D&D 4E 4e - Too much change?

[Wisdom Penalty]

If you're gonna release a new edition of a game, it had better be significantly improved from the previous version. To do that, you gotta change things. I for one would feel jilted if I slapped down money that would instead ensure my kids had food and received a "slightly modified, so as to not upset certain folks" version of the game.

If the designers and developers listened to all the nitpicks, whining, suggestions, and complaints from this website alone, 4E would never, ever see the light of day. Nor would, dare I say, any previous editions (other than 1E).

It's never the "perfect" time to get pregnant, you know? You gotta do it if you're gonna do it.

"I'm all for progress. It's change that I hate." - Mark Twain

And so ends my rambling post with multiple levels that no one, even myself, understands.

That's why they call me...

Wisdom Penalty

 

[Reynard]

If you're gonna release a new edition of a game, it had better be significantly improved from the previous version.

Therein lies the rub.

 

[Drkfathr1]

I'm trying to stay optimistic and hopeful, but I have a lot of concerns so far. Alot of things I can change in my own campaign (fluff), and of course, we all house rule a few things here and there.

i just don't want to have to start a new edition with a whole big binder full of house rules.

Another thing to consider, is that if the classes get nerfed or changed beyond recognition, it would certainly provide an opening for 3rd party publishers to come out with products that put back in the "stuff" we miss.

Wizard schools gone? Favorite Wizard spells disappear? Sounds like a good splat book for Green Ronin, Paizo, or Necromancer games to produce.

Which makes me wonder....how many PSI books will we see BEFORE WOTC can publish the PHII? After all, most of the psionic races, classes, powers, and monsters already exist in the current OGL. What's to stop someone from beating WOTC to the punch for 4E?

 

[Fifth Element]

Therein lies the rub.

There's no rub. If the designers and developers think it's better, that's the only measure that can be relied upon. They can't release the stuff to the public, take extensive polls to see if the majority agree if it's better, and THEN release the game for sale or invest more in development before releasing it. The design of D&D is not democratic. It will never be released in a form that will please everyone.

Whether Reynard as an individual thinks it's better is irrelevant, especially since Reynard hasn't seen the whole game yet. Complaints on internet message boards carry only so much weight.

 

[Stogoe]

First off, Wizards is not going to re-release 3e with hat in hand if you don't buy 4th edition. Sorry, buckos. Plus, the old cruftload of D&Disms blew. Hard. I want a reimagining of D&D, something new and different that works better. It looks like that's what we're getting in 4e. And I'm glad.

And New BSG is infinitely better than the sock full of poo that was Original BSG. New Starbuck is amazing in every way.

 

[scruffygrognard]

2E to 3E was the big change. I don't see anything to suggest that the 4E changes will be as drastic as the 3E changes.

I gotta disagree. The flavor changes from AD&D to 3rd edition were not all that drastic, especially when compared to the sweeping changing that are being made from 3.5 to 4th edition.

The rule changes from AD&D to 3rd edition were considerable but were a definite improvement so people like me did not mind them. The game still looked like and felt like D&D, so our group transitioned with minimal grumbling.

All 3 groups that I play with now will not be switching to 4th edition. There's no grumbling (other than my grumbling), just the realization that D&D is "moving on" to become an RPG that we're not interested in.

 

[Reynard]

There's no rub. If the designers and developers think it's better, that's the only measure that can be relied upon.

Good is not an objective measure in entertainment, not even RPGs. And really, by your logic, FATAL is a "good" game.

 

[Fifth Element]

Good is not an objective measure in entertainment, not even RPGs. And really, by your logic, FATAL is a "good" game.

Nope. The designers of FATAL were not professional game designers, with extensive credits in the industry and a proven track record.

And I never suggested that "good" is an objective measure. This is why you have to select WHO you will rely upon to make the SUBJECTIVE determination of what is good.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Another thing to consider, is that if the classes get nerfed or changed beyond recognition, it would certainly provide an opening for 3rd party publishers to come out with products that put back in the "stuff" we miss.

Wizard schools gone? Favorite Wizard spells disappear? Sounds like a good splat book for Green Ronin, Paizo, or Necromancer games to produce.

If anything could interest me in 4.0, it would be a 3rd party publisher coming out with a "4.0 Classic". It would use the rule advances of 4th edition while keeping an "old school" vibe.

It would have classic races (elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, half-elves and humans) and classes (fighters, rogues, clerics, wizards with schools of magic, druids, lawful good-only paladins, barbarians, rangers, bards and monks). Racial abilities would be gained up front and class abilities would be based on the traditional abilities of classes.

It'll never happen, but a guy can hope...

 

[Fifth Element]

I gotta disagree. The flavor changes from AD&D to 3rd edition were not all that drastic, especially when compared to the sweeping changing that are being made from 3.5 to 4th edition.

I gotta disagree. Wasn't the marketing for 3E "back to the dungeon"?

And you can't look at flavour changes in isolation. To consider how much an edition changes, you have to look at both mechanics and flavour. Even if the flavour changes in 3E were minor (which may or may not be true), the mechanical changes were not minor.