't switch:

1) IF 4E happens to be just too easy. I like games that are easy to learn but hard to master. It will surely be easy to learn, but if it's also easy to master, or if there is nothing to be mastered, I won't like it. When the rules make sure you won't make a sucker character, they may also not allow you to make a badass character. When the rules make sure your character won't be ineffective in combat, they may also not allow you to be extremely more effective than anyone else in combat. When the rules "protect" the newbie they may also restrain the veteran. This reason will make sense to some people and no sense at all to others because those are just feelings I had. SWSE feels like there is nothing to be mastered. It feels like an easy game to me. If 4E also gives me that feeling, I won't like it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Feb 15, 2008)

In the interest of full disclosure, I was never planning to switch to 4E completely, because I just have too much invested in 3.5, which I like very much.  I have 15 or so 3.5 books on my shelf I haven't even _read_ yet.

However, until recently I was planning to buy the core books so that I could play in 4E games, if either of the other two DMs in my group decided to switch.  And until recently I was certainly not a 4e-hater, and actually defended WotC's decision to release a new edition so (relatively) soon after 3.5.

So what changed?

The 1-1-1-1 rule.  Honestly, if that's the kind of change that WotC wants, then WotC and I have diverged way too much for me to enjoy 4E, even as a player.  This change actually drove me away from DDM, a game I loved, because it's just too fourth-wall-breaking for me to handle.

Again to be fair, I do have to admit that I saw signs of the divergence between my game-wants and WotC's earlier than this ... like other posters, I raised eyebrows at the anti-3.5 tone of WotC's marketing at the GenCon '07 announcement, and as the "3.5 is bad, mmm'kay" marketing continued and intensified, my unease grew.

But all that said, up until I learned of the 1-1-1-1 rule, WotC was gonna get $90 more of my money for the core 4E books.  Now they won't.  And given that I'm pretty much the center of my group -- in that I rarely miss sessions, and we play every session at my house, using all of my stuff -- if I am not willing to play 4E, most of my current group won't play it, either.

I imagine this is a pattern that will play out over and over and over, throughout the hobby.

But I wish WotC luck, and I wish 4E adopters luck.  Personally, I'm experiencing a certain euphoria knowing that soon I'll have a complete rules-set, and won't be spending $300-plus a year on rules supplements for a long time to come.


----------



## Brewhammer (Feb 15, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> * I don't have a burning need for yet another version of D&D in the first place.




That's my chief gripe as well.

I'm also not thrilled about the MMO feel of the new group dynamic.  I read one blurb recently talking about defenders and controllers and I didn't know if I was reading about 4ED or City of Heroes.

Not wild about the Tiefling or 'Dragonborn' either.  

I'm also not at all on board with the way the FR campaign setting is being forced through a meat grinder.  You could turn Eberron into Toon Town for all I care, but I don't like the Realms getting "rebooted."

But yeah the big one is that I didn't see a need for 4th Ed.  And I've got about a bajillion 3 & 3.5 Ed. sourcebooks and supplements sitting on a shelf telling me the same thing.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 15, 2008)

I'm running C&C for my core campaign world and I don't think 4e will be a very good fit with my setting, so it's unlikely I'll adopt it as my core game though I may run it and I'll certainly play it.  4e seems too miniatures-focused for my tastes and so far the feel of the game isn't what I'm looking for.


----------



## TessarrianDM (Feb 15, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> They made you buy them all new books?
> 
> I'd find new players instead...




No, they did not make me. I was excited about the possibilities I saw with 3E and wanted to run a 3E campaign. My group of players (the core of which has been together since 1982) felt they had invested enough in 2E that changing over was not a good financial decision. I made the decision to purchase them all books to encourage the changeover, and did the same thing when 3.5 came out. To date, few of them own anything besides the PHB and maybe the Spell Compendium.

The change to 4E has not generated the same excitement in me. The previews of 3E in Dragon did. Wizards chose to drop the print version of Dragon prior to the announcement of 4E. This irritated me so much (having subscribed to it since the 80's) that I have only purchased the Rules Compendium since-a drastic change from when I was spending $30-$50 every other week on sourcebooks and miniatures from them.

I still follow the game developments, though exclusively on this board. If I see things that are interesting new abilities or mechanics, I present them to my group and see if they want to houserule them. If not, no problem. We are satisfied with our game as it is.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 15, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm experiencing a certain euphoria knowing that soon I'll have a complete rules-set, and won't be spending $300-plus a year on rules supplements for a long time to come.



Man, I know. Isn't it a happy feeling?!


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 15, 2008)

1.  Still only halfway done with STAP.
2.  _Rise of the Runelords_ adventure path is not 4E.
3.  _Curse of the Crimson Throne_ adventure path is not 4E.
4.  _The Second Darkness_ adventure path will (hopefully) not be 4E.

I have so much stuff still to do and try out in 3.x, why would I want to start over.  I'm still having loads of fun with a ruleset that I think works extremely well.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 15, 2008)

A number of reasons:

Because my group isn't interested.  I can't play the game by myself.


Because I have tons of 3e/3.5 books, and what bores me about D&D are the _base concepts_.  Having all that variety and being forced to go back to the basic three "core rulebooks" again would be a major step backwards.  Call me again 2-3 years after launch to see if there's enough material out there to tempt me back.  To say nothing of the tons of other stuff that I probably won't get updated until... who knows when.  My _Monsternomicons_, for instance, or _Book of Fiends_.


I don't want to spend all that money over again.  I spent a buttload of money on 3e/3.5 and I don't feel like I've fully "depreciated" all that value by playing enough of it yet.


I like the 3e/3.5 rules pretty well.  There's a few things that I don't think work all that hot, but I can avoid those pitfalls, for the most part.  My play experience is pretty darn good at the moment.  


The 4e previews have been kinda hit or miss.  I haven't hated anything I've seen, and I've liked a lot of it, but I've been kinda ambivalent to a lot of it too.  I just don't have any "energy" or excitement around the idea of new rules.


Looks like lots of things have been simplified (yay!) but just as many things have been needlessly complicated, based on previews I've seen so far (boo!)  The flavor doesn't bother me (unlike many who aren't planning on switching) but the mechanics---what we know of them---don't thrill me, and many of the articles have actively turned me off.


----------



## Razuur (Feb 15, 2008)

Simple. 

I True20.

It fulfils all of my needs.

I use it for Fantasy, Star Wars, and would use it for a host of other things (would life permit)

Razuur


----------



## Greg K (Feb 15, 2008)

I have not invested a lot of money into Third Edition (although there is currently about $300-500 worth of products (primarily third party) that I want to buy)

1. Per encounter combat abilities
2. Per encounter magic abilities
3. the new skill system
4. the consolidation of skills
5. removal of craft, profession skills
6. bards, druids, and gnomes not in the phb 1
7. warlord, tieflings and dragonborn in the phb 1
8. the new death and dying rules and keeping negative hit points
9. bleeding triggering abilities.
10. some of the new racial abilities.
11. monster AC appears to not be broken down like in 3e.
12. The Paladin smite abilities
13.  Unearthed Arcana and several third companies have  mechanics that, imo,  do a better job of solving most of my problems with the 3.x rules than what we has been revealed to date.
14. My players agree with the above reasons (except for one player who likes TOB and has no problem with issue 1) and don't want to switch.

The above out weigh the few things that I have heard about 4e and liked.


----------



## FickleGM (Feb 15, 2008)

There are only two reasons, at the moment, that I would not switch:

1. The Cons outweigh the Pros (currently, on my scoresheet, the Pros are in the lead).

2. I'm still running enjoyable SWSE games, in which case I wouldn't need 4e.


----------



## danzig138 (Feb 15, 2008)

My reasons for not switching are pretty simple: 
1. So far, everything the designers have said and shown about the new game (including the references to using Saga and 9 Swords as test beds) has been not just unappealing and uninteresting, but in many cases, contrary to how I think a game should be designed (for my tastes at least). I don't have a problem with this. They aren't designing a game for me, so it'll just be one of many games not designed for my play style.

2. I'm currently using a hacked, mauled, kit-based version of d20. So far, it's done everything I need a game to do. It still needs somw twisting here and there before I'm finished, but knowing my and my penchant for fiddling with rules, it'll never actually be done. 

3. I'm not keen on what I've read about the new game license so far. 

I hope those who do adopt 4E have a blast with their gaming. Unlike a lot of posters on assorted boards, I don't take the whole change as some kind of personal attack. It sounds like 4E is going to be a great game for some play styles, and that's great. Every edition is going to leave some people behind - that's just the nature of things. I dont' have a problem being behind the SOTA.


----------



## Mighty Halfling (Feb 16, 2008)

Wow. Just wow. I emphathize with all of your concerns and complaints, and you've all worded them so well. 
I know WotC is far to far along to make any significant changes in the product to address many of our concerns, but I'll chime in too. Most of all, I hope the WotC team is reading this thread and saying "What can we do for these guys?"

Dragobborn. Sorry, that's not a core race to me. Core races should be remarkably human in their look and abilities. As with warforged, they're perfecttly fine for a second-generation campaign book, just not core.
Expandiing core. The great thing about D&D 3.5e is that all you needed with to play was two (maybe three) books and you could play. Now they say DDI is key and they'll be expanding the corebooks every year.
No druids. I'm sorry, but these represent a key archetype in D&D lore. Now they've been booted because --- well they haven't really told us have they? What's the deal with that? 
Output is a big factor. Like so many others, 3.5e has been SO successful that I've spent a lot of money on it and used only a small percentage on it. I really, really enjoy 3.5e, and I've got some more things I want to do. Hell, there's easily 100 PDFs I haven't even bought yet that I want!
My fellow players (at least for now) aren't interested in spending the money on a new set of books and they're far less invested in 3.5e than me.
Learning a new rule system is always fun, but dammit, 3.5e is an awesome system right now. I've got my fantasy game with 3.5e. Maybe I'll check out Star Wars Saga sometime, but then again, I like Star Wars D6 just fine.
Strange choices and changes in fluff. Feat names. Gods. Alignment. Racial origins. The killing off of Greyhawk. What's the point of changing these institutions?
Along those lines, I find it insulting the way WotC has continued to tell me that the last 8 years of playing D&D was an awful experience and that at last with D&D 4e I'll finally have fun. That's the worst marketing effort in a marketing plan that has been abyssmally executed thus far.
Powers for unpowered classes. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but not everyone should have magic powers of healing, super attacks and battle effects. Not everyone should be magical.
Speaking of magic, I think there are some good ideas being tossed about -- free, at will spells; rituals; and a trimming back of some schools of spells --, but I don't think the Vancian Magic system is all that bad. It makes about as much sense as anything else.
Non-combat, non-adventure skills are important because they help define the character. If I want to prove to my fellow players that my character is a damn good sailor, then let me waste skill points on it.
The push of the DDI (and the cancellation of the Dragon and Dungeon) are implying that I need a computer to really play this version of D&D. My RPGing experience is about being with friends, goofing around, rolling dice and eating chips. It is not about watching animation on a computer and feeding data into it so I can see what a fireball does.
Honestly, the lack of backwards compatiblity is the biggest deal-breaker for me. I really only wanted a slight update for D&D. I want a D&D that works with the 90-pounds of books I already own.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Feb 16, 2008)

As I read through these posts, I see a lot of excuses for people not wanting to try 4E all seem to come down to spite.  A lot of people are unhappy about the DDI, and what they did with Dragon and Dungeon mag.  I have to ask...  What does that have to do with gaming or enjoying D&D?  I've played 3E for 7 years now w/o purchasing any "D&D magazine" or w/o using any info in them.  And it's not like you are forced to join DDI.  Just pretend that there is no such thing as an internet.  Hence, DDI wouldn't exisit.  Then one could not use that as an excuse to not play 4E.

Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*.  "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products.  That'll show'em."

Now, let me just say, there are some very valid excuses I see here.  I mean, heck, if you don't like what they are putting in the settings of 4E (Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc.) then I can accept that.  Why play a game that you don't think you are going to have fun with?  But some of these other excuses just seem to use spite as an excuse, which seems odd to me.
(and even this is stretching it a bit, since you can remove a lot of the fluff, such as a race, if you don't think it fits into your view of the world)

Anyway, just wanted to chime in.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 16, 2008)

*removed by myself*


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 16, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> As I read through these posts, I see a lot of excuses for people not wanting to try 4E all seem to come down to spite.  A lot of people are unhappy about the DDI, and what they did with Dragon and Dungeon mag.  I have to ask...  What does that have to do with gaming or enjoying D&D?  I've played 3E for 7 years now w/o purchasing any "D&D magazine" or w/o using any info in them.  And it's not like you are forced to join DDI.  Just pretend that there is no such thing as an internet.  Hence, DDI wouldn't exisit.  Then one could not use that as an excuse to not play 4E.
> 
> Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*.  "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products.  That'll show'em."



Now now, the point of this thread was for people to list their reasons for deciding not to switch.  Everyone has remained civil thus far.  This is a forum for open discussion.  If you disagree, you are free to post in the "Why will you be switching" thread.  

i don't see the decision to not buy 4E as spite.  It's people voting with their wallets.  If you dislike a decision made by a corporation, then not purchasing their products is the best means to communicate your feelings to them.  Sure, you can send them nasty emails, which will promptly be deleted.  You can vent your ire on public message boards too, which normally is nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing.  However given the number of developers we've seen posting on ENWorld, there's a good chance that your opinions will be read by some of them.  Nonetheless, voting with your wallet is the ultimate means of letting them know how you feel.  

Canceling the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines is a decision that has upset many people, especially given that the electronic versions have been severely behind schedule and short on content thus far.  The timing may be more directly related to the end of the 5 year contract with Paizo than the new edition, but it still looks fishy to some people.  Then instead of giving the preview content space in Dragon as was done with the countdown to 3rd edition, they are making you pay $20 each for the preview books.  No thank you.  I have read over R&C some, but won't be buying it.  I think it was too much money for content that should have been free or part of Dragon mag.  That they are giving the magazine away free right now doesn't matter.  It shouldn't mean that we get a gutted version of it.  D&DI is one thing I am unlikely in the extreme to buy into.  

In any case, I am cautiously in favor of 4E, but have some lingering doubts.  I'm buying the books, unless the reviews from D&D Experience and later the preview module are enough to make me change my mind.   I have some issues with 3.5 that may be fixed in 4E.  On the other hand, I like skills and skill points and worry that with their removal, a lot of the customization of characters has gone out the window.  I am also concerned about how the game will play at higher levels.  I refuse to play a game where the gods are cannon fodder for ub3r powered PC's.  They are the *gods* and no mortal can slay them.  I hate drow.  The S&M bondage queens of the underdark can go play in someone else's campaign world.  So depending on how thoroughly integrated these concepts are, we may not switch.  

 I find it interesting to read opinions from both sides of the fence, which I am currently sitting on.  Many of the reasons for not switching have been good ones.  Others not so much.  (Just use hex grids - that solves the 1-1-1-1 diagonal thing!)    Please don't denigrate people just because you disagree with them.  Thanks.


----------



## hong (Feb 16, 2008)

Zinovia said:
			
		

> You can vent your ire on public message boards too, which normally is nothing more than sound and fury, signifying nothing.






1


----------



## Rel (Feb 16, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> As I read through these posts, I see a lot of excuses for people not wanting to try 4E all seem to come down to spite.  A lot of people are unhappy about the DDI, and what they did with Dragon and Dungeon mag.  I have to ask...  What does that have to do with gaming or enjoying D&D?  I've played 3E for 7 years now w/o purchasing any "D&D magazine" or w/o using any info in them.  And it's not like you are forced to join DDI.  Just pretend that there is no such thing as an internet.  Hence, DDI wouldn't exisit.  Then one could not use that as an excuse to not play 4E.
> 
> Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*.  "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products.  That'll show'em."




It's not for you to say whether anybody's reasons are valid or not.  This thread is here for people to give whatever reasons they care to and they aren't required to justify them.  For you to declare them to be spiteful is ascribing motives to their posts and we frown on that here.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 16, 2008)

> Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*. "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products. That'll show'em."




It could also be:

"They got rid of my favorite magazines. That's part of the REASON I loved the game. I don't think I'll like it as much now, the experience has soured me, and I don't really NEED the next edition. So I'm not going."

Why read malice where there could be none?


----------



## Sunderstone (Feb 16, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> As I read through these posts, I see a lot of excuses for people not wanting to try 4E all seem to come down to spite.
> <snip>
> Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*.  "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products.  That'll show'em."
> 
> Anyway, just wanted to chime in.




Short civil answer...... not the case at all.   

Longer more detailed answer......
Dragon magazine was hit and miss with us, though mostly hit under Erik Mona's command. I actually looked forward to every issue instead of buying them for the sake of keeping my collection complete.

Dungeon magazine in particular was awesome for my group. The APs still keep us busy today. WotC also made some greats like Slaughtergarde, Red hand of Doom, RttToEE, Return to Castle Greyhawk, Return to Castle Ravenloft etc.

I would buy 4E in a heartbeat if it was a revamped 3.5E with all the classic stuff and faster rules. Who wouldnt want less rules bloat and faster gameplay and prep time. WotC is taking D&D 4E to a place that I dont want to be. The video-gamey fluff and in some cases crunch (the DDI does not fall into this category for me btw) just doesnt interest me at all.

WotC does have some good designers still but their latest incarnation seems to have drifted way too far out out of the classic waters.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 16, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I've played 3E for 7 years now w/o purchasing any "D&D magazine" or w/o using any info in them.



So it's safe to say that you and I have not had the same experience.



> Anyway, I chock those excuses up to *spite*.  "They got rid of my favorite magazine, so I won't buy 4E products.  That'll show'em."



WotC offered a suite of products related to D&D.  They've chosen to discontinue parts of that suite and replace them with something else.  They made a business decision; everyone here is within their right to agree or disagree with it.  Voting with your wallet is probably the most legitimate way of expressing dissent.  And never underestimate the power, value, and worth of nostalgia.



> Now, let me just say, there are some very valid excuses I see here.



I don't think they're "excuses", I think they're reasons.



> Anyway, just wanted to chime in.



As someone else noted, this is a thread for why people aren't switching.  I think it's a bit ...unnecessary... to come in and criticize them.

Unless, of course, you want to buy us all copies of the 4e books in June.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 16, 2008)

*I AM switching*

Well, I am switching for a variety of reasons:

1)  My children are just entering the age range that I find acceptable for introduction to table-top role-playing.  We have been role-playing informally since they were babies, but now they are ready for a game such as D&D and they are curious to learn more.  The new edition is an excellent entry point for them.  

2)  I'm tired of 3.5.  It's cumbersome, awkward, and difficult to learn.  Prep time is ridiculous if, like me, you are a meticulous planner and record keeper.  The introduction of rule variant upon rule variant and an endless stream of "options" books has made the game even more of a miasma.  I'm not saying that 4.0 will not become that same mass of endless options in the future, but at least now I can get in on the ground floor.

This is an opportunity for me to cleanse my palate and start fresh.  It may not be the same D&D game that I have been used to playing, but it will be fun, of that I'm sure.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 16, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Well, I am switching for a variety of reasons:




Hey, nice for you...looks like you overlooked this thread here, though. Might be your post is a bit more fitting there. Why WILL you switch.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 16, 2008)

The cancelation of Dragon and Dungeon is not a direct reason why I won't switch to 4E, but it certainly could contribute to it.

I've been playing since about 1980.  Dragon has always been a big part of the experience of D&D for me.  It was what D&D gamers had before there were splatbooks.  Long long time ago, instead of putting tons and tons of new books with spotty content on the market, spotty content was first vetted somewhat in comparitively cheap periodical literature.  Anything that made it into a hard cover was mostly solid, useful, crunchy material.  Either way, you got what you paid for.  Now, granted, I haven't thought much of Dragon since the golden age in the early 90's when Dragon had been around long enough to be truly a professional rag, but hadn't been around so long that it was having a hard time coming up with original and useful content.  So there aren't many recent copies of Dragon in my boxes of gaming papers.  However, the period around a new edition coming out is one of the few periods that Dragon can really shine because the content can get revamped.

The 3E previews in Dragon were absolutely awesome.  The 4E previews have been, at least from my perspective, disasterous.  The online stuff has been annoying, and the 'preview books' made me want to hurl.  They made me want to 'throw the design team under a bus' (to make a MtG reference) for even expecting me to shell out good money for that sort of vacuous material.  Would a vibrant Dragon have changed my opinion?  Probably not, but who knows.

Dungeon on the other hand is going to be missed.  You can make a good case that the magazine was cancelled in its golden age.  It's had alot of good content over the years, but I'm not sure you could find a period that was more intriguing than that of the 'Adventure Paths'.  Those are going to become legends in the way that no module or series of modules has been since 1st edition.  Thirty years from now, if people are still playing this game, they are going to be making things like 'Return of the Age of Worms'.  I'm not sure that great 4E modules appearing in dungeon would have persuaded me to give the game a try, but I can't think of anything at this point that would have been more likely to do so.

So am I not adopting 4E because of my 'bitterness' about the cancelation of perhaps the most iconic legacy of being a D&D gamer?  No.  I don't really have an emotion about it.  Emotionally speaking, I could care less.  I'd stopped buying Dragon regularly years ago, and I'd never actually subscribed to either one.  It seems like a dumb move for the company, but I know why they justified it.  Does it impact my decision to buy 4E.  No, not really.  But I can understand perfectly why people think its going to impact thier enjoyment of the new edition.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 16, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Hey, nice for you...looks like you overlooked this thread here, though. Might be your post is a bit more fitting there. Why WILL you switch.




Always grateful for the kind direction of fellow members.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 16, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Always grateful for the kind direction of fellow members.




Hey, glad I could be of assistance.  And by the way, welcome to ENWorld.


----------



## korjik (Feb 17, 2008)

I am not sure I will or wont upgrade to 4th ed. I will take a look at it when I can ge the rules in my hands. However there are some things that make me have some apprehension about the next edition.

My biggest fear is that the rules wont be generic enough to use. The races and classes in the prior eds are pretty generic. Especially since LotR movies came out, everyone knows what an orc, dwarf, elf, etc. are. What the heck is an eladrin or a dragonborn? (rhetorical question  ) I feel that they are making the game too specific to the setting, and that I wont have the desire to retrofit the rules to my setting. 

I also think WOTC is making rules that should be set by the DM, not the publisher. Having rings restricted to upper levels is something that I should do, not WOTC.

Thirdly, 4th ed should be about fixing the problems of 3rd, not throwing most of the system out and rebuilding. I think that while 4th may end up being a good game, it will have just as many flaws as 3rd ed does. Why should I spend a bunch of money for a new edition just to be where I am now.

I am extremely conflicted about the online content. If they actually have good online additional content, then that just leaves me with no internet connection at home. If the online content is nickel and diming us with stuff that should be in the books, then I will have problems staying with WOTC. 

I also agree with the sentiment that the marketing for 4th ed has been very ham handed and poorly done. I have been playing D&D for 26 years now, and I am quite literally a rocket scientist. I dont need smoke blown up my backside, and I know the problems with 3rd ed as well as anyone. Treat me with respect, as a peer, not some brain-dead fanboy geek. Talk to me straight about the rules and about the testing. 

When it comes right down to it tho, I will be giving 4th ed an even chance. I have already allocated the money for the core, and will have no problems buying them, after I look to see if they are worth it.


----------



## Diamondeye (Feb 17, 2008)

I've got several reasons, but the king granddaddy of them all is the changes to spellcasting

I do not want to hear about spells as "per encounter" or "per day" or "at will".  I do not want to hear about removing spell schools.  I do not want to hear about orbs and wands as anything other than magic items.  I do not want to hear about sorcerers that "barely control" spells.  I do not want to hear about "save or die" going away or about mind-affecting spells going away so psionics can have a nitch.

Even if there were no other changes whatsoever to 3E, the magic changes alone, heck, the removal of spell preparation alone, would be more than enough for me not to switch.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 17, 2008)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> It's too soon.
> I have yet to use 75% of my 3.5 material.
> I have noine of the problems with 3.5 so many tell me I must! ;-)
> Too much invested.
> ...




This.


----------



## Cbas_10 (Feb 17, 2008)

Honestly, I don't know if I will switch or not.  There have been a number of things I have misunderstood regarding 4E, and there have been a few things that I learned and liked about 4E.  Thus, my presence on this part of the boards.

However, as others have stated, 4E really is more like an all-new game from what I've seen so far.  That is the approach I'll take when I feel like deciding about switching.  I won't compare 3E to 4E, hoping to find enough elements of 3E in 4E to hold my interest...I'll simply look at 4E as its own entity.

