D&D 4E 4E WotC way of saying your fired?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sheesh, I hope someone does do a 3.75. There is nothing wrong with 3e that cant be ironed out.

Maybe it is more a matter of play style and personal preference, but balancing the game to reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect", make Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels more reliable, reduce the chances for the "short adventure day" doesn't look to me as if a 3.75 could actually address all this. Unless you count Iron Heroes as a possible version of D&D 3.75.

Though I wouldn't mind if someone made a 3.75 and improved these aspects...

I think there is nothing wrong with D20 that can't be ironed out. But since D&D 4 is also a d20 System, that should be obvious...

 

[The Little Raven]

EDIT: I should note that I didnt always agree with Skip, or Monte or Tweet or Ryan, but I felt like these guys really did care about trying to adhere to D&D "history and themes". After the HAsbro buyout and everyone had left, thats when things really went downhill for me.

Hasbro purchased Wizards of the Coast one year before 3rd Edition was released, and most of the people that worked on 3rd Edition with Monte, Skip, and Jonathon are still with Wizards, and are the people responsible for 3.5... James Wyatt, in particular, has been with Wizards since the launch of 3rd Edition.

So, it's kinda odd to me that you view the Hasbro buyout as going downhill, when the first major action taken after the purchase was the launch of 3rd Edition, which you seem to hold in the highest regard.

He's always been a stand-up no BS guy. The partnership with Bill and Clark just makes it all the better.

I agree with these statements, but don't agree with trusting Erik Mona over Wizards. While Erik's a great guy, he seems to want to keep D&D in the mold of a 1970s/1980s game, and I don't really vibe with that. I left D&D during 2nd Edition because it couldn't get passed behind that game, and there were plenty of other systems that weren't hampered by grognards and sacred cows.

 

[Umbran]

Not if you feel that it is indicative of a more pervasive (and unnecessary) change of tone.

Yes, even if you feel that. Because "feel it is indicative" is not "know it is indicative". Single data points don't generally indicate anything. Single data points don't demonstrate patterns.

It is entirely rational to look at the system, not like it, and avoid it. Deciding to avoid it because of one setting element before actually reviewing the system as a whole is not rational, IMHO.

 

[JeffB]

Hasbro purchased Wizards of the Coast one year before 3rd Edition was released..

Nevermind....my old grognardness has failed me

 

[WhatGravitas]

Maybe it is more a matter of play style and personal preference, but balancing the game to reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect", make Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels more reliable, reduce the chances for the "short adventure day" doesn't look to me as if a 3.75 could actually address all this. Unless you count Iron Heroes as a possible version of D&D 3.75.

4E shows many good ideas and improvements. I rather hope that Paizo goes the "alternate player's handbook"-route, similar to IH, AE and similar books. Make a 4E sans "hyper" - something like "4E for D&Ders" - take the good stuff, and clean it up.

Would appeal to me much more than 3E+.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I find that really hard to believe. I'd put their target market at 18+.

I agree with you 100%. In fact, I remember thinking the same thing. I never did ask about that though and I can't remember why.

 

[Imaro]

Yes, even if you feel that. Because "feel it is indicative" is not "know it is indicative". Single data points don't generally indicate anything. Single data points don't demonstrate patterns.

It is entirely rational to look at the system, not like it, and avoid it. Deciding to avoid it because of one setting element before actually reviewing the system as a whole is not rational, IMHO.

Well they've also thrown half-demon...quarter-demon(tieflings) in as a default race. I can see where the man is coming from, even if I don't totally agree with it one way or another. As far as being rational...I think if you have a major issue with how a company is presenting things the rational thing is not to buy it or support it.

You know this is funny to me because D&D 4e is suppose to have new gamers as a target market yet these two changes alone are definitely going to put some parents off...of course they could be going for the publicity angle that saturated D&D with the whole satanic vibe in the 80's. You know what they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity. Plus it will appeal to all the angsty, rebel without a cause, world is gloom and doom, type impressions alot of the teenage years foster in people.

 

[WayneLigon]

While Erik's a great guy, he seems to want to keep D&D in the mold of a 1970s/1980s game, and I don't really vibe with that.

Eh, I wouldn't much agree with that. Pathfinder shows a lot of innovation. They're re-imagining the look and feel of a lot of classic monsters: different ecologies, looks, societies, etc. If they did their own variant players handbook (something I'm sorry we didn't see more companies do), I wouldn't blink at getting one, even if it was for 3.5. I can always mine it for ideas, art, fluff, etc.

 

[The Little Raven]

Eh, I wouldn't much agree with that. Pathfinder shows a lot of innovation. They're re-imagining the look and feel of a lot of classic monsters: different ecologies, looks, societies, etc. If they did their own variant players handbook (something I'm sorry we didn't see more companies do), I wouldn't blink at getting one, even if it was for 3.5. I can always mine it for ideas, art, fluff, etc.

I was talking about core D&D itself. Most of his concerns I've seen about 4th Edition are about the slaughter of sacred cows in the core game and it's assumed setting.

 

[Grog]

So the fact that WotC is making it a priority to conduct a PR campaign they're calling a "playtest" rather than providing any of the 3rd party publishers with information would worry me as well, if I was in Mona's shoes.

How could the playtest possibly be a PR campaign when everyone involved in the playtest is under an NDA?

WotC employee #1: "Okay, we want everyone participating in this fake playtest to generate tons of good PR for us! How can we best make sure they do that?"

WotC employee #2: "We could make them sign legally binding documents saying they can't talk to anyone about 4E?"

WotC employee #1: "Brilliant!"