D&D 4E I'm NOT upset about 4E
Li Shenron
Legend
At the moment I am not upset. I will be upset only if I don't like it and everybody else does, which means I'd still want to play 3.0 and not find anyone willing to...
I liked 3rd edition more than the older editions because I thought the mechanics were a very good balance between realism, playability and flexibility. I disliked the 3.5 revision after trying it for at least 6 month, because for my taste there were only very small improvements, and for each of them there was one small thing that got worse. I also think that 99% of the "problems with 3.x" come from supplementary material, particularly because it's written by different people; the more you stick to the core, the less problems... This is unavoidable in any edition, and however good 4e will be, there will certainly be problems with supplements.
I think the greatest strength of 3.0 was that is was designed by a great but limited team of talented designers. The game was designed as a whole, and different aspects of the game were fit together. 3.5 instead was more designed as a collection of "fixes", many of which came from players feedback and others from designers: in principle a good thing, but when WotC made the decision of which fixes were "in" and which were "out", it didn't seem like they truly though-out all the implications and how the fixes would work together (a pet peeve of mine: no one in WotC noticed that while all classes were being buffed, the Sorcerer was being significantly turned down).
The team who created 3.0 worked together for how long? At least 1.5 years, IIRC. And at that time most of the focus of WotC was probably put into designing the new edition. I do not know if 4e has been designed with such a focus, and not instead more like 3.5, which seemed to be designed as a "delta" version of the game and not from the ground up.
Also, 3.0 was heavily playtested in quite an organized way... I have no idea yet how much 4e is being playtested, but 3.5 didn't display much playtesting credits at least.
The online trend I certainly don't like, but I'm free to ignore it. I certainly do not like the idea of playing online mostly. Can be fun sometimes, but I like RPGs because they are a game I can play with friends, and as an excuse to spend my time with them... I'm sure gamers will still do that, and anyone can play both tabletop and online. Still, doesn't feel that nice to me to know that most young people will start playing RPGs online, enclosed in their little rooms in front of the screen, alone. One more opportunity to seclude themselves instead of socializing :\
But thank god we can anyway just look at 4e for what it still is after all: just another ruleset
The more ruleset, the more options to choose from so that we like our games better. In 3rd edition years, there has been already lots of ruleset by the way: C&C, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, d20 Modern...
I liked 3rd edition more than the older editions because I thought the mechanics were a very good balance between realism, playability and flexibility. I disliked the 3.5 revision after trying it for at least 6 month, because for my taste there were only very small improvements, and for each of them there was one small thing that got worse. I also think that 99% of the "problems with 3.x" come from supplementary material, particularly because it's written by different people; the more you stick to the core, the less problems... This is unavoidable in any edition, and however good 4e will be, there will certainly be problems with supplements.
I think the greatest strength of 3.0 was that is was designed by a great but limited team of talented designers. The game was designed as a whole, and different aspects of the game were fit together. 3.5 instead was more designed as a collection of "fixes", many of which came from players feedback and others from designers: in principle a good thing, but when WotC made the decision of which fixes were "in" and which were "out", it didn't seem like they truly though-out all the implications and how the fixes would work together (a pet peeve of mine: no one in WotC noticed that while all classes were being buffed, the Sorcerer was being significantly turned down).
The team who created 3.0 worked together for how long? At least 1.5 years, IIRC. And at that time most of the focus of WotC was probably put into designing the new edition. I do not know if 4e has been designed with such a focus, and not instead more like 3.5, which seemed to be designed as a "delta" version of the game and not from the ground up.
Also, 3.0 was heavily playtested in quite an organized way... I have no idea yet how much 4e is being playtested, but 3.5 didn't display much playtesting credits at least.
The online trend I certainly don't like, but I'm free to ignore it. I certainly do not like the idea of playing online mostly. Can be fun sometimes, but I like RPGs because they are a game I can play with friends, and as an excuse to spend my time with them... I'm sure gamers will still do that, and anyone can play both tabletop and online. Still, doesn't feel that nice to me to know that most young people will start playing RPGs online, enclosed in their little rooms in front of the screen, alone. One more opportunity to seclude themselves instead of socializing :\
But thank god we can anyway just look at 4e for what it still is after all: just another ruleset
The more ruleset, the more options to choose from so that we like our games better. In 3rd edition years, there has been already lots of ruleset by the way: C&C, Iron Heroes, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, d20 Modern...
WhatGravitas
Explorer
I'm excited. Totally.
In the last years, WotC produced some quality books (XPH, Heroes of Horror, Bo9S, Complete Arcane/Mage, Magic Item Compendium, MM V, Star Wars Saga), that really show, that they have a very good grasp on the needs of RPGs.
And then, whenever I look at the 3.5 PHB, I see a lack of these intriguing ideas: There is a bunch of dead levels, artificial assumptions, prep-heavy NPCs (3.5 DMG was worse than 3.0 DMG!).
And I wanted to see a revised take on the classic classes for a while - because (just look at a class like the dread necromancer, archivist, warlock oder warblade) I'm sure a wizard/cleric/fighter made nowadays would have much more individual and interesting class features and a smoother power curve.
Factoring in good staff (Richard Baker, Mike Mearls, and countless others I've forgotten), I trust 'em to do a new edition correctly.
And hence I'm excited!
(only minor worries, until I've heard an official announcment about a new SRD)
Cheers, LT.
In the last years, WotC produced some quality books (XPH, Heroes of Horror, Bo9S, Complete Arcane/Mage, Magic Item Compendium, MM V, Star Wars Saga), that really show, that they have a very good grasp on the needs of RPGs.
And then, whenever I look at the 3.5 PHB, I see a lack of these intriguing ideas: There is a bunch of dead levels, artificial assumptions, prep-heavy NPCs (3.5 DMG was worse than 3.0 DMG!).
And I wanted to see a revised take on the classic classes for a while - because (just look at a class like the dread necromancer, archivist, warlock oder warblade) I'm sure a wizard/cleric/fighter made nowadays would have much more individual and interesting class features and a smoother power curve.
Factoring in good staff (Richard Baker, Mike Mearls, and countless others I've forgotten), I trust 'em to do a new edition correctly.
And hence I'm excited!
(only minor worries, until I've heard an official announcment about a new SRD)
Cheers, LT.
the Jester
Legend
Horacio said:
Hey, welcome back!
Good to see you again!As for me, I am not upset about 4e because I recognize now enough things abour 3e that can be improved that I don't feel that it's gratuitous to have a new edition. Hell, as the dm of an epic-level campaign, I can see the attraction of quicker prep. FO SHO, mang.
I was also just starting to think about printing a revision of my Player's Guide to Cydra (my campaign world), but now I think I should wait.
That saves me some money, for about a year (since it will probably take me some time to convert my stuff to 4e).
I will say I'm intrigued. If they can make the whole NPC creation smoother and quicker, I'll dive into the deep end fully clothed. As long as it is somewhat backwards compatible (as I look at all the $$$ on my shelves) I'll be fine, too.
If, worst case, it doesn't impress me, I've got YEARS worth of 3.5 campaign goodness sitting untapped on my aforementioned shelves. But, I'm betting I'll like it.
Until May 2008, I will start a grapple with the polymorphed wizard.
If, worst case, it doesn't impress me, I've got YEARS worth of 3.5 campaign goodness sitting untapped on my aforementioned shelves. But, I'm betting I'll like it.
Until May 2008, I will start a grapple with the polymorphed wizard.
Obergnom
First Post
Same reasons here, while I own a lot of 