That being said...If I had to decide _right now_, I wouldn't switch.  3E might have a few glitches in my experience, but if it was so bad...I'd have stopped having fun a long time ago.  So, aside from the justification of "I love my 3E!", I don't have a real reason not to play 4E.  Not until I give it a fair shake when the books actually come out; individual rules or concepts may sound crazy or horrible...but no way to know until the final product is on my desk.


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 17, 2008)

1. The "3.5 is badwrongfun" 4e marketing.  I like 3.5, if you were going to sell me on 4e tell me how 4e is fun without putting down what I already like and enjoy.

2. Getting rid of Dragon Magazine.  Getting rid of the magazine of D&D that had been around for 30 years and replacing it with lackluster web articles does not make me trust WotC.  

3. Emphasis on "roles" of classes.  All this talk of defender/controller/leader ect really seems too much like something from an MMO.  I like classes to be based on a character concept, not on an arbitrary combination of power source and designed role.  

4. Massive changes in the setting assumptions: the new cosmology, tieflings are common enough to be a core PC race, ditto with warlocks, adding "dragonborn" as a core race, but gnomes are out?

5. The new definition of "core".  I don't like D&D to be a subscription service that I'm expected to regularly pay just to have my core rules be current.

6. I like 3.5 and have a lot of fun with it, and I just plain didn't feel a need for a new edition before 4e was announced.  3.5 might have some problems, but they needed tweaks and fixes, not being outright scrapped and replaced with a game going in another direction.

7. The massive changes to the Forgotten Realms.  I'm having to seriously hold my tongue on this one to stay civil, but I seriously disagree with the direction they're taking it.

8. Simplicity of rules over verisimilitude, the 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement being an example.  D&D was never a detailed simulation, but it did have enough verisimilitude for me, 4e looks to be going for too little of it for my taste.

I guess a good summary of it all would be: I'm happy with 3.5 and like it, while not perfect it's closer to what I would see as D&D perfection than any other edition.  I did not see a need for a whole new edition when 4e was announced, and the changes that have been announced are built around a gaming philosophy very dissimilar from mine and take the game away from what I already enjoy and would like to continue to enjoy.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 17, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Anyway, just wanted to chime in.




Thank you for your participation.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Mighty Halfling said:
			
		

> Now they say DDI is key and they'll be expanding the corebooks every year.




DDI is about as key as Dragon Magazine was previous: it isn't.



> Now they've been booted because --- well they haven't really told us have they? What's the deal with that?




Actually, they have, just like they explained the lack of bard and monk: they want more time and effort put into them to make them more distinct and they only have a limited amount of space in the core rules.



> The killing off of Greyhawk. What's the point of changing these institutions?




Greyhawk is being "killed off" because hardly anyone likes it. There's a reason it's been in a coma for over a decade.



> Along those lines, I find it insulting the way WotC has continued to tell me that the last 8 years of playing D&D was an awful experience and that at last with D&D 4e I'll finally have fun.




Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.



> Powers for unpowered classes. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but not everyone should have magic powers of healing, super attacks and battle effects. Not everyone should be magical.




You're reading it wrong.



> The push of the DDI (and the cancellation of the Dragon and Dungeon) are implying that I need a computer to really play this version of D&D. My RPGing experience is about being with friends, goofing around, rolling dice and eating chips. It is not about watching animation on a computer and feeding data into it so I can see what a fireball does.




And again, you're reading it wrong. The only things required to play the game are a brain, friends, dice, pencils, paper, and the three core books. Everything else is 100% optional.



> Honestly, the lack of backwards compatiblity is the biggest deal-breaker for me. I really only wanted a slight update for D&D. I want a D&D that works with the 90-pounds of books I already own.




It's about as backwards compatible as 3e was: that is, you'll have to do the work yourself to convert old concepts to new rules.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn!  What a pleasant surprise!  It's a small world.

What in the world are you doing HERE, though?  

I thought you were switching to D&D 4e....



			
				Mourn said:
			
		

> Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.




It would probably be more effective if you flashed your badge before giving an order like that.  That way people will jump right to it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> What in the world are you doing HERE, though?




Correcting misinformation. Having an opinion is fine, as long as it's an informed one. When people spout off things that have been debunked thoroughly (like DDI being necessary), it raises my intellectual ire and I have to correct it.



> I thought you were switching to D&D 4e?




Won't know that until May (when I get my copy of Shadowfell and get to play).


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Correcting misinformation. Having an opinion is fine, as long as it's an informed one. When people spout off things that have been debunked thoroughly (like DDI being necessary), it raises my intellectual ire and I have to correct it.




I think part of the problem with the impressions about DDI being necessary for play is because WotC is referring to that information as Core (even if it isn't REALLY core).

In any case, I've also gotten an impression, not completely reasonable, that WotC is trying to imply that D&D is not fun (or at least not as fun sexy cool as 4e).  Sure, they don't say such in so many words, but I remember reading a playtest report praising 4e that basically said that trying to play the same kind of encounter in v3.5 would have made him throw up.  Throwing up isn't fun, at least not to me.

I'm not exactly sure that claiming that the new edition will be more fun is actually a bad thing to do.  Why would you switch to a new edition if it wasn't going to more fun than the last?  This approach just rubbed me wrong, and apparently it had the same effect on others.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Throwing up isn't fun, at least not to me.




Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.




Heh heh heh.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Greyhawk is being "killed off" because hardly anyone likes it. There's a reason it's been in a coma for over a decade.



I'd argue the opposite. I think it is Greyhawk's popularity that has forced their hand in dropping it as the core setting because too many people were displeased with its treatment in 3.x

By dropping it as the core setting, they no longer face the ire of GH fans for ruining their setting.

And before you try and tell me it's WotC's setting, I'd refer you to any die-hard GH fan who would argue vehemently that it is the fan's setting


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem with the impressions about DDI being necessary for play is because WotC is referring to that information as Core (even if it isn't REALLY core).




Got a link to where WotC calls DDI's content "core?" I've seen them refer to future PHB/MM/DMGs as "core," with the implication that "core" means "will be referenced by the SRD."



> In any case, I've also gotten an impression, not completely reasonable, that WotC is trying to imply that D&D is not fun (or at least not as fun sexy cool as 4e).  Sure, they don't say such in so many words, but I remember reading a playtest report praising 4e that basically said that trying to play the same kind of encounter in v3.5 would have made him throw up.  Throwing up isn't fun, at least not to me.




So, because a person says HE is having more fun with 4e than HE would with 3e in the same situation means that HE'S saying YOU'RE not having fun with 3e? That sounds awfully close to ascribing a motivation to him that doesn't exist anywhere but in your head.



> I'm not exactly sure that claiming that the new edition will be more fun is actually a bad thing to do.  Why would you switch to a new edition if it wasn't going to more fun than the last?  This approach just rubbed me wrong, and apparently it had the same effect on others.




So, people saying they have more fun with the new version of your favorite game than the old version rubs you the wrong way... maybe you should figure out why someone else liking the newest version more than your favorite version makes you so upset, since it's in no way their fault that you feel that way. You (and others) seem to be creating statements (like they keep saying 3e wasn't fun for anyone) based on your personal feelings about previous editions, rather than any actual facts.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I'd argue the opposite. I think it is Greyhawk's popularity that has forced their hand in dropping it as the core setting because too many people were displeased with its treatment in 3.x




They weren't pleased with it's treatment in 2e either, when WotC tried to revive it with a few sourcebooks. The fact that sales led WotC to cease printing those books and the fact that the only Greyhawk-specific book released in 3e's tenure (the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer) points more to it's unpopularity than anything else.

If Greyhawk was as popular as you seem to think, we'd have seen some kind of support for it, since turning their back on such a large revenue source would be foolish for a company to do. The fact that their market research told them not to speaks volumes to me.



> And before you try and tell me it's WotC's setting, I'd refer you to any die-hard GH fan who would argue vehemently that it is the fan's setting




Yeah, and Star Wars fans can argue that Lucas doesn't own it, the fans do... but that doesn't change the fact that they're 100% wrong as far as the laws of ownership are concerned.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.




Mourn, the statement began with "I find it..."  Last time I checked that signified that the statement that followed was personal opinion. You are free to find that opinion unfounded or not, as you please.  You may _politely request_ he offer some reasons why he feels this is true - but to not make demands like this, please.

The OP asked for this to remain civil, and your aggressive stance isn't in line with that.  You are coming across as browbeating, and that gets in the way of honest exchange and expression.  

That goes for everyone here - you are to treat the opinions of others _with respect_.  If you cannot do that, please don't post in this thread.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Got a link to where WotC calls DDI's content "core?" I've seen them refer to future PHB/MM/DMGs as "core," with the implication that "core" means "will be referenced by the SRD."




According to the Unofficial D&D 4e News Page here, there is a podcast that states:

"The meaning of "Core": will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books, when referred to by WotC."

*shrugs*  Make of that what you will.



> So, because a person says HE is having more fun with 4e than HE would with 3e in the same situation means that HE'S saying YOU'RE not having fun with 3e? That sounds awfully close to ascribing a motivation to him that doesn't exist anywhere but in your head.




Of course not.  But if someone says that something you like is as pleasant as vomiting, it's pretty hard (at least for me) not to get at least a little miffed.




> So, people saying they have more fun with the new version of your favorite game than the old version rubs you the wrong way... maybe you should figure out why someone else liking the newest version more than your favorite version makes you so upset, since it's in no way their fault that you feel that way. You (and others) seem to be creating statements (like they keep saying 3e wasn't fun for anyone) based on your personal feelings about previous editions, rather than any actual facts.




People liking something doesn't rub me raw.  It's feeling that they are disparaging my enjoyment of the older edition that is the cause of this friction.

Keep in mind that I've already admitted that my responses are messy and irrational.  You won't find reasons or ironclad evidence behind many of my complaints.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, because a person says HE is having more fun with 4e than HE would with 3e in the same situation means that HE'S saying YOU'RE not having fun with 3e? That sounds awfully close to ascribing a motivation to him that doesn't exist anywhere but in your head.  So, people saying they have more fun with the new version of your favorite game than the old version rubs you the wrong way... maybe you should figure out why someone else liking the newest version more than your favorite version makes you so upset, since it's in no way their fault that you feel that way. You (and others) seem to be creating statements (like they keep saying 3e wasn't fun for anyone) based on your personal feelings about previous editions, rather than any actual facts.



Or you know it might be that some of us find those statements fake sounding marketing department hype when we hear it.  That we don't necessarily think it's anyone's opinion beyond the attempt to sell their product via the tradition word of mouth "it's so great!" campaign.  Essentially the more stake you have in the outcome of the events the less trustworthy you are.  If you're employed full time by the company producing something then no matter if you're a living saint and the next Ghandi you can't be trusted with regards to that product because you're too invested in it.  

Now I'll say that I believe Ari when he says he loves the new edition and it's right up his alley.  It's bound to be the right game for a lot of people just because it was designed by a capable team.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2008)

In all honestly, I likely won't be switching.  At least not for a couple of years.  I'm just starting up a Savage Tide campaign next month or so and I have no particular interest in giving up on that project right now.  I've been looking forward to it for a long time.

Now, if Paizo could get their act together and finish off their web enhancements, that would be even better, but, I realize that actually supporting former customers is a low priority.  As an aside, I notice how so many bash WOTC for their poor showing online, yet, the fact that we've been waiting for almost nine months for web enhancements merits nary a peep.  But, then, I'm just a wee bitter right now.

In any case, I think that 4e looks interesting and I actually do like a lot of the changes that they've made, and I make an effort to try to curb the larger of the claims that get made around here, but, no, I'm not going to be making the switch for some time to come.

If nothing else, I remember the debacle the first release 3e PHB was.  Gack, talk about badly editted crap.  I'll wait until the second printing thanks.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> People liking something doesn't rub me raw.  It's feeling that they are disparaging my enjoyment of the older edition that is the cause of this friction.




QFT

Of all WotC's marketing plans for the launch of 4E, their efforts to build up 4E's "improvements" by stating how bad certain parts of 3E are, have been the most consistently irritating.  From the very first announcement at Gen-Con, to many of the previews and play-tests we've received over the past few months, stating how 3E= badwrongfun and 4E is therefore better has become an almost corporate mantra.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> QFT
> 
> Of all WotC's marketing plans for the launch of 4E, their efforts to build up 4E's "improvements" by stating how bad certain parts of 3E are, have been the most consistently irritating.  From the very first announcement at Gen-Con, to many of the previews and play-tests we've received over the past few months, stating how 3E= badwrongfun and 4E is therefore better has become an almost corporate mantra.




I really don't want to derail what has been a very civil thread so far, but, I really have to question this.

I mean, look at what they've pointed to - grappling for example.  You can find literally hundreds of threads just on En World discussing grappling.  For pages and pages.  So, when WOTC goes ahead and says, "Hey, grappling sucks, we're going to fix it" are they really saying anything new?  We as gamers have had lots and lots of problems with this issue.  Maybe you didn't, and maybe I didn't, but that doesn't change the fact that lots and lots of people did.

So, is it really wrong for WOTC to stand up and say, "Hey, I know we wrote this, but, y'know, it sucks.  We're going to fix this.  Wait two more weeks, at Winter X and you'll find out exactly how it was fixed."

Replace grapple with just about any other major issue and it's the same - Save or Die, Level draining, 15 minute adventuring day etc.  These are all things we've talked about and have been talking about, round and round, for years.  How is them saying, "Hey, this sucks" a bad thing?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Feb 18, 2008)

Many reasons that have already been touched on, like cost, lack of enthusiasm for the fluff changes, differences between monsters/npcs and PCs and the lack of certain races and classes in the system at release...

But as I've read this forum, a reason I never would have been expected has been added. Lately it seems like every time I see a post by a 4e developer here, my desire to buy their product drops that tiny extra notch.  :\  I don't know if someone but crankyjuice in the water fountains over at WotC or what, but at this point it would be a leap of faith to invest in 4e, and why make that leap for people who come onto a board I like and belittle posters?


----------



## Khairn (Feb 18, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Replace grapple with just about any other major issue and it's the same - Save or Die, Level draining, 15 minute adventuring day etc.  These are all things we've talked about and have been talking about, round and round, for years.  How is them saying, "Hey, this sucks" a bad thing?




I agree that I don't want to derail this thread so I will only reply once.  Perhaps we can get another thread going to share opinions if need be.

First let me say that this is strictly an opinion, and not based on any facts.  Just perception.

The heart of the argument is that there are indeed some players who have issues with some of the elements you've mentioned, but there are some who do not.  There is hardly universal agreement.  Personally I've never experienced any problems with grapples or level drains.  And even though I did see the problem associated with the 15 minute work day, I made some changes to how I GM'ed, my players made some adjustments ... and it really hasn't been a problem for us.

Now I would never think of saying that these aren't concerns for some players, nor would I say that since I'm not having any trouble with them ... obviously those that are, aren't playing the game "right".  That would be ludicrous and arrogant.  

I believe that those players who don't have the problem with grapples or Vancian magic (managing resources) shouldn't have to sit there and read an article from WotC on how those rules ruined D&D for them in the past, or that parts of the previous edition made them gag.

Let the benefits of the new rules speak for themselves.  If WotC is making a change to the rules in response to a concern from players, its certainly OK to admit it.  But lets not tear down another players enjoyment of the game in order to justify that rule change.  

No more tangents from me.  I promise.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> They weren't pleased with it's treatment in 2e either, when WotC tried to revive it with a few sourcebooks. The fact that sales led WotC to cease printing those books and the fact that the only Greyhawk-specific book released in 3e's tenure (the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer) points more to it's unpopularity than anything else.



I don't mean offense but you're quoting something as fact which simply is not. Sales of the LGG were quite good, and I'll quote Erik Mona on the subject:



> Howdy, folks. I obviously have a lot of strong thoughts on the matter, but I'm on deadline and don't have much time to post. I will say this, however:
> 
> >>>
> Lots of sales right? Nope. To date, despite being one of the first books out of the gate for WotC sales have not warrented a second printing.
> ...






			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> "The meaning of "Core": will include expansions and D&D Insider materials, not just the first three books, when referred to by WotC."



That doesn't mean required. It has been stated multiple times in multiple mediums that any material other than the PHB/MM/DMG are simply not required to play the game. They are considered 'Core' in the same way that rules presented in splatbooks in 3.x were considered core. But none of those books are required.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2008)

The reasons I am not switching are as follows.

1 I like 3.0/3.5 a lot. And I was turned off by the 3.5 sucks that is why we are fixing it. I don't see anything that needs a major overhaul so why fix it if it is not broke.

2 I hate what they did with the Realms.

3 I have a lot of money invested in a system that I like and since I am on a tight budget why spend money on something new that will not work with my other books.

4 A lot of the changes don't appeal to me.

5 I have not even begun to try all the things in my 3.5 books that I want to.


----------



## Kastil (Feb 18, 2008)

I'm not switching because I spent enough money on 3e stuff and don't feel like throwing my money away on a new batch of stuff.  Besides, I got so disgusted in hearing about the new edition, I've begun to play more heavily in a 1e forum I belong to.  It's not that I'm disgusted by the changes so much, it's the fact that I feel a spent a good bit of money on the last Edition (including two sets of PHB and DMG) that I've decided to spend my money on other things..... like the food in the house for a still growing 13 year old boy.

Oh and I'll throw my hat into the FR change hater club too.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 18, 2008)

Kastil said:
			
		

> like the food in the house for a still growing 13 year old boy.



Ouch you're definitely going to need that thar money.



> Oh and I'll throw my hat into the FR change hater club too.



Yes, join us.  We shall all hate the false idol together


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 18, 2008)

Come on guys, give the "is it reasonable" discussion a rest and let people go back describing WHY they will (most likely) not change (from the current point of view). It has been such a nice and peaceful thread before.


----------



## nutluck (Feb 18, 2008)

I likely won't it is still early to say for sure one way or the other yet. But so far other than stuff that makes me go meh and I could care less about which is maybe a third of the stuff about 4 e so far. But other than that of the stuff I care about i am split about 70/30 on disliking what I have been reading about 4e and what appears to be the general design goal.

For those that like it, glad for them. But for me i don't care for it. I was kinda hyped about 4e at first cause i thought 3e needed work still, just sadly they changed some of the stuff I liked for in my oppinion what seems to be for the worse and left in stuff I don't like.

At this point barring a lot of the information just being taken completely wrong it would take the DI to blow me away and offer up a easy way to find online games for me to invest in 4e. A very good DI with access to a couple of steady online games a week to use up my free time would be something that could get me to buy 4e even if I don't like the game much.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 18, 2008)

I am cautiously optimistic with regards to the rules of 4E, but I will not change to the fluff of it. I've already been picking and choosing what bits of the assorted metaplots in FR I use in my heavily customised campaign, so I see no reason to switch to a new setting (such as 4E FR).

ut whether or not I switch to 4E even in part depends entirely on my players. We haven't switched to 3.5 from 3.0 since no one wanted to.


----------



## Shadeydm (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Greyhawk is being "killed off" because hardly anyone likes it.



Provide evidence of this claim, or retract it because it's a dishonest statement.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2008)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I could say more, but I've been doing fine with my heavily houseruled 3.5 game, so why blow it up and start over?


----------



## Michael Morris (Feb 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It could also be:
> 
> "They got rid of my favorite magazines. That's part of the REASON I loved the game. I don't think I'll like it as much now, the experience has soured me, and I don't really NEED the next edition. So I'm not going."
> 
> Why read malice where there could be none?



_"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" - Napoleon Bonaparte._

The 3e design team had one major advantage over the 4e one - they had a guy that had been there since near to the game's beginning - Skip Williams. Now this is a guess - but I'm thinking Skip helped keep Monte and Bruce in check with some of the wilder changes that were proposed and dismissed (and now lost to the mists of time).

4e is all new faces. There is no old guard at all on the design team - the oldest face among them only stretches back to right around the acquisition of TSR by WotC. The leads are all new. The previews have shown us the result of that approach, an edition without any respect whatsoever for what has come before it.

Yes, 3e broke backwards compatibility - rules wise. But, for the most part, fluff was unchanged. Look at FR late 2e to 3e - except for Bane's reappearance there was hardly a bump - fluff wise it was a smooth transition.  Greyhawk came back into the core in real force for the first time since 1e, again as a reassurance.  The rules where new, but the setting familiar.  There's a reason for this - and the WotC D&D team doesn't have to look to me for an explanation as to why doing it this way is a good idea. They need only go up to whatever floor Magic is dev'ed on and talk to Mark Rosewater.



			
				Mark Rosewater said:
			
		

> To explain, let me use an example from my Hollywood days - sitcoms. (I haven't mentioned I wrote for "Roseanne" in months.) People turn into television much for the same reason they play games. They want to be entertained and they want to be comforted. Sitcoms, like all television shows, are all about being different each week without really being all that different. Each week has a different story but the characters, setting, tone and pacing are always the same.
> 
> As a show ages, it starts using up most of the obvious areas of story. As such, the writers have to start veering slightly farther away from the original base of the show. How do they do that? They take one of the elements listed above and change it. Perhaps they add in a new character. Maybe they take the cast to a new setting. Perhaps they try changing the tone or pacing. The key is that when they do this they need to keep all the other elements constant. If the gang goes on vacation, you have to keep the same group of characters that the audience knows and have the general tone and pacing stay the same. Likewise, if a new character gets added, you tend to bring the new character to the old setting.
> 
> Why? Because the audience is grounded in the familiar. They'll accept new elements but only when surrounded by familiar ones. Magic is very similar. Each year we take you to a new world, but we look at the new world through the normal Magic lens. Red has direct damage, blue has counterspells and black has discard. Note that when Time Spiral block radically changed up how the colors worked (by either dipping into things the color used to do or exploring things the colors could do but never has done) we made sure to do it in the most known setting we have - Dominaria.



Original Article

This blurb shines a light on the one thing that makes me the most uneasy about 4e.  Change the rules? Fine, 3e did that, but it stuck to a mostly familiar setting. Change the setting? Ok, 2e did that, but it didn't change the rules all that much from 1e (even today 1e and 2e books are used pretty much interchangably ruleswise).  Change both at the same time!?   This is an extraordinarily bad idea. I don't know if it will doom 4e, it likely won't, but it is very off-putting.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2008)

> Replace grapple with just about any other major issue and it's the same - Save or Die, Level draining, 15 minute adventuring day etc. These are all things we've talked about and have been talking about, round and round, for years. How is them saying, "Hey, this sucks" a bad thing?




It's not objective, and it's not falsifiable. It's an opinion statement, and it's presented as if it's something "everyone knows."

Not everyone knows it. Plenty of people don't have these issues that WotC so graciously has decided to "fix." When they say "it sucks," it can really sound like they're saying "It's bad, and if you like it, you have bad taste, because what's REALLY good is what's coming up in a few months!"

If they said something more objective -- like "The grapple rules are pretty complex, and we're going to simplify them," it may go over better. It's more specific, it gives us more information, and it allows us to use our own judgment about whether or not we're interested in their fix. "Ah, I've got no problem with the complexity, I don't need that!" or "Ah! That's been annoying me for so long! I'm glad they made it simpler!"

Saying "These rules are bad and we will make them better," isn't saying much, and it isn't an opinion everyone shares. Those two things are a deadly combination: if you're saying something people are going to dispute, ground it in concrete information. If you're giving your opinion only, don't state it categorically.


----------



## Psion (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Actually, they have, just like they explained the lack of bard and monk: they want more time and effort put into them to make them more distinct and they only have a limited amount of space in the core rules.




Actually they have, but that's not the real why.

WotC has stated (and I believe to be the real _why_) is they have removed traditional "core elements" to reserve for later volume to strengthen the idea that the PHB II, MM II, DMG II are "core" books, because "core" books sell better.

It's marketing.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 18, 2008)

One thing that does put me off 4E is all the "it's cool" marketing. "Awesome" "cool" "greatest" and similar adjectives just rub me the wrong way.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2008)

> It's not objective, and it's not falsifiable. It's an opinion statement, and it's presented as if it's something "everyone knows."




How many threads are there in the rules forum devoted entirely to grappling?  I did a quick and dirty Google search and came up with 18 THOUSAND hits.  I doubt that the WOTC site is any better.  I imagine that WOTC also keeps track of the queries sent to their customer service as well.  At what point can you say, "Hey, a whole bunch of people have problems with this, so, this sucks"?

Is it totally qualitative?  Perhaps not.  But, at a certain point, you should be able to stop and say, hey, this sucks if enough people say so.  

Having participated in far and away too many edition war threads, I've realized that people will defend ANY rule.  No matter what.  I've seen people defend 1e initiative rules and those require a 20 page ADDICT document to explain!  You can talk about fruit roll ups all you like, but, at the end of the day, the numbers really have to carry it.  

