D&D 3E/3.5 A message to the 3.5ers

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

it's the business model of D&DI monthly subscriptions (with no permanent print product to show for my $ unless I absorb the printing and binding costs myself) plus "everything's core now." I prefer the 3-core plus a toolbox of options approach.

Hmm, I am not sure if it is useful to post this here and if this shouldn't be in another thread.

You don't have to get the DDI. You will still get all rule books at your FLGS or via Amazon (or whatever else) just as you did in the past.
The DDI provides extra content, like the Dungeon/Dragon, the Virtual Game Table and the Character Generator. The only caveat is that a subset of the things that are part of the DDI were free before that, but they weren't available in print then, either. (If this is actually true and the old Web Enhancements or Sage Advice / Errata won't be as free as they always were.) If you relied a lot on the Web Enhancements in the past, this might indeed be not so great. Personally, I rarely visted the WotC pages, at least until the D&D 4 announcement or when new galleries appeared.

Judging from my experiences on this board and in our group, rulebooks beyond the 3 core rulebooks were always treated as a kind of "Core" if they came from WotC, unless it was setting-specific material. I do not think that you'll get in more trouble for banning the 4th edition PHB II material then you had when you banned material from the Complete Divine in 3rd edition. (Now, if you had a lot of trouble with that, I totally understand your concerns, except that the changes between 3.x and 4th edition will not affect this at all.)

 

[Stormtower]

Hmm, I am not sure if it is useful to post this here and if this shouldn't be in another thread.

You don't have to get the DDI. You will still get all rule books at your FLGS or via Amazon (or whatever else) just as you did in the past.
The DDI provides extra content, like the Dungeon/Dragon, the Virtual Game Table and the Character Generator. The only caveat is that a subset of the things that are part of the DDI were free before that, but they weren't available in print then, either. (If this is actually true and the old Web Enhancements or Sage Advice / Errata won't be as free as they always were.) If you relied a lot on the Web Enhancements in the past, this might indeed be not so great. Personally, I rarely visted the WotC pages, at least until the D&D 4 announcement or when new galleries appeared.

Judging from my experiences on this board and in our group, rulebooks beyond the 3 core rulebooks were always treated as a kind of "Core" if they came from WotC, unless it was setting-specific material. I do not think that you'll get in more trouble for banning the 4th edition PHB II material then you had when you banned material from the Complete Divine in 3rd edition. (Now, if you had a lot of trouble with that, I totally understand your concerns, except that the changes between 3.x and 4th edition will not affect this at all.)

I hear what you're saying, and I may have been unclear about my 3e buying patterns. I am a completest (some of my gaming group might say obsessively so) and I don't like banning stuff (Wraithstrike-level game breakers excepted). My group, like yours, has basically treated WotC material as Core too and we haven't had a problem... my issues aren't with home games, as I've always been able to easily pick and choose what I want to include or exclude.

The problem here is that I became very active in the RPGA as a DM over the last two years and if I want to continue in that vein, I feel almost obligated to keep up with all the 4e stuff including D&DI. So when the 4e announcement occurred I felt squeezed between my loyalty to 3.5 and my desire to exhaust the possibilities of that system versus (my own perceived necessity, I'll grant) to remain current so as to stay active in the RPGA.

After doing a cursory cost-benefit analysis, I decided to drop RPGA involvement when 4e arrives and retreat into my grognard cave to run home stuff. I cannot justify another round of buying to stay current - either new core books every year or D&DI. My previous post was an attempt to vocalize a few steps WotC could take to earn back my business if/when I decide to return to the fold.

And yeah, I realize it's partly my own obsessive-compulsive buying patterns that put me in this position. But think about an RPGA DM's position for a moment: say I'm running a module for Xen'drik Expeditions and I've got an Incarnum PC or a Psionic PC at the table, but I lack those supplements. How would I confidently adjudicate the PC's actions in that case? I probably couldn't. With the push to make everything core, supplemented by the D&DI, I'd feel obligated to study up on those rules in 4e so my players could have a good, properly adjudicated experience at my table. Simply referencing a hypothetical 4e SRD won't help in cases like these. So for an RPGA DM, the adage of "evolve or perish" is applied more forcefully than for an exclusively home DM.

