For the first time... apprehension

[howandwhy99]

Hey Adem,

Your right that the coming edition will look almost completely dissimilar from pre-d20 D&D. The biggest change is the customer base. Those who have bought books these last few years do not fall into your or my personal buying preferences. Therefore, it's a perfectly legitimate move, by any company, to change the game to fit the purchaser - even though it may, perhaps irreparably, damage the game (and conversely the community). Of course that depends on one's point of view. It could also be called progress.

Keep in mind, by posting in this forum you are addressing primarily proponents of the coming edition. The dislike of pre-d20 and d20 D&D, whether it be rules, setting, play style, character design, or whatever, is more prominent than not. If you like the game as it is, stick with what it is. If you like the pre-d20 version, as I do, stick with that. If you don't care for either, but really prefer something different, than maybe 4e is for you (though it sounds like 3e is your game).

IMO, d20 has become so large it has subsumed almost every fantasy RP community. So all those who moved away from earlier D&D, lovers of MERPs, Rolemaster, Earthdawn, heck, even Palladium, have come back this new millenium, but have not changed their personal dislikes of the earlier D&D rules. It's hard to address a community with such varied tastes. So arguing against folks who may have never liked the D&D rules of the past isn't going to be fruitful. I think it's better trying to determine if the future rules of the game will be malleable enough to satisfy one's own likes and dislikes. The bashing and praising of sometimes incongruent design decisions with previous versions of D&D will only drive the community to greater descension then it is already in.

--
Also, my thinking on tieflings and dragonborn: there will soon be more player races than we can shake a stick at - and none will be "core". I think the core concept is being done away with in 4e (though the "certified WotC design" branding and rules reliance will not - they need to remain a credible seller somehow).

The definition of D&D in setting terms will still remain. The new setting designs will keep certain races central to communal imagination. And more will get added in depending on their popularity. It's popularity and discussion that have kept races like drow as such a draw as player races in the first place. They've never even been a core PC race before and they were still popular as a PC race.

 

[hopeless]

Excuse me...

Blah, blah, blah... there are a lot of threads about this stuff elsewhere on these forums. I disagree with most of your objections, but I suppose you have a right to your opinion. I just think you need to give it a chance before you get your back up about this.

The important point he's right, back when 3.0 was being introduced they used a certain magazine to give us hints of whatw as to come, they did the same with 3.5 BUT this magazine along with another was folded up and later supposedly released online ONLY and yet wht little information provided has been somewhat low-grade unless you count the 3.5 conversions of old style scenario's.

Yes there are other threads like this and it will continue until someone starts providing answers, yes I have been giving them the chance and currently I'm more interested in Paizo that doesn't mean I won't consider picking up that new trilogy that supposedly introduces 4e but currently it means I won't be bothering with 4e or 3.5 since the group I play with dislikes d&d so I'm focusing on Runequest...

Now I'll go back and read the rest of this thread, please in future instead of downplaying the creator of these threads concerns, how about you give them some inspiration instead.

You know like how the new d&d is now more focused on campaigns where the first set of core rulebooks highlights this point of light concept something that has been designed for the new Forgotten Realms setting in mind to make it more player friendly with new versions of settings planned for the next few years such as Eberron 4e, perhaps Mystara or Greyhawk or some other campaign setting that comes about as a result of the new 4e being released for all of us to enjoy and then develop further...

Take care and all the best!

 

[hopeless]

Hello!

PhantomNarrator. I'm a gamer in my thirties, have enjoyed RPGs for most of my life and enjoy MMOs.
I'm trying to think of a polite way to respond to you basically calling me a ing idiot.

Actually there is, do you believe WOTC are changing d&d so it can challenge say the World of Warcraft or any of the other online computer rpgs?
What is your feelings on the matter and more important in your viewpoint what is the average age of a player of these online games?

At least this way those of us that feel the same way as Phantom Narrator will know better to include the fact there are exceptions to those that play online and this way we can get the viewpoint of people like you since I certainly DON'T play WOW and worry WOTC might be on its way to a hiding to nothing if it IS trying to rival such online gaming rpgs.

Take care and all the best!

 

[Will]

I appreciate that very much, Hopeless.

