For the first time... apprehension

[Hussar]

Why is anyone surprised they're trying to ride the success of WoW? Hasbro doesn't care about people who have been around as long as you have, let alone the grognards who cut their teeth on OD&D like me. They want to market to 14 year olds, or people with the minds of 14 year olds. The only influences these twinks have are MMO's and anime, since most of them are functionally illiterate. When you say Lord of the Rings they might think of the Peter Jackson movies, maybe. Expect more big eyes and stupid hairdos in the art too, even worse than the "punk" look of 3.X.

But I'm just a grumpy old grognard, what do I know? This day was bound to come sooner or later. The murder of Dragon magazine and the new subscription scam mark the passing of an age. It'll be called D&D, but it sure as hell won't feel like D&D to me.

What I really, really find funny about this is the complete lack of knowledge on the demographics of MMORPG's. D&D absolutely salivates for that kind of demographics that MMORPG's actually have.

Y'know, 25-35, 50% female? Because, sorry to say, teenagers aren't the ones dominating MMORPG's. It's D&D's target demographic that dominates MMORPG's. While I know it's very comforting to point at MMO's and talk about them as if only kids play them, (and thus proving that our hobby is "superior" because it is more mature) actual facts contradict this completely. The tiniest effort on a person's part to actually become educated on the issue would prevent this sort of thing.

 

[adembroski]

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.

I'm well aware of market economics, but I wonder if they're misreading their audience.

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).

Oh I'm well aware of who I'm addressing in this forum... it's the point of my posting here. I want to hear a prospective outside my own that might be able to counter my bias. I'm actually rather happy with a lot of responses I've had, they've helped ease my mind about it... at least enough to keep my ears perked when more info comes down the pike.

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).

Honestly the biggest issue I have is this. I've seen the tiefling grow in popularity over the past 10 years or so. There is hardly a video game made without some form of it creeping into the PC's party, so I can accept it, however it bothers me (I run 3 campaign worlds, two published, one home brewed... the tiefling only exists in one of them [FR]). It's the Dragonborn that don't make sense. I cannot help but think it's thrown in there for the cool factor, roughly equivalent to the overabundance of spikes in the previous edition.

The problem with Tieflings and Dragonborn is that they are, essencially, mythological creatures even within a mythological setting (Mythological is definately the wrong choice of words here, but I can't think of a better one). They're dependent that a given world have certain preconditions. All races do, but with other races, nothing beyond the existance of that race need be assumed. With Tieflings and Dragonborn, you must assume not only that THOSE races exist, but also the presence of Dragons, the presence of Fiends, and their ability to breed with mortals... it just invades the DMs territory too much for the core rulebooks in my opinion.

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.

I would be willing to accept the Drow because they depend on no other condition to exist.

 

[Hairfoot]

I'm well aware of market economics, but I wonder if they're misreading their audience.

I think the intention is to build a new, better audience. Refer to "firing the customer" threads for the debate.

 

[adembroski]

I'm honestly not sure if I'm feeding a troll or what, but you asked for specific responses, so here you go.

Whatever my flaws, I assure you I am not a troll. I gave my honest impressions, however harsh they may have been, and made it a point to be clear about my intentions... I am seeking other opinions on this. I think my responses to this point have proven that.

EDIT: Apparently I lost a couple paragraphs here and I'm too lazy to retype em. Oops!



This has been mentioned (I believe) as a high-level class ability for some specific classes (like Fighter). It's not a return to invincible elves with platemail.

Thank god! I read, however, the simple statement: Max dex is gone. I found it to be a rather elegant and simple rule that made perfect sense. I do hope it is covered in some way.

No. Fighters get lots of attacks of opportunity when bad guys attack allies they're protecting, and paladins have abilities that do stuff like giving allies (but not themselves) boosts to AC, so enemies have more incentive to attack the paladin. Paladins also have a high-level mind-affecting ability that forces the enemy to attack them for (I think) one round. But it's been confirmed repeatedly that there are NO "threat scores" in 4e.

I did get that impression at one point... it's starting to sound like perhaps they're simply trying to make combat more dynamic and interesting... which would be a HUGE relief. To be honest, my groups tend to go sessions at a time without combat simply because it tends to be a bit simple and boring.

Here are two official examples of Warlord abilities:
"Feather Me Yon Oaf" (temporary name): The warlord points out a specific enemy target, and everyone in the party gets an immediate action to use a ranged attack against it.

"Hammer and Anvil": The warlord strikes his opponent in a way that leaves it vulnerable, offering immediate attacks to allies adjacent to the enemy.

You couldn't replicate those with any "skill combination." The warlord is a "martial leader" class, which means he uses tactical prowess and battlefield experience to guide his party to victory. Played right, it sounds like the party is your greatest weapon as a warlord. It's a role that's super-prominent in all fantasy literature (think Faramir or possibly Aragorn if LOTR is your favorite).

Off topic, but Dragonlance is my favorite published setting, but I tend to run a dark-ages themed campaign with lots of Anglo-Saxon and Celtic influences; low tech, low magic. Very gritty with rules that make combat far more deadly, even for higher level characters.

Those abilities could easily be made into charisma governed feats with the Leadership feat as a prerequisite, and they wouldn't not feel a bit out of place on a paladin or fighter. To me, Faramir is a fighter, Aragorn a fighter/ranger, both with lots of ranks in social skills and leadership style feats.

We still know very little about these paths and destinies, but I would be REALLY surprised if they didn't have all the flavor and specificity and flexibility of 3e prestige classes.

Bear in mind that in 4e, classes don't have different BAB and saving throw progressions, and skills will work pretty differently. So the only big difference between classes is what special abilities and "powers" they get.