As to your suggestion that I put my suggestions in a different thread, I considered doing so but I really don't want to add to the bad vibes or have my comments mis-construed as anti-4e. Though I dislike many of the flavor changes, I actually think 4e will advance the game mechanics (at least, I am optimistic of this possibility given current available data). However, the business model is disappointing to me personally despite the fact that I see it's necessity for WotC's future growth.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Again, what you are saying is about equivalent to sentiment of the OP I object to: that only posts that are uncritical of 4e are acceptable.

Nobody is saying that, though. That's kind of part of the entire point here.

 

[Mistwell]

if you plan on sticking with 3.5 and have made that decision, please stop posting in the 4e forum.


Okay, we'll here's a question. 4e talk is relegated to this forum, by rule. If you could only post in this forum if you had something positive to say, that's virtually the same thing as "No criticizing 4e, the edition as a whole, on ENWorld."

"f you plan on sticking with 3.5 and have made that decision" /= "If you have a criticism of 4e then don't post it".

If you are considering moving to 4e, he is saying feel free to post, even if the post is criticism. His point (and one I think is valid) is that "if have made that decision" already to not move over, then there is little point in your continuing to post your criticism (unless it is really new criticism, which is pretty rare).

Because of the existence of this forum, someone who had no intention of switching to 4e would still be forced to post here if they wanted to say something pertaining to 4e. If you wanted to say, "I heard they introduced new feats related to animal husbrandry to 4e, and I don't like that," you could only post that in this forum, whether you intend to adopt 4, stick with 3.5, both, or haven't decided.

Why would you post "I don't like this rule I heard about in 4e" if your motive is "I have no intention at all of playing 4e". It would be like people jumping into a Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show discussion in the media forum and saying "I heard Buffy sucks, and I have no intention of ever watching it" (use that because it is a real example of something that happened, and got a warning from a mod). What is the point of that? What is accomplished by that?

While I know people are tired of negativity, it is also the case that many people who have criticisms about 4e stuff have also faced a lot of negativity, everything from being called anti-fun to illiterate to a grognard or holdout. And nobody in the less positive camp has asked people who are more positive to stop posting.

Several in the less positive camp have asked people in the more positive camp to stop posting, in this very thread. And in addition, surely you can see that being negative and being positive are not equals in this context. A new product is coming out and a group of people who think they might decide to use that product want to discuss it. The discussion is not well furthered by a group of people not just being negative about it for the sake of being negative (because they already decided they have no intention of using that new product), but are doing so in a very repetitive manner.

I think anything resembling an intelligent opinion, expressed civilly, has a place. If this forum were specifically "Excited about 4e," you would have a point, and stuff that wasn't excited about 4e could presumably live in another forum. But you can't just have a site and say, "GURPS talk belongs in general, but unfavorable 4e talk does not belong here."

Again the same strawman. NOBODY has said that if you don't post something positive you shouldn't post at all. What's being said is "if you plan on sticking with 3.5 and have made that decision" then please don't repetitively post the same negative things in this forum over and over again. Can't you see the massive different between the strawman of "Only post if you are excited about 4e" and the real position being posited by some folks in this thread?

I think it is a responsibility to respect others with different opinions. If you post in this forum, you should post with an open mind. And when someone replies, you should read with an open mind. While some people have said some really negative stuff about 4e and WotC, they don't speak for everyone with reservations about 4e. And when someone characterizes people who are critical of 4e developments in general and tell them they don't belong here, I don't endorse that either.

If the negative post is constructive, then most people in this thread do not object. If it is the rantings of an angry person with no intention of ever playing 4e trying to inflict their anger over 4e on their peers by repeating the same rant in multiple threads, I don't think that "opinion" deserves the same respect as the constructive criticism from people who are at least open to the possibility that they might play 4e.

I'm not too happy about a lot of 4e stuff. Time and again, I find myself on the other side of people who are excited about it. But that doesn't mean I'm here to hate.

This thread was not personally directed at you. But, surely you know there are some who really are here to express their anger at those who are excited as some sort of cathartic ranting.

