Changeover Poll

[merelycompetent]

Technically, this is not entirely correct, for what it is worth. As a basis, you may use a dailies once per day. However, with each milestone acquired (by the book a milestone is two encounters without an extended rest - an encounter could be a skill challenge as well) you gain the use of another daily item. So if your NPC goes through 4 encounters in a day, he would be able to use 3 different dailies. I know that quite a few people have experimented with players being able to use 1 daily per encounter, without reporting breaking the game.

What that is said, these rules apply to players. The general attitude in 4e is that NPC's should be able to do what the DM wants them to do, instead of being modelled as pseudo-PC's.

Thank you for the response . I don't want to diverge too far from the poll.

You are right, IMO, that the changes you mention would work mechanically for me. But that limitation on item daily powers is fundamental to 4E mechanics. This illustrates one of the mechanics/design problems I have with 4E. My NPCs (and PCs) have to achieve milestones to make use of the items they've already quested for. For example: NPC - "Hmm, I'm surrounded and nearly dead from injuries that will kill me in the next minute from bleeding. I'll use my dagger to teleport to safety, and then my longsword to heal me... what?!? I have to go achieve a milestone/get to another encounter to use my longsword's powers? I can't show up at the King's Council bleeding on His Majesty's carpet!" Thus does the legend of Irabir the Sly come to an end because of a rules mechanic. This wouldn't be a problem if Irabir the Sly didn't have the pre-existing history of hiring adventurers to get these items for him so he could use this tactic.

I also object to NPCs being able to do things that the PCs also can't do. I avoid situations where the way magic (or the world) works changes for the sake of plot or continuity. I want the players to trust that there is an in-game reason how Irabir the Sly was able to get healed back to near full health so quickly after he escaped the assassins, so they can use it themselves.

The mechanics of 4E force too many situations where I, and the players I game with, respond with a "What the heck?" in the middle of playing. These issues have been discussed in other threads far better than I can here in this one isolated example. With other edition changes, I've been able to kick and beat the rules + campaign into a cohesive whole. I do not see a way to do that with 4E and my current game.

Again, for my current campaign world, 4E doesn't work *for* me at a fundamental mechanics level. I'm not willing, at this time, to scrap a well-developed campaign setting to switch editions for the simple reason that I don't have *time* to create a new campaign and still play. Especially when the current campaign promises a couple more years of fun. Even more so when, through the four previous editions, I *was* able to convert to the new edition without having to rewrite more than a few pages of notes. Now there is a wall that breaks my campaign's continuity. As a DM with an existing campaign, I am now excluded from the new rules unless I start a new campaign specifically for 4E.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

D&D failed because the company built around it went bankrupt and ceased publication, prompting the WotC buyout. That's the definition of failure.

Who's definition? Yours? Perhaps. I don't necessarily equate the failure of my hobby to the company (or companies) that provide materials for me to play, provided I have more than enough materials/imagination to continue play within my group. Different strokes.

That's true today, but people will want to start buying again. It won't take long for that to happen, and when it does happen, the majority will want something that is mostly like the D&D they already know.

Or they do one better: Buy stuff that already is "the D&D they already know." That goes back to my belief - again, just my opinion - that 3e is the main competitor of 4e.

The market will not simply evaporate because the industry leader goes away.

If 'market' is synonymous with 'hobby', you seem to agree with my first statement regarding the "failure" of D&D during the 2e era.

This would be true if 4E was actually a move forward. The general consensus is that 4E is a fairly large step in the opposite direction.

I disagree with both your opinion and your take on the "general consensus" of opinion with the hobby. From here, we could both spiral downward into an emotional and kneejerk internet argument with many "Just LeAve BrittneY aLONe!!" statements, or we can agree to disagree. I prefer the latter. The other stuff has gone from amusing, to annoying, to...boring.

WP

 

[El Mahdi]

Insight? Nothing special.

I honestly believe our game suffers undeserved blame. It has been demonized for a situation it did not create.
What is the situation? How does the situation devolve into trouble and blame?
The mechanics of this are simple and easy to follow, and they involve the darker aspects of ourselves:


. . . . . .


D&D did not invent the Real World and it's problems. D&D did not invent people and their problems. D&D did not invent all the difficulties faced by people. Or it's various competitors (such as the internet and everything on it.) Or the social changes. Or, a lot of other stuff I can't go into on ENWorld.
But D&D gets blamed for it. And those who design and market it. And vendors. And a lot of other people who are not at fault, but who are caught up in the melee.

Even in chess, with it's hard and set rules, they have their problems getting along. And heck, they don't even TALK during the game (it isn't allowed!) It isn't a Social Interaction game at all, not at least during the game itself.
D&D is, and if someone is having trouble from non-gaming sources (meaning ... *ALL* of us, altogether, all the time, but sometimes we can supress those problems long enough to have fun ... or, at least, get it our best shot! ...) then the problem comes crashing into the game.
If someone else is having a problem, this can be like shaking a bottle of nitroglycerin, and the results are as bad.

In the end, what is to blame? Well, the blame goes to a lot of things, and the personal fallacies of human beings (who amongst us is perfect? Who never makes mistakes??)
But it is not D&D which is to blame. D&D, was the instrument through which people tried to have fun, the instrument to enable some fun.

Yet time and again, what gets most or all of the blame? The D&D game.

