DDXP: When Anti's become Pro's

[Aloïsius]

I was neutral optimist about 4e. What we have read since a few days reinforced both my optimism and my neutrality : the designers have made a good work, but I'm still not sure to like the result.

Pro : streamlined and fun rules. better integration of fluff.
Con : too much gamist for my taste (mostly, healing break my suspension of disbelief, characters seems to strong (I like my games to be more lethal), miniatures use seems mandatory).

So, I like even more what I liked in 4e, but still dislike what I disliked. I guess house-rules/alternate game system can do the trick. I still expect some kind of "fantasy grim and gritty" books for 4e to appear. Maybe a DMG2 or maybe made by another editor.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

An addendum, I have three friends (whom I've never met, only gamed with online, not that it matters) that went to DDXP. Two were anti-4E and one was pro-4E. The pro- stayed pro-. One anti switched 180 deg and is now enthusiastically supportive. The other is much less opposed to 4E, but seems to agree with Paizo's concern about 4E allowing them to "write stories they like to write." Buhlman quoted this nearly word for word.

I ask you: What the hell does this mean?

How can a ruleset prevent someone (e.g., Paizo) from writing a story they'd like to write?

W.P.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've gone from leaning negative to being more neutral. In any case, I'll have to play it myself before I can determine whether I like it nor not. There are quite a few things about 4e that I flat out don't like. In some ways, the developers simply seem to have different design goals than I would. That said, there have always been things in every edition of D&D that annoyed me, but that I learned to tolerate. I may roll my eyes at characters getting auto ranks in every skill, but it doesn't bother me enough that I wouldn't want to play the game at all. There are things about 4e that I like as well. It seems to me like fighters, rangers and other weapon-based classes will be alot more interesting to play now, among other things.

The question for me is, will there be more things in 4e that I like than I dislike? And after the dust has cleared, will I end up prefering 4e or 3.5? Time will tell.

 

[Wolfspider]

I had an interesting experience this weekend.

First, some background. I was very doubtful about 4e for a long time. Like many, I thought it was too soon, and the huge amount of 3.0 and 3.5 material I had and my enjoyment of the system made the change seem unnecessary.

With the so-called info-dump this weekend, I started feeling really hopeful about the game, finally realizing that I liked many of the mechanics (even if I still detested the fluff).

Now to my experience.

I prepared handouts for my gaming group on Saturday--copies of the 4e characters and cheat sheet and monster stats--and I prepared a demo game for them.

Well, they looked over the rules and the characters, and they didn't even have the slightest desire to try the game, much less adopt it for our campaign.

These are people I've been gaming with on-and-off for about 20 years.

So I guess I will be sticking with v3.5 after all, adding a few house rules inspired by 4e to the mix.

Interesting how things work out.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Isn't that pretty much the same as getting turned off by their experiences with the game, though? Even if they think it's a decent game but not for them, it's still a question of their experience with it causing them to say "pass."

From WotC's perspective, sure, they're similar, for people like me, they aren't. One's "it's a bad game", the other's "it's succeeded in it's design goals, but I don't agree with those goals". So long as I agree with the design goals, even if that player is put off, it still makes me more interested in playing the game.

 

[coyote6]

The other is much less opposed to 4E, but seems to agree with Paizo's concern about 4E allowing them to "write stories they like to write." Buhlman quoted this nearly word for word.

I ask you: What the hell does this mean?

How can a ruleset prevent someone (e.g., Paizo) from writing a story they'd like to write?

I can see how a rules system can be incapable of supporting a certain play style, which in turn makes it difficult or impossible to run certain stories/adventures/events/whatevers that depend on said play style(s). For example, it would be difficult to run a Spirit of the Century or Solar Exalted adventure under Warhammer Fantasy RPG rules -- WH is just too gritty to support the same kind of wahoo-hijinks one can get up to in either of the other games.

You can house rule & such to make a system fit better, but if the new D&D doesn't support Paizo's style, and the GSL doesn't allow third-parties to extensively house-rule D&D 4e, then D&D 4e might not work. Even if the GSL would allow them to change the game, it might not be worth their time or effort to do so (or at least, they might feel like it's not worth their time/effort).

(For my part, the mechanical bits of 4e I've seen seem like they would support Paizo's adventure styles fine -- Paizo's new adventures are stopping before 20th level, before 3.5e escapes the "sweet spot", so it seems like something that extends that sweet spot would be cool. OTOH, I haven't really read most of the Pathfinder adventures, and haven't played D&D ,so maybe it wouldn't work. But, in theory, it sounds like the Age of Worms in 4e would be pretty sweet. But they haven't seen the real evidence yet.)

On the original topic, I'm still thinking it looks like it could be a fun game. I don't know whether I'll be playing it or not; I won't really know if I'll like it until I've read it and maybe played it. Perhaps more importantly, though, is that everyone else in both groups I game with seems actively disinterested so far.

 

[Lizard]

An addendum, I have three friends (whom I've never met, only gamed with online, not that it matters) that went to DDXP. Two were anti-4E and one was pro-4E. The pro- stayed pro-. One anti switched 180 deg and is now enthusiastically supportive. The other is much less opposed to 4E, but seems to agree with Paizo's concern about 4E allowing them to "write stories they like to write." Buhlman quoted this nearly word for word.

I ask you: What the hell does this mean?

How can a ruleset prevent someone (e.g., Paizo) from writing a story they'd like to write?

W.P.

Use "My Life With Master" to roleplay "Descent Into Undermountain".

 

[hong]

Use "My Life With Master" to roleplay "Descent Into Undermountain".

If you know what I mean, FNARR FNARR

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Use "My Life With Master" to roleplay "Descent Into Undermountain".

Oh lord. Lizard, FTW. That is some funny stuff.

Ok, let me reiterate:

How can a "different version of the same ruleset" prevent someone from writing "the stories they like to write"?

Yep.

W.P.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I have been neutral leaning anti until the info dump. From what I have seen of things so far I am now thinking the designers have made a good game and one that I might enjoy playing at cons for short term adventures. What I am also seeing more is that I don't see this as D&D anymore and it doesn't seem like something I would be intrerested in for a long (or even short) term campaign.