D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[The Little Raven]

Not following you here at all Mourn. Can you please explain?

Sure, take a look at Dungeons & Dragons Online. It's an MMO-based on D&D, but it is not D&D itself, because D&D is far more than an MMO could be at our current level of technology. Until the day that game technology catches up with on-the-fly adaptation (and not just toggling systems on and off), this won't be possible. D&D's strongest features is the ability to step off the path.

 

[The Little Raven]

It seems as though the only thing this will accomplish is sundering the verisimilitude of existing campaign worlds as there are sudden differences in races that "have always been that way."

Elf paladins (after 20+ years of human only). Dwarf wizards (after 20+ years of no dwarf casters). Skinny halflings (after 20+ years of hobbits). All were sudden differences in races, and except for the FR metaplot event to explain dwarf arcane casters, it was just a case of "always been that way." Did 3rd edition sunder the verisimilitude of the FR setting for you by making these changes?

 

[rounser]

Elf paladins (after 20+ years of human only). Dwarf wizards (after 20+ years of no dwarf casters). Skinny halflings (after 20+ years of hobbits). All were sudden differences in races, and except for the FR metaplot event to explain dwarf arcane casters, it was just a case of "always been that way." Did 3rd edition sunder the verisimilitude of the FR setting for you by making these changes?

This has been refuted before, Mourn.

Tweaking the flavour of existing races in a minor way, with precedent in classic fantasy (think The King of Elflands Daughter for elven paladins, or Midkemia's stoneshapers for dwarven wizards) does in no way compare to wholesale introduction of dragonmen (Trogdors?), contrived names ("eladrin") and redefinition of existing words that are still in use with a completely different meaning ("warlord") to the core.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Elf paladins (after 20+ years of human only). Dwarf wizards (after 20+ years of no dwarf casters). Skinny halflings (after 20+ years of hobbits). All were sudden differences in races, and except for the FR metaplot event to explain dwarf arcane casters, it was just a case of "always been that way." Did 3rd edition sunder the verisimilitude of the FR setting for you by making these changes?

Given that the 3E Forgotten Realms was a wholesale "reimagining" of the setting, yes. But, as the changes were to create the new super edition that was to be the new canon, I went with it. The changes 4E are imposing come too close on the heels of such major changes that the world is in danger of losing cohesion.

To compare it to another reimagined setting, I was willing to accept the new Battlestar Galactica because it was almost 20 years since the original, there was very little additional material outside of the original season, and I felt that there was a lot they could do to improve the franchise. If they were to completely reimagine it again so soon after after the four season run of the new show, I'd turn away from it in disgust.

 

[The Little Raven]

This has been refuted before, Mourn.

Not really. It always comes down to "I don't consider that to be a big change, therefore you're wrong."

Tweaking the flavour of existing races in a minor way, with precedent in classic fantasy

Fat, comfort loving midgets with hairy feet becoming slender, nomadic midgets with athletic qualities is minor? Bilbo is a minor change away from being Tasslehoff? Dwarves being completely unable to use arcane magic at all, then suddenly having wizards among them is minor?

(think The King of Elflands Daughter for elven paladins

This changes in no way the fact that the complaint was that changing the races (for 4e) sunders the verisimilitude in settings, while not acknowledging that substantial changes were made in the previous edition, but they're just ignored as "minor," because it suits the person's argument.

Midkemia's stoneshapers for dwarven wizards

While I love the Riftwar, I don't call a setting based on a D&D campaign classic fantasy. Interesting, that this D&D-derived setting is okay for influencing the design of 4e, but official D&D material doesn't seem to be (eladrin, tieflings, etc.)

does in no way compare to wholesale introduction of dragonmen (Trogdors?),

Wholesale introduction of gnomes and half-orcs occurred after D&D's inception. New things get added.

contrived names ("eladrin")

D&D isn't allowed to use it's own terminology, one that invokes the very type of elf they are emulating (the Eldar)? Is this going to turn into one of those "D&Disms are bad in a game called D&D" arguments?

redefinition of existing words that are still in use with a completely different meaning ("warlord") to the core.

Rogue and Barbarian are both terms that D&D uses without regard to it's real-world definition. D&D Rogue = highly skilled character with thieving abilities, which doesn't match the definition in any dictionary. And D&D's Barbarian = angry guy that can't read is quite distant from the real-world definition.

new Battlestar Galactica

All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

 

[The Little Raven]

Given that the 3E Forgotten Realms was a wholesale "reimagining" of the setting, yes.

And no, it wasn't. It was taking 3e's rules and saying "things had always been this way." That's retconning, not reimagining.

 

[rounser]

Is this going to turn into one of those "D&Disms are bad in a game called D&D" arguments?

Possibly. If you don't understand how D&Disms are better avoided in the core, then I'm afraid we don't have much common ground.

Look, I can invent badgermen called Whiskerlings and put them in the core. That would be a D&Dism. It would also be a stupid thing to do for the game.

 

[Darrin Drader]

And no, it wasn't. It was taking 3e's rules and saying "things had always been this way." That's retconning, not reimagining.

Is the map different than it was in editions 1 or 2? If no, then I agree with your point. If yes, then it was reimagined, literally from the ground up. Aside from that, were there other changes? Elminster bearing more resemblance to Sean Connery? Different cosmology? Red Wizards being the magic merchants throughout Faerun instead of reclusive megalomaniacs with a penchant for red? The changes were pretty substantial - to the point where players were definitely in a reimagined world, should the DM use the 3E books.

 

[The Little Raven]

Is the map different than it was in editions 1 or 2? If no, then I agree with your point. If yes, then it was reimagined, literally from the ground up. Aside from that, were there other changes? Elminster bearing more resemblance to Sean Connery? Different cosmology? Red Wizards being the magic merchants throughout Faerun instead of reclusive megalomaniacs with a penchant for red? The changes were pretty substantial - to the point where players were definitely in a reimagined world, should the DM use the 3E books.

This makes me think you don't really understand the different between a reimagining and metaplot/retcons. One has you starting from scratch and redoing the entire thing differently, with different themes, but with a few familiar points (BSG, for example). The other has you making changes that were "always like that" (retcons) or are due to continuation in the storyline (metaplot).

Map Changes - Retcon
Elminster's Appearance - Metaplot (he undergoes some changes in Elminster in Hell, like the loss of his beloved hat and the shortening of the beard)
Cosmology - Retcon (fixes the mistake of shoe-horning the Realms into Greyhawks' great wheel)
Red Wizards - Metaplot (best way to get spies everywhere is for them to provide people with a useful service)

And if 5 changes, one of which is so minor as to be laughable (OMG, Elminster might not look like every other Gandalf clone in artwork), constitutes a "reimagining," then the change from 1e-2e was rather devastating.

 

[Dristram]

And as a 1st Edition AD&D player, I had major issues with various changes in 2nd Ed. Like the Ranger who turned from a butch orc and giant killer into a dual-sword wielding master, all because of Drizzt fame.

Changes between editions are par for the course unfortunately. That said, 4e is taking a larger leap away from traditional D&D than 3e did. So much so that for the first time through all the editions, I find myself saying, "It isn't D&D anymore".