A Question of Character...

[Jhaelen]

There's a funny thing that's been noticed by market researchers regarding customer choice. People say that they want choices, but when you give customers too many choices sales actually go down. The customer gets confused by the plethora of choices, and no matter what they choose, they always feel like they could have done better.

I believe that's mostly true. It's partly because those choices are either not actually meaningful or the customers fail to see what the difference between superficially similar options is.

It's also a matter of presentation: How are the options presented?

Regarding the builds: These aren't very different from the starting packages in 3E. I know, I've never used one, but they might be useful for someone feeling overwhelmed by options. they also serve as a good starting point: It's easier to start with something similar to the character concept you're looking for than starting from scratch. After choosing a build, customize it by replacing some of its elements.

In my 3E campaign I've asked the player what kind of character they wanted to play and then made suggestions that I felt were appropriate for the concept. As a DM I generally have a better overview on the available options and their less-obvious consequences. In 4E that won't be any different except that maybe (at least initially) the players will have a better idea what they want to play than they had in 3E.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, okay. Say I really wanted to play an Aasimar in 4e on release. For obvious reasons, I can't do that. I'm not going to look at the game and say "I can play a Dragonborn." as a result. I'm going to say "I can't play an Aasimar." It just doesn't work the other way.

In other words, the people who the rules have shipped with stuff for are going to say "it can be what I want" and the people who the rules haven't are going to say "it can't". I don't really think people are looking at this in fundamentally different ways, unless they're looking at it in ways incompatible with logic.

Well, it's a new game. You can never expect that if you switch from one game to another that you can play something you knew from an earlier game.

If I played a Troll Street Samurai in Shadowrun, I can't really expect to play a Troll Street Samurai when I switch to play D&D (any edition.)
If I played a Human Highwayman in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I can't really expect to find the same class in D&D.

I agree that it still can be a disappointed when you switch from one game to another. But it's not really a flaw in the system.

D&D is also aimed at people with no idea what they can do. To figure that out, they'll look into the rulebook and see what's there, and hopefully, that will inspire them to play something. This mindset is not unique to new roleplayers. Anyone can adopt if it they switch to a different edition, and I think it's also the most sensible to do.

 

[Lizard]

Considering you wouldn't have been able to do that in any edition earlier than 3e, I'm not sure why you think it's likely you should. All the other editions have changed basic core classes and races, after all.

Actually, the only one which gave us fewer core options than the one before it was 2e.

AD&D 1e vs. OD&D -- new races, new classes (many optional Dragon Magazine classes brought in to 'core')

AD&D 2e vs 1e -- The Great Butchering. Half Orcs, Assassins, Monks, Illusionists, gone. Bard added as a core class, perhaps the only good thing about 2e.

D&D 3e vs. AD&D 2e -- All the core classes/races from 2e, plus barbarians and sorcerers. Alos, monks and half-orcs back in core. Nothing eliminated; much added or restored. Illusionists still screwed.

D&D 4e vs. D&D 3e -- several classes and races lost; new races/classes come only at the expense of old. Illusionists double-screwed, as illusion powers for wizards will be substantially reduced. Poor illusionists.

 

[Lizard]

Well, it's a new game. You can never expect that if you switch from one game to another that you can play something you knew from an earlier game.

If I played a Troll Street Samurai in Shadowrun, I can't really expect to play a Troll Street Samurai when I switch to play D&D (any edition.)

But if you played one in Shadowrun 3e, wouldn't you expect to be able to in Shadowrun 4e? The exact details might differ, but you'd expect the character concept to carry over. Would Shadowrun fans be happy if, for example, the next edition of the game lacked trolls entirely? ("We're saving them for a supplement.")

 

[JahellTheBard]

As a DM i can say most players have fun if whatever they play is close to what they like to play ... maybe fans can get fun playing anything, but most people ( and girls more than anyone ) has an idea of what they like and they not like .. if they can get something close to this, they get fun, else they are not happy and soon or later find the game 'boring' and leave.

