D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[The Little Raven]

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.

Alright, then I should count you firmly on the side of removing beholders, displacer beasts, gnolls, aasimar, aboleths, blink dogs, drow, driders, gith (of all types), illithids, kuo-toa, mephits, owlbears, pseudodragons, remorhaz, umber hulks, rust monster and all of those other D&Disms from the core Monster Manuals, since avoiding D&Disms is so important?

 

[Darrin Drader]

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)..

I fail to see how calling the changes "retconning" instead of "reimagining" makes any difference to the point I originally made. Regardless, coming from someone who did design work on the 3E Forgotten Realms, I can tell you for a fact that 3E was a reimagining as it was a new baseline for the setting.

Anyway, I fail to see the point in continuing this debate over semantics. The bottom line is that if you want to create a campaign world that is consistent, stop messing with it!

 

[rounser]

Alright, then I should count you firmly on the side of removing beholders, displacer beasts, gnolls, aasimar, aboleths, blink dogs, drow, driders, gith (of all types), illithids, kuo-toa, mephits, owlbears, pseudodragons, remorhaz, umber hulks, rust monster and all of those other D&Disms from the core Monster Manuals, since avoiding D&Disms is so important?

These are monsters, Mourn. There are thousands of monsters for the game. Individually, they get very little screentime, and are easily excluded by the DM if they're not his or her speed.

On the other hand, a core race or class will see use over hundreds or thousands of NPCs and PCs, and will turn up everywhere in published materials and game settings. You need to find places for this stuff in your world, or make a special effort to replace it everywhere it turns up in published material. There's simply no comparison.

 

[The Little Raven]

I fail to see how calling the changes "retconning" instead of "reimagining" makes any difference to the point I originally made.

Reimagining - Start over from scratch. (BSG starts over. Apollo is no longer the character's real name, but the pilot callsign of Lee "Apollo" Adama. An RPG comparison is the oWoD versus nWoD.)

Retcon - Keep going, and change some details to have "always been like that." (Halflings going from chubby hobbits to nomadic kender. Elves having paladins.)

Metaplot - Changes occur because story continues. (Red Wizards decide they need a new strategy to get the foothold they wish in other places. Dwarves having arcane casters, after the "Year of Thunder Children.")

 

[Darrin Drader]

Reimagining - Start over from scratch. (BSG starts over. Apollo is no longer the character's real name, but the pilot callsign of Lee "Apollo" Adama. An RPG comparison is the oWoD versus nWoD.)

Retcon - Keep going, and change some details to have "always been like that." (Halflings going from chubby hobbits to nomadic kender. Elves having paladins.)

Metaplot - Changes occur because story continues. (Red Wizards decide they need a new strategy to get the foothold they wish in other places. Dwarves having arcane casters, after the "Year of Thunder Children.")

Still stuck in semanticsland while sidestepping the actual point.

 

[adndgamer]

D&D has been remade a number of times, and each time there has been upset and turmoil over the switch.

I started on 2nd edition (black books). I played some 1st edition, and some original D&D. I was pissed off about the switch to 3E. Completely new mechanics, new look... I hated it. I pledged that I would never switch over. Over time I succumbed to it, and it grew on me.

After playing 3e for a few years (geeze.. I guess since it came out at GenCon), I can't imagine going back to 2nd edition. Then, a while back my friends started playing 3.5. More small rule changes. Different spell lists, but not too huge.

Now we have 4th Edition on the horizon (though I see it's been pushed back from 2008 to 2011?). Lots of changes are looming. Some of what I've heard makes me interested, other things make me afraid.

The fact is, D&D is what you and your group make of it. It's open to change enough that your gaming group can play however you want. Don't like dwarves or halflings using magic? Don't let them. Want your paladins to be LG? Decree that they are and it is so. Or, find a new gaming group. There are plenty of old-school gamers who like things the traditional way, even if they're playing a new system.

D&D never was about the rules so much as getting together with your friends, goofing around for a lot of the time, and playing through the game the rest of the time -- all the while consuming mass quantities of junk food and soda and doing what we do best -- geeking it up.

If 4th Edition does suck, the market will respond and they'll fix it, or we'll continue to play 3E/3.5.

 

[adndgamer]

Okay, but I just looked at this page:

http://dnd4.com/?page_id=33


And some of the changes are pretty bizarre if true:

Magic will be more prevalent to all classes.

-Magic power sources will be either arcane, divine, or martial. (I don't understand

-Dragonborn and Tiefling are normal races? Granted -- some OD&D add-ons (Arduin Grimoires) had some crazy races too.

-All classes will have some ability to heal themselves by some means. (WHY? Is there some logic behind this?)

-For wizards, spell failure due to armor is gone.

-Fighters can get a feat to allow their Dexterity to be added to their AC even while wearing heavy armor.



Besides those, I'm intrigued by some things, like how sorcerers & barbarians will work. I probably won't be changing any time soon, or at least not until my gaming group decides to switch over.

 

[Dristram]

The fact is, D&D is what you and your group make of it. It's open to change enough that your gaming group can play however you want. Don't like dwarves or halflings using magic? Don't let them. Want your paladins to be LG? Decree that they are and it is so.

It doesn't really work that easily. It's easier to add something than to take something away. I tried that and have seen other DMs try that, and players get frustrated and say things like, "Then why did I buy this damn book if I can't use what's in it?". I'd rather see rules be more restrictive and let the DM's be the heroes by allowing stuff the rules don't allow.

 

[DaveMage]

Anyway, I fail to see the point in continuing this debate over semantics. The bottom line is that if you want to create a campaign world that is consistent, stop messing with it!

Welcome back, Darrin.

 

[Agamon]

D&D is a roleplaying game. In order to really get the most out of roleplaying, you need to be in person with the ones you're roleplaying with. If all D&D is to you is going from one combat to the next, then a video game can fulfill your desires. But true roleplaying can't be done over a computer. How do I define true roleplaying? Talking as your character in 1st person including body language and special voices. I find most modern players of D&D talk mostly in the 3rd person and are quick to roll a d20 afterwards. That’s fairly easy to replicate in a video game, but 1st person roleplaying is not. And traditional D&D roleplaying is 1st person roleplaying with dice rolls being used sparingly, instead allowing the DM to judge for himself how well he felt the player’s character did. A lot of that has been lost and so video game style games can more easily replicate the modern way of playing D&D.

I agree to certain extent. Roleplaying over a chat client is more difficult than in person. But I've experienced the roleplaying in a PbP to be far superior to anything I've done or seen around a table. Being able to think about what your PC will say and having him say it exactly as he would without any OOC side comments or jokes is great. Not to mention being able to explain in detail what your PC is doing, too.

That said, the social aspect of tabletop roleplaying can't be beat, but the best roleplaying I've experienced has been on a PC. However, more to the point, that's pretty hard to replicate with what D&DI will offer.