Yes, you may not have had a problem with X.  But, you can probably bet that if the WOTC marketing team is allowing people to say, X sucks, then probably they know that there are a hell of a lot of people who agree with that.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean required. It has been stated multiple times in multiple mediums that any material other than the PHB/MM/DMG are simply not required to play the game. They are considered 'Core' in the same way that rules presented in splatbooks in 3.x were considered core. But none of those books are required.




I know this.  I was just pointing out the reason why some people might have this impression.

In any case, it is ambiguous and misleading terminology.  Why use the word "core" in 4e to mean something different than what was established in the past with 3e?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2008)

> Is it totally qualitative? Perhaps not. But, at a certain point, you should be able to stop and say, hey, this sucks if enough people say so.




Actually, that's just going to drive away some of the silent ones who didn't have a problem with it, or who thought it was fine. Being told that a rule they've been comfortable with makes the game worse is not going to give them any confidence, and would probably hurt your attempt in a "if it ain't broke" kind of way. 



> Yes, you may not have had a problem with X. But, you can probably bet that if the WOTC marketing team is allowing people to say, X sucks, then probably they know that there are a hell of a lot of people who agree with that.




And those who don't might feel insulted.

Wheras if you say "X has quality Y that we decided to change to quality Z," you might get the reaction, but at least it'll be about quality Y, and not about X itself.



			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> . Why use the word "core" in 4e to mean something different than what was established in the past with 3e?




Because, my guess is, they found the word "core" sold books. In the same way that the words "dragon" and "magic" did.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> It's marketing.




Yep.  It's depressing to me how the marketing is dictating the way the game comes out at this point.

(Not to mention how the OGL/GSL changes might also be affecting certain things.  Sad to see.)


----------



## Psion (Feb 18, 2008)

All the stuff that DM Jeff cites and about half the stuff Celebrim cites* are reasons for me. Especially the bit about WotC telling me things suck about 4e that I don't happen to think suck. There are some changes that sound really positive to me (no more full attacks! Touch AC = reflex DC!) The problem is that for everything I see them doing that seems a bona fide improvement, I hear about another change that seems to be ill-justified and/or a step backwards from my perspective.

* - With the particular exception that I always liked Mearls' work before he went to work for WotC. But when I saw the article about the "kinder gentler rust monster", I knew there was trouble ahead.

However, the principal reason is somewhat in line with what Spoony alludes to here:



			
				Michael Morris said:
			
		

> The 3e design team had one major advantage over the 4e one - they had a guy that had been there since near to the game's beginning - Skip Williams. Now this is a guess - but I'm thinking Skip helped keep Monte and Bruce in check with some of the wilder changes that were proposed and dismissed (and now lost to the mists of time).




I don't know if I'd lay all the responsibility on Skip here, but I do feel that when entertaining changes, you need to keep touch with why some people play the game through various editions.

I may frequently disagree with changes that the design team are making, but when it comes down to it, most of them are experienced, intelligent designers and will produce a playable, fun game. But I see a shift in the nature of the background material and concepts that have grown up from 1e-3e. ("Fluff" if you will, but more "metasetting".) So it may be a great game, it will be a game like Exalted or Burning Wheel that might be an interesting fun game, but no longer a game encapsulating the core concepts that are part of the continuing campaign I have had since 1e. As such, like those games, they have to "start fresh" with earning my interest.

I want continued support of classic creatures, classes, races, planes, *as they existed and evolved over 1e-3e* etc:
1) Because I like them.
2) As Erik Mona put it, it's part of the imaginative framework I am used to using. When I think of adventure for my game, I think in terms of things I have learned over the years. To have ideas I want to use shot down or too much of a PITA to implement is not something I am willing to put up with. If it's more work to run the adventures I want to run in a new edition than the old, then the old edition is the logical choice for me to use.
3) At no time have the ideas of the current spate of designers been so good and so complete that the idea of earlier designers (editions) not been worth plugging into. So long as the same basic assumptions exist in the game, I can continue to tap into previous editions' material; I have been able to do so easily for all editions up to and including third edition. But 4th edition proposes a shift in the baseline cosmology, races, creatures, and classes significant enough that this usage of older material will be compromised.

Ultimately, I'll probably play 4e just like I play a variety of other non-D&D games. But I don't see 4e replacing 3e as my edition of choice for my home games.


----------



## Sunderstone (Feb 18, 2008)

Michael Morris said:
			
		

> _"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" - Napoleon Bonaparte._
> 
> The 3e design team had one major advantage over the 4e one - they had a guy that had been there since near to the game's beginning - Skip Williams. Now this is a guess - but I'm thinking Skip helped keep Monte and Bruce in check with some of the wilder changes that were proposed and dismissed (and now lost to the mists of time).
> 
> 4e is all new faces. There is no old guard at all on the design team - the oldest face among them only stretches back to right around the acquisition of TSR by WotC. The leads are all new. The previews have shown us the result of that approach, an edition without any respect whatsoever for what has come before it.




These are my thoughts as well as to the "why" of the fluff changes. Maybe a new crowd eager to rewrite everything from the ground up? 

As an example Dave Noonan falls into this category. While not exactly new, he has come a long way. Ive been a Noonan fan since his 3E dungeon adventure  "Interlopers of Ruun-Khazai" but alot of the work on the PH2 screams of a warcraft influence (like the Druids rejuvenation/HoTs, faction rep grinding/affiliation rules, and the Knight class/essentially a Warrior from Warcraft). Im not sure exactly which concepts of the book are actually his but his name alone is on the cover.
These external influences arent even subtle anymore and 4E seems to be firmly into that type of "non-classic" feel for me. 

Im not saying that D&D couldnt benefit from an external source like WoW every now and then but too much of that makes it into a new game for me. On the other side of the coin, I see WoW things heavily influenced by D&D as well. My point is that I enjoy both and I like to keep them seperate. 
I play wow alot but I treasure my D&D time more. If they become too much like eachother id quit one or the other.

Not trying to start a new WoW or anime or video game debate here, but 4E seems to be heavily influenced (some 4E designers too) by these sources. Regenerating health, talent trees, per encounter stuff (sorta seems like a regenerating mana bar to me, next encounter id be full on mana/spells), etc. The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?) or the cartoony/comic bookish  Dragonborne just doesnt feel D&D-ish to me.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 18, 2008)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?)




There are no Warforged in Full Metal Alchemist. They do have Auto-Mail which is sort of the fantasy equivalent of cybernetic prosthetics. The walking suit of armor is actually a unique character in the story. Its been a long time since I have seen the show, but one of the main character's bodies was destroyed in a failed attempt to resurrect his deceased mother using forbidden alchemy (the series version of magic). Before his soul could depart the mortal realm, his older brother used his alchemy to bond the soul to a suit of armor. The older brother's arm and leg were also destroyed in the accident and replaced by Auto-Mail. Since he has metal prosthetics, he is nicknamed the Full Metal Alchemist (hence the series name).

The series is basically about the two brothers going on this quest together to restore the body of the younger brother and to restore the destroyed limbs of the older brother.

Later on the brothers realize that their attempt to resurrect their mother allowed evil beings to enter the world from the underworld. So they try to stop them as well. I'm sure I got some details wrong. I haven't watched the show in a long time and I never saw the whole series. My wife was a bigger fan than me. I'm more of a Naruto/Bleach fan myself.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Sunderstone said:
			
		

> Not trying to start a new WoW or anime or video game debate here, but 4E seems to be heavily influenced (some 4E designers too) by these sources. Regenerating health, talent trees, per encounter stuff (sorta seems like a regenerating mana bar to me, next encounter id be full on mana/spells), etc. The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?) or the cartoony/comic bookish  Dragonborne just doesnt feel D&D-ish to me.




The funny thing is, reading Worlds & Monsters and Race & Classes, I find that 4E seems to be moving more towards a mythic/legendary background. The Cosmology, the monster themselves, the classes all seem more grounded in what I've found in mythology/legend.

For example, the Feywild, the Shadow realms, the killing of a god and exile of the devils all seem to me to be straight out of a textbook on mythology. Compared to the planar wheel and the Blood War which basically is pure D&D.

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?


----------



## Fenes (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?




I never heard of 3E until I saw the PHB (the one with the char gen CD ROM), and a few minutes with the PHB made me want to switch.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The funny thing is, reading Worlds & Monsters and Race & Classes, I find that 4E seems to be moving more towards a mythic/legendary background. The Cosmology, the monster themselves, the classes all seem more grounded in what I've found in mythology/legend.
> 
> For example, the Feywild, the Shadow realms, the killing of a god and exile of the devils all seem to me to be straight out of a textbook on mythology. Compared to the planar wheel and the Blood War which basically is pure D&D.
> 
> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?



The difference is: One is game mechanics, the other is story, and each of these also have several aspects. I think it is important to differentiate both the larger elements mechanics and story, as well as their components, and understand how they affect each other (and how they don't). Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't do this...
But: Since this is a "Why won't you switch" thread, I think addressing this here would be a thread hijack.


----------



## Psion (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E?




Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but his nits about Infravision and Drow Weapons are just the sort of "personal nit" and "player entitlement" sort of rants/changes that I am seeing now that I fundamentally disagreed with then.

But those two seems minor compared to the changes I see coming in 4e. Putting disintegrating drow weapons back in seems a much more trivial a house rule to me than removal of death effects, shift to per encounter ability accounting, shift in the basic core races, and the like.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but his nits about Infravision and Drow Weapons are just the sort of "personal nit" and "player entitlement" sort of rants/changes that I am seeing now that I fundamentally disagreed with then.
> 
> But those two seems minor compared to the changes I see coming in 4e. Putting disintegrating drow weapons back in seems a much more trivial a house rule to me than removal of death effects, shift to per encounter ability accounting, shift in the basic core races, and the like.




SKR was never subtle about what he thought was wrong, was he?  

The thing is, I can see reasonable interpretations for basically all of these things. One of 2E's failing and to a lesser extent 3E's was the insistence on keeping things because that's how they had always be done.

Take for example, the loss of the gnome. You'd be hardpressed to find non-Tinker gnomes in D&D literature/rulebooks and while I do know of gnome fans, given the fact that multiple game worlds killed them off and others linked them with the decidely non-fantasy steampunk/technological culture (which is nowhere hinted at in their core writeup), I'd consider WOTC lying through their teeth if they said "Gnomes are a core race", because they certainly weren't treated as such by WOTC OR TSR.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> There are some changes that sound really positive to me (no more full attacks! Touch AC = reflex DC!)




Yeah... but the thing about even the positive things is that while they are addressing a problem with the game (too much dice throwing to resolve an attack action, for example), when you start thinking about the implemented 'fix' you realize that for the most part it's going to be just as wonky or clunky of a situation as we have already.  I still have yet to hear a single suggestion that sounds like a strict improvement.

Take 'Touch AC = reflex DC'.  Ok, fine.  But unless AC scales with level too, that's going to create a problem in that alot of times, you're touch AC might be better than your non-touch AC.  Why should it be easier to hit someone hard enough to hurt them than it is to touch them?  So is AC going to be 'your AC or your reflex DC' which ever is higher?  Or is reflex DC going to be the same as AC, in which case wearing armor makes you less likely to be caught in snares or fall into pits?  And supposing that I'm a naked rogue with a 28 reflex DC, and I put on a ring of protection?  Is it reasonable that my AC doesn't change?  Sorry, improving your AC doesn't help?  

But suppose that AC does scale with level.  That solves the above problems nicely, but creates another one that's potentially just as bad.  If the primary impetus of the edition is to 'fix the math', AC that scales with level _increases_ the gap between a higher level and lower level target so that actually a more narrow range of foes is playable than before.  You can't fix that by ramping up lower level creatures to hit modifiers, because that wonks the math up in another way.

I've got similar problems with removing itterative attacks.  On the surface, doing away with them sounds great.  Faster combats!  More action!  Better ratio of hit points to damage so that you have fewer glass cannons!  In theory, I'm for all those things but when you start looking at how the game works without them all sorts of little annoyances start cropping up.

Just as you started worrying when you heard about the 'kinder, gentler, rust monster', I started worrying when I heard them claim to have 'fixed the math'.  Math is one of those things that just doesn't get fixed.  Math has a tendency to be what it is whether you like it or not.  There are going to be inherent limitations with a d20 as a randomizer, or for that matter with any fortune mechanic that we could name.  The fortune mechanic dictates things about the game that are unavoidable.  When you start claiming to have 'fixed the math' and you are being really tight lipped about the specifics, little alarm bells go off in my head the way that they would if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But suppose that AC does scale with level.  That solves the above problems nicely, but creates another one that's potentially just as bad.  If the primary impetus of the edition is to 'fix the math', AC that scales with level _increases_ the gap between a higher level and lower level target so that actually a more narrow range of foes is playable than before.  You can't fix that by ramping up lower level creatures to hit modifiers, because that wonks the math up in another way.




Wouldn't this be a problem ALREADY in 3.x since BAB scales but AC doesn't. Meaning that ALREADY, a lower level monster is screwed in 3.x since its defense isn't going to be a problem ("you hit AC 42 with a 2? HOW!!!!")

As well, wouldn't the real problem be how fast it scales and not whether or not it scales? For example, in no edition do I think a level 15 creature should have a problem with hitting a level 1 creature and conversely be in the fight of its life when trying to hit a level 14 creature. So what would you consider the breakpoint for using a lower level monster versus a higher level party? 

Which personally, I'm curious as to see what Mearls has decided (No more than a level 5 difference is what I suspect)


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But suppose that AC does scale with level.  That solves the above problems nicely, but creates another one that's potentially just as bad.  If the primary impetus of the edition is to 'fix the math', AC that scales with level _increases_ the gap between a higher level and lower level target so that actually a more narrow range of foes is playable than before.  You can't fix that by ramping up lower level creatures to hit modifiers, because that wonks the math up in another way.



None of this is inevitable -- or did you think that hill giants had a +20 natural armor bonus because they had skin several meters thick? 
It's definitely true that a 30th level naked epic-peasant would have a (base) AC of (picking a random number... base 10 plus half level 15 = 25) 25, while a naked (regular-type) commoner would have an AC of (ditto) 10, oh noes, &c &c. But right now, most everybody at that level winds up with an AC of 40 or more, that I've seen.
Besides, this is for characters. Monsters have different rules, defined such that their statistics are the complement of the expected values of the players. 

The new math is really intended to just get those expected values to not be too hairy. 



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Just as you started worrying when you heard about the 'kinder, gentler, rust monster', I started worrying when I heard them claim to have 'fixed the math'.  Math is one of those things that just doesn't get fixed.  Math has a tendency to be what it is whether you like it or not.  There are going to be inherent limitations with a d20 as a randomizer, or for that matter with any fortune mechanic that we could name.  The fortune mechanic dictates things about the game that are unavoidable.  When you start claiming to have 'fixed the math' and you are being really tight lipped about the specifics, little alarm bells go off in my head the way that they would if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine.



"Security by obscurity" is my touchstone concept here, but yeah, I know how you feel. A few more months and all shall be laid bare.


----------



## Scarbonac (Feb 18, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> There are no Warforged in Full Metal Alchemist. They do have Auto-Mail which is sort of the fantasy equivalent of cybernetic prosthetics. The walking suit of armor is actually a unique character in the story. I[snip]





Not so unique; there were characters other than Alphonse Elric who were souls bloodsealed to suits of armor (Barry the Chopper and the Slicer Brothers).


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?




I suspect at least some people were.  I don't think anyone is lying when they say there were people who thought 3E was going to ruin the game making posts on the forums back when 3E was being previewed.

But I also suspect that there was more general agreement with the warts of 1E/2E, even from the fans of the game, and more general disatisfaction with the game at the time of 2E than there is now.  In particular, you could have heard 'badwrongfun' rants from me about 2E back when the edition first came out (I never really moved from 1E), and by the time 3E came out I was no longer playing D&D because I'd been frustrated by various limitations in the 1E/2E shared mechanics.  I certainly didn't think of D&D as an industry leader back when 3E was coming out.  Virtually noone I knew was playing it.  I knew alot of people playing WW games.  The bookstores gaming sections were whole rows of green backed WoD books.  I knew of alot of people playing Dead Lands, and a guy getting together a CoC: Delta Green game.  Heck, I knew about more RIFTS groups than D&D groups at the time.  If D&D wasn't dead, it was certainly dying.  There had been some hopeful glimmers near the end of 2E, mostly from the designers that would later be responcible for 3E, but for the most part D&D was a has been game that people associated with noobs, kids, and greyhaired folks.  Serious gamers who weren't playing the game since the '70's were playing something else.  Steve Jackson basically dismissed D20's relevance and it didn't even sound arrogant, because it was pretty much easy to dismiss D&D as something that had unappealing mechanics that you'd outgrow when you saw the alternatives.  (I wonder how he feels about it now.)


----------



## Psion (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I certainly didn't think of D&D as an industry leader back when 3E was coming out.  Virtually noone I knew was playing it.  I knew alot of people playing WW games.




This matches my experience. On the local gaming mailing list, 2e was hated. I had a lot of problems finding players for a new 2e group.

Now, on the same mailing list, even in the last year, I still saw people advertising for new 3e games.

On the internet, you can find people bitching about anything. But the reality of the depth of dissatisfaction in the game seems much different to me now than it did then.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?




First off, my reason for not switching:
1] I've invested way too much money in 3rd edition to just walk away from it.
2] There's plenty of life left in 3rd edition and plenty I'm still interested in running (i.e. Ptolus, The City of Brass, Pathfinder adventures, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, Rappan Athuk Reloaded).
3] 4th edition is too different from previous incarnations for my tastes and throws out too many iconic elements of D&D.
4] The digital initiative and split of core materials into more and more books seems to be designed to unnecessarily fleece customers of their $$$$... more so than ever before.
5] The GSL is far too limited and, if I stick with 3.X, I'm hoping more OGL materials will still be published.
6] Greyhawk is dead.
7] Dungeon and Dragon magazines are no longer available in print.  I liked being able to pick up an odd issues every now and then.

As for SKR's rants against 2nd edition, I guess the reason why I wasn't annoyed was that I agreed with his assertions.  The infravision/ultravision split always had me scratching my head and the self-destructing drow equipment just seemed like a screw-bot to me... you fought drow who were equipped to the gills and, when you managed to defeat them, the loot that helped them to beat the crap out of your party went "poof".


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Wouldn't this be a problem ALREADY in 3.x since BAB scales but AC doesn't. Meaning that ALREADY, a lower level monster is screwed in 3.x since its defense isn't going to be a problem ("you hit AC 42 with a 2? HOW!!!!")




Don't mistake my claiming 'X is a problem' for the claim that 'Existing Y isn't a problem'.  Yes, there are existing problems.

In particular, 3.x has a problem with 'glass cannons' partially due to just what you describe.  My biggest problem with this is that it makes the initiative roll too important to the combat (in a close fight, the deciding factor in how tough it was will be who went first, which effectively has the same problem as 'save or die').  

But scaling AC with level doesn't really fix the problem (although some other changes in the game do address this problem like reducing the damage from individual attacks and the number of attacks in a round), because the party is still likely to be able to overwhelm the AC of any lower level monster.  However, since BAB scales but not AC, at least in 3.X any lower level brute that survived the first round at least had a decent chance of doing some damage.  If AC scales with BAB, then the monster is likely to be in the same boat as monsters near the bottom end of the CR scale (orcs, gnolls, etc.) - unable to effect a foe of much higher level at all.


----------



## Falstaff (Feb 18, 2008)

Because Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is still a kick ass game. cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2008)

> you fought drow who were equipped to the gills and, when you managed to defeat them, the loot that helped them to beat the crap out of your party went "poof".




In some ways, 4e's return to "monsters and NPCs and players all follow different rules" makes me paranoid that this will crop up again in different forms.

"No, the NPC can't teach you the Killstrike of Doom because...er...his hands fall off after the encounter. OOPS!"

I have enough faith to see it through, but we've already seen hints of a little of it. The Bugbear Strangler can use you as a human shield, you can't use anyone as a human shield because it'd be "annoying if you did it in every encounter."



> But the reality of the depth of dissatisfaction in the game seems much different to me now than it did then.




I think this is absolutely true. They didn't really have to sell me much with 3e. They had me at "AC's go up, and monsters have Charisma scores." 

With 4e, they've gotta sell me. I'm content with my game right now, no matter how much they tell me that I'm really not.  I'm harder to impress because I know if they don't do a very good job, that I can stick with 3e and continue it forever. So they need to show me that 4e is going to do something new that I couldn't do with 3e.

They're winning me over on some of the rules design, but some elements are very dissonant, and I can poach the 4e rules design as much as I poached the SWSE rules design, and keep intact what I want to keep.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If AC scales with BAB, then the monster is likely to be in the same boat as monsters near the bottom end of the CR scale (orcs, gnolls, etc.) - unable to effect a foe of much higher level at all.




I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not one believes a lower level monster should be able to affect foes and if so, for how long (I personally have no problem with level 1 monster say an orc being ineffective versus a buttnaked 10th level wizard in HTH combat).

re: 2E problems and the wider gamer audience

That is what I remember as well. Throw in the fact that TSR had stopped producing material for a while due to bankruptcy near the end, it allowed a lot of us to catch our breath with respect to buying so me and my friends were generally interested (although at its height, thanks to multiple campaign worlds, TSR was EASILY producing more material per month than WOTC ever did).

3E I figure for a lot of people is "good enough" which I suspect WOTC didn't factor in.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?




I don't remember any SKR rants.

I can still use my 1e and 2e books to provide background and adventure seeds in v3.5.

I don't think I'll even be able to use my v3.5 books in this capacity for 4e.  That much is changing.  The nature of the races and the classes and magic and the gods is changing so much that I doubt that anything from the old editions would make sense in 4e.

In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e.  What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction?  Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?

Why, it does appear to be.


----------



## Scarbonac (Feb 18, 2008)

Oh, yeah, in order to be on-topic:

I have yet to see anything, from the developers, WotC or the outspoken 4e proponents among the fanbase, compelling enough to pick up 4e.

It is too freaking soon for a new edition of D&D.

I have been playing some form of D&D for 27 years, and I have been having fun for most of that time, regardless of what the devs may publicly think of previous editions.

I am disgusted with what appears to me to be a blatant money-grab by releasing yearly PHB's, DMG's, etc, with classic elements spread among them like bacon bits on  a salad as an inducement to buy. As someone else said, "the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Don't mistake my claiming 'X is a problem' for the claim that 'Existing Y isn't a problem'.  Yes, there are existing problems.
> 
> In particular, 3.x has a problem with 'glass cannons' partially due to just what you describe.  My biggest problem with this is that it makes the initiative roll too important to the combat (in a close fight, the deciding factor in how tough it was will be who went first, which effectively has the same problem as 'save or die').
> 
> But scaling AC with level doesn't really fix the problem (although some other changes in the game do address this problem like reducing the damage from individual attacks and the number of attacks in a round), because the party is still likely to be able to overwhelm the AC of any lower level monster.  However, since BAB scales but not AC, at least in 3.X any lower level brute that survived the first round at least had a decent chance of doing some damage.  If AC scales with BAB, then the monster is likely to be in the same boat as monsters near the bottom end of the CR scale (orcs, gnolls, etc.) - unable to effect a foe of much higher level at all.



But AC scales with level. Spells and magical items ensure this. A 1st level Fighter can't afford a Full Plate, but a 4th level Fighter can. A 8th level Fighter might have a FUll Plate +1, and a 12th level Fighter a Mithral Full Plate +2 and Gloves of Dexterity +2. (And then add all the other "Big Six" items that are there to improve the AC)

Monsters AC increases a lot. Compare higher level monsters with lower level monsters. There is no formula guiding it, and there are barely any guidelines for it, but it still happens. It's inconsistent, yes, but that just shows that it's flawed, not that the general direction of scaling AC is wrong.
And try to reuse a low level (CR) monster against a reasonably well equipped higher level group - you will notice that it's AC and attack is too low. 

So far, 4E indicates that the typical advancement by level is 0.5 per level. Advancement is probably a bit improved by magical items and feats to 0.75 per level. If you compare the 3.x advancement on BAB or skills, this is definitely slower. Which would mean a monster remains viable for a longer time, not a shorter time - thanks to explicit scaling rules that are applied all over the board...


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In some ways, 4e's return to "monsters and NPCs and players all follow different rules" makes me paranoid that this will crop up again in different forms.
> 
> "No, the NPC can't teach you the Killstrike of Doom because...er...his hands fall off after the encounter. OOPS!"
> 
> I have enough faith to see it through, but we've already seen hints of a little of it. The Bugbear Strangler can use you as a human shield, you can't use anyone as a human shield because it'd be "annoying if you did it in every encounter."