Customization is a key feature to please your players dreams .. may it be more difficult as a DM?
Can be, sure, but knowing that your players get fun and are really involved in they characters stories, is a great reward.

 

[Celebrim]

I’m a little surprised at how many players seem to be very “character-focused” when it comes to playing D&D. I know it’s an ROLE PLAYING GAME - just hear me out...They remind me of the Brian Regan joke on his “Live” CD about the guy at the donut shop. Brian wonders why they make such absurd donuts. Like there’s a guy who walks in the shop and says the following...Just my two cents.

Heh. Good post.

The thing is my relation to a game system isn't analogous to a man walking into a donut shop. It's more like a man walking into a kitchen appliance store and saying, "I want to make my own donuts. What do you have for me?", and being told, "Why would you want to make your donuts, when we have these delicious premade donuts available to you for a very low price? Look at all the selections we have, why would you ever want to make your own donuts?"

My relationship to a rules set is not one of a guy looking for goodies, but of a guy looking for tools. I'm willing to do the heavy lifting of making my own goodies if they just provide me good tools.

Some people are just looking for a good selection of flavorful donuts, and there is nothing wrong with that. But if you are looking for donut makers, a box of a dozen donuts looks really stale to you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But if you played one in Shadowrun 3e, wouldn't you expect to be able to in Shadowrun 4e? The exact details might differ, but you'd expect the character concept to carry over. Would Shadowrun fans be happy if, for example, the next edition of the game lacked trolls entirely? ("We're saving them for a supplement.")

Yes, that is true, with an important caveat: Shadowrun rules and settings are very intertwined. I have never seen an alternative setting book for Shadowrun, using the same game system, but a very different world.

The D&D core rules just "imply" a setting. And one book later, you can be using an entirely different setting with little common ground (aside from broad strokes, like "Dragons and Dungeons exist here, too, and people fight with swords and some guys sling fireballs".)
There is a certain "core assumption" on what character types should be within a D&D game (I'd say Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard are required, and probably Humans, Elves and Dwarves), but it's never as specific as it would be in Shadowrun*.

It's not Shadowrun if Johnson doens't frack you twice, as they saying goes in our group...

 

[fafhrd]

It's more like a man walking into a kitchen appliance store and saying, "I want to make my own donuts. What do you have for me?", and being told, "Why would you want to make your donuts, when we have these delicious premade donuts available to you for a very low price?

Why does the appliance store sell doughnuts?

 

[Celebrim]

Why does the appliance store sell doughnuts?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

As I said, I approach all rulesets as tool kits. I want a system that in addition to supporting its core gameplay is flexible and comprehensive enough to handle whatever curves I as a referee want to throw at it. So whenever I go to buy a ruleset I'm going to buy tools, and not goodies.

I look at 4E previews and I say to myself, metaphorically, "Why does the hardware store want to sell me doughnuts?" And then I say to myself, "Maybe I've gone to the wrong store.", and go (rather less metaphorically) elsewhere.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

In 3.x if I want to make a nimble swashbuckly rapier wielding character I have a wealth of options, including some or all rogue levels to make use of sneak attack. This is where the system, in it's flexibility, allows me to use a class power, once solely the domain of kidney stabbin' shadow skulkers to instead represent my nimbly stabbing you in the liver instead of some less critical part of your anatomy. Thus portraying the utility of precision instead of brawn.

However from what we know of 4e, that is no longer an option. We are back to the days of arbitrarily declaring that I can strike a critical bit of your anatomy with a rock from 30 ' (If I use a sling, but not if I throw it) but not with a rapier. How, exactly, can this be construed as progress?

This is a false dillemma.

3.x has been out for years and has a MOUNTAIN of supplements. There is no doubt in my mind that five years from now when there is a mountain of 4th edition supplements, you will be able to play any type of character you can think of and then some.

To expect the core three rulebooks to have the same breadth and depth of options as 3.x including all its supplements is unrealistic.

As far as which options do get included. . . I'm sure they've done a lot of research on which were the most commonly played and therefore which ought to be released first. . . possibly modified by which ones they were satisfied they could do properly by the time of publication.