My perspective:
There are things to learn from every style of gaming, from boardgames to poker. For instance, I use various 'hands-on' methods to make tracking stuff easier for players. Like 'my buff lasts for 4 rounds' "Ok, take out a die and put it with '4' up, move it down each round." 'Oh... that's a good idea.'

Or when I had a high level wizard and ended up making index cards for each spell, colored paperclips on one side meant a spell prepared at a given level, move it to another side to indicate 'this is cast,' with color = level. (Different colors might appear on a single index card to indicate various metamagic, like maximized or quickened magic missiles).

From a setting/flavor standpoint, nobody has much to fear from WoWisms 'leaking' in for one simple reason: WoW and most MMOs are pretty much reheated mash-ups of D&D to begin with.

From a mechanics point of view, a lot of the ways WoW runs is SPECIFICALLY designed to address the issues of 'a lot of people are playing together on a computer which can track lots of numbers.' So, for example, spells have 'cool down' timers and people have spell points. Recovery is very fast on most games... why? Because as a persistant world, there is no ability to wave your hand and say 'and then a day passes.'

Mind you, Dungeons and Dragons Online DOES make efforts to create an experience more like tabletop D&D; recovery is nonexistant except at special 'rest shrines' or outside of dungeons.


As for what WoTC is trying to attempt... I doubt the dev team is aiming specifically at the online computer gamer market. I suspect they are merely looking at creating a game that is 'better' for modern gamers, and also to appeal to the new gamer market. Appealing to gamers is not the same thing as 'taking away from MMOs.'

Any effort the dev team makes to analyze MMOs is, IMO, simply the sort of creative, out-of-the-box thinking that makes for good ideas. So long as it's followed up with clear appraisal and skillful design, this is a good thing.

I happily play MMOs. I happily play tabletop games. They fulfill different desires and have very different accessibility issues; tabletop has to be scheduled weekly or so, is vulnerable to RL interruptions, is very social, and is imaginative. MMOs (at least that I play) can be played at any time, have an immediate 'oo neat' aspect, and can fit into whatever free time I care to spend on them.

That's my piece.

Anyone who reduces a viewpoint down to a simple kneejerk 'these guys are teh stoopid' is doing everyone a disservice; it's possible to have different tastes without being stupid, or 'bad.' It's possible that people might react to elements of a game differently than you; it doesn't make them (or you) wrong.

 

[Dormammu]

I never cared for prestige classes so won't miss them if they are gone. Class options and multi-classing have always seemed a better fit to me.

They could have been such a great idea if they were not so ubiquitous. I would like to see the 1-2% top prestige class ideas and junk the rest. The Assassin was a perfect example of a good idea for a prestige class (whether it should have been a spellcaster notwithstanding). If there were like... twenty total that had appeared over the last eight years, I think they would be amazing and cool.

Instead they are the single greatest flaw in 3E imo.

 

[Remathilis]

Hey Adam.

Its Ok, we're all a little apprehensive. We were from 2e->3e and 3e->3.5. Human nature.

However, I'm afraid you read three things, got one thing wrong, and came to a conclusion based on it.

1.) We DON'T know all the details. Well, no one who will speak up. We don't see the whole picture, and everytime we see a new detail, we have to filter it through what we already know (usually 3.5). Thus, a lot of things DON'T make sense yet.

2.) D&D is barbecuing some sacred cows so that the game will evolve. More people played tielfings and half-dragons (or would have, without those ridiculous LAs) than played Gnomes. Why shouldn't those things that ARE popular filter into the core and those things not so move on? There are plenty of things that seem to be reactions to classic D&D complaints: Flavorless Planes (unless your playing Planescape) Gone. Alignments Greatly Redefined. Paladins Can Be Evil. Besides, WotC has to fill supplements and we already know all the 3.5 PHB classes will be coming out eventually...

3.) WoW, MMO's, JRPG's and more recent fantasy (Jackson's LotR, Harry Potter, Eragon) are what the kids today know. Kid's don't know Vance, Moorcock or Liebir, they know Rowling and Lucas and Paolini and Blizzard. Just as OD&D was born of the fantasy of the 1970's 4e is taking from the fantasy of NOW. For some of us older fan's this is like trying to turn from the Classic Rock station to New Rock Alternative; its jarring and we feel old and out of touch. However, its really not all that bad. You just need to get used to it. Free your mind.