I don't think you are being paranoid.  



> I think this is absolutely true. They didn't really have to sell me much with 3e. They had me at "AC's go up, and monsters have Charisma scores."




Ain't that the truth. 

I could go on and on for pages just listing hundreds of small details of what they had me on, but just to keep it brief, they had me at the 'Scent' ability.  It doesn't sound like much, but unless you really played alot of 1st edition you probably have no idea how much heated argument lay behind this one little blip in the rules.  Reading the 'scent' ability was like confirmation that some designer had had the exact same experiences as a DM that I had, and was looking for the exact same sort of solutions I'd always wanted.

So much of 4E has kinda blindsided me in a way that the 3E changes just never did.  I didn't find myself reading the 3E PH, and ever going, "Huh?  Where did that come from?  That's not a problem I'm having!"  Instead, every single thing I read in the PH or the previews, I was saying to myself, "Oh.  Yeah.  I so wish I'd had this in the rules back when..."  It was like having common experience with Cook and Tweet.  I felt like I'd gamed with them.   With the stuff coming out now, its more like I'm reading about someone's 20 year old somewhat interesting homebrew that's radically departed from the more common sort of D&D and has developed its own arcane house rules.  It's more like reading Dark Sun, Spelljammer, or Eberron for the first time than it is like reading a new edition.   I feel the same about it as I would if Mearls was bring Defilers and warforged into the core, and making giff a core race.  Might make an interesting game, but what does that have to do with the rest of us?


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e.  What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction?  Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?
> 
> Why, it does appear to be.



Tangent alert! Maybe it appears to be, but not all who wander are lost not all that glitters is gold.

It is a fact that there was a murmuring in the court before 3rd edition took the stage (ow, my metaphor-mixer is set on "stupid"!); it's not an argument to state that this is a similar phenomenon and therefore everyone should love 4th edition. It's more like a dismissal or an appeal to a sense of history; to question whether this is fear/dislike of the new mechanics (Or of the politics around them. Or the flavor around them. Or the people involved, timing involved, or price of fish), or a fear/dislike of change.

It's really irrelevant to how any given person feels about the new edition, and more a bit of commentary about the community at large. In other words, it's more "off-topic" than "straw-man".

I now return you to your discussion already in progress


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I don't remember any SKR rants.




You're kidding right? SKR at the time of 3E was basically the only WOTC/TSR guy that seemed to have net access and from his spiels on rec.games.frp.dnd (yes, I remember SKR just after he became TSR's netrep), he was NEVER quiet about what he thought was wrong


			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I can still use my 1e and 2e books to provide background and adventure seeds in v3.5.
> 
> I don't think I'll even be able to use my v3.5 books in this capacity for 4e.  That much is changing.  The nature of the races and the classes and magic and the gods is changing so much that I doubt that anything from the old editions would make sense in 4e..




Not necessarily. It depends on how much work it requires I'd assume. For example, I don't see why running adventures in any edition as long as someone did the conversions of monsters for you.



			
				Wolfspider said:
			
		

> In any case, I'm sure some people were offended by the change from 2e to 3e.  What does this have to do with the current edition change and people's reaction?  Could this be (gasp!) a straw man?
> 
> Why, it does appear to be.




Any edition change IME is going to cause people to be offended but worse to me, is an edition change that doesn't really change anything. CoC I always thought was a bad example of "edition" change for the sake of getting people to buy it again. Pre-Internet, I didn't realize there wasn't that much of a difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition CoC and yet I bought each subsequent book because I thought it was totally different...


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. It depends on how much work it requires I'd assume. For example, I don't see why running adventures in any edition as long as someone did the conversions of monsters for you.




You'd think this until you tried to do the conversion.  I speak from experience.  I converted I3yramid (its been uploaded to ENWorld), and it was rather unexpectedly a heck of a lot of work, but then threw my hands up in dispair at trying to convert I4: White Palm Oasis as not only alot of work but really impossible to do faithfully. 



> CoC I always thought was a bad example of "edition" change for the sake of getting people to buy it again. Pre-Internet, I didn't realize there wasn't that much of a difference between 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition CoC and yet I bought each subsequent book because I thought it was totally different...




Hmmm... My feeling back then was that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition CoC changed basically only in layout and in the sort of additional material they included.  I never considered buying a newer edition just because a newer one had came out.  I didn't really even think there was much intention of getting me to do so.  I just figured that they needed to do another print run, correct some typos, and had some ideas about what they thought might improve the layout and visual attractiveness of the game to bring new players in.

I largely had the same feelings about GURPS and any other game that changed only marginally between editions.  In fact, while I generally disparage 3.5 as inferior in most regards to 3.0 (in various petty ways), I feel pretty much the same about 3.5.  Certainly, _I_ didn't feel compelled to buy the 'new edition' of the game just because they printed one.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Hmmm... My feeling back then was that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition CoC changed basically only in layout and in the sort of additional material they included.  I never considered buying a newer edition just because a newer one had came out.  I didn't really even think there was much intention of getting me to do so.  I just figured that they needed to do another print run, correct some typos, and had some ideas about what they thought might improve the layout and visual attractiveness of the game to bring new players in.
> 
> I largely had the same feelings about GURPS and any other game that changed only marginally between editions.  In fact, while I generally disparage 3.5 as inferior in most regards to 3.0 (in various petty ways), I feel pretty much the same about 3.5.  Certainly, _I_ didn't feel compelled to buy the 'new edition' of the game just because they printed one.




I think part of my anger was that I had a sucky gamestore in that you couldn't peruse a book. If he caught you reading a book for more than a minute, he would be offended. Sorry to say, but I'm not exactly displeased I don't have to shop there anymore.  

Say what you will about the big box stores, but at least there you can sit down comfortably and read a book and see what the changes were. My thinking was that if it was a new edition, it actually changed things otherwise why not just fix the typos and keep the dition number.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?




Speaking for myself only, I wasn't offended because , as a former D&D player who had quit the game for RuneQuest, I agreed with him.

This time around, I don't.

Ken


----------



## Psion (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You'd think this until you tried to do the conversion.  I speak from experience.  I converted I3yramid (its been uploaded to ENWorld), and it was rather unexpectedly a heck of a lot of work, but then threw my hands up in dispair at trying to convert I4: White Palm Oasis as not only alot of work but really impossible to do faithfully.




I started a conversion of Ruins of Undermountain. It _was_ proving to be a lot of work, but then, I was converting a lot of things I don't know if the players would ever encounter.

So I switched to just using RoU as-is and just pulling creatures out of the book, and tweaking numbers or adding class levels to get the challenge level right. That actually worked pretty well. I mean thematically, is an encounter with 4 orcs that different from 2, or giving the orcs warrior levels?

I also did some conversion work for Return to the Tomb of Horrors (and tapped in to already existing conversions for the rest.) The single biggest challenge there was that power levels from 1e/2e creatures to 3e vary wildly, and you really have to tweak some things to make it work. (Frex, Mountain Giants are hideously more powerful in 3e than 2e; I put a templated stone giant pulled from advanced bestiary in in their stead.)

So I can see where some challenges exist, but I consider it doable if you aren't anal about being "faithful." However, it appears 4e will change the actual concepts of many creatures (that's not a dryad, that's a treant with bewbs!). The concepts of the adventures and settings are of more value to me than some numbers, so I consider that a bigger issue.


----------



## Mark Hope (Feb 18, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E?



I was never aware of SKR's "spiels" when I changed over from 2e to 3e.  Since then I have seen some of his thoughts on his website - some I agree with, some I don't.  None of these influenced my decsion to move from 2e to 3e and they have nothing whatsoever to do with 4e.  Not seeing the connection, sorry.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?



Because 3e didn't invalidate my 2e books, basically or otherwise.  Much of the 2e material can be converted over to 3e without too much hassle (having converted hundreds of DS monsters I can personally attest to this fact) and stuff like C&C only increases cross-edition compatibility.  The 4e designers have been pretty clear that they don't see this as being similarly possible with the new edition, and who am I to doubt their wisdom?

Oh, and this?


			
				Falstaff said:
			
		

> Because Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is still a kick ass game. cheers



Win.


----------



## The Cardinal (Feb 18, 2008)

I use D&D only for the _D&D genre_ - and D&D3.5 and C&C are more than enough for that.
For any other roleplaying experience my system of choice is *GURPS4e* (or sometimes a bit of Unknown Armies, Storyteller, ORE, Unisystem, or HEX) - and with the advent of *GURPS Dungeon Fantasy* it will likely kill of D&D3.5, C&C and other d20 rules and take their stuff.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 18, 2008)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> Because 3e didn't invalidate my 2e books, basically or otherwise.  Much of the 2e material can be converted over to 3e without too much hassle (having converted hundreds of DS monsters I can personally attest to this fact) and stuff like C&C only increases cross-edition compatibility.  The 4e designers have been pretty clear that they don't see this as being similarly possible with the new edition, and who am I to doubt their wisdom?




Huh? Sorry to interrupt, but the designers have never said that you could not convert older edition creatures to 4e. In fact, given that you no longer have to build monsters from scratch, it should be EASIER to convert to 4e.

Furthermore, going 3e to 4e will no more invalidate your books than going from 2e to 3e did. 

I played 2e extensively and there was really no compatibility with 3e. Despite the illusion of compatibility provided by the so-called conversion documents, a 3e character was a completely different animal than a 2e character of the same level. Feats, skill points, saves, class abilities. Everything was different. You pretty much had to rebuild your character from scratch to convert it over.


----------



## RonYon (Feb 18, 2008)

The other posters cover the reasons why I dont want to go 4th edition.
As to why Im still here:I dis-avowed every part of the Star Wars Saga except Empire and Star Wars after seeing Episode One, but Ive seen all of them,in the theater no less.
Its hard to turn away from some thing you love, even when it feels desecrated.
 I am hopeful that there will be something for me to enjoy in the new edition, but I only come here when the traffic on the Character Op board is slow or boring.


----------



## Mark Hope (Feb 18, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Huh? Sorry to interrupt, but the designers have never said that you could not convert older edition creatures to 4e. In fact, given that you no longer have to build monsters from scratch, it should be EASIER to convert to 4e.



They've said more than once that 4e is not intended to be backwards compatible with 3e.  End of story as far as I am concerned.  Sorry if you don't agree.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Furthermore, going 3e to 4e will no more invalidate your books than going from 2e to 3e did.



Yes it will.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I played 2e extensively and there was really no compatibility with 3e.



Yes there was.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Despite the illusion of compatibility provided by the so-called conversion documents, a 3e character was a completely different animal than a 2e character of the same level.



No it wasn't.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Feats, skill points, saves, class abilities. Everything was different. You pretty much had to rebuild your character from scratch to convert it over.



No you didn't.

There.  I have cleverly and soundly beaten your arguments with my incisive rhetoric.  You are now shamed into retracting your untenable positions and slinking away in humiliation.

 




(More seriously, your experiences are clearly not my own and I have little interest in debating subjective points of view with you.  No offense )


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 18, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> So I switched to just using RoU as-is and just pulling creatures out of the book, and tweaking numbers or adding class levels to get the challenge level right. That actually worked pretty well. I mean thematically, is an encounter with 4 orcs that different from 2, or giving the orcs warrior levels?




What you describe worked pretty well for I3, and the problems I ran into there weren't for the most part balance.  A couple of things made I4 unusually difficult to convert though.

The first was that it was part of an 'adventure path', and not a stand alone module.  That means that the starting expected level of the characters needed to match up with the finishing expected level of the characters from I3.  So, I didn't have alot of room to play around with what level the encounters were being balanced for.

This made the second problem of balance 'outliers' that much more problimatic.  By 'outlier' I mean an encounter that is when converted significantly harder or easier than it would have been in the original.  Let's say the original module was for 8th level characters.   Ideally, you'd want the encounters to cluster around EL 8, and certainly not be above around EL 10 or so.  But if they all cluster around EL 10, well that's ok too, because you can just say that level 10 is the new level 8.  No biggie.  The problem comes when you have most of them clustering around EL 7, and then a few around EL 14, and/or alot of encounters that are now EL 5 pushovers that will feel tedious after a while.  In I3, the only really serious balance 'outlier' was the Purple Worm on the random encounter table which had became a radically more difficult encounter in 3rd edition than it was in 1st.  That could almost be ignored if you were of a mind to because it was a rare random encounter that could be ignored or ran as a non-lethal event encounter, or a 'thems the breaks, run for your lives and trip your friends if you've a mind to' sort of thing by a more RB sort of DM.  

But I4 has a balance 'outlier' that is critical to the plot, namely the climatic encounter with the Effrit.  By flavor, the Effrit is supposed to be an epic or near epic level foe.  In 1st edition, we are all good because by the end of the adventure path (say 12th level) we are getting into what is for 1st edition epic or near epic.  Certainly by 1st edition standards, the Effreeti has near god-like stats.  The problem is that no matter how we choose to represent the Effreeti in 3E terms, we run into problems.  If we make him 'weak', then the importance of finding the magical mcguffin in the quest is degraded and the threat represented by the Effreet thematically is lost (why do we need Superman for this job again?).  If we make him 'strong', especially strong enough to reflect the theme (CR 20+), then the problem is that he'll be relatively more dangerous to the party than he would have been in the and the fight becomes essentially unwinnable without the magic mcguffin.  I don't think there is a happy balance where the fight can work like it did in 1st edition.  The only solution I would be happy with as a DM is to add an additional adventure to the 'adventure path' between I3 and I4, increase the expected level of the party in I4 by 2 or so, and rebalance all the other encounters for that new expectation.



> The single biggest challenge there was that power levels from 1e/2e creatures to 3e vary wildly, and you really have to tweak some things to make it work. (Frex, Mountain Giants are hideously more powerful in 3e than 2e; I put a templated stone giant pulled from advanced bestiary in in their stead.)




That's an example of what I mean, though the situation in I4 was I thought unusually difficult.  The thing is, I am 'anal' about being faithful.  Not respecting another artists works is one of my peeves.  I don't expect the numbers to be the same, but I do expect you to try to make it play the same way.  The Efreet was one of a number of challenges that proved unexpectedly difficult.

Another example would be converting the original Tome of Horrors to 3E.  If your goal, like mine, is to maintain the consistant tone and feel of the original, its almost impossible given changes in 3E's expectations of who solves a challenge - the player or the character - compared to 1E.  Third edition is much more 'simulationist' when it comes to its approach to challenges, where as the original ToH was almost entirely 'gamist'.  For example, the combats in the original ToH was mostly pushovers for characters of the level of the original, and if faithfully converted the original dungeon is in fact mostly a walkover.  The traps would be discovered simply by taking 10 or 20 on the rogues search checks, the monsters will be easily dispatched, etc.   If you look at the official conversion, and especially if you look at accounts of playing the converted module, you'll find that in the conversion most of the deaths are occuring in combat rather than from the traps!  To me, that means that the conversion doesn't play anything like the original.   Likewise, again, in 1st edition 10th-12th level characters are near epic level, and the dungeon feels like a truly horrificly epic place (consider all the mithril and adamantine lying around).  The conversion in 3rd edition for 9th-10th level characters which is effectively 'mid-level' by 3E standards - something made more explicit by the fact that all that adamantine and mithril is in fact fake in the official 3E conversion.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I don't mean offense but you're quoting something as fact which simply is not. Sales of the LGG were quite good, and I'll quote Erik Mona on the subject:



The mind boggles.  Are you saying that Mourn should provide evidence to support his statement or retract it because it's a dishonest statement?!?!


----------



## Dragon-Slayer (Feb 18, 2008)

No need to switch here, C&C does an excellent enough job for the group. There is really nothing wrong with a simplified game that can just be played. DnD 3.x was becoming a chore to run and that takes away from the fun of the game. We switched to C&C and since then have had no inkling to change or upgrade. 

    I might read through the books at a bookstore and maybe buy the core books, but the game seems to be taking such an un-DnD turn that it holds little appeal anymore. I don't wish Wizards ill or think any less of anyone who gets into 4e, any game that a group can sit down, play and truly enjoy is a precious thing in and of itself, regardless of edition.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 18, 2008)

Dropping a quick moderator's note - the discussion of ease of conversion from edition to edition is perfectly fine discussion, but one best served by its own thread, as it really only tangentially touches on the original post topic.

So if you want to continue that topic, I encourage you to open a new thread to discuss it there!


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 18, 2008)

Devyn said:
			
		

> Now I would never think of saying that these aren't concerns for some players, nor would I say that since I'm not having any trouble with them ... obviously those that are, aren't playing the game "right".  That would be ludicrous and arrogant.
> 
> I believe that those players who don't have the problem with grapples or Vancian magic (managing resources) shouldn't have to sit there and read an article from WotC on how those rules ruined D&D for them in the past, or that parts of the previous edition made them gag.
> 
> ...




I don't believe that WOTC is retroactively saying that 3.5 sucked, or that those that elect to continue to play it are in some way deficient.  I do believe, however, that they are simply pointing out areas of the game that they feel are weak or confusing.  Those rules, such as grappling, Vancian magic, whatever, are considered weak to a majority of posters on this site.  The fact that Devyn has had no problem with it speaks well of his skill with the game, but even he has admitted that he has had to make house-rules/adjustments to the game to bypass these weaknesses.  WOTC is simply saying that they are attempting to correct those areas of weakness in the next edition of the game.  For that, I am grateful and excited to see the new product.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 18, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> One thing that does put me off 4E is all the "it's cool" marketing. "Awesome" "cool" "greatest" and similar adjectives just rub me the wrong way.




Not to be contrary, but would you recommend they use such adjectives as:  mediocre, somewhat okay, or the-best-we-could-do?  They are in the business of making money, so of course they are going to market the game in such a way as to elicit excitement.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2008)

> I don't believe that WOTC is retroactively saying that 3.5 sucked, or that those that elect to continue to play it are in some way deficient. I do believe, however, that they are simply pointing out areas of the game that they feel are weak or confusing.




I think this is what they are trying to do, but it has come off, more than once, as "The game you like now sucks, just wait until we show you how to REALLY have fun!"


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think this is what they are trying to do, but it has come off, more than once, as "The game you like now sucks, just wait until we show you how to REALLY have fun!"





I think you are, perhaps, being put off by their enthusiasm.  As was pointed out in this thread, the designers are all relatively new to WOTC, they have nothing invested in the legacy aspect of the game.  They have identified problem areas and are enthusiastically sharing their solutions.  Those on this sight who are heavily entrenched in 3.5 have found insult in their enthusiasm and have taken it as an insult to the game they love.  My advice:  lighten up and let's wait for the game to be released so that we may fully evaluate it before we write it off.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 18, 2008)

> Those on this sight who are heavily entrenched in 3.5 have found insult in their enthusiasm and have taken it as an insult to the game they love. My advice: lighten up and let's wait for the game to be released so that we may fully evaluate it before we write it off.




For me, personally, I don't have much invested in 3.5. I'm a slut for new games and new systems, and I'll play and kit-bash anything I can get my grubby little paws on.

But a lot of the reasons they've been giving for the switch seem to lay definately in a more subjective realm.

I mean, take the halfling issue just as an example. In the same game where they're espousing the idea that D&D is about playing a game, not simulating a consistent world, they're sprouting the lil' guys up in height and weight but leaving them Small-sized. The reason? Not playability, not speed, not elegance, but "believability." Because apparently it's unbelievable for child-sized people to have slightly less strength than an average Human.

That's the kind of thinking that leads to people seeing 'change for the sake of change' and 'a few designers' house rules' and 'implying that the other way sucked.'

Smaller halflings weren't inherently unbelievable, but a few designers (and possibly some vocal critics) thought it was, so they changed it despite the objections of those who were okay with it, and then said that it was so much better that way, despite not really adding much, if anything, to the game. 

I, personally, don't have much invested in what size and weight halflings are. But their motive for the change is goofy enough that I don't believe it's justified. And once you've seen one or two things like that, it's much easier to see that in future installments, and when they start talking about how obviously superior the game is, it brings up an instant reaction of "Okay, you think so, but you're obviously not playing the game the same way I am, let ME judge it."

Wereas with 3e, most of the changes really sounded like the designers were playing the way most people played. 3e has some endemic problems, but pointing out those specific qualities that are being designed away from is much more constructive than just spouting superlatives.

In short:
"We're making Grapple rules simpler. It will now involve less d20 rolls because it will be more abstract." rather than "We're making grapple rules better." 

"We're making touch AC more elegant. It's being rolled into Reflex saves." rather than "Touch AC was a horrible mess!"

"We're giving you a core setting to help newbie DM's. It's basically going to be an assemblage of random proper nouns and examples of how to design things." rather than "Greyhawk was legacy crap."

"We want making monsters to be easier, so we're going to call out exactly what characters are capable of taking on." rather than "Monsters following the same rules as PC's lead to a bloated, horrible, boring process when making new monsters."

It's totally possible to be positive and energetic about the new edition without complaining about how it sucked under 3e. If people agree with you, they already do, and if they don't, then telling them how much it sucked isn't going to win them over, but showing them exactly what you plan to do might.


----------



## Khairn (Feb 18, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think this is what they are trying to do, but it has come off, more than once, as "The game you like now sucks, just wait until we show you how to REALLY have fun!"




Whether WotC deliberately planned to promote 4E by trashing parts of 3E, or they are just overly enthusiastic as Ebon Shar has proposed, the fact is that many of their customers have been irritated by the comments.  To date, despite all the negative comments from customers on many boards, I don't believe WotC has acknowledged a thing.



			
				Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> My advice: lighten up and let's wait for the game to be released so that we may fully evaluate it before we write it off.




I agree with you, and have already signed up for a playtest of 4E when it comes out to make my "final" decision.

But for many players, their enjoyment of D&D is determined by more than just a set of rules.  Definitions of our personal "D&D" could very well include the gaming community, the relationship with the publisher, EN World, the RPGA, the mini's, artwork, maps, conventions, magazines, gaming online, Faerun, Grayhawk etc etc etc.  When dramatic changes are made to any (or all) of these elements, I am not surprised that they are then included as reasons why someone is not planning to move to another edition.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> When you start claiming to have 'fixed the math' and you are being really tight lipped about the specifics, little alarm bells go off in my head the way that they would if someone claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine.





Quoited for Truth.  I have the same feeling about the 15-minute adventuring day.


RC


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2008)

I honestly don't think anyone's pursuing a "your edition suxx0rz" marketing strategy.  They're simply highlighting the fact that they think they've provided some nifty solutions to problems that they saw.

:shrug:  I didn't think it was any secret that the 3.5 rules had a few wonky aspects to them.  The fact that they seemed to do a pretty good job of identifying what I thought were problems with the rules actually gave me some initial enthusiasm.

Subsequent preview material have indicated to me that not all the solutions are going to be to my taste, and simply identifying problems correctly while not necessarily fixing them to my satisfaction isn't going to cut it for me.  I also think that in many ways the design direction was in the _opposite_ direction I would have gone, so... yeah, my enthusiasm has waned considerably to almost nothing.

Feeling touchy or getting offended or personally insulted by the fact that the designers think they've made improvements to the game doesn't make any sense to me.  If they didn't think that, how else could they justify trying to foist a new edition on the customers?  Of course they think they've improved the game.  It wouldn't make any sense if they didn't believe that.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 18, 2008)

Wow. Leave the board for a few hours, and peaceful thread where people were stating their opinions and reasons why they (most likely) won't switch has turned into a full-blown edition war thread, complete with an ignored moderator's reminder to take the side discussions to their own thread.

Couldn't the pro-4E crowd simply leave this thread alone? Did the anti-4E crowd pee all over the counterthread (no idea because I don't go there, as I have nothing to say there at all)? Could we let the whole discussion die down again please? Would be nice if this thread didn't get locked because of increasing antagonism two pages down the road. Thanks all.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Feeling touchy or getting offended or personally insulted by the fact that the designers think they've made improvements to the game doesn't make any sense to me.  If they didn't think that, how else could they justify trying to foist a new edition on the customers?  Of course they think they've improved the game.  It wouldn't make any sense if they didn't believe that.




If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?

Sure, people can learn from experience.  It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process....

Eh. 

I'm not really personally offended, by the way.  It is a minor irritation in my life, something I only think about when I read a developer's blog or come to these boards.  I don't lose sleep over 4e.

After all, I need good rest so I can run fun games of v3.5.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Eh.




You sigged me!

I'm not sure whether to dance a jig or put on my tinfoil hat.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?
> 
> Sure, people can learn from experience.  It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process....