I've really come to no conclusion on the no class-specific progression thing. I really want to see it play out before I decide there.

We also know almost nothing about multiclassing. Some people seem to think it's completely GONE from 4e; others think favored classes are dropped and multiclassing is completely free.

For both these cases, we have very little actual info. This makes the pessimists assume WOTC is going to screw everything up and it makes the optimists think they've got the world's best systems lined up, and every complaint they've ever had about prestige classes or multiclassing will be cured in 4e (even if each of them has different and sometimes contradictory complaints). Obviously I'm more in the latter camp, because I don't think WOTC designers are idiots. But also obviously the real answer will probably be somewhere in the middle.

I only hope they come up with a well balanced system for multiclassing. I thought the 3e system was brilliant, including favored classes.

Wizards use staffs, wands, or orbs in pretty much all high fantasy, including LOTR. And they're ALREADY IN 3e. 4e is just making them actually build on the wizard's own power, rather than acting as a weird backup spell battery.

My concern is having to retool it for specific settings. Enough of this has to be done anyways, I'd rather have things like magic sources be left ambiguous in the rules. Invariably we'll end up with critical rules that are dependent on this particular fluff, and that makes my job harder.

How so? Cite specific rules changes we know about (good luck), and tell me what complexity is lost in those changes. Most of the changes I've seen seem to make things faster without sacrificing strategic options and complexity.

I hope you're right. My impression was basically this: "We're speeding combat up"... well great, wasn't that the focus of 3rd edition? I thought they did a fine job, and I would hate to see combat become too simple to enjoy at all.

That said, it seems like they're actually adding some complexity without sacrificing speed, which is heartening.

Just the opposite effect, I'd say. Previously, you were penalized for roleplaying - it made your character suckier in combat, because you were spending all those points in Profession: Cheesemonger and Knowledge: History of Applied Entomology while Joe Hackandslash just dumped them into combat-useful stuff like Tumble and Spot.

Now, if your character is a cheesemonger with a gentleman's interest in the epic past of that noble hobby of bug-collecting, you can just write that on the "background" section of your character sheet. A decent DM will give you ad-hoc bonuses when those aspects of your character are applicable... just like right now, I can (with DM's permission) write on a character sheet that my character is the Earl of Shadowdale, and expect the DM to give me bonuses and penalties where appropriate because of that.

In the hands of a poor DM, you're right... the use of skill points in social/role playing skills only serves to make you a poor warrior. Clever use of skills by the DM, however, brings those skills to life and makes them desirable... further keeping the game well balanced and allowing a player to paint a fuller picture of who their character is. Gather information is one of my favorite skills, in fact, because its use has lead to many of the most memorable role playing encounters I've ever been a part of.

Ultimately, there has to be a mechanic that allows the character to be better at something than the player is. Without social skills, you can't have that.

 

[Hussar]

The problem with Tieflings and Dragonborn is that they are, essencially, mythological creatures even within a mythological setting (Mythological is definately the wrong choice of words here, but I can't think of a better one). They're dependent that a given world have certain preconditions. All races do, but with other races, nothing beyond the existance of that race need be assumed. With Tieflings and Dragonborn, you must assume not only that THOSE races exist, but also the presence of Dragons, the presence of Fiends, and their ability to breed with mortals... it just invades the DMs territory too much for the core rulebooks in my opinion.

Quote:
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.

I would be willing to accept the Drow because they depend on no other condition to exist.

In reverse order:

The Drow, as written require the existence of Demons. Specifically Lloth. They also, as written, require the elven gods and the other elves to exist as well. They are not as isolated as all that.

In Dungeons and Dragons, you have a problem with the idea of the existence of dragons? Dragons being able to crossbreed has been in the game for decades. The idea of crossbreeding with demon/devils also goes back a long ways. These are hardly new ideas.

You can reference the Diaboli from Basic/Expert D&D in the 80's for a look at what Tieflings in core might look like. Note, the flavour is different, but, the basic outlook is likely the same.

 

[Vayden]

Just a quick note - I don't have a copy of Races and Classes yet, but from what I've heard, neither Tieflings nor Dragonborn are the result of someone's grandfather sleeping with fiends or dragons - they're both true breeding races. They sound like their fluff has been significantly changed from 3.x

 

[Cmarco]

I have to say, I'm pretty excited for 4e. All the story and improvements I have seen so far in the Design & Development column (and the Playtest Reports columns, too!) are winning me over. I know there are people with reservations about the new 4e stuff, but I personally am quite interested to see some bold, new ideas take the game in a new direction. It doesn't seem like they're reinventing the wheel, so much as making our current vehicle a better, faster, more comfortable ride.

 

[Counterspin]

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!

Being a serious WOW player, the root of the argument comes down to two things. 1) The connections between World of Warcraft and 4e are either imaginary, or flow from 3rd to WOW, rather than the other way around and 2) there are people of all ages and demographics playing WOW. It got those big numbers by penetrating pretty much every market sector. My mother in law plays WOW for pete's sake.

So yeah, there's no real connection, and WOW players are not worse people, or bad roleplayers or anything else. They're just people.

 

[Dormammu]

Y'know, 25-35, 50% female?

I think you're numbers are a little high. I'd guess the core age group is more like 18-27 and it's probably more like 25% female (if that, which is still absurdly high within that market).

 

[pawsplay]

I think you're numbers are a little high. I'd guess the core age group is more like 18-27 and it's probably more like 25% female (if that, which is still absurdly high within that market).

I think the other numbers are closer than yours. Some discretionary income, and moms are disproportionately represented (it's easier to squash a few trolls in the wee hours of the morning than to join a bowling league when you have little ones). I can't count how many times I've had to pause a late night City of Heroes for, "Sorry, need to nurse the kid, brb" or something along those lines.