4.) D&D is a combat-tactical game because I don't need rules to role-play. It bugged the hell out of me that to be the son of a blacksmith, I needed to invest precious skill points in craft or profession. I don't need rules to play haughty elves, noble dwarves or shady tieflings, I need rules to decide if the elf can shoot the orc, the dwarf can dodge the dragon's breath, and the tiefling can sneak past the guard on duty.

5.) They are also using this opportunity to revamp rules that looked GREAT on paper but didn't work in practice. Saving throws that scaled differently often created a "half-your-team-is-out" scenario where one side cannot fail and one cannot succeed without auto-success/fail. Multiple attacks made combat long and drawn out, often for little gain on secondary and tertiary rolls with "to hits" too low to actually hit. The result will be a smoother, faster game that allows people to move through exciting combat quicker and get to the good stuff faster.

6.) Sure, WotC is borrowing from MMO's. It's also borrowing from other game systems (fate points), Magic Cards, TV, Movies and a host of other things. They're successful, so why not emulate their finer points, esp if it makes D&D better in the process.

So relax. Enjoy the ride. Grab Races and Classes and Worlds and Monsters when they are available, you might be surprised. Yes, D&D is changing, its inevitable. However, there is much that is new and wonderful once you see past the nostalgia and view it with fresh eyes...

 

[Will]

Not to derail too much, but I think the biggest flaw with PrCs was the common design idea of 'hard to get into -> extra powerful.'

A lot of people designed that way; personally, I think it horribly abused and broke the system.

Then there were the many prestige classes designed in such a way that unless you made extensive calculations ahead of time, you couldn't qualify.

And then there were the many PrCs lacking good synergies (like 'gain spells on this 10 level table)

PrCs didn't HAVE to be designed these ways, but the majority fell under one of these problems (problems in my mind, anyway).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

What I really don't want to see added to D&D from WoW is massive player-on-player ganking. D&D has always been about cooperative play, and should remain that way.

It should have, but it hasn't always; and it should remain cooperative, but probably won't as much as you or I think it should. By increasingly making it a players game, expanding PC strength; and by focusing on official, correct rules rather than merely useful, imaginative solutions it has for some years been less and less about cooperative play and more and more about inter-player competitiveness. That is, who has the best character BUILD, who bends the rules to their purposes more effectively, etc. I don't think we're quite in danger yet of seeing the game turn into PVP gank-fests, but I don't think it can be denied that it has and continues to move in related directions.

Many D&D players have become quite frightened of and opposed to ANY change, but I think it is also true that D&D MUST continue to evolve. It's going to evolve in ways that older, more conservative players DO NOT LIKE. It will (or should) instead develop changes that appeal more to gamers whose roots ARE in MMORPG's rather than 1E or Chainmail. This only stands to reason. Now what effect that will have on the hobby as a whole... I'm not making many predictions in that regard. Talk to me a year from now after 4E has been played a while and cooler heads again prevail.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Not to derail too much, but I think the biggest flaw with PrCs was the common design idea of 'hard to get into -> extra powerful.'

A lot of people designed that way; personally, I think it horribly abused and broke the system.

Then there were the many prestige classes designed in such a way that unless you made extensive calculations ahead of time, you couldn't qualify.

And then there were the many PrCs lacking good synergies (like 'gain spells on this 10 level table)

PrCs didn't HAVE to be designed these ways, but the majority fell under one of these problems (problems in my mind, anyway).

IIRC, Prestige Classes were a late addition to 3E. What they became in a short period of time (a freely available PLAYERS tool for expanding character power) was really NOT what they were initially conceived of as being (a DM's tool for customizing campaigns with PRESTIGIOUS abilities [that is, special, restricted, even setting specific - NOT free-for-all powerups]).

In effect, they were added in without having been heavily thought through as to how they would/could be used and abused.

 

[MojoGM]

Hi adembroski, welcome to the boards!

As someone who is looking forward to 4E (at least as far as things to plunder for 3.5, though I do hope to run/play 4E at some point) I understand appreciate your concerns and do not belittle them in any way. As more info comes out I think we'll get a better handle on what 4E is all about, and perhaps some of the nay-sayers will come around and actually like it. Or maybe not.

Oh, and thank you for a thoughtful, well-constructed post and equally courteous replies. We need more of that around here.

edit: *post 500! whew!*