I don't see any problem with this, frankly, because people often do improve their work by revisiting it with new and fresh ideas they've gathered. DaVinci's _Mona Lisa_ took 17 years to complete, with 3 revisions of the initial work. But you're right in that continued work on a piece doesn't guarantee it gets better (as _Star Wars_ fans, myself included, can tell you ad nauseum).

I'm currently not really leaning toward switching at all. As I said in another thread, unlike 3E which I was skeptical of at first but became more accepting the more I read about it, I am getting more skeptical of 4E the more I hear about it. I think that's because more and more of the changes seem less oriented on what I consider to be necessary fixes and improvement to the core game and more oriented around presenting a totally different core that I'm not sure I want to have. That said, I'll give it a try no matter what. I've already ordered the PHB and DMG via Amazon so I can evaluate how the game will fit into my long term gaming plans.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?



So the act of revision is impossible if you don't get it exactly right the first time?


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So the act of revision is impossible if you don't get it exactly right the first time?




No, because that would be a ludicrous claim.

Which is why I said earlier:

"Sure, people can learn from experience. It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process...."

Imagine a car commercial.

Announcer:  "Sure, our 2007 model had some flaws...faulty brakes...gas leaks...cheap electronics.  But this time we've got it right.  Trust us!  This car is cool, and driving it is intuitive."

Sales would be amazing, I'm sure.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You sigged me!
> 
> I'm not sure whether to dance a jig or put on my tinfoil hat.




Why not do both, just in case?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I honestly don't think anyone's pursuing a "your edition suxx0rz" marketing strategy.  They're simply highlighting the fact that they think they've provided some nifty solutions to problems that they saw.
> 
> :shrug:  I didn't think it was any secret that the 3.5 rules had a few wonky aspects to them.  The fact that they seemed to do a pretty good job of identifying what I thought were problems with the rules actually gave me some initial enthusiasm.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much in line with you.  If I thought 3X was perfect I never would have been excited about 4E when it was announced.

I'm far from offended by 3X slams (though I do think they have been more harsh than you seem to).    But to me that approach just makes it all the more clear that I should stay far away from 4e.

I also think that certain design parameters have very likely been forced on them for better or for worse.  I think these changes are for three reasons: Create justifications for a new edition even if it isn't truly needed, build a game that translates better into a generally accepted MMORPG*, and the theory that a lower effort requirement (simplification) will result in a wider player base.


* -  I am not saying they are making D&D into a computer game. I don't buy that.  But there is a difference between making P&P play like online and making a ruleset that is easier to translate into an established successful online model.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process...."



I write software for a (very) small IT company. I make my living fixing the 'previous edition's flaws' that I am, in fact, responsible for...


----------



## billd91 (Feb 18, 2008)

cperkins said:
			
		

> As for SKR's rants against 2nd edition, I guess the reason why I wasn't annoyed was that I agreed with his assertions.  The infravision/ultravision split always had me scratching my head and the self-destructing drow equipment just seemed like a screw-bot to me... you fought drow who were equipped to the gills and, when you managed to defeat them, the loot that helped them to beat the crap out of your party went "poof".




Actually, I loved the self-destructing Drow gear. You could load the NPCs up with the stuff, the PCs could loot and use the gear as long as they stayed engaged with the Drow campaign, and you didn't have to worry about long-term campaign imbalance because of it. Fantastic! Tidy!

Plus, it contributed to the explanation why the Drow, growing as mighty as they were, preferred to use indirect methods to mess up the surface rather than conduct their own raiding.

I approached this, perhaps obviously, from the viewpoint of the DM because I DMed the D series in my home game. But those brittle weapons were a fun, useful, and safe tool.


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 18, 2008)

Getting back to the topic, why I'm not switching, and other people aren't switching, could be summed up like this:

Why should we switch?  We were happy with 3.5, and it might not be perfect but it was pretty good.  WotC has to convince us that 4e is better than what we have now, not just present a product and assume we will buy it because it's the new edition of D&D.  They haven't convinced many of us to switch.  In fact, their marketing/previews have convinced some of us to steer clear instead of switching over.

It's clear that WotC has designed 4e with a very specific set of design goals and preferences in mind, and if you don't like those ideas then 4e is probably not for you.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Why not do both, just in case?




Ever worn tinfoil? It's effin' hot, especially while dancing a jig.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 18, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> But I also suspect that there was more general agreement with the warts of 1E/2E, even from the fans of the game, and more general disatisfaction with the game at the time of 2E than there is now.  In particular, you could have heard 'badwrongfun' rants from me about 2E back when the edition first came out (I never really moved from 1E), and by the time 3E came out I was no longer playing D&D because I'd been frustrated by various limitations in the 1E/2E shared mechanics.  I certainly didn't think of D&D as an industry leader back when 3E was coming out.  Virtually noone I knew was playing it.  I knew alot of people playing WW games.  The bookstores gaming sections were whole rows of green backed WoD books.  I knew of alot of people playing Dead Lands, and a guy getting together a CoC: Delta Green game.  Heck, I knew about more RIFTS groups than D&D groups at the time.  If D&D wasn't dead, it was certainly dying.



I think the most substantive difference this time around is sheer numbers. Not only numbers of players but numbers of voices being heard.

Sure there were boards around to discuss D&D but none, not even this site, was as massive as it, and others, are now as when 3e was first introduced.

I think if you could retroactively survey people about their feelings on 3e before it came out and compared it to a survey now about people's feelings about 4e, that the _percentages_ of those who were dissatisfied with previous editions and those who were happy with previous editions would be roughly the same.



			
				Scarbonac said:
			
		

> It is too freaking soon for a new edition of D&D.



Well, 3.x is eight years old. How long do you expect them to wait? Personally, I'm in the "can't wait" camp and would've liked to have seen this revision sooner, as are a lot of people.



			
				Scarbonac said:
			
		

> I am disgusted with what appears to me to be a blatant money-grab by releasing yearly PHB's, DMG's, etc, with classic elements spread among them like bacon bits on  a salad as an inducement to buy. As someone else said, "the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit".



This somewhat contradicts your previous statement. If you're upset that they're introducing a new edition then part of that sentiment implies that you're upset you won't be seeing new material for 3.x. But WotC is a company and if they go broke, then you won't be seeing any new material at all.

I think certain realities must be accepted, one of them being that WotC needs to make a profit in order to keep producing content. I guess you could say you don't care if they do or do not produce new content, as you're happy with your current material, but then, would've you gotten your current material if WotC hadn't of said, "2e is tired, let's create and market a new system!"?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 18, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> It's clear that WotC has designed 4e with a very specific set of design goals and preferences in mind, and if you don't like those ideas then 4e is probably not for you.



That may well be true, but I don't know that I think it's clear.  Nor is it clear exactly what those goals and preferences are.  At least not to me.

Saying, "d00d, that's so anime and WoWish" or whatever, and writing the game off seems---at best---premature.  We really don't know that much about it.

I'm a bit turned off by what looks like a proliferation of abilities, making the game harder to play and run (as opposed to those who claim that it's been "dumbed down" for the WoW playing kiddies or something) as well as the lack of backwards compatability, since my existing collection is a big part of the reason I like the existing version; I've got so many options I can use.

Other than that, my reasons for not wanting to switch aren't based on previews, but on other things that are completely ancillary.  I don't think the previews have been enough to convince me one way _or_ the other, if that was my deciding factor.  They've been pretty sparse.


----------



## variant (Feb 18, 2008)

For me, the tiefling as a race in the PHB is a deal breaker.


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 18, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But there is a difference between making P&P play like online and making a ruleset that is easier to translate into an established successful online model.




Do you know anything about programming games? Because as a professional, I can tell you that simplifying D&D's math would have the opposite effect of making it video-game-ready. It makes it easier for humans to play, which entirely defeats the purpose of having the computer processing it.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 18, 2008)

variant said:
			
		

> For me, the tiefling as a race in the PHB is a deal breaker.





Now why would that be a deal breaker?  I've known people who could not stand halflings.  They simply choose not to play them.  Why does the arbitrary inclusion of a race that you don't like disquality an entire edition of the rules?  If you find that 4E is right up your alley, the best thing to happen to D&D since the flumph, would you still refuse to play, or would you simply disallow tieflings in your campaign?


----------



## Kzach (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about programming games? Because as a professional, I can tell you that simplifying D&D's math would have the opposite effect of making it video-game-ready. It makes it easier for humans to play, which entirely defeats the purpose of having the computer processing it.



As someone who has been playing WoW for the last three years in a rather addictive fashion, and one of those years as the top rogue in an SSC/TK raiding guild (rogues have a lot of math to crunch), I can vouch for this comment 

The math in WoW is so incredibly convoluted that there is no way in Hell you could do a direct correlation to P&P without massive amounts of conversion and simplification.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Do you know anything about programming games? Because as a professional, I can tell you that simplifying D&D's math would have the opposite effect of making it video-game-ready. It makes it easier for humans to play, which entirely defeats the purpose of having the computer processing it.



I'm not a professional game programmer, but yes I do.

But my point has nothing to do with the simplification point.  You are blurring two different points on my list.  I see common points in how the 4e math "works" and how WoW math "works". 

Besides, there is a big difference between "needing" a computer to do it and having it be a good way to work for a MMORPG.


----------



## hong (Feb 18, 2008)

Actually, I also thought the tieflings were lame at first, until I read the description of the ancient empire of Bael Turath in Worlds & Monsters. That caused me to reimagine them as a devil-consorting eldritch race reminiscent of the Melniboneans, and they instantly swopped from lame to awesome.

I am ditching their tails and horns, however. Good god almighty.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Feb 18, 2008)

Wow, now the OP has started second-guessing and cross-questioning the posters as well. I think the thread can be savely labeled "Titanic" now and be left before the icebergs show up.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> As someone who has been playing WoW for the last three years in a rather addictive fashion, and one of those years as the top rogue in an SSC/TK raiding guild (rogues have a lot of math to crunch), I can vouch for this comment
> 
> The math in WoW is so incredibly convoluted that there is no way in Hell you could do a direct correlation to P&P without massive amounts of conversion and simplification.



Yeah, but that has nothing to do with my point.
The baseline system of scaling attacks, damage, defenses, and hp with level is there.  (as a key but far from only example)
Piling vast variations on top of that in a computer game is of course going to make the final system far more complex.  

If you want it to be a two way street then you are not catching the point.


----------



## Kzach (Feb 18, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Wow, now the OP has started second-guessing and cross-questioning the posters as well. I think the thread can be savely labeled "Titanic" now and be left before the icebergs show up.



0.o

Sorry for involving myself in the discussion. I wasn't aware that this is a statement only thread and that no discussion of issues was allowed.


----------



## hong (Feb 18, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I'm not a professional game programmer, but yes I do.
> 
> But my point has nothing to do with the simplification point.  You are blurring two different points on my list.  I see common points in how the 4e math "works" and how WoW math "works".




I see common points in how 3E maths works and how WoW maths works. Insert generic food metaphor here.


----------



## hong (Feb 18, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Yeah, but that has nothing to do with my point.
> The baseline system of scaling attacks, damage, defenses, and hp with level is there.  (as a key but far from only example)




Attacks, saves, spells and hp scale with level in every version of D&D ever made.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 18, 2008)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Wow, now the OP has started second-guessing and cross-questioning the posters as well. I think the thread can be savely labeled "Titanic" now and be left before the icebergs show up.




man what


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 18, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Now why would that be a deal breaker?  I've known people who could not stand halflings.  They simply choose not to play them.  Why does the arbitrary inclusion of a race that you don't like disquality an entire edition of the rules?  If you find that 4E is right up your alley, the best thing to happen to D&D since the flumph, would you still refuse to play, or would you simply disallow tieflings in your campaign?



I think of Tieflings as a PC race in the PHB as a deal-breaker, but not by itself.  It's a sign of a pervasive attitude that seems to fill 4e, the disregard of established setting presumptions and meta-setting information.

As was pointed out, the 4e design staff are not longtime D&D design veterans.  We don't have the likes of Skip Williams who had been with D&D since the early days at work here, we have people who are excellent designers, but ones with not as much investment in the traditions of the game and as dedicated to making a game that is as much a continuation of what came before as a good game in its own right.

When 3e came out, one reason I knew a lot of longtime veterans switched over was that it had a lot of respect for what came before with D&D, it brought back things that hadn't been in 2e but in 1e (Assassins, Monks, Barbarians, Half-Orcs), it acknowledged Greyhawk as the standard D&D world (at least in theory).  4e dumps Greyhawk, it dumps Monks, it dumps a lot of the "legacy code support" that made 3e popular to some veterans.

Previously, Tiefling PC's were treated as something possible, but only on the fringe.  They weren't PC's at all in 1e, not in any official source I know of.  In 2e they were a planescape-specific race.  In 3e they were included in the FRCS but were still implied to be rare and generally only found in a few places and Tiefling NPC's were very rare.  In 4e they are going right into the PHB. . .replacing Gnomes that had been there since 1e.   Out goes something people expect in the core rules of D&D (and not the newspeak definition of Core), in something comes that is not associated with the main body of the rules.  The races in the PHB are generally assumed, or at least are by the gamers I know IRL, to be the most common ones in the gaming world.   So, D&D 4e now presumes gnomes are so rare as to be a "monster" race, but Tieflings and glorified lizardmen are as common as gnomes once were.

D&D before had been built to have a presumed flavor, and that was a pseudo-medieval theme, a little Tolkienesque, borrowing in places from a few other fantasy sources, and in some part a library of it's own unique setting presumptions.  From what we've seen so far, 4e is throwing out the pseudo-medieval Tolkienism and the unique setting presumptions for a different flavor and set of setting presumptions altogether.

So, tiefling PC's in the PHB might not be the reason to skip 4e on it's own, but it's a symptom of the design mentality which is chasing some of us away.


----------



## Primal (Feb 18, 2008)

Personally, I haven't seen anything in 4E "crunch" or "fluff" so far that I would have considered either innovative or interesting. Quite the opposite, in fact, but I'm not going to elaborate this further, because pretty much all of my reasons have already been posted on this thread.

We had a vote in all of the groups I game with (four in all) and all of us (20 gamers, including all the DMs) unanimously decided to keep playing 3E until 5E is coming out -- then we'll see if it suits our preferences better than 4E. And it's not as if we don't have enough 3E stuff to keep playing 3E for ten, fifteen years at least.


----------



## Mark Hope (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Getting back to the topic, why I'm not switching, and other people aren't switching, could be summed up like this:
> 
> Why should we switch?  We were happy with 3.5, and it might not be perfect but it was pretty good.  WotC has to convince us that 4e is better than what we have now, not just present a product and assume we will buy it because it's the new edition of D&D.  They haven't convinced many of us to switch.  In fact, their marketing/previews have convinced some of us to steer clear instead of switching over.



QFT.

The question for many of us is not "why won't I switch?" but "why should I switch?"  There's a different default position there.  As I said upthread, my reasons for not switching have more to do with a satisfaction with 3e than with any dislike for 4e.  WotC have simply failed to convince me that I need to change.  But good luck and good gaming to those who do make the change.  Some of us have simply chosen to stay where we are.  Such is the nature of gaming.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Feb 19, 2008)

Mark Hope said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> The question for many of us is not "why won't I switch?" but "why should I switch?"  There's a different default position there.  As I said upthread, my reasons for not switching have more to do with a satisfaction with 3e than with any dislike for 4e.  WotC have simply failed to convince me that I need to change.  But good luck and good gaming to those who do make the change.  Some of us have simply chosen to stay where we are.  Such is the nature of gaming.




Yeah, this is a point that seems to be lost on a lot of the totally pro-4E crowd.

We finally have a rules set that is basically complete.  Core books and class books that have gone through multiple iterations, multiple settings built with these rules in mind, and ancillary books for dragons, aberrations, demons, and undead.  I would have liked a book about Humanoids, but that's a nit.  Plus, there are numerous adventures and adventure paths, many of which are some of the best pieces of writing ever to be produced for D&D.

Likewise, we have 8 years of accumulated system mastery.  I can basically run 3E encounters now without thinking.  my 3E battles are just as fast as my 1E battles were.  

Suddenly, we're supposed to shelve it all, not because major portions of it were broken, or because gamers were leaving in droves for competing systems, but simply because some bean-counters at WoTC decided it maximized   the Hasbro bottom line for us to switch editions every 8 years.

Well, that can work, but there is a big burden on the part of WoTC to show why we should switch systems.  So far, I see Hasbro

1) Telling us 4E is cool, instead of showing us.
2) killing the highest-quality publication to be produced for D&D in ages (Dungeon Magazine)
3) sacrificing the simulationist side of D&D
4) Screwing with what got me back to D&D in the first place (the OGL)

None of this makes me want to commit to spending thousands of dollars over the next 5 years acquiring a new system, when the one I have works fine for me.


----------



## Dark Psion (Feb 19, 2008)

OK, Back to Why I won't switch;

1: I like the current game! The amount of resources that are available to me allow me to create almost anything I can imagine and what I think is the best version of D&D to date allows me to play the game I want to play. I have no desire to "re-learn" D&D and so much that is part of my game will be missing from the 4E inital release (Psionics, Gnomes, Bards, etc) that it just wouldn't be worth it to change over.

2: The desecration of D&D. The cancelling of Dragon & Dungeon magazines, the destruction of the Forgotten Realms and the overall negative attacks on 3rd & 3.5 editions has left a bad taste in my mouth. And what we have seen so far on the WotC website has been of such poor quality and frequency, that it only reminds me of what has been lost.

3: The overall changes of 4E. OK, I think  understand why so much has to be changed. The real focus of 4E and the number one goal is simple; Regain control of the D&D product.

WotC made a mistake with the SRD, they gave away control of their product. They never expected the little RPG companies to make their own Player's Handbooks, or games like Mutants & Masterminds and they especially never forsaw that some gamers would just take the free SRD and make their own game from it. But there is a problem, the SRD is eternal. If 10 years from now some company wants to, they could release D&D using the 3rd and 3.5 rules from the SRD.

To reclaim their product, WotC must create a completely different game and call it D&D. In fact, if any aspect of 4E resembles 3rd or 3.5E, it might open the door for a company to use the SRD to gain access to it. This why all the rules must be changed, why the Realms must be destroyed, and why you will never see 4E Greyhawk, Ravenloft or Planescape. Oh and Eberron fans, mark my words, when 4E Eberron is revealed it will get the same treatment the Realms got.

And personally, I don't want or need and a completely new Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## lutecius (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Not to be contrary, but would you recommend they use such adjectives as:  mediocre, somewhat okay, or the-best-we-could-do?  They are in the business of making money, so of course they are going to market the game in such a way as to elicit excitement.



I am not sure they are eliciting excitement with their "so cool much funner" superlatives. 
it's ok for a reviewer or an outsider to make those comments, but from designers it just comes off as a lame marketing mantra.

what bugs me and i suspect others, is not the overuse of one word (like some wotc staffers chose to think) it is that what's "cool" is not really theirs to decide. it's like saying "hi, i'm sexy" as anything other than a joke, no matter how hot you are.

they should stick to more objective qualifiers like "we made that a lot faster/ simpler" or even "more likely to attract new gamers" if they must.

Of course, that attitude alone is not a reason for me not to switch, but it surely does not help.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> So, tiefling PC's in the PHB might not be the reason to skip 4e on it's own, but it's a symptom of the design mentality which is chasing some of us away.





I don't think it is safe to finalize assumptions of design mentality.  The arguments presented so far have basically boiled down to, "that's not my game anymore.  Why must they change that?"

Well, the point of change is innovation.  Without change, there can be no innovation.  Perhaps the game will not substantially reflect prior editions, but why is that a bad thing?


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> I don't think it is safe to finalize assumptions of design mentality.  The arguments presented so far have basically boiled down to, "that's not my game anymore.  Why must they change that?"
> 
> Well, the point of change is innovation.  Without change, there can be no innovation.  Perhaps the game will not substantially reflect prior editions, but why is that a bad thing?


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>




Clever, but one example of failed innovation does not invalidate my argument.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Clever, but one example of failed innovation does not invalidate my argument.


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Now I'm thirsty. 

Anyway, this example would be more relevent to the discussion at hand:


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Now I'm thirsty.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>



Oh now, that's just cheating.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Oh now, that's just cheating.




Just wait until I start posting pics of whaleboys.


----------



## rgard (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> I don't think it is safe to finalize assumptions of design mentality.  The arguments presented so far have basically boiled down to, "that's not my game anymore.  Why must they change that?"
> 
> Well, the point of change is innovation.  Without change, there can be no innovation.  Perhaps the game will not substantially reflect prior editions, but why is that a bad thing?




I for one don't have a problem with innovation.  As far as rpgs go, 3.X/OGL delivered the innovation I wanted.  My players can adventure in the worlds of Star Wars, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Stargate, Star Trek, CoC, Barsoom, Starship Troopers, Traveller, Everquest, the World of Warcraft, Wheel of Time, Elric, Blackmoor, Shannara, Thieves World, Grim Tales, D20 Modern, D20 Past, D20 Future, Conan and many others using the same basic game mechanics.  And that is just a cursory glance at my book case of rpgs.

I'm confident there will be folks who continue to produce 3.X/OGL compatible stuff.  I'll be buying their products.  I'll continue to buy WotC's Dungeon Tiles as I don't think whatever they to with 4E will change that product line.

Innovation isn't bad, I have a bookcase full of innovation I want to game my way through.  

4E's innovation isn't bad, it's just not for me at this time.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

rgard said:
			
		

> I for one don't have a problem with innovation.  As far as rpgs go, 3.X/OGL delivered the innovation I wanted.  My players can adventure in the worlds of Star Wars, Greyhawk, the Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, Stargate, Star Trek, CoC, Barsoom, Starship Troopers, Traveller, Everquest, the World of Warcraft, Wheel of Time, Elric, Blackmoor, Shannara, Thieves World, Grim Tales, D20 Modern, D20 Past, D20 Future, Conan and many others using the same basic game mechanics.  And that is just a cursory glance at my book case of rpgs.




Good point!  I hadn't really thought of this.

I doubt that we will see such a broad range of products released under the GSL.  It seems to be pushing all third party products toward D&D style fantasy.....

Hmmm....


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> I doubt that we will see such a broad range of products released under the GSL.  It seems to be pushing all third party products toward D&D style fantasy.....



There will apparently be another license (a more broad, or open one) somewhere down the track. I seem to recall that will come with d20 Modern v2.0, but I'm not absolutely sure.


----------



## Gallo22 (Feb 19, 2008)

Gryffyn said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, for me it's the changes in resource management that have me down on the new edition.  I actually liked having to deal with limited resources, and being clever about getting the most out of them.  I know many people aren't fond of that, and I don't begrudge them wanting to eliminate the "15-minute workday."  In the end, the resource management challenges were a fundamental part of what made D&D different from its competitors in the FRPG market.




Well said!! I love it when my players think out of the box, when their resources are limited and succeed galantly!!  I give them hugh EX for this.  I've had my players do some awesume things with very little and come out on top of the "bad guys".


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> There will apparently be another license (a more broad, or open one) somewhere down the track. I seem to recall that will come with d20 Modern v2.0, but I'm not absolutely sure.




Well, this would be good news.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Well, this would be good news.



Damn. 

I hate being the bringer of glad tidings. Hang on a sec, I'll try looking up the details. Hopefully I can debunk my own claim. 


edit --- Heh, nothing definite, just this: "Future versions of the OGL, including a 4e d20 Modern version, *may* make certain games possible where they weren’t before." (emphasis mine) It's from the EN World 4e page, btw.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

re: RACES

I think this is a case of what does WOTC listen to what its audience wants. Take the Dragonborn for example, as that seems like a too outlandish race to my mind. However, looking back at the history of 3.x, exactly how many times did we run across Half-dragon races/templates. 

From the very beginning with the Dragon Disciple to the end in the PHB2's Dragon Shaman, it seemed every year WOTC released a "let's play as a dragon-inspired PC". Now while I'm personally dumbfounded by this appeal, I think it makes sense for WOTC to put Dragonborn into the PHB since quite frankly, dragon-pc ARE popular and not listening to your audience is not something I would advise.

re: Tieflings
Yeah, as soon as I read about Bael Turath I thought, Melniboneans as well.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> From the very beginning with the Dragon Disciple to the end in the PHB2's Dragon Shaman, it seemed every year WOTC released a "let's play as a dragon-inspired PC". Now while I'm personally dumbfounded by this appeal, I think it makes sense for WOTC to put Dragonborn into the PHB since quite frankly, dragon-pc ARE popular and not listening to your audience is not something I would advise.