A different edition, whether that edition is a good one or a bad one, will not fix this problem. Nor will people start being perfect and stop having problems.
All we can do is wage a constant battle for the purpose of ... having fun.

Man, you really get philosophical late at night don't you (or early in the morning as it is).

Nice thread, and very nice posts. I've really been enjoying this one and all of the companion threads. It's been fun revisiting some of these polls and questions, with some very interesting results. So far, they all seem to be staying relatively edition war free too. I hope they stay that way.

 

[Jack99]

The consensus is built on countless computer simulations I have run proving the point.

No, you can't look at the program.

No, you can't look at the data.

Trust me. There's a consensus.

It's science.

That's pretty funny!

Thank you for the response . I don't want to diverge too far from the poll.
*Snip*

And I totally respect that. I mean, I wouldn't play a game that gave me such headaches either.

Cheers

 

[Darrin Drader]

Who's definition? Yours? Perhaps. I don't necessarily equate the failure of my hobby to the company (or companies) that provide materials for me to play, provided I have more than enough materials/imagination to continue play within my group. Different strokes.

If 'market' is synonymous with 'hobby', you seem to agree with my first statement regarding the "failure" of D&D during the 2e era.

Yes, we're talking about two different things: the game itself and the survival of the brand. As a game system, I don't consider 2E a failure. I played the heck out of that system back in the day, and while its structure remained very much like 1E, it was a solid foundation upon which over a decade of gaming was built. Obviously the business end collapsed during the 2E era, which is what I'm referring to.

Or they do one better: Buy stuff that already is "the D&D they already know." That goes back to my belief - again, just my opinion - that 3e is the main competitor of 4e.

Again, I agree with your premise that 3E is 4E's main competitor, but there are people who either have all of the official 3E stuff they want, or are still looking for the latest and greatest. It's those people, the ones spending money month after month on the latest books, that won't be satisfied to just buy what already exists and let it die. That's where I believe we would see some of the third tier companies step up and become second or even first tier companies as they move to fill the void.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

*snip*

I agree.

WP

 

[Treebore]

D&D has already failed once, and because of that failure, it was bought out and went on to one of its most successful eras since the beginning of the game. It is my belief that if it fails again, the market will move on and choose one or more successors. Pathfinder is likely to be one, C&C could potentially be another, and then we might see a resurgence in non-d20 based systems like Savage Worlds and d6 (which is poised to make a comeback right about now).

I'm not saying that I want 4E to fail, but I am saying that I don't believe that if that happens, it would be as bleak as many people predict it would be. People would simply move on and either stick with what they already have, or find another system to support. I predict that WotC would rather shelve the D&D brand than lose its licensing potential, so we would likely see it continue to exist in the form of alternate media, like video games, comic books, and maybe the occasional weak attempt at a board game or reissue RPG. But despite the fate of the D&D brand, the game would continue to live on thanks to the OGL.

I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.

So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.

So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.

 

[El Mahdi]

I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.

So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.

So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.

I agree with this 100%. I sincerely do not want to see WoTC fail, with the probable subsequent (but hopefully temporary) decline of the industry as a whole.

Of course though, even though I haven't switched, I seem to be doing my fair share to keep WoTC in business. I just can't help it.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I hope your right, but the perception was when TSR went bankrupt and quit producing for all those months RPG's also suffered a major die off. So if that was true then it would likely be true now, plus it would take a while, probably 2 or more years, for Paizo or any other company to start picking up those pieces to be the new leader.

There is a difference between then and now, though. When TSR died off, there was no OGL and other companies were not permitted to make D&D compatible materials. Also, the whole distribution system that existed back then has been turned on its ear because of the internet. Back then hobby shops were the primary means of getting games from the manufacturers to the customers. Now there's print on demand, PDF, and Amazon and other online stores.

So even if it wasn't a permanent death blow it will likely still be a hard hit that the hobby would take a long time to bounce back from.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that point. I predict that gaming would shift to a mostly online model for a while, and we would probably see an eventual return over the course of about five years.

So despite my dislike of 4E I still would prefer WOTC stay in business with D&D. Plus they may actually make 5E a D&D I can like. I doubt it because C&C is just all kinds of awesome for me and the way I like to game, but I am hopeful.

My ideal scenario for D&D would be for the official brand to fall under Monte Cook's leadership. With Malhavoc, he proved that he can run a successful RPG company and produce some highly innovative gaming products. In this era, he has become the de facto "King of RPGs," so I'd be completely comfortable with him in charge.

Of course that's never going to happen, so like you, I'm willing to wait out 4E in hopes that WotC makes a 5E that I like better. In the mean time, I'm throwing my support behind the companies like Paizo and Green Ronin, which I would like to see rise to prominence in the event of a potential D&D brand failure.

 

[Greg K]

My ideal scenario for D&D would be for the official brand to fall under Monte Cook's leadership. With Malhavoc, he proved that he can run a successful RPG company and produce some highly innovative gaming products. In this era, he has become the de facto "King of RPGs," so I'd be completely comfortable with him in charge.

My ideal scenario would be for the official brand to fall under Green Ronin. I love the Advanced Bestiary, Master Class series (espeically, the books by Steve Kenson), the Book of the Righteous, the Book of Fiends, and Freeport. Whereas with Malhavoc, the only material I really like is the Book of Iron Might, Book of Roguish Luck, and Beyond Countless Doorways (to be fair, I haven't seen Ptolus).