Disappointed in 4e

[Jasperak]

This is soooo interesting!

The guy who is currently DMing our campaign just announced that he will be buying up the 4E books. I had this pang of terror, because I have read so much bad stuff about it... but then I have read heaps of people defending it too...

It seems like there will be no way of actually finding out whether it sux or not other than just playing it.

But then doesn't good Dnd depend on talent, creativity, good role playing, friends, Coke and so many things other than the system...?!?

So maybe if my group is good now... it will continue to be better!?!

I guess I'm about to find out!

Ben

Absolutely, part of this discussion is not about whether the game is good or not, but about some of WOTC sales designs. I have played the game and like quite a few parts of it, though there are others that leave me wanting for better days. I have not bought the books but would play if offered.

It really does come down to your group. If you have a good group, then you will probably have a good game regardless of what system you use, or regardless of what a bunch of anonymous people say about it.

 

[bagger245]

The tier system is rather nice. One PHB just for the Heroic tier and you have one year
to play out levels 1-10 until PHB2 where you are ready for more.. Just like BECMI..

 

[RefinedBean]

So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?

 

[Jasperak]

So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?

In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?

Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?

The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.

 

[Imaro]

So there's a difference between holding back a smattering of popular monsters for the MM2, and releasing only the rules for Heroic Tier campaigns?

Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes. This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races. I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, do you think sales of the PHB 2 would have been less, the same, or greater if the Druid, Bard,Barbarian, and Monk were held back and included with it?

The wonkiness here is that you consider not having anticipated the sales of a book that, I'm sure, wasn't even part of the discussion in the run up to 3e (not a twinkle in a designer's eye!) as "proof" of a "bad business model."

Whatever 3e's business model was, it was a very good business model for the eight years the edition was in force for.

It hasn't been "proven" yet that the 4e PHBII will anywhere near equal the sales of the 4e PHB (though that is certainly the hope, I bet).

Basically, there's no proof of a bad business model to be found in 3e's inclusive approach.

There's the hope that 4e's "parsing" approach will be a *better* business model, in that it will make collectors want to buy more books, but it's also true that the hope carries with it the risk of alienating those who value inclusiveness before you get a chance to put out their favorite race or class, meaning that, in three years, when you eventually get around to it, they've already found a different game or given up on the hobby altogether.

Let's not claim early victory in this decision. Call a spade a spade. The 4e plan hopes to cement more sales for future supplements, but it is a risk. The 3e model did its job very well by being inclusive...it certainly built the game up from where it left off at the end of 2e.

3e's model didn't fail (it wasn't bad). It had 8 years of success, and there are several other companies banking on a very similar model. 4e's model hasn't yet succeeded (it might be worse, it might be equal, it might be better). 4e is, so far as I can tell, the only RPG to ever really attempt this kind of collector's challenge (you could make a case for GURPS, maybe?). They think it will be better, but it's only a hypothesis, it has yet to be tested.

 

[RefinedBean]

In my mind yes, a big difference. I would rather have one book for heroic tier than three books that have 1/3 devoted to heroic. To me it would allow more options for each tier of play to make it feel more complete. Waiting until 2010 to get a complete core heroic tier, really? And expect it to be balanced with the first year's options?

Though I will admit, if one takes less than a year to go to 11th-level they might feel differently. But in 3rd edition over the course of about two years with two sessions (about six hours each) per month, the party I DMed only got to 6th-level and a another DM concurrently got us to 5th-level.

I see your point. But do you honestly think the number of people who would be happy to have only the heroic tier rules would outnumber the people who get shafted when trying to run paragon or epic campaigns?

Besides, I just don't see anything wrong with a constantly-expanding core game. We want this game to get better and more diverse, without the problems that previous additions have fallen into (if you consider them problems, even...that's debatable as well.)

 

[RefinedBean]

The advantage is that the classes are all included and work with each other for that tier. Instead there are 8 clesses at power level 1, the next may be a magnitude higher, and the next higher still. That way you get extra power creep along with a healthy dose of bloat.

This makes sense...however, given 4E's focus on balance and what I've seen so far from released excerpts and what-not, I'm not too worried about power creep or even bloat.

However, it's not like we all haven't been burned by the gaming industry before.

 

[RefinedBean]

Something else I think is a difference, is that... with 4e's more restrictive multi-classing, it's actually harder than it was in 3e to get usage out of new classes if you're in the middle of a campaign... unless you're willing to kill off your character or get a smattering of abilities from the new classes. This also applies to monsters, magic items, etc. beneath the tier you're currently playing, and even moreso with new races. I think the fact that alot of things are tied so closely to the tiers would have made the Tier rules suggestion a pretty good model.

The DMG rules on leveling up/down creatures are quite easy to use and helps alleviate the lack of utility of later supplemental monsters.

And let's be realistic here. Suppose we implement this idea of having the Heroic Core (or whatever) released first, and then a Paragon Core released after that.

Just as there are people saying "It's not enough, we won't be able to use half the stuff they release" now, there are going to be people saying "My character just won't work with the new Paragon rules, I have to completely change him/her/it," etc.

I just don't see how one is better than the other. It makes more sense to try and please more people by releasing all levels of play then to pigeonhole people into campaigning at a specific level.

EDIT: I should learn to multiquote, sorry for taking up all this space.