Absolutely. Angels and demons, and stuff to do with them, are *insanely* popular too. Have been for years. And so. . .


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> When 3e came out, one reason I knew a lot of longtime veterans switched over was that it had a lot of respect for what came before with D&D, it brought back things that hadn't been in 2e but in 1e (Assassins, Monks, Barbarians, Half-Orcs), it acknowledged Greyhawk as the standard D&D world (at least in theory).




That's true, and not something I'd really noticed.  Alot of the excitement about 3e was because alot of "classic" D&D tropes were coming back - demons and devils also spring to mind.  I don't see -any- of that with 4e.  Instead, I see WotC emphasizing the new things they added in 3e (tieflings originated in 2e Planescape, yadda yadda yadda, point stands vis a vis warlock, martial "spells" aka maneuvers, 4e "tested" in book of 9 pointy things, etc).

Now, I like the new things.  They are shiny.  But they are also quick to propagate, fickle, and prone to errata, and in some curmudgeonly corner of my heart, it bothers me that alot of the empasis in the previews has been on the shiny and new.

The juvenile tone is also annoying (X beat up X and took his stuff).

I'm still going to buy the core books, but my level of enthusiasm is alot lower than it could've been.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Now I'm thirsty.
> 
> Anyway, this example would be more relevent to the discussion at hand:




You win, Wolfspider.  Innovation is dead.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 19, 2008)

Why won't I switch? Well, it's not a definite decision by far. I haven't seen the final product after all . And, as many have mentioned, I don't really see the need to do so at the moment. I have too much 3.x stuff I still want to use before I abandon a system I'm used to.

My main reasons:

I don't like the business model. I don't like anything I heard about the DDI, and I don't like the "rolling release" model. At the moment, it looks like 4e will be able to have a long lifetime, but only in the sense as MtG has a long lifetime: each year, you will get a slightly changed ruleset. Tell me that I'm wrong, but that's what it looks like to me. I want to have a longer time of stability.
As already said, I have too much 3.x stuff I still want to use. I simply don't need a new edition at the moment.
I didn't like Iron Heroes, and I didn't like the Bo9S. This is also a real dealbreaker. I applaud the attempts to make the job for the DM easier, but I don't like all this additional stuff loaded into the encounters. Wizards may become simpler to run, but everything else looks more complicated. Not my cup of tea.
Tieflings. OK, this is a weak point. As hong said, I could get rid of the silly horns and tails and still live with the cool background. But I'm adverse to having a huge influence of demons and/or devils on any of my campaigns, at least as a baseline. And with tieflings as core race, this influence will be everywhere. I couldn't care less about this kind of flavor.
I said that the last point is weak, and much of this has to do with the fact that everything I hear about 4e looks a bit like the "Best of 3.x". And I don't only mean "Best of WotC 3.x" but also "Best of 3rd Party OGL". Take those tieflings. The whole idea looks like taken directly from Dawnforge; it was the one central original idea of that setting, at least IMHO. Now it will be core D&D. Or Dragonborn; they looked like WotC's take on the Mojh of Arcana Unearthed, and if they are less connected to Bahamut in 4e, the similarity will be even closer. Both ideas were very well accepted, and here they are. And Warforged were the idea from Eberron that was a hit with the fans.

Maybe, it's not even only "Best of 3.x", but also "Best of AD&D". The jewel that stood out, IMHO, from Birthright was it's take on fey. I often wrote here on EN World that I found those Birthright fey fey done right. And here we are. I was also one of those people who wrote in those "what is the cosmology in your homebrews" threads, and what I heard about 4e so far, it will look pretty close to my homebrew (and those of many other people). And let's add that the ultimate "Points of Light" setting for me is Dark Sun, although this is hardly the only example (see the popular Wilderlands).

Anyway, what I want to say is that I notice that WotC's 4th edition actually seems to fulfill quite a lot of the wishes I had for D&D, and much of it will for some weird reason look closer to my homebrew than anything of 3.x ever looked. Maybe, that's why it makes it even harder for me to swallow the toads that come with the cake.

If this sounded confusing, it was probably because I'm still confused. Let's see how the release version will actually look like. I'm not in a hurry to look at it, though.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Not to be contrary, but would you recommend they use such adjectives as:  mediocre, somewhat okay, or the-best-we-could-do?  They are in the business of making money, so of course they are going to market the game in such a way as to elicit excitement.




I would like them to use a more sophisticated approach to marketing the game. I can't put it in words very well, but a comparision would be that I am looking to buy a new car, and Audi would try to sell me their latest model on the merits of it having cool colors. I would ask myself what target audience they lump me in with.

Stuff like "more streamlined" "easier to prepare" "more balanced between casters and fighters" "less of a shift between low-, mid- and high-level gameplay" appeals to me. "Cool" "awesome" "Super" etc. simply sound fake to me coming from designers and marketing.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 19, 2008)

lutecius said:
			
		

> I am not sure they are eliciting excitement with their "so cool much funner" superlatives.
> it's ok for a reviewer or an outsider to make those comments, but from designers it just comes off as a lame marketing mantra.
> 
> what bugs me and i suspect others, is not the overuse of one word (like some wotc staffers chose to think) it is that what's "cool" is not really theirs to decide. it's like saying "hi, i'm sexy" as anything other than a joke, no matter how hot you are.
> ...




Lutecius said it better than I did.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> From the very beginning with the Dragon Disciple to the end in the PHB2's Dragon Shaman, it seemed every year WOTC released a "let's play as a dragon-inspired PC". Now while I'm personally dumbfounded by this appeal, I think it makes sense for WOTC to put Dragonborn into the PHB since quite frankly, dragon-pc ARE popular and not listening to your audience is not something I would advise.




I have exactly one player who plays a PC related to a dragon in any way - and that's a relation as in "my character has about 1/1000th of dragon blood".

I don't know anyone who thinks playing a lizardman, even if called "Dragonborn", is appealing.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I have exactly one player who plays a PC related to a dragon in any way - and that's a relation as in "my character has about 1/1000th of dragon blood".
> 
> I don't know anyone who thinks playing a lizardman, even if called "Dragonborn", is appealing.




I would agree EXCEPT that as I mentioned, it seems like there wasa Half-dragon prestige class/class/template being produced EVERY year. Unless WOTC was producing those things on a whim (and given their business sense, I doubt it), there had to be a LARGE segment of the populace who like "Half-Dragon" pcs.

How many half-orc "things" did we see in 3.0? Hell, how many orc supplements did we get? Someone had to been buying all that Dragon stuff and while it certainly wasn't either of us, I'm guessing we were easily in the minority

re: Marketing
Mearls et al have said things like "we want to make the classes more equal so the wizards have been decreased in power at high levels" yet it pretty much gets ignored. 

Statements like "This is a cooler way of doing X" actually seems to get people talking/examing the rule. Statements like "This is how we're doing X now" without any qualifications of being "better/cooler/faster" is poor marketing as well since it doesn't show that the designers have any enthusiasm for their rules.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> re: Marketing
> Mearls et al have said things like "we want to make the classes more equal so the wizards have been decreased in power at high levels" yet it pretty much gets ignored.
> 
> Statements like "This is a cooler way of doing X" actually seems to get people talking/examing the rule. Statements like "This is how we're doing X now" without any qualifications of being "better/cooler/faster" is poor marketing as well since it doesn't show that the designers have any enthusiasm for their rules.




I did not ignore it. I did ignoreanything like "this is a cooler way" statements since they just sound like marketing.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Feb 19, 2008)

This:



			
				PoeticJustice said:
			
		

> 4) I am entering a period of my life where I would rather invest in good board games than good role playing games.
> 
> *6) If gnomes aren't cool enough for 4E PHB, I'm not either.*


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> You win, Wolfspider.  Innovation is dead.




You know, though, that a few folks simply don't see anything innovative about the 4e previews we've seen so far?  And, a few folks see some things being "fixed" that seem to imply that either (1) the designers didn't understand the function of the thing being "fixed" to begin with, or (2) (far more likely) the "fix" is occuring for reasons other than "fixing" things that are broken.  

As a really good example:  Saving Throws.  How often have you has rolling saves slowed down your play to an unbearable grinding halt?  I can count the number of times IME on one hand.  Even if I cut off the fingers.  Even if I cut off the hand.

Tieflings and dragonborn aren't innovative.  Per-encounter abilities aren't innovative.  WotC could have renamed the Green and Grey Lymbo from my story hour to have gained their new and innovative cosmology.....and believe me, it wasn't new and innovative in my story hour either.

With 3e, we had a team that believed that D&D, to some large degree, must belong to its fans and its players in order to be a living, successful thing.  And it was a living, successful thing.  Too successful, perhaps, from WotC's viewpoint.  It allowed the little birds to leave the nest, and although doing so made WotC money, with each bird that grew on its own the idea surely occurred that the money that bird earned could have been in WotC's coffers.  Hence, with 4e, we have a concerted effort to keep those birds in the nest forever.  

But here's the rub, IMHO:  The reason that those "birds" made money is because the third parties creating them had a very different attitude than WotC had.  And, IMHO, the fluff part of 4e is WotC entrenching itself even further in a position that, simply put, sucks for the consumer.  There is a reason that Frost & Fur was a better book than Frostburn (IMO, at least), and that is that the writers/producers of the former were free to suggest that the game is a lot more than statblocks and levelling.  

WotC is far from the leader of the pack in innovation.  Indeed, it is seemingly attempting to make itself the leader by curtailing third party innovation.  If anything, those who favour innovation should be avoiding 4e like the plague....until and unless it is released with an actual OGL.

YMMV, of course.


RC


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Well, the point of change is innovation.  Without change, there can be no innovation.  Perhaps the game will not substantially reflect prior editions, but why is that a bad thing?



Change for the sake of change is not progress.  

Being honest, and a little cynical, I thought the main purpose of this change was so WotC could sell more books by labeling more books as Core and getting the existing D&D player base to subscribe to a monthly web service and buy the books they'll need play D&D all over again (and keep re-buying them every year to stay current) rather than to innovate and inherently improve the game.

If it will not substantially reflect prior editions, is it really a new edition of the same game or just a similar game with the "Dungeons and Dragons" name on the cover?


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 19, 2008)

I do like the perspective of thinking that the status quo is that I'll remain with 3e rather than update to 4e just because it's being released.

Rather than 4e being something that I need to be talked out of, it's something that I need to be talked into.  I don't automatically, by default, assume that I'm going to buy it---it has to sell itself to me.

A lot of the rancor and antagonism would disappear from these discussions if we weren't coming from different default positions, or if we at least recognized those two default positions.

My default position on any luxury item is that I _won't_ buy it, unless I'm convinced that I really want it.  A new edition of D&D certainly qualifies.  I assume in general that I won't buy it, unless there's a really compelling suite of reasons to do to.  So far, the reasons haven't been quite compelling enough.  I don't have to be a "hater" I just have to think that I'm happy enough with 3e to not bother.

Yes, I know.  I said rancor.  RAWR!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> Rather than 4e being something that I need to be talked out of, it's something that I need to be talked into.  I don't automatically, by default, assume that I'm going to buy it---it has to sell itself to me.




Quoted For Truth.

And +Rep for the Star Wars reference.    

RC


----------



## Greylock (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I would agree EXCEPT that as I mentioned, it seems like there wasa Half-dragon prestige class/class/template being produced EVERY year. Unless WOTC was producing those things on a whim (and given their business sense, I doubt it), there had to be a LARGE segment of the populace who like "Half-Dragon" pcs.




I've never met that populace in real life, on the streets, at the game store, or at a gaming table.

Oddly enough, I have met them in cyber-space - all the twelve year olds I ran into playing Neverwinter Nights who thought the whole point of the game  was to play a Dragon Disciple.


----------



## hong (Feb 19, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I've never met that populace in real life, on the streets, at the game store, or at a gaming table.
> 
> Oddly enough, I have met them in cyber-space - all the twelve year olds I ran into playing Neverwinter Nights who thought the whole point of the game  was to play a Dragon Disciple.



 Twelve-year-olds with MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME THAN YOU.

HAW HAW!


----------



## Rel (Feb 19, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I do like the perspective of thinking that the status quo is that I'll remain with 3e rather than update to 4e just because it's being released.
> 
> Rather than 4e being something that I need to be talked out of, it's something that I need to be talked into.  I don't automatically, by default, assume that I'm going to buy it---it has to sell itself to me.




I agree with this philosophy completely.  However I will say that some of the stuff I've seen has me leaning a bit more "pro" than I originally thought I'd be.  I'm still not completely sold however and probably won't be until I get a good look at the final product.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I've never met that populace in real life, on the streets, at the game store, or at a gaming table.
> 
> Oddly enough, I have met them in cyber-space - all the twelve year olds I ran into playing Neverwinter Nights who thought the whole point of the game  was to play a Dragon Disciple.




I call shenanigans on this.

SOMEONE has to be buying this Dragon-stuff. By my count, they're 3 Dragon-based products from 3.5 era. As a niche, it completely dwarfs (pun intended) gnomes and half-orcs niches. Its like I'm watching the 1E/2E version of "no-one I know plays elves/drow" on r.g.f.d.

Yeah, right.

So fess up, which of us is the Dragonophile (I state with 100% truthery I didn't buy one single Dragon-product neither did I use any other dragon mechanic such as the shaman/disciple so its obviously not me   )


----------



## Falstaff (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I call shenanigans on this.
> 
> SOMEONE has to be buying this Dragon-stuff. By my count, they're 3 Dragon-based products from 3.5 era. As a niche, it completely dwarfs (pun intended) gnomes and half-orcs niches. Its like I'm watching the 1E/2E version of "no-one I know plays elves/drow" on r.g.f.d.
> 
> ...




I game with about 6 guys regularly. I know dozens of other gamers in my area. I can say for a fact that NONE of them think playing a half-dragon PC is a good idea. And thank God for that.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I call shenanigans on this.
> 
> SOMEONE has to be buying this Dragon-stuff.




I think Hong has the right of it.  

Haven't you ever walked into a card store and see a 10 year old drop the equivalent of a half a week's paycheck on Pokemon or Yu gi-oh?  And got the feeling that this was a regular thing?


----------



## delericho (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I would agree EXCEPT that as I mentioned, it seems like there wasa Half-dragon prestige class/class/template being produced EVERY year. Unless WOTC was producing those things on a whim (and given their business sense, I doubt it), there had to be a LARGE segment of the populace who like "Half-Dragon" pcs.
> 
> How many half-orc "things" did we see in 3.0? Hell, how many orc supplements did we get? Someone had to been buying all that Dragon stuff and while it certainly wasn't either of us, I'm guessing we were easily in the minority




It's rather hard to buy those books about Orcs when they don't publish them.

And one could argue that the reason we kept seeing _new_ and different versions of the Dragon Disciple/Dragon Shaman, Dragonkin/Dragonborn/Half-dragon concept, but rarely or never did we see expansions to the _existing_ material, is that none of the various versions they put out achieved any notable traction amongst the player base. One might almost think someone at WotC has a pro-dragon anti-orc (and pro-elf, anti-gnome) agenda that they're pushing on us despite a customer base inclined to say "Meh".

The first test of this will come when they release that Dragonborn splatbook in 2009 or 2010. Personally, I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see 5e going a lot more "back to basics", dropping the Dragonborn and the Tiefling, and heralding the return (again) of the Half-orc and the Monk in the core.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So fess up, which of us is the Dragonophile



I think it might be my group. There was a half-dragon in the last campaign and there's a spellscale (from Races of the Dragon) in the current one.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> 6) The game seems to be tamer and safer than what I'm used to playing.  Alot of the things that made success difficult are being removed from the game.  This is highly conjectural on my part, but I have a strong feeling that the new edition is relying heavily on 'tactical illusionism'.  Normally 'illusionism' refers to a DM technique where the players are made to feel that the have free will because they are being presented with a great many choices.  However, the DM is secretly dictating that every choice actually leads to the same outcome.  For example, the PC's encounter a fork in the road.  The two roads look very different and head in very different directions.  But not matter which one they take, that road will lead to the 'Lost City of Foorgidor' and the DM will adjust his map accordingly.  By 'tactical illusionism', I mean presenting players with a reasonable number of seemingly relevant choices in combat, however none of these choices is actually both critical and difficult to discern.  The player feels like they are making crucial choices, because they achieve a great deal of success, but in fact there isn't much difference in outcome between highly skilled players and novices.  I can think of several games that are like this, for example, Cosmic Encounters, Bohnanza, and several variaties of dominoes.  The game superficially appears deep and is emmensely fun at first, but after playing it a while you realize that for various reasons it really isn't that interesting.  I think 'per encounter powers', the removal of effects that tend to steal 'turns' from participants, the standardization of what you can do in a turn (it seems everyone has a move and a attack), and so forth lends itself to this sort of illusionism.  Once you realize that in every fight you are basically doing the exact same thing (a feature probably hidden by the rumored rapid advancement), I think its going to wear.




Oh hey!! You just explained what I mean when I rumble on about my fear that the various classes (and future classes) are just going to be different "skins" on the same set of powers.


----------



## Lackhand (Feb 19, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> The first test of this will come when they release that Dragonborn splatbook in 2009 or 2010. Personally, I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see 5e going a lot more "back to basics", dropping the Dragonborn and the Tiefling, and heralding the return (again) of the Half-orc and the Monk in the core.



Not the monk in core -- too anime.

But yeah, the guide to all things draconic (probably not just dragonborn -- probably a sort of draconomicon-ish thing, preferably not -- but conceivably -- the Draconic Powersourcebook (Powersource book? Power sourcebook?) ) _will_ come out...
... and if anecdotes count for anything (protip: they don't!), it'll sell like draconic hotcakes.

Dragon Magic. Research indicates that books with either of those words in the title sell better. Both together? Yahtzee!


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 19, 2008)

I've got friends who love the dragon books.  And they're not 12, they're all in college.  And interestingly, I don't have a single friend who enjoys going around and making fun of people who like dragon characters instead of pointy eared elfy characters.  That isn't necessarily because I don't know anyone who does that, but those I know certainly aren't my friends.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> It's rather hard to buy those books about Orcs when they don't publish them.
> 
> And one could argue that the reason we kept seeing _new_ and different versions of the Dragon Disciple/Dragon Shaman, Dragonkin/Dragonborn/Half-dragon concept, but rarely or never did we see expansions to the _existing_ material, is that none of the various versions they put out achieved any notable traction amongst the player base. One might almost think someone at WotC has a pro-dragon anti-orc (and pro-elf, anti-gnome) agenda that they're pushing on us despite a customer base inclined to say "Meh".
> .




I could see WOTC putting out 1 book on Dragons. Maybe 2 if you're belief is correct (although WOTC pretty much has never gone back to a topic that didn't sell in the 1st place, see Weapons of Legacy or Tome of Shadows) but 3?!??!?!

No-one at WOTC has got that kind of power to subject us to 3 books on Dragons, countless others "Dragon-inspiried mechanics" without there being some monetary benefit to it.

I suspect this is the same reason why the warlock is in 4E and not the bard. The warlock seems like it has become a popular class much moreso than the bard anyway.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

>




Isn't there some conspiracy theory that the whole "New Coke" thing was really so they could change their formula for Coke from Sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup and get away with it?


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> I think of Tieflings as a PC race in the PHB as a deal-breaker, but not by itself.  It's a sign of a pervasive attitude that seems to fill 4e, the disregard of established setting presumptions and meta-setting information.




It's funny, because the cleaning up of 30 years of psychic detritus is one of the big attractions for me with 4e.  If the setting changes were so sweeping, I wouldn't have been half as interested.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 19, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> It's funny, because the cleaning up of 30 years of psychic detritus is one of the big attractions for me with 4e.  If the setting changes were so sweeping, I wouldn't have been half as interested.



Indeed; the "cleaned up" setting is one of 4e's strong points right now.

The only reason it's not a strong enough point is that I can do that on my own in homebrew already anyway.  And in fact, I do.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I've got friends who love the dragon books.  And they're not 12, they're all in college.  And interestingly, I don't have a single friend who enjoys going around and making fun of people who like dragon characters instead of pointy eared elfy characters.  That isn't necessarily because I don't know anyone who does that, but those I know certainly aren't my friends.




Yeah, and my two year olds are huge fans of Dragons.  Pete's dragon.  DragonTales.  Stuffed dragons.  Books about dragons.  

And noone better make fun of my girls!

Seriously, a little levity Cadfan?  Lets not get all riled up over nothing.  

And I make equal fun of people who are fond of pointy eared elfin characters.  Especially if they are my friends.  It's only a problem if you haven't embarassed your inner silliness.

Come on admit it.  You are the 'friend' you are referring to.  We all know it.  Come out of the closet.  You don't have any more to be ashamed about being a dracophile than a writer of erotic furry Star Trek crossover fan fiction.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Isn't there some conspiracy theory that the whole "New Coke" thing was really so they could change their formula for Coke from Sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup and get away with it?




New coke is interesting.

In Blind Taste tests, new Coke did WAY better than classic AND pepsi (and I agree with this, I always thought classic coke was nowhere as good as Pepsi) but a minoirty of people were able to make their concerns dwarf and influence others.


Will we see the same with 4E via 3.5?


----------



## Scarbonac (Feb 19, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm in the "can't wait" camp and would've liked to have seen this revision sooner, as are a lot of people.





This really isn't the thread for you, then. This is the *"Why won't you switch?"* thread. 

Are you lost?


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 19, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Not the monk in core -- too anime.



1e was "too anime"?   I didn't know excessive anime influence was a problem dating back to the late 1970's in D&D design.

Monks in D&D long predate the popularity of anime in the United States.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 19, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:
			
		

> Well, the point of change is innovation.  Without change, there can be no innovation.  Perhaps the game will not substantially reflect prior editions, but why is that a bad thing?




I disagree that the point of change is innovation. Change doesn't always lead to, nor is always intended to lead to, innovation.
But innovation isn't always good either. Whether a change is innovative or not, it's got to win you over by showing itself to be better than what preceded it. 
It's one of my main beefs with so-called computer innovation. Plenty of people in the industry are always pushing innovation. That's good to an extent, not not when the innovation is less effective than what came before it.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> New coke is interesting.
> 
> In Blind Taste tests, new Coke did WAY better than classic AND pepsi (and I agree with this, I always thought classic coke was nowhere as good as Pepsi) but a minoirty of people were able to make their concerns dwarf and influence others.
> 
> Will we see the same with 4E via 3.5?




New Coke _is_ interesting.  In fact, it's ought to be part of the required curricula of study for alot of different disciplines.  You can learn alot from it.

One thing your analysis neglects is that the minority here were right.  That is to say, in competition with old coke, new coke lost.  Outside of a few small niche markets, 'new coke' doesn't exist anymore.  If the minority of customers where wrong, 'classic coke' would have eventually lost to 'new coke' and become its own niche market.

My personal feeling is that New Coke was a very good product based on very flawed market understanding.  In particular, they failed to recognize the limitations of a 'sip test' in determining whether someone would prefer the product.  Pepsi does win blind sip tests.  And it does do better among children than adults, and that fact hasn't changed in decades.  But, Coke still outsells Pepsi.  The reason is that sweeter drinks do better in 'sip tests', but don't do as well on a majority of adult palletes when drunk for longer periods.  

So, will we see the same with 4E via 3.5?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> 1e was "too anime"?   I didn't know excessive anime influence was a problem dating back to the late 1970's in D&D design.




I'm pretty sure that in the '70s, it's not excessive anime influence, but excessive 'Kung Fu' influence.  Everybody was kung fu fighting.  Especially in this case, Dave Carradine.


----------



## Talislan (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> New coke is interesting.
> 
> In Blind Taste tests, new Coke did WAY better than classic AND pepsi (and I agree with this, I always thought classic coke was nowhere as good as Pepsi) but a minoirty of people were able to make their concerns dwarf and influence others.
> 
> ...




Coca-cola is formulated slightly differently in different regions of the world to account for the differences in cultural taste.

I'm not sure this would work for 4E.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So fess up, which of us is the Dragonophile




Dragonophile?


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> _snip..._there's a spellscale (from Races of the Dragon) in the current one.




Eww... I hear there's a shot you can get that will clear that right up now.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that in the '70s, it's not excessive anime influence, but excessive 'Kung Fu' influence.  Everybody was kung fu fighting.  Especially in this case, Dave Carradine.




Wasn't this the era of the "Saturday/Sunday bad-dubbing chinese wirefu movie". I know Kung-Fu the series was popular at the time but I thoguht itself became popular because everyone was watching those horrendous dubs.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> New coke is interesting.
> 
> In Blind Taste tests, new Coke did WAY better than classic AND pepsi (and I agree with this, I always thought classic coke was nowhere as good as Pepsi) but a minoirty of people were able to make their concerns dwarf and influence others.
> 
> ...