 

[Doug McCrae]

No. Because, again, if there was no criticism of the missteps of 4e (and there are missteps), it would appear that 4e is being accepted wholesale by the D&D playing audience. If there are those who see problems in 4e, I think it it important that others who see the same problem know that they are not alone.

Criticising parts of 4e is the way to go if you are basically a supporter and wish to see it develop in certain ways. We can't really affect Core1 at this point, but we can certainly affect Core2+. Though the best way to do that would probably to email the designers directly rather than post here.

If you have no interest in buying or playing 4e and want to stick with 3.5 there is no point whatsoever posting negative comments here. Other 3.5 supporters won't know that that's your motive. For example you might be a 1e grognard, you might be negative about everything for all they know.

The best way to support 3.5 is... by supporting 3.5. Not by trashing 4e. You can support 3.5 by making positive posts in a lot of other ENWorld forums, where most of the talk is about 3e. After all if you wish to appeal to others positivity is always more attractive than negativity.

Again, what you are saying is about equivalent to sentiment of the OP I object to: that only posts that are uncritical of 4e are acceptable.

Critical posts are acceptable. Criticism that comes from a 4e-must-die PoV isn't.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why would you post "I don't like this rule I heard about in 4e" if your motive is "I have no intention at all of playing 4e". It would be like people jumping into a Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV show discussion in the media forum and saying "I heard Buffy sucks, and I have no intention of ever watching it" (use that because it is a real example of something that happened, and got a warning from a mod). What is the point of that? What is accomplished by that?

Exactly.

I can't stand PlaneScape. Do you see me threadcrapping my hate-on in all the PlaneScape threads so other PlaneScape haters know they are not alone?

It would be like going to Dragonsfoot and badmouthing 1e. Or going to rpg.net and saying Rebecca Borgstrom sucks*. That's trolling. It's pointless and unacceptable behaviour, serving only to start fights.


*Actually I have done that. But I shouldn't have.

 

[Desdichado]

It's pointless and unacceptable behaviour,

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but those of you who are asking for the posts to stop aren't mods, and therefore aren't the arbiters of what is and isn't acceptable behavior.

The mods have warned (or banned) the real trolls so far. For the rest of it, they've advised you to use the report post button if you have a problem, not take it upon yourself to try and dictate what is or isn't acceptable behavior via lecturing posts.

And I say that as someone who agrees with the sentiment; just not the way it's being delivered here.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'm not going to switch to 4E as my game of choice. Yet I am here, discussing rules, rule changes, and the concepts behind rules and rules changes. Why? Because I'm interested in broadening my understanding of it all in the context of D&D...every edition of it. I have rules material for every edition standing on my shelves, and I might add 4E to it at some point just to crib some concepts or just for completeness sake, but right now I know I'm not going to. Yet, I like to discuss the merits and flaws of old and new concepts behind one of my favorite RPGs in the light of a dawning new edition, since it makes me check out the old material again, and look at it from new points of view.

And I'm not sorry to say that I can do this only in the 4E forum. So I'm coming here a lot for interesting and inspiring discussions, and I'll continue to post here, even though I'm certain I'm not going to switch to 4E.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Why would you post "I don't like this rule I heard about in 4e" if your motive is "I have no intention at all of playing 4e".

You might care about the direction that the game is going in, even if you don't intend to buy a particular editions, because it may affect

(1) future editions (which you might be interested in purchasing),

(2) the health of the game, and how your edition of choice relates to it,

(3) what 3rd party publishers might do with your edition of choice,

(4) what bits and pieces of the new edition you might want to houserule into your edition of choice,

(5) the ease by which you can convert new edition products (such as adventures) to your edition of choice, and

(6) the currently dominant memes of the gaming population at large (which might affect your ability to get together a group to play your edition of choice, and may also affect how that edition is approached by those individuals).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm interested in broadening my understanding of it all in the context of D&D...every edition of it.

That's true too.

I've thought more about how various editions tried to solve certain problems in the last month than I would have thought possible. And I have been hearing how other people approach those problems. It is, at the very least, enlightening to be (effectively) discussing design philosophy. I just wish that WotC was giving us more of the "why" behind certain changes, and how they think those changes will address the problems they are meant to.

Even if I don't switch, that kind of conversation is never without merit.

IMHO, anyway.

RC