Are we allowed to be excited for the system, but not D&D?

[Emirikol]

A revelation came today to me when I was looking at the wotc website info on 4e. I don't care much for elves, dragon-borne-spawn-things, Forgotten Realms, magic-item-dependency, beholders, drow, gods-as-a-plot-device, or planescape-isms that seem to be amongst the most iconic aspects of what-is-D&D.

On the other hand, I'm really excited about the new rules without all the D&Disms.

Am I allowed to think that way or am I a grognard? Anyone else in the same boat?

jh

 

[Starbuck_II]

A revelation came today to me when I was looking at the wotc website info on 4e. I don't care much for elves, dragon-borne-spawn-things, Forgotten Realms, magic-item-dependency, beholders, drow, gods-as-a-plot-device, or planescape-isms that seem to be amongst the most iconic aspects of what-is-D&D.

On the other hand, I'm really excited about the new rules without all the D&Disms.

Am I allowed to think that way or am I a grognard? Anyone else in the same boat?

jh

No, I love the system. I also like the new beholders, Dragonborn, and less magic items needed (though glad I can still have some).

 

[Shemeska]

I might oddly agree with you from the opposite side of the issue. 4e might be a great system, mechanically speaking (I haven't paid attention enough to be able to say), but at the same time it seems to have gutted itself of so many "D&D'isms" and baseline assumptions about the flavor/fluff those rules should support.

That really sours the situation for me, and likely makes the system (as good as it might or might not be) something that won't capture my attention.

 

[Rechan]

I think not caring about the D&Disms and more about the system makes you less of a grognard, not more.

But then, I think the D&Disms are well in place.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well I know am mechanically looking extremely forward to 4e and if I was to run a ordinary high-fantasy game would use core 4e. But... I generally don't and I am still looking forward to 4e, despite it not having elements of my setting: 1860's firearms, locomotives, reality bending, victorian/gaslight world, Aristocracy ruling Aberrations, mutations, god-machines, artificial worlds, etc.

So yeah, quite alright to think that way atleast I am.

 

[WhatGravitas]

...but at the same time it seems to have gutted itself of so many "D&D'isms" and baseline assumptions about the flavor/fluff those rules should support.

Out of interest, do you think that the rules are unable to support the older flavour? Especially concerning Planescape (since that's your forte)? And if yes, which aren't supported any longer?

Because I'd love to see you (and some other people) submitting about a gazillion Planescape/Sigil articles for Dragon after the 4E launch.

Cheers, LT.

 

[arscott]

Yeah.

I'm particularly intrigued given that WotC picked up the Marvel Super Hero RPG license--The powers based system seems to lend itself to a SHRPG pretty well, as do the minion/normal/elite/solo rules and the teirs of play.

 

[Gloombunny]

I think not caring about the D&Disms and more about the system makes you less of a grognard, not more.

But then, I think the D&Disms are well in place.

What he said.

I'm not a fan of D&Disms, personally.

 

[Xethreau]

What he said.

I'm not a fan of D&Disms, personally.

Same. They are fine, I guess, but there are many that I wouldn't give a second thought over losing.

 

[Aeric]

Ditto on the D&Disms. My homebrew lacks so many things that are "core" D&D (beholders, mind flayers, drow, talking, magic-using dragons, shiny happy woodsy elves) that I started referring to it as "D20 Fantasy" instead of D&D.