But it wasn't really a minority of people. Blind taste tests have their own biases built in because they, by necessity, focus on the first impression of a flavor. A more complex flavor, which many people assert Classic Coke has, does relatively better over a longer time and when more of the soda is consumed.
Plus, you messed with brand identity. Coke drinkers were Coke drinkers, not rehashed Pepsi clone drinkers.

To push this back to the D&D comparison...
Watch for differences in impressions of 4e between first impression and more experience. What may play well at first blush might become tedious in a longer term. Clearly, extended good impressions is one of the design goals of 4e. We'll see how well the designers accomplish it.

They are _*definitely*_ making changes to the brand identity. And this looks to be  the edition that diverges from the history of D&D more than any other. Will it work for them or turn around and bite them?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Wasn't this the era of the "Saturday/Sunday bad-dubbing chinese wirefu movie". I know Kung-Fu the series was popular at the time but I thoguht itself became popular because everyone was watching those horrendous dubs.




No,  Kung Fu the series is from 1972-1975.  The era of 'badly dubbed chinese movie on UHF and Betamax' is more like 1975-1985.  Most of the real classics of the genera don't even exist until after the 'Kung Fu' series has concluded its run.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> They are _*definitely*_ making changes to the brand identity. And this looks to be  the edition that diverges from the history of D&D more than any other. Will it work for them or turn around and bite them?




Inquiring mind want to know.


----------



## delericho (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> New Coke _is_ interesting.  In fact, it's ought to be part of the required curricula of study for alot of different disciplines.  You can learn alot from it.




I agree with everything in your post. I also wonder how much of the reaction to "New Coke" was a response to it not just being an _additional_ option, but rather a _replacement_ option, removing something dearly loved from the marketplace. I suspect that's one of the great inponderables.

I also wonder how much of my anti-4e reaction is not just "I don't like this rule because X, Y and Z", and how much is down to "they're changing the game I've played for 20 years, and I don't like it". If I'm being completely honest, there is a significant element of that in play... but I never had that reaction to 3e, which had plenty of change from what had gone before, so I'm also certain that that's not the only factor.


----------



## Psion (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> No,  Kung Fu the series is from 1972-1975.  The era of 'badly dubbed chinese movie on UHF and Betamax' is more like 1975-1985.  Most of the real classics of the genera don't even exist until after the 'Kung Fu' series has concluded its run.




The defining classic of the genre seems to me to be Enter the Dragon, produced in 1973. (Not sure when that was translated and released in the US, but there you go.)


----------



## DM_Jeff (Feb 19, 2008)

Without much more to add I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading all the responses, many of which echoed thoughts I had but didn't say.

More importantly, my only real fear was that I'd feel alone or that the 3.5 community would vanish, and I no longer feel that way either. Good day.

-DM Jeff


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 19, 2008)

delericho said:
			
		

> I also wonder how much of my anti-4e reaction is not just "I don't like this rule because X, Y and Z", and how much is down to "they're changing the game I've played for 20 years, and I don't like it". If I'm being completely honest, there is a significant element of that in play... but I never had that reaction to 3e, which had plenty of change from what had gone before, so I'm also certain that that's not the only factor.



I didn't mind the big mechanical changes with 3e, but to me that was because they went out of their way to preserve a lot of the flavor that went before.  3e seemed like taking the flavor and style of 1e (especially with it's "back to the dungeon" motto from early on), with flavor elements of 2e too, and putting it on a new engine.

4e is both a big mechanical change, and a big flavor change at the same time.  I think they could have done one or the other but changing the flavor in the core and the rules at once seems like an intentional divorce from the heritage of the game.  To me, that "D&D heritage" is a whole lot of the game, it's what makes D&D different from Palladium Fantasy or GURPS Fantasy or Fantasy HERO.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> The defining classic of the genre seems to me to be Enter the Dragon, produced in 1973. (Not sure when that was translated and released in the US, but there you go.)




This is purely subjective, and also or disagreement may stem from differing opinions about what is being discussed, but I think the defining classic of the genre of badly dubbed 'Saturday Mantinee on the obscure UHF channel' Kung Fu movies was 'Five Deadly Venoms'.   'Enter the Dragon' is one of those movies that transcends the genre, much like say 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'.  EtD is a Hollywood production, not a Chinese movie, and like 'CT,HD' was a bigger success abroad than it was in China.  Granted, people might not have been watching badly dubbed versions of 'Fists of Fury' or 'Drunken Boxer' were it not for 'EtD', but its specifically the Saturday/Sunday badly dubbed genera being discussed, and not successful widescreen theatrical releases.


----------



## Gallo22 (Feb 19, 2008)

Too bad this thread can't stay on topic...

As far as, "why won't you switch"???  

1.1: 4th Edition is simply not going in the direction "I/we" like or care about. My 1st reason is a personal "taste" decision, plain and simple.  There's no science to it, it just is!  

1.2: I truely believe quality of the product is 2nd on WotC's priority list.  It does not take a genious to figure out that the new marketing plan is solely for selling the most products to make the most money.  Hence the 3 or so core books a year stuff.  Only time will confirm this...

2: Money.  Like many, I have enough D&D3.0/3.5 stuff to last me til the "end".  

3.1: I like 3.0/3.5... ALOT!!!, as does my gaming group, so why switch.

3.2: There is alot of really good stuff for 3.0/3.5 still out there that I'd like to use.   Just look at all the great stuff on sites like RPGNow, etc...

4: The loss of Dragon and Dungeon magazines.  Like many, WotC's decision to pull this from Paizo bothered me.  Under Paizo the magazines where the best!!! (IMO)

5:  Also, there are alot of other really good games and systems out there that are fun to play and that I want to try.  So, I'd rather purchase those items, then another version of D&D.


----------



## Ourph (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You know, though, that a few folks simply don't see anything innovative about the 4e previews we've seen so far?  And, a few folks see some things being "fixed" that seem to imply that either (1) the designers didn't understand the function of the thing being "fixed" to begin with, or (2) (far more likely) the "fix" is occuring for reasons other than "fixing" things that are broken.



I think I just had a flashback to 1989 and my first impression of 2e.  The OGL is to Gary Gygax as Mike Mearls is to Zeb Cook.    

My theory is that every even-numbered edition will do this, and every odd-numbered edition will reinvigorate the hobby and rejuvenate the brand by adding back in all the "broken" stuff that got eliminated in the previous incarnation.  I expect to see 5e reintroducing 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement, equipment dependence and lots of fiddly per day resource management while it heralds itself as a "return to the roots of D&D".  The developers will tell everyone that 4e wasn't fun because it didn't support sandbox style play, introduced too many arbitrary rules in the interest of streamlined play and didn't incorporate enough of an element of system mastery to keep players interest over the long term.  Some people who genuflected at the altar of 4e in 2008 will immediately burn 4e at the stake and embrace their new 5e masters.  Others will declare their intention to switch to GURPS.  Diaglo will continue to lobby Le Rouse to reprint OD&D ca. 1974 rebranded as "The One True Game".


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 19, 2008)

DM_Jeff said:
			
		

> Without much more to add I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading all the responses, many of which echoed thoughts I had but didn't say.
> 
> More importantly, my only real fear was that I'd feel alone or that the 3.5 community would vanish, and I no longer feel that way either. Good day.
> 
> -DM Jeff




I'm continually amazed at the amount of people who aren't upgrading.  (Or at least, claim not to be - we'll see if they're still playing 3.5 in August.)


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> My theory is that every even-numbered edition will do this, and every odd-numbered edition will reinvigorate the hobby and rejuvenate the brand by adding back in all the "broken" stuff that got eliminated in the previous incarnation.



The inverse Trek Movie Rule?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Ourph said:
			
		

> My theory is that every even-numbered edition will do this, and every odd-numbered edition will reinvigorate the hobby and rejuvenate the brand by adding back in all the "broken" stuff that got eliminated in the previous incarnation.  I expect to see 5e reintroducing 1-2-1-2 diagonal movement, equipment dependence and lots of fiddly per day resource management while it heralds itself as a "return to the roots of D&D".  The developers will tell everyone that 4e wasn't fun because it didn't support sandbox style play, introduced too many arbitrary rules in the interest of streamlined play and didn't incorporate enough of an element of system mastery to keep players interest over the long term.  Some people who genuflected at the altar of 4e in 2008 will immediately burn 4e at the stake and embrace their new 5e masters.  Others will declare their intention to switch to GURPS.  Diaglo will continue to lobby Le Rouse to reprint OD&D ca. 1974 rebranded as "The One True Game".


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 19, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm continually amazed at the amount of people who aren't upgrading.




Perhaps because they view 4e as a downgrade.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> The inverse Trek Movie Rule?




Oooh!  Good observation!


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 19, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Oooh!  Good observation!




Hey, I liked Star Trek III!!!!


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Gallo22 said:
			
		

> Too bad this thread can't stay on topic...




Sorry about that.  I've pretty much said my shpeil on the topic, and its been a while since anyone listed a reason someone hadn't previously made.  

But I'm still hanging around because this is one of the few threads on the board where I can post without immediately being told that my criticism of 4e is a sign that I'm mentally defective.  My interest in the thread tends to wander though from the specifics of 'Why not change to 4e?' to broader questions like 'Why not change to anything?' and 'What is change anyway?'  Also, any even slightly off topic observation tends to provoke a full blown post on the observation.  Err... like this one. 

I'll try to control myself.


----------



## Eldragon (Feb 19, 2008)

Really, Everyone should put in their Signatures why they will or wont upgrade, and then hopefully these treads can go away. I'll start...


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 19, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Hey, I liked Star Trek III!!!!




You mean, "Star Trek III" where the people in charge with no real attachment to the materials history decided it would be a good idea for the Klingons to kill the Romulans and take thier stuff?  So then in future stories the Romulans had to wear Klingon drag from then on because they'd been left without a role to play?

I think that Star Trek III marks the death of my interest in the franchise, not just because it was a bad movie, but because it pretty much depends on the idea that even the fans won't pay enough attention care what you do to the material.  The source material from the original series was pretty thin to begin with without knocking holes in it.  If even the creators can't be bothered to respect the setting and material, I'm certainly not going to.


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 19, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I'm continually amazed at the amount of people who aren't upgrading.  (Or at least, claim not to be - we'll see if they're still playing 3.5 in August.)




Uhm, why? This thread has given dozens of readings for not switching. Are you suggesting they're not valid?

Pinotage


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You mean, "Star Trek III" where the people in charge with no real attachment to the materials history decided it would be a good idea for the Klingons to kill the Romulans and take thier stuff?



Pardon the interruption, but... huh? I recall Star Trek III being "Trek does Gilgamesh" with some perfunctory Klingon antagonists led by the crazy guy from Taxi. How was it breach of canon (such as it is)?


----------



## wingsandsword (Feb 19, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Pardon the interruption, but... huh? I recall Star Trek III being "Trek does Gilgamesh" with some perfunctory Klingon antagonists led by the crazy guy from Taxi. How was it breach of canon (such as it is)?



The antagonists were originally written to be Romulans (hence referring to their ship as a "Bird of Prey", since Romulans traditionally had the whole bird motif for their ships according to the original series), but changed to Klingons (as I understand it, because the general public knew of Klingons as Trek villains more than they did Romulans).

That, and Admiral Morrow's line that the Enterprise was being decommissioned because it was "20 years old", when by canon it was closer to 40 years old at the time, and Kirk originally took command about twenty years earlier.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 19, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Uhm, why?




Because people change their minds, give into peer pressure, etc.



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> This thread has given dozens of readings for not switching. Are you suggesting they're not valid?
> 
> Pinotage




As one of those not switching, hardly!


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 19, 2008)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Because people change their minds, give into peer pressure, etc.
> 
> As one of those not switching, hardly!




Ah, I get it. Your statement was meant the other way around.   

Pinotage


----------



## rgard (Feb 19, 2008)

Edit: nevermind...several others beat me to the Star Trek comparison.


----------



## rgard (Feb 19, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Pardon the interruption, but... huh? I recall Star Trek III being "Trek does Gilgamesh" with some perfunctory Klingon antagonists led by the crazy guy from Taxi. How was it breach of canon (such as it is)?




Christopher Lloyd!  Best Klingon ever!


----------



## Mallus (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The antagonists were originally written to be Romulans (hence referring to their ship as a "Bird of Prey", since Romulans traditionally had the whole bird motif for their ships according to the original series), but changed to Klingons (as I understand it, because the general public knew of Klingons as Trek villains more than they did Romulans).



At some point Klingon Bird-of-Prey became kosher didn't it? And didn't the Romulans fly around in Klingon cruisers in "The Enterprise Incident" (presumably because the prop-master lost the original Bird-of-Prey from "Balance of Terror")? Things have always been a bit... muddled (Muddled?) when it comes to Trek continuity. 



> That, and Admiral Morrow's line that the Enterprise was being decommissioned because it was "20 years old", when by canon it was closer to 40 years old at the time, and Kirk originally took command about twenty years earlier.



I missed that. Consistency is the Ferengi of little minds. 

BTW, thanks. My Trek memories are starting to get a little foggy. I'm getting old. 

Also, The Search for Spock is my 2nd favorite Trek film. It's truly a space _opera_... grand and melodramatic as all get-out ("I'm carrying Spock's ghost! Let's go the Genesis Planet, maybe he'll come back from the dead!". Seriously, someone should make an opera out of it...)


----------



## rgard (Feb 19, 2008)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The antagonists were originally written to be Romulans (hence referring to their ship as a "Bird of Prey", since Romulans traditionally had the whole bird motif for their ships according to the original series), but changed to Klingons (as I understand it, because the general public knew of Klingons as Trek villains more than they did Romulans).
> 
> That, and Admiral Morrow's line that the Enterprise was being decommissioned because it was "20 years old", when by canon it was closer to 40 years old at the time, and Kirk originally took command about twenty years earlier.




I'm a little more forgiving.  A boatload of series, a boatload of movies...I don't fault them too much for missing the consistency mark.


----------



## Ahzad (Feb 19, 2008)

put me in the camp for not switching for many of the reasons already listed. i like the fluff of the revamped setting, but the mechanics i've seen so far for 4e leave me flat. my friends all can't believe i'm not going to be upgrading, b/c i've always been the one to lead the change among us since the days of the Red Box set.
it doesn't really help that Spycraft 2.0 has become my favorite game engine of all time and that's the direction i'm heading, they've got their own toolkit for fantasy coming and various other toolkits either out or planned for pretty much any genre i want, and i'm also a big fan of mongoose's Conan OGL, but again the mechanics of the crafty gang win me over. my next fantasy game is going to be green ronin's Freeport (gotta love mechanic free books) with the crafty mechanics.
i hope that 4e succeeds, especially on the digital end, but their track record with electronic products doesn't inspire confidence. i'll check it out since i manage a game/comic book store but this is where i part ways with keeping up with the editions.


----------



## dogoftheunderworld (Feb 19, 2008)

Value.

3.5 still has value for me (and my group).  We have a lot of money and time invested in 3.5, and still have a whole lot of adventuring to do  

Also, our group is made up of friends and family who have been playing together for many years.  There is no external "need" for us to switch to _any_ game system.  

We just started a new campaign, and I am starting another new campaign in the next few months for a second generation of gamers in our family.  

Third Edition will be our edition for several more years.  I'm sure there will be a time when our investment matures, and we will want to invest in a new game... but that time is not now.


----------



## Psion (Feb 19, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> Really, Everyone should put in their Signatures why they will or wont upgrade, and then hopefully these treads can go away. I'll start...




Or, you know, you could just not participate in threads that don't interest you, while the rest of us do what discussion boards were made to do: discuss.

Side note: what's up with the topic gestapo? Thread drift happens folks!


----------



## Eldragon (Feb 19, 2008)

Oh, I mostly don't participate in threads that don't interest me (Hence my really low post count). But the number of threads debating why one should/should not switch has gotten out of hand. Every couple days we have a new one.


----------



## rgard (Feb 19, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> At some point Klingon Bird-of-Prey became kosher didn't it? And didn't the Romulans fly around in Klingon cruisers in "The Enterprise Incident" (presumably because the prop-master lost the original Bird-of-Prey from "Balance of Terror")? Things have always been a bit... muddled (Muddled?) when it comes to Trek continuity.




Warning thread drift, sorry.

Yes, the Romulans had D6 or D7 Battlecruisers in the 'The Enterprise Incident.'  I never heard that the Bird of Prey model was lost, but that could very well be true.  They do talk about how the Romulans were using Klingon ships in that episode so maybe it was a plot device as the Bird of Prey was a sub light ship and couldn't really try to chase the FTL Enterprise.  The Subcommander's "Flank speed" command is a bit non-exciting if he's in a sub light ship.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 19, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> But the number of threads debating why one should/should not switch has gotten out of hand. Every couple days we have a new one.




But this isn't a thread about why one should/shouldn't switch - it's a thread about why we *aren't* switching.


----------



## Psion (Feb 19, 2008)

Eldragon said:
			
		

> Oh, I mostly don't participate in threads that don't interest me (Hence my really low post count). But the number of threads debating why one should/should not switch has gotten out of hand. Every couple days we have a new one.




(shrug) I don't come by the 4e forum every day; on those occasions that I do, I'm more interested in current discussion that thread necromancy.

Aside from which, a lot of the overwrought frothing that characterized some earlier threads is a lot more subdued of late (whether that's exhaustion or banning to thank for that, I don't know), and people may have shifted positions and attitudes as they see more about the game and folks discuss things with their groups get a better feel about what the game has to offer them. I think its fair to say this topic is "alive".


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 19, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> I think its fair to say this topic is "alive".



Please tell me you said that in a mad scientist voice.


----------



## Scarbonac (Feb 20, 2008)

Rauol_Duke said:
			
		

> But this isn't a thread about why one should/shouldn't switch - it's a thread about why we *aren't* switching.





Damn straight.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Feb 20, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Isn't there some conspiracy theory that the whole "New Coke" thing was really so they could change their formula for Coke from Sugar to High Fructose Corn Syrup and get away with it?




You know what's hilarious about that? HFCS is actually many orders of magnitude more damaging to your body than plain sugar.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 20, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> Side note: what's up with the topic gestapo? Thread drift happens folks!




This wasn't drift - it was absolute derailment, and pretty intentional. The first two pages, about 60-70 odd posts, were incredible. People were stating their minds, and getting a lot of things off their chests. Every new post had some new insight. I was recommending this thread to all my friends who just lurk ENWorld.

Then the thread-crappers came. The resulting arguments, from those who are switching and those who aren't, ruined what had been a fine, fine thread.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 20, 2008)

It's still a fine thread.  :shrug:


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 20, 2008)

Heh. Mad scientist voice.  That worked for me. Why? No idea. 

I may as well add to the list from before. Uh, of reasons, I mean.

* 4e seems, so far, to go down well with dedicated 'anti-simulationists' - so I ain't gonna like it
* M&M  Yeah, holy grail, rabid fanboi. I'll stop it there.


----------



## JediSoth (Feb 20, 2008)

Heh. I got my opinion crapped on two posts later on page 2.

It's OK, though. I'm used to having my opinions and feeling about 4E crapped on. It's just another reason why I'm not switching. I don't appreciate the "Wrong-Bad-Fun" attitude I get when I put forth an opinion that doesn't kiss 4E's collective butt.

I still lurk 'cause I'm interested in knowing what 4E is going to be about, even though it is very likely I will sit this edition out (if for no other reason than all the players and writers that are hating on 3.5 and the people who still like it after the 4E announcement). I just think it's silly that people think you're irrational for being reluctant to get excited about something that isn't printed yet, but it's perfectly OK, expected and you darn well better be excited about something that isn't printed yet because 3.5 sucked.

A lot of people that posted after me added a lot of things that I agree and forgot about (like paladin abilities that activate with certain types of hits and affecting your whole party) with as reason why I won't be switching (bleeding triggering abilities). I even learned a few things that made me want to switch even less (no more Professional skills? That was a keystone of my last Ptolus campaign!). I was pleased when this thread came up because you couldn't post anything negative in a 4E thread without having half-a-dozen people jump down your throat. I mean, honestly, it's just a game. No game is perfect (except Paranoia 2nd edition, 'cause The Computer said so).

There are a few things 4E will do (or I hope will do) that I'm interested in, like changes to undead and turning. 

Buy Mexican Coke. It uses sugar. Send a message to the suits that we want REAL sugar (heck, I'd even pay extra for it).

JediSoth


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 20, 2008)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> Buy Mexican Coke. It uses sugar. Send a message to the suits that we want REAL sugar (heck, I'd even pay extra for it).




Don't bother the corporate suits.  It's not thier fault.  The reason American coke doesn't use sugar is that Congress imposed a high import tarrif on foreign sugar to protect a tiny handful of sugar cane farmers in Louisiana scraping up a tiny crop in climate poorly suited for cane production from going out of business.  As a result, many American candy manufacturers went out of business or moved thier factories to Mexico, and Americans pay the highest prices for sugar in the world and all of our processed food is stuffed with HFCS.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 20, 2008)

> As a result, many American candy manufacturers went out of business or moved thier factories to Mexico, and Americans pay the highest prices for sugar in the world and all of our processed food is stuffed with HFCS.




Which is actually one of the major reasons that corn is farmed so intensively accross the fruited plains that nothing else can really turn as much of a profit.

But now we're REALLY derailing the thread...

....er....I won't switch to 4e because it hasn't been released yet! Ghar!


----------



## Mkhaiwati (Feb 20, 2008)

Most of my reasons have already been mentioned. Lots of 3.x material, I like it, etc, etc, ditto, ditto, so on and so forth.

But a big one for me that hasn't been mentioned has been the change in style. I think 3.x moved towards this, but 4e is taking it too far. The best example is the "we go to 30 levels the same time as it now takes to go to 20 levels." It really is too... munchkiny for me. And every level has something bright and shiny, too. Add in all the kewl powers for the non-spellcasters, having per encounter spells and everything else, it just takes D&D into a direction I don't want to play in. Others may like it, and it is a matter of taste, but it isn't for me.

Also, I hate what they did to Forgotten Realms. That is the primary D&D world for me. I don't want to play there with the new 4e setting, why should I purchase 4e? I can always play another game system with a different setting, or transform current FR into another system.


----------



## Scarbonac (Feb 20, 2008)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> Buy Mexican Coke. It uses sugar.
> 
> JediSoth





Kosher Coke, too.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 20, 2008)

Actually, we tax incoming sugar in order to make domestically produced corn syrup more viable.


----------



## Turjan (Feb 20, 2008)

What is this here, Agriculture Weekly? Anyway...



			
				JediSoth said:
			
		

> A lot of people that posted after me added a lot of things that I agree and forgot about (like paladin abilities that activate with certain types of hits and affecting your whole party) with as reason why I won't be switching (bleeding triggering abilities).



I"m really curious whether actual combat will be faster than in 3.x or bogged down by all the new things to keep track of.


----------



## Silent Cartographer (Feb 20, 2008)

Best non-news 4th edition discussion thread in several weeks!!!   

You guys rock! 

Seriously.  

That may not be a very high bar, but despite inevitable bits of silly posturing and needless scab picking, the signal survived for a good many pages. Thanks!

I won't switch this spring because I am successfully running a Ptolus 3.5 campaign which has a lot of gas left in the tank. I won't be converting this campaign due to my appreciation of the Ptolus setting as an expression of the 3rd Edition D&D gestalt. Despite the many advantages I hope to receive from 4E, I think converting Ptolus dilutes the strength of its design. When I've exhasted my enthusiam for my current game, I will (pending the actual game release quality) hop right on over to the 4E bandwagon.

By the time I am ready to really switch over in a serious way, I'm hoping for an second printing PHB, and plenty of extras (PHB2, base splats, 4E-ECS, cool third-party stuff, etc.). So its all good for me! Thirty four-odd years and 3-5+ edition treatments worth of all the original fluff is more than enought for me...

Bring on the holy bar-b-q!!!   



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> ....er....I won't switch to 4e because it hasn't been released yet! Ghar!



You just made that up from thin air didn't you? That's not even a real reason!!!   

P.S. In Tejas, I can easily find real sugared Coke in the Mex aisle of certain nearby grocery chains. Even better, you can find Dr. Pepper locally with imperial cane sugar from the last plant that makes it (in Dublin, TX), if you know where to look. Good stuff!


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 21, 2008)

Silent Cartographer said:
			
		

> P.S. In Tejas, I can easily find real sugared Coke in the Mex aisle of certain nearby grocery chains. Even better, you can find Dr. Pepper locally with imperial cane sugar from the last plant that makes it (in Dublin, TX), if you know where to look. Good stuff!




You make me so jealous.

I already find that I can't even look at another ice cream, I'm already missing Blue Bell so badly.

And I bet the grapefruit are coming in about this time of year too.


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You make me so jealous.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 21, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You make me so jealous.



Reluctant Texas ex-pats unite!


----------



## Rauol_Duke (Feb 21, 2008)

There's room for ya'll.  You can come back... 

...well, except for Hobo...


----------



## Greylock (Feb 21, 2008)

JediSoth said:
			
		

> I just think it's silly that people think you're irrational for being reluctant to get excited about something that isn't printed yet, but it's perfectly OK, expected and you darn well better be excited about something that isn't printed yet because 3.5 sucked.



Man, I've been saying that very thing, but... Oh well. We're wrong - they're right.



			
				JediSoth said:
			
		

> No game is perfect (except Paranoia 2nd edition, 'cause The Computer said so).



JediSoth, you officially rock.



			
				JediSoth said:
			
		

> Buy Mexican Coke. It uses sugar. Send a message to the suits that we want REAL sugar (heck, I'd even pay extra for it).
> 
> JediSoth



Or, Kosher for Passover Coke. Same thing. [Edit - So, Scarbonac beat to that last point. He rocks as well, even if he don't post here much.]


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 21, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Or, Kosher for Passover Coke. Same thing. [Edit - So, Scarbonac beat to that last point. He rocks as well, even if he don't post here much.]



Not as much as if he was from Texas.

Unless of course, he secretly is from Texas.  Then he doth verily rock.

Hobo "Grew up half an hour from Blue Bell's HQ" Spikey


----------



## Psion (Feb 21, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> This wasn't drift - it was absolute derailment, and pretty intentional. The first two pages, about 60-70 odd posts, were incredible. People were stating their minds, and getting a lot of things off their chests. Every new post had some new insight. I was recommending this thread to all my friends who just lurk ENWorld.
> 
> Then the thread-crappers came. The resulting arguments, from those who are switching and those who aren't, ruined what had been a fine, fine thread.




That's ironic. The people who are interested in earnestly examining the topic are contrasting it in meaningful ways with other markets (and never ceased to be related to the topic, at least until the high fructose corn syrup discussion, which was after your post). The threadcrap is people assigning themselves as the topic police because they don't want to follow the discussion.


----------



## vectner (Feb 25, 2008)

*My reason*

No more rolling for hit points. That was the last straw. I didn't mind more hit points at first level, but lets keep the chance in there. The risk is what makes it fun. How daring is your hero if there is no chance of failure?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 25, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You make me so jealous.
> 
> I already find that I can't even look at another ice cream, I'm already missing Blue Bell so badly.
> 
> And I bet the grapefruit are coming in about this time of year too.




In fact, thanks to this reminder, I'm going to eat my grapefruit right now.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 25, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> In fact, thanks to this reminder, I'm going to eat my grapefruit right now.




I wouldn't be so hasty! http://xkcd.com/388/


----------



## shilsen (Feb 25, 2008)

vectner said:
			
		

> No more rolling for hit points. That was the last straw. I didn't mind more hit points at first level, but lets keep the chance in there. The risk is what makes it fun. How daring is your hero if there is no chance of failure?



 How unchallenging are the things that your hero is attempting, if rolling lousy on hit points won't seriously hinder - if not render impossible - his chances of succeeding? I could give my PCs max on all hit dice and they'd still have a seriously hard time in my game. Now if your game is focused on being gentle and mollycoddling PCs and you have trouble challenging PCs, then clearly rolling hit points is the way to go, because they might roll really badly and make things easier for you.


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

shilsen said:
			
		

> How unchallenging are the things that your hero is attempting, if rolling lousy on hit points won't seriously hinder - if not render impossible - his chances of succeeding? I could give my PCs max on all hit dice and they'd still have a seriously hard time in my game. Now if your game is focused on being gentle and mollycoddling PCs and you have trouble challenging PCs, then clearly rolling hit points is the way to go, because they might roll really badly and make things easier for you.




Er, well, Neverwinter Nights 1 has random hit points (though you have the option of just taking maximum instead - yes, it does seriously work like that) and the absolute mathematical worst you can be down is 185 hit points if you somehow get the minimum possible hit points at every level and take a d12 HD class at every level past 3. In practice, since no one would ever actually be down 185 hit points from someone else of the same build, it wasn't enough of a problem to *really* mess with the difficulty levels of things.

And this is with the worst random hit points system possible, one where the only randomness is HP you don't get, rather than 3e D&D's default which assumes you can't just take the maximum possible instead, so rolls will tend to be around an average rather than be 100% negative, and people will have more HP than the average equally as often as they will have less, and due to the bell curve effect of rolling so many dice for HP, will not have HP approaching the minimum or maximum possible very often.

(That said, I'm glad they removed random hit points from Neverwinter Nights 2, because in almost every single instance I re-leveled until I got maximum HP and this slowed leveling down to a terribly annoying grind.)

EDIT: As I've said, if you want random HP in 4e, I'd consider something like changing a Rogue's HP from 12 + Con score at first level with 5/level thereafter to 7 + 2d4 + Con score at first level with 3+1d3 thereafter, for a maximum possible swing of 64 HP.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 25, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm going to eat my grapefruit right now.




Don't forget your safety goggles!


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I've never met that populace in real life, on the streets, at the game store, or at a gaming table.
> 
> Oddly enough, I have met them in cyber-space - all the twelve year olds I ran into playing Neverwinter Nights who thought the whole point of the game  was to play a Dragon Disciple.




I have a big dragon-fan in my online gaming group. Having just asked her a moment ago, she's apparently pretty happy with Dragonborn being a core race in 4e. The reason I had to ask her, of course, is that one of her previous characters was a *gnome* Dragon Shaman...

That said, Dragon Disciple is a really good class in Neverwinter Nights, as opposed to tabletop D&D where it is not a very hot option. It makes you a frickin' awesome fighter with its +8 base Strength bonus - one of the only sources of base stat bonuses in the entire game. Since base stats are so important in NWN, as items and spells can only add an additional +12 to them, it's pretty easy to see why Dragon Disciples are popular. And, well, they get wings. Wings are kewl.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 25, 2008)

vectner said:
			
		

> No more rolling for hit points. That was the last straw. I didn't mind more hit points at first level, but lets keep the chance in there. The risk is what makes it fun. How daring is your hero if there is no chance of failure?



Why stop there? What about random feat acquisition, random attack bonuses and random defence bonuses?

Sorry, that's a bit snarky. Randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not. And how does getting a fixed number of hit points = no chance of failure?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Why stop there? What about random feat acquisition, random attack bonuses and random defence bonuses?



Warhammer Rocks!!!


> Randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not.



Did I mention Warhammer?


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not.




I disagree; randomness in character creation can have its place, because it makes it unlikely that any two given characters will be mechanically identical. This is important to some players, and a much bigger deal in some systems than others - in something like Rules Cyclopedia D&D, point-buy ability scores and fixed HP would result in every character being drawn from a pool of about 12 legal character mechanic sets. On the other hand, in 3e D&D, it's unlikely that a random sampling of characters will have multiple using the exact same mechanics, especially after some levels are gained, so randomness in character creation isn't as essential for differentiation.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, people have been playing and enjoying BRP for a long, long time, and that *does* use random advancement for essentially everything.


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I disagree; randomness in character creation can have its place, because it makes it unlikely that any two given characters will be mechanically identical.




I use point buy and fixed hp, and I have never, ever, ever (is that enough evers?) seen two characters mechanically identical. The scope for variation in D&D's chargen system post-2E is such that most players will only explore a fraction of the build space. The distaste for so-called cookie-cutter chargen is a relic based on 25-year-old first impressions.


----------



## Fifth Element (Feb 25, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I use point buy and fixed hp, and I have never, ever, ever (is that enough evers?) seen two characters mechanically identical. The scope for variation in D&D's chargen system post-2E is such that most players will only explore a fraction of the build space. The distaste for so-called cookie-cutter chargen is a relic based on 25-year-old first impressions.



Agreed. There are so many options available in D&D now that the chance of having identical characters is close to nil, unless you plan it that way.


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> post-2E




Did you even read my post? Seriously?


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Did you even read my post? Seriously?



 Yes.

Is this a trick question?


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Yes.




Then you must have just utterly failed to note that I dismissed the necessity of random HP in 3e and assumedly 4e, at least for myself. Some players may still find it necessary because they are even more uncomfortable with clone characters than I am, but the only good reason I can see for using random HP in 4e would be tradition.


----------



## hong (Feb 25, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Then you must have just utterly failed to note that I dismissed the necessity of random HP in 3e and assumedly 4e, at least for myself.




... or you may have just utterly failed to note that not everyone always disagrees with you. Unexpected, I know.


----------



## Imban (Feb 25, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> ... or you may have just utterly failed to note that not everyone always disagrees with you. Unexpected, I know.




...Er, um, whoops. That's what I get for staying up all night.

Back on topic, tieflings are almost enough for me to not want to even pick up 4e books, because their art direction bothers me in almost every way a character race's art could - the red skin, huge horns, and tail are all bad enough, but did they *have* to add ridiculously impractical gripless weapons to it to boot? Really?


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 25, 2008)

re: Rolled HP

Um, I think math comes to the rescue before we fight   

Using Statistics, you can show that the effect of rolled HP will not differentiate much from the effect of simply average the die as you increase the number of times the die is rolled.

Basically, as the number of rolls goes up, the std deviation will shrink (you get closer to the average) and what many people remember as wildly differing HP totals for characters of the same class was the effect of CON being added.

This was ironically more noticeable in the lower die classes like the d4 and the d6.

Ex: A wizard from levels 2-11 will gain an average of 25 hp, however, the difference in CON gain of say a 12 CON and 16 CON is 20 HP. The std deviation is SIGNIFICANLY smaller. The CON basically overwrites any effect from the rolling of a die.


----------



## Delta (Feb 25, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Basically, as the number of rolls goes up, the std deviation will shrink (you get closer to the average) and what many people remember as wildly differing HP totals for characters of the same class was the effect of CON being added... The std deviation is SIGNIFICANLY smaller.




Actually, what's correct to say is that the standard deviation goes down _as a proportion of the mean_. The standard deviation itself actually goes up in this situation.

1d6 ~ mean 3.5, stdev 1.71
2d6 ~ mean 7.0, stdev 2.42
3d6 ~ mean 10.5, stdev 2.96
Etc.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 25, 2008)

Delta said:
			
		

> Actually, what's correct to say is that the standard deviation goes down _as a proportion of the mean_. The standard deviation itself actually goes up in this situation.
> 
> 1d6 ~ mean 3.5, stdev 1.71
> 2d6 ~ mean 7.0, stdev 2.42
> ...




(Math geek's hat on) 
Hmm?

That doesn't sound right at all.
Variance of a single X-sided die = (X^2-1)/12
Variance of the sum of z X-sided dice = z*(X^2-1)/12
Std deviation is the square root of that.

Hmm...You're right. My math-fu has grown weak over the years (holds head in shame and throws math geek hat into trash   )


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 25, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Sorry, that's a bit snarky.



Indeed - especially in a thread in which you _could_ be considered threadcrapping.



> Randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not.



I hope you're not trying to say that somebody's preference is wrong. Especially in this particular thread (see above).


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 25, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I hope you're not trying to say that somebody's preference is wrong. Especially in this particular thread (see above).



I think he's just saying that he thinks that randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not.

I happen to agree.


----------



## malladin (Feb 25, 2008)

For me its that I get the sense that 4th ed will have a specific identity rather than the tool kit approach of 3rd, not a bad thing but not what i'm looking for. Further, there are plenty of other games that fulfil the role 4th seems o be aiming at that i'm already playing so it'd just a wasted invested, especially when i'm trying to cut down on buying new stuff(damn you Dark Heresey   )


----------



## Betote (Feb 25, 2008)

The skill system revealed in the Rogue sneak peek, being the same as the one used in True20 or SWSE, is what kills the game for me. I moved to 3.X because of its skill ranks allocating system and the PCs being equally treated as NPCs/monsters, and if they're taking these features away, I'm afraid I'm out of the wagon.

That makes 4E a game I'd maybe use for one-shots if the published adventures are of good quality, but never a system of choose when I'm going to DM a campaign.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 26, 2008)

Betote said:
			
		

> The skill system revealed in the Rogue sneak peek, being the same as the one used in True20 or SWSE, is what kills the game for me.



You can allocate skill ranks in True20 just like D&D.  Blue Rose had an "automatic" skill system, but they switched back to standard skill points for True20.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 26, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I think he's just saying that he thinks that randomness in play is fun; randomness in character creation and advancement is not.



Oh. He must have made an error in quoting, then. And forgot the "for me" (never implied on an internet messageboard, sadly, especially when the quoting mechanism is used).


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

malladin said:
			
		

> For me its that I get the sense that 4th ed will have a specific identity rather than the tool kit approach of 3rd, not a bad thing but not what i'm looking for. Further, there are plenty of other games that fulfil the role 4th seems o be aiming at that i'm already playing so it'd just a wasted invested, especially when i'm trying to cut down on buying new stuff(damn you Dark Heresey   )




That's how me and my friends are beginning to feel. Dark Heresy is something we've waited years for someone to make, versus an unproven, overly hyped and possibly unnecessary game edition.


----------



## GVDammerung (Feb 26, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Therefore I bring this question to you: why won't you switch?




There are lots of reasons.  Investment, dollars and time, in 3x, coupled with contentment with that rules set.  Further "distancing" from what I have known as "D&D."  Etc.  More than anything else right now for me, however, is "product fatigue."  I just don't want to have to go through all the core books, supplements, rules additions and settings - again - after 3x.  4e looks to be a very different game than 3x but how they are going to sell it is, to me, depressingly familiar.  Core books.  Splat books Mark I.  More Core books every year.  Doubtless Splat books Mark II.  Redo the settings and revisit specific areas.  I've heard it called "the treadmill model."  I don't want to get on that treadmill.  Conversely, I really like the idea that with 3x I can have a "capped" system, particulary as there is so much to 3x that I have not got to in actual play.  I'm off the Wotc treadmill and that feels very good.  Clean and sober and not switching to the 4e Peruvian marching powder.


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

A capped system. I think you're onto something there GVD. Without the threat of ever-spiraling power creep in 3x, I may actually have a chance at going back and using these splatbooks I detest objectively.


----------



## Delta (Feb 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Hmm...You're right. My math-fu has grown weak over the years (holds head in shame and throws math geek hat into trash   )




Eh, it's a common mis-intuition that I see around here a lot. Don't think you're alone, at least you fixed it.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 27, 2008)

Psion said:
			
		

> at least until the high fructose corn syrup discussion, which was after your post).




What's funny (to me anyhow) is that I think I initiated the HFCS warp core breech and that wasn't even my intention.


----------



## Desdichado (Feb 27, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Oh. He must have made an error in quoting, then.



I don't think so.


			
				Arnwyn said:
			
		

> And forgot the "for me" (never implied on an internet messageboard, sadly, especially when the quoting mechanism is used).



On the contrary, it's *always* implied in an internet discussion of any stripe.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 27, 2008)

Hobo said:
			
		

> I don't think so.



I do.



> On the contrary, it's *always* implied in an internet discussion of any stripe.



Keep fighting the good fight! I hope to share your optimism soon. Too bad the quote function keeps screwing things up.

[Woo... looks like this thread has started to fade away...  ]


----------



## MichaelK (Feb 27, 2008)

Kzach said:
			
		

> I find it puzzling why anyone would not want to switch.




I don't know yet whether I'd want to switch or not. I really need to see more. 

However the reasons I might not want to switch are simple:

1) I like 3e (yes it's got its problems but it's still pretty good).
2) I might not like 4e and I've seen enough to get me a little worried that I won't like where it's going.

It's not just a knee-jerk reaction. I played OD&D and switched to AD&D 2e (was out of the hobby when 1e came out) then I went to 3e and 3.5e eagerly. Now on the cusp of 4e I'm nervous like never before... but we'll see.

Besides I'm going to buy the books. I just might not play with them.


----------



## maggot (Feb 27, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> [Woo... looks like this thread has started to fade away...  ]




Yeah, I'm amazed this thread has been around so long.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Feb 28, 2008)

I won't switch so that I can become the 3e Diaglo and haunt all future D&D gamers for the rest of my natural life in humorous yet biting condemnations of their insignificant derivative editions.


----------



## Ahglock (Feb 28, 2008)

At first I was fairly sure I was going to switch.

I heard a lot of the design goals like fast dynamic combat and i liked them.

The more that was revealed the more I thought that the design philosophies that they are using to try and reach those goals to not match my own.  End result they may end up with something they perceive as a fast and dynamic combat system, I'll see a fast and dynamic combat system wrapped in a suck tortilla.  

I hope I am wrong, because I've petered out of playing 3e, only playing it occasionally, and heck I want my fantasy RPG habit satisfied.  SR4 is cool and all but it isn't fantasy.


----------



## solkanar33 (Feb 28, 2008)

I don't think I will switch. 

First of all, in my core 3.5 campaign there is a bard, a druid and a sorcerer. Base classes in 3e but now severly degraded to splat book level. I'm honestly very disappointed that WOTC obliterated almost half (5 out of 11) their base classes from their core 4E game. Sure they'll be in splatbooks somewhere down the road but that's of no use to me or my group now. When I used to decide to buy a splatbook it was because I liked it and never because I needed it for my group. That's a big difference I absolutely dislike. I don't care about new 'cool' base classes or races I didn't ask for. If I can't convert half my group, I won't switch!

Second I'm not convinced that 4e will be a better system than 3.5. 
I know, not a lot is known at this point, but I remember that when they released 3.0, I was convinced from the very start that it was going to be an much better system than 2e. Flawed in lots of ways, but a vast improvement nonetheless. Now 3.5 has its issues but its not a bad or obsolete system.

I really wanted 4E to work, really. But company greed and ambiguous design severely threaten its viability for me to have fun with it.


----------



## rgard (Feb 29, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I won't switch so that I can become the 3e Diaglo and haunt all future D&D gamers for the rest of my natural life in humorous yet biting condemnations of their insignificant derivative editions.




Actually beat you to the punch on that one.  My sig has had that sentiment for maybe a year now.


----------



## Ulrick (Feb 29, 2008)

Why I won't switch? 

1. I already have all 3.5 Editions. If the system ain't perfect after all these years, it ain't worth investing in another edition. 

2. A lot of what they are doing I've already implemented in my own games, years ago.

3. I don't like the fact that I might have to be online just to play the game. 

4. I don't like the WoW feel of the game. 

3. I'm still trying to figure out what that _thing_ is on the front of the new Player's Handbook is. Dragon Born???

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/217367200


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 29, 2008)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> 3. I don't like the fact that I might have to be online just to play the game.




Let's put it in big, bold letters so it's clear, since so many anti-4e people seem to run on old rumors that have been thoroughly debunked multiple times since the announcement.

*YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE D&D INSIDER OR ANY KIND OF ONLINE SERVICE TO PLAY 4TH EDITION. ALL YOU NEED ARE THE THREE CORE BOOKS, DICE, PENCILS, PAPER, FRIENDS, AND A BRAIN. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS EITHER IGNORANT OF THE FACTS, OR A LIAR.*


----------



## an_idol_mind (Feb 29, 2008)

The two big things that keep me from being excited about 4th edition right now are:

-Focus on tactical combat. I hate using a battle grid. While 3rd edition works fine without using minis, the previews from 4th edition suggest to me that working without a grid will be fairly difficult.

-Staggered release of the core. I have certain things I want in a D&D game, and I don't want to buy 10 different books to get it. While I can work around not having the druid in the Player's Handbook or missing the frost giant from the Monster Manual, it seems that significant chunks of the game will be put in later supplements. In return, there's stuff like the dragonborn and warlords, concepts which I'm not terribly excited about.

I have no doubt that 4th edition will be a great game for what it is, but the previews so far have suggested that what it is does not mesh with what I want out of the game.


----------



## Waylander the Slayer (Feb 29, 2008)

I am on the fence and was very excited when i got a first glance today at the rules and character sheet. Then I looked at the details and the mechanics a bit; the game is too gamist (personal opinion, not an argument or anything else) for ME. Also, reading over the Rouse/Collins interview about the multiclassing rules as well as the GSL ("core classes not in the first three books etc.") has moved me towards not changing to 4.E.  I'll make a fully informed decision once I borrow someone's books.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> *YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE D&D INSIDER OR ANY KIND OF ONLINE SERVICE TO PLAY 4TH EDITION. ALL YOU NEED ARE THE THREE CORE BOOKS, DICE, PENCILS, PAPER, FRIENDS, AND A BRAIN. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS EITHER IGNORANT OF THE FACTS, OR A LIAR.*




As long as this guy is posting here, is it OK for the "haterz" to go to the "luverz" threads and crap all over everyone?


----------



## The Little Raven (Feb 29, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> As long as this guy is posting here, is it OK for the "haterz" to go to the "luverz" threads and crap all over everyone?




So, I'm a "hater" or "luver" because I point out that people keep using false information to make their decisions? So, it's better for people to just continue with their misinformation, which can be cleared up with a few minutes of looking at the 4e Info Page on this very site? Am I violating your right to be ignorant or to support points that have no factual basis (with plenty of facts debunking it)?

Well, seeing as you're pretty vehemently anti-4e, I can see why you'd want people to be ignorant of the real facts, if it means more support for your "side."


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 29, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> As long as this guy is posting here, is it OK for the "haterz" to go to the "luverz" threads and crap all over everyone?



The caps and the bold were over the top, granted.

But the facts remain.

edit: Yikes---this got ugly quick. I am outta here!


----------



## Greylock (Feb 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Am I violating your right to be ignorant or to support points that have no factual basis (with plenty of facts debunking it)?
> 
> Well, seeing as you're pretty vehemently anti-4e, I can see why you'd want people to be ignorant of the real facts, if it means more support for your "side."




I can also see that you are a complete... Oops. That would be a banning offense. 

You can see right through me, oh master of psychological deduction. I am here to ruin the D&D Experience for the entire world by perpetuating my "ignorance".


----------



## hong (Feb 29, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I can also see that you are a complete... Oops. That would be a banning offense.
> 
> You can see right through me, oh master of psychological deduction. I am here to ruin the D&D Experience for the entire world by perpetuating my "ignorance".



Hey Mourn, did you see that? He called you a complete ellipsis!


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 29, 2008)

Oh, for cripes sake. And believe me, 'cripes' is not the word I'm _actually_ using.

Mourn, get out of this thread; it's possible to clarify incorrect information without being offensive, but you didn't manage to do it. Greylock, throttle back the anger and the vitriol. Everyone else, please just walk away from the keyboard if you feel the need to write something that comes across as rude or jerky. DDEx is NOT an excuse to try and push boundaries.


----------



## Herobizkit (Mar 1, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I don't know anyone who thinks playing a lizardman, even if called "Dragonborn", is appealing.



Sorry I'm so late chiming in.  I find playing a lizardman very appealing.  So much so, that I added them as a "core" race in my homebrew.  I thought about making them Blackscale lizardmen, but I never got around to getting the MMIII.  In short, they were more like "reptile men", barbaric (Klingonish, but LE) and desert-dwelling rather than swampy muckdwellers.  So yeah, sign me up.


----------



## Derro (Mar 1, 2008)

I've tried to be reserved about this and fight my "no way, no how" knee jerk reaction until I had a chance to see some real crunch. Now that we've seen the characters I'm sure I'm not going over.

I see many elements I like:
1) Static defense
2) Unified class progression
3) Trimmed and coherent skill system
and others.

And then I look at the fighter and ranger special abilities and it all gets flushed. It just looks way too gamist for me. In an effort to make everybody kewl and tricked out it just feels like it's lost a lot of its soul. Which is not to say it doesn't have its appeal but not to me.

I quit playing D&D in the final years of 2e. When I came back with 3e I was right in front. I remember when Eric Noah still ran this joint and it was just one long thread. I've bought way to much 3.x and d20 material and am happy with most of it. There's a couple stinkers (I'm talking to you, Mystic Eye Games) but for the most part I've been able to use or conceive of the use of just about everything I own. The thought of starting over again makes me feel a bit ill. 

As an obsessive rules tinkerer I've finally crafted my house system to be pretty near exactly what I want. And surprise, surprise it has some 4e-isms in it. I'm stopping right here for my D&D. Talk to me when they update Tunnels and Trolls.


----------

