D&D 4E 4E Devils vs. Demons article

[GVDammerung]

You think the only possible reason people like these ideas is that we're all toadying yes-men? I fail to see how this revision is ruining D&D, considering that every edition of D&D has gone through similar revisions and re-imaginings.

There is a species of "toady" who regularly and repeatedly self-identify by more or less enthusiuastically supporting whatever Wotc is doing at a particular time, demuring in the mildest possible fashion at worst. I could name name but I'd likely get in trouble and you can read the thread and pick them out as readily as I, if you are familiar with ENWorld.

The operative word is not "ruin" but "change," particularly change of such a throughgoing sort without any seeming need for such and without any indicaion that any research suggests such is advisable. They appear to be just changing things because they can and obviously think its the thing to do. When such change impacts the core rules, one is moved to reflect on that, as opposed to a similar departure limited to a single published setting.

Contrary to your assertion, there has never been a similarly throughgoing revision or reimaging that impacted the core rules. Rather, there have been revisions and reimagings limited to specific setting or clearly denominated as merely "options." These changes are systemic to the core rules and they are not options, as presented. Weare in uncharted territory here with the scope of the changes being announced (and I don't limit this to just the devils and demons of the current discussion, they are simply the latest announcement).

So I am a 'chump" because I approve of the direction 4e is taking D&D.

I said - If 4th Edition D&D goes out there and does less well that 3X, you "amen chorus" folks announcing "this rocks," "I want me some of this" etc. wll stand in sharp illumination as Wotc's chum . . . ps." The matter is not yet decided, hence "if." Eventually, you may very well be, or I could be if 4E goes gangbusters. Unfortunately, I will garner no joy in being correct, if I am, as "the world's most popular roleplaying game" will in such case likely not quite so popular thanks to 4e.

 

[Jhaelen]

? Good and evil are the most disagreed upon concepts in D&D....law and chaos weren't. Hence why the basic game had only lawful neutral and chaotic.....not good neutral evil

Err, this couldn't be more from different from the truth. Ever noticed people mentioning 'chaotic stupid'? That term developed exactly because chaotic alignments are widely misunderstood. Especially chaotic neutral.

Everyone I know who played Basic D&D treated the alignments as if lawful was just a different word for good and chaotic a different word for evil.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You know, upon further thought, while I very much still like the bulk of this change, I do have one objection. Specifically, the use of Tharizdun.

I could get into why, but I think it's the stuff of a different thread. So I will go start one.

 

[lukelightning]

I guess I never run D&D then, since I never use the Great Wheel.

QFT. The cosmology of D&D was an afterthought at first. Generally the outer planes have very little to do with Killing Things and Taking Their Stuff, which is the true essence of D&D. Even when demons and devils are encountered, who cares where there home towns are? Just kill them and take their stuff!

I do have one objection. Specifically, the use of Tharizdun.

I agree. I don't know much about Mr. T but ever since playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil I've hated him. Here is the biggest baddest evilest god that ever existed, so evil that all the gods, even the other evil ones, hate him. He is the biggest threat to existance. And what do the gods do? Nothing. It's up us 4th level heroes to stop him. Without any help from said gods or their temples. Shouldn't we be given armies to wipe out this temple?

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

If D&D 4e is released 2008 as basically a brand new game with merely the rights to put the D&D logo on front of it's books, then there is absolutely no reason to prefer 4e D&D over Dark Eye, Ars Magica, and whatever else is out there.

Mirtek, my friend, there is no reason to prefer even 3e D&D to Dark Eye, Ars Magica, and whatever else is out there. So why is it a problem with 4e? The only objective difference between those is that you can't have Beholders or Mind Flayers in published adventures for any of those but D&D, so you'll have to suck it up if you simply must have them. But that's as valid for 4e as for 3e, no matter what they do to the ruleset...

 

[Mercule]

I'm not sure what to do about Demogorgon as the Prince of Demons...

I can't really stomach him being second fiddle to Asmodeus.

Okay, this does qualify as something about which I'm less than sanguine. I really like Demogorgon. And, while I've got nothing against Asmodeus, I don't care for him as even a pseudo-god (Orcus, either, for that matter).

But, I'll ignore it, just like I always have. I'm mainly just tickled that the basic descriptions of the fiends will likely be more in tune with how I use them.

 

[GVDammerung]

Given the sum total of changes thus far announced for 4e, both crunch and flavor, Wotc is significantly changing a formula that has been very successful to this point. It seems to me that one does not willy-nilly inaugurate such wide-ranging changes without a very good reason to do so because the change may well be recieved less well in the market than the formula already established as successful.

While Wotc has been reasonably forthcoming in explaining the changes announced to date and why they think those changes are warranted or are cool, they have not explained why the prior, successful formula needed to be so significantly changed. These are not one and the same thing. What was wrong with the prior, successful formula? Sales were flagging? Interest, RPGA or otherwise, was flagging? What was so wrong that 4e had to so significantly vary from 3x to set matters right?

Rules wise, grappling, is an easy example. Prep time is an easy example. But the fluff? Not so easy.

While the fluff might be dismissed as just that, that is too simplistic. The fuff has served to define the "feel" of the play experience as much as the rules. That feel will now change, doubly so for changing in terms of both the rules and the fluff. This is risky. Id be fascinated to hear what justifoied this level of risk. So far, I'm hearing "because we say so" with precious little to suggest there was a need and even less to suggest that there are objective reasons to believe the end product will be well received in the marketplace once the newness of the initial 3 core books wears off.

Wotc is, IMO, betting the farm.

 

[Jhaelen]

They appear to be just changing things because they can and obviously think its the thing to do.

Maybe because it IS the thing to do? role playing games are completely unlike software 'don't fix what isn't broken' simply doesn't apply here. Roleplaying games have to evolve or they die. Unless new editions are released at least every decade or so only a small group of die-hard fans will continue playing the game and it certainly won't attract any new players.

4E will make changes to many aspects of the game on many different levels. Some of these changes may improve the game for the majority of the players and some may prove to be a step in the wrong direction. The latter will eventually be fixed by the next edition of the game. At the same time the next edition will introduce some things that will turn out to have been a bad idea. An thus the great wheel turns

The current edition is always the best edition of an rpg - unless it's the last edition.

 

[Wolfspider]

The current edition is always the best edition of an rpg - unless it's the last edition.

Cyberpunk v3.0.

Which D&D4e is resembling in my mind more and more every day....

 

[Stone Dog]

The current edition is always the best edition of an rpg - unless it's the last edition.

Or unless it is Paranoia where every edition is the absolute pinnacle of perfection and every new edition keeps getting better!