General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
The guy who is currently DMing our campaign just announced that he will be buying up the 4E books. I had this pang of terror, because I have read so much bad stuff about it... but then I have read heaps of people defending it too...
It seems like there will be no way of actually finding out whether it sux or not other than just playing it.
But then doesn't good Dnd depend on talent, creativity, good role playing, friends, Coke and so many things other than the system...?!?
So maybe if my group is good now... it will continue to be better!?!
I guess I'm about to find out!
Ben
Absolutely, part of this discussion is not about whether the game is good or not, but about some of WOTC sales designs. I have played the game and like quite a few parts of it, though there are others that leave me wanting for better days. I have not bought the books but would play if offered.
It really does come down to your group. If you have a good group, then you will probably have a good game regardless of what system you use, or regardless of what a bunch of anonymous people say about it.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
The tier system is rather nice. One PHB just for the Heroic tier and you have one year
to play out levels 1-10 until PHB2 where you are ready for more.. Just like BECMI..
So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?
In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?
Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?
The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.
So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?
Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes. This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races. I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
Well, do you think sales of the PHB 2 would have been less, the same, or greater if the Druid, Bard,Barbarian, and Monk were held back and included with it?
The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."
Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very good business model for the eight years the edition was in force for.
It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).
Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.
There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether.
Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e.
3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.
In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?
Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.
I see your point. But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?
Besides, I just don't see anything wrong with a constantly-expanding core game. We want this game to get better and more diverse, without the problems that previous additions have fallen into (if you consider them problems, even...that's debatable as well.)
The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.
This makes sense...however, given 4E's focus on balance and what I've seen so far from released excerpts and what-not, I'm not too worried about power creep or even bloat.
However, it's not like we all haven't been burned by the gaming industry before.
Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes. This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races. I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.
The DMG rules on leveling up/down creatures are quite easy to use and helps alleviate the lack of utility of later supplemental monsters.
And let's be realistic here. Suppose we implement this idea of having the Heroic Core (or whatever) released first, and then a Paragon Core released after that.
Just as there are people saying "It's not enough, we won't be able to use half the stuff they release" now, there are going to be people saying "My character just won't work with the new Paragon rules, I have to completely change him/her/it," etc.
I just don't see how one is better than the other. It makes more sense to try and please more people by releasing all levels of play then to pigeonhole people into campaigning at a specific level.
EDIT: I should learn to multiquote, sorry for taking up all this space.
I see your point. But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?
Besides, I just don't see anything wrong with a constantly-expanding core game. We want this game to get better and more diverse, without the problems that previous additions have fallen into (if you consider them problems, even...that's debatable as well.)
I would respond to your first question like this:
1. How many groups will play heroic levels over the next year.
2. How many groups will need rules for paragon levels over the next year.
3. How many groups will need rules for epic levels over the next year.
I think the majority of play will occur in the heroic levels for the first year. I would expect some play to occur in the paragon tier, but I doubt there would be any meaningful numbers of people playing epic levels in the first year. I wish I could remember what WOTC said about how fast groups should gain levels. That may help me understand why they made the choices they did.
If I were building the game, I would have set the default time to gain paragon to match how long it would take for me to come out with paragon rules, in this case one year.
I would want to see the game get better as time goes on but there seems that some are turned off by lack of options in the core rules. Add to that the core rules set the power level that all else must match up with. WOTC has limited themselves to what paragon level and epic levels can do. If they don't keep the rules and powers balanced, then we have the power creep that I expect. Some people are already complaining about how similar all of the class seem (Debatable, but it is the perception that matters for my argument), and we are locked into the power level for everything. WOTC can only reskin powers so much.
Another poster brought up the question how to add new heroic rules when your group in the paragon tier. The next logic question is what good is 1/3 of the PH2 or MM2 when you have already passed the heroic tier.
I am going to be brave and use an MMO analogy. DDO has not been a smashing success although it seems to be holding water for now. The vast majority of the base seems to be maxed out in levels. I think it is MOD 8 that is coming out very shortly, and it is showcasing the New Player Experience. Um, the people that are left don't need that and I haven't seen any advertising to bring new players in. So what good is all of that work. I feel the same way about 4e. Fully 1/3 of the material I wouldn't expect to use within a year and 1/3 of it never.
You can make the case for including a taste of paragon, but epic, I don't think so. I would have much rathered they fill out the lower levels than include rules that I think most wouldn't need for some time. I see that because of their design choice they are stuck with power creep or sameness.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
Just as there are people saying "It's not enough, we won't be able to use half the stuff they release" now, there are going to be people saying "My character just won't work with the new Paragon rules, I have to completely change him/her/it," etc.
I am not sure I understand how paragon or epic tier rules, powers, or options would invalidate a player's character, especially with the ability to retain powers.
Quote:
I just don't see how one is better than the other. It makes more sense to try and please more people by releasing all levels of play then to pigeonhole people into campaigning at a specific level.
I wouldn't see it as pigeonholing groups into a certain tier. My above post (posted after you wrote this) would expect groups to level at the same pace as the rules become available. Now granted I would be interested to see how fast 4e advancement actually is because in one month of play (~12 hours) my character was only half way to 2nd-level.
I think rolling out the next tiers options and rules when the majority of groups need them would have been superior to what we have now. To directly answer your first question: I think more people would have preferred complete heroic tier rules versus WOTC's current design.
__________________ "Your imagination, limited only by your chosen powers"
To directly answer your first question: I think more people would have preferred complete heroic tier rules versus WOTC's current design.
This might be where we just have a fundamental disagreement with 4E's implementation. The implementation you (and others) are suggesting sounds interesting.
However, it's my opinion that D&D 4E, from the core three books, is a complete game. I'm not afraid of power creep, bloat, or worry about trying to implement everything in later books. What's been given to me is already fantastic, and it'll just get better from there.
The idea that parts of the books are useless at certain levels...well, this is pretty much true for every single D&D book I've ever bought ever forever, and so as a design spec, it really doesn't bother me at all.
I think we just have a difference in opinion on some fundamental issues, and might want to leave it at that? I doubt we'll make much headway going down this route.
But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?
Yes. I honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who would continue into the paragon tier. I believe the number of people who play into the paragon tier outnumber the people who would play into the epic tier.
For me, the biggest reason to release by tiers, however, would be that I believe it is easier to develop and playtest more races/classes within a single tier than fewer races/classes through all three tiers. (“Easier” is probably not the best word.)
__________________ (^_^)
Anything I type is only my opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise, which should go without saying. Please assume that I've left out a smiley after every sentence. Thank you.
I agree splitting the books by tiers would allow more classes to be introduced and better detailed over the coarse of the first three PHBs.
In retrospect from what has been discussed (both here and within the various WotC posts and blogs concerning the division of classes between the books) I believe I now understand the March release for PHBII. The calculation that the average player will still be within the heroic tier is correct and reinforces the release date. If more players are in a position to continue beyond level 10 then introduction of new classes seems less attractive. However if players are still struggling along under level 10 there is more incentive to try new classes, either through starting over or requesting to change classes. There will be less investment in a lower level character than there will be once someone has started branching out and trying paragon pathes. If you use LFR as an example it is projected that most characters will at a maximum be level 7. The preview for the bard and beta test barbarian allow players to reach a reasonable level by March, providinging minimal change when the PHB II finally comes out. Both results encourage product purchase and ensure a larger profit gain versus waiting till after June when most players will have a fuller investment, leaving mainly completists and fans of specific classes to become the largest market share to buy it after that point.
This logic indicates that PHBIII will have less of a demand as players will have an investment and therefore less willing to change classes, decreasing the the value of the book. Where as, if you split the tiers over the three books you would increase the value as players would desire to continue playing their characters beyond a given level.
Last edited by dm4hire; 4th November 2008 at 08:39 AM..
Reason: Added last paragraph
After running 4e for a bit now, I want to go with fantasy hero. I have a lot of the same issues as the OP and when i play it I get this feeling that says, it is a miniatures game with role playing.
Though the one player who did not want to play is having a blast and says, this is awesome its a miniatures game with role playing. I'll probably stick with 4e, since the players like it. I'm not sure if it will last though. It seems to lack depth to me, everything kind of seems to stay the same just with bigger numbers.
__________________ There is no force in the universe strong enough to protect you from your own stupidity.
I have absolutely no intention of paying $175 dollars for the three core books, PHB2, and MM2 so I can play a bard that fights against frost giants (granted those frost giants would likely appear in the 11-20 level range and MM2 anyway, I use them as an example of something that I am use to having that I wouldn't now. Since I do not have the MM I could not say how many iconics are not in there that I would expect. How many level 1-5 range monsters are there?) Will I really have to bring five books to the table to run a 3rd level adventure with bards and some other random 3rd-level monsters?
And this is one of my main beefs with 4e also. In previous editions you got all of the iconic races and monsters in the 3 core rulebooks. To play a decent, fully-fledged D&D game you only needed these 3 books. But now? If I want more of the iconic monsters and classes I'll have to purchases MM2 and PHB2...and possibly more, who knows? From a business point of view, it's a profitable idea, but from a purchaser's point of view it kind of sucks
If only they made it tier based PHBs.. now we are talking BECMI feel. Include alot of classes
and races of the heroic tier and they would be balanced with each other. Introducing
classes and races later will just introduce power creep on effort to make new classes
attractive then old ones.
Fot those that complain about being stuck to a certain tier due to the PHB, many gamers were
stuck with the red box but had a blast and played many modules around that range of levels until
they were ready for the Expert box set.
I wanted to invest in 4th ed actually, but learning that I had to but multiple books of PHBs and
they aren't "optional" like the Complete 3.5, I decided not to. Instead I went to pdfs of older editions.
Call me cheap but the currency exchange from my country is taking a toll on my wallet.
The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."
Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very good business model for the eight years the edition was in force for.
It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).
Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.
There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether.
Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e.
3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.
The Bad in this case was not bad overall for the game just bad in hindsight for profitability.
As far as an RPG goes, yes 3E was about as good as one could expect, sales wise. The question becomes, good enough for whom?
A small independent company in the RPG business can be satisfied with the kind of profit that would make a large company like Hasbro see it as something barely worth thier time.
Shareholders don't get excited about a product that simply makes a bit of money, they get excited about products with huge profits that help drive up the stock price.
The company has a duty to shareholders to invest in those products that produce the revenue and abandon or change those that don't.
This is why RPG's and large publicly traded companies are a poor mix.
Do you honestly think that a non-gamer shareholder of Hasbro cares if the spirit of the original D&D is maintained when doing otherwise would drive up the stock price?
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
