D&D 4E I'm really concerned about 4E

[Khairn]

You had to pay for those when they were in print format too, you know.

Very true. And the maps, adventures, pictures and articles from those magazines were passed around, well used, and very appreciated. Its a shame they're gone. But that's not really the point.

 

[Odhanan]

You had to pay for those when they were in print format too, you know.

Sure. I'm just worried that the divide on the DI doesn't get resolved and that a whole lot of people will feel like me, stopping their connexion to part of the shared experience. That would suck for me, because I don't want to do that. But I just can't pay for a service I think is not for me, not good enough, whatever I would end up calling it... and we go round to the feeling of "being fired" by the marketing elements surrounding 4E.

 

[DonTadow]

"These DI technology is evil" threads? Don, seriously. If you don't like the thread, you're certainly not forced to read it, and not forced to post in it either. So don't threadcrap in here, please.

I'm not saying "DI is evil". If you can't go beyond the stereotyping of someone else's opinions that wouldn't happen to be yours, best not to post at all.

I never said I hated the threads, I find them amusing, thus I comment. It's like hooking my dad up with Tivo (yes this will still tape all your macguyver episodes just like the vcr). I hardly see this thread different than the other thread (DI, why are they changing d and d), (DI will I be forced ot use it), (DI will it still let me take my morning pee) etc.

There seems to be clear examples that the tabletop portion of the software will work just like magic the gathering online, if you want to use it fine but it won't hurt your game. And that software has existed for 5 years.

 

[DaveMage]

As fas as I know it was a throw-away line in a blog post where they said they considered it for about five seconds but like so much else, it'll now be repeated as gospel against the evil 4E.

I figured it was nuts, too.


...Until I read this: http://p222.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm40.showMessage?topicID=17.topic

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

I know that this is as clear as mud, but its been a perception that has been voiced on numerous boards with the only response being made "You won't need the DDI to play the game." But if the game is being developed to be played with content that has been leveraged to take advantage of technology, and you don't use that technology, aren't you getting just a fraction of the game?

Conversely, you don't need the splatbooks to play the game, but aren't you getting just a fraction of the game if you limit yourself to Core? Granted, it's difficult to play with just the DMG, but the idea is that some form of D&D can be played with just the first generation (PHB1, DMG1, MM1). That is a complete game in itself -- later on, it will be expanded, but even if some races or classes or monsters won't be there (gnomes, I'm looking at the spot where you're supposed to be) the game is 100% playable with those races and classes and monsters which are still there.

 

[Korgoth]

Welcome to the Grog Side.

I understand what you're saying, I think, because I too love D&D. And I want to embrace the products put forth in association with the brand. But, D&D is something definite. Not that the definition of D&D is something very narrow, but it does have an essence... that's how we can use it intelligibly in a sentence. But a lot about D&D is changing in 4E.

Now, there are two kinds of things you can change: essential things, and non-essential things. I think that a perfect example is AC... as we all know, in pre-3E, AC was descending. 3E changed it to ascending. To me, that's a perfectly fine sort of change, a non-essential one. The game isn't all the sudden something else because they reversed the way AC goes. Now, maybe the change was prudent or maybe it was unnecessary... that's a different discussion. But there's nothing fundamentally transgressive to the nature of D&D involved in that change.

To me, some fundamental assumptions of D&D had been changed in 3E, which I see as ultimately causing it to be a game that I don't care for. Such as the notion of the "character build", which I consider to be foreign to the original concept of the D&D (but we don't have to hash that out here). The net result of adopting the "character build" philosophy, however, was that a different sort of play experience was delivered. The sum total of these play experience differences drove me away from the game, and back to previous editions and their spiritual inheritor, C&C.

But, I'd still like to have the chance to buy new products. I'd love for 4E to be true to the spirit of D&D but with changes that are good for the game itself (as opposed to being good for making it into some different game that isn't D&D, or good for marketing, etc.).

So there's something that really misses the point when somebody turns to the grognard and says "Well just play the old edition that you prefer." How does it miss the point? Because the grognard looks at the edition he loves and says "Please, do more like this!" The grognard will even embrace changes to the rules, as long as they are in the spirit of the game.

Consider football: it is possible to add or subtract certain non-essential rules, like "Instant Replay". Some like it, some don't, but nobody can seriously claim that you're not really playing football if it's in or it's out. However, what if they changed it to where you only need to make 2 yards for a 1st down? Or they decreed that the Quarterback will now ride around the field in a dune buggy? Whatever the good or bad things that could be said for those rules changes, they'd leave you with something that was decidedly not football, regardless of what the NFL would try to call it.

 

[Grog]

Sure. I'm just worried that the divide on the DI doesn't get resolved and that a whole lot of people will feel like me, stopping their connexion to part of the shared experience. That would suck for me, because I don't want to do that. But I just can't pay for a service I think is not for me, not good enough, whatever I would end up calling it... and we go round to the feeling of "being fired" by the marketing elements surrounding 4E.

But Dragon and Dungeon are part of the D&DI. You could, in theory, subscribe to D&DI, only read the magazines, and not use any of the other features.

So, since Dragon and Dungeon cost money before, and will cost money now, I'm not seeing what's changed other than the format. Were people who didn't subscribe to the magazines before treated as cheap asses who just "don't love the game enough" or just "don't get the game anymore"?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Interesting. Well, as long as "there are ways to represent the monsters you will be using that will be included in your subscription package" I don't care as much. I'm used to using a coin, a die, or some other marker on the tabletop. If I ever use the VTT, I'll just use the virtual equivalent.

 

[Cadfan]

Whatever the good or bad things that could be said for those rules changes, they'd leave you with something that was decidedly not football, regardless of what the NFL would try to call it.

The problem is that when your complaints boil down to an amorphous feeling that something intrinsic to what makes the game D&D has been lost, your opinions are not only difficult to communicate to others, but in fact are completely untranslatable into a language comprehensible to people who lack the same gaming background you have.

 

[Korgoth]

The problem is that when your complaints boil down to an amorphous feeling that something intrinsic to what makes the game D&D has been lost, your opinions are not only difficult to communicate to others, but in fact are completely untranslatable into a language comprehensible to people who lack the same gaming background you have.

Well, what do you think about the football scenario I outlined? Would the quarterback in a dune buggy still be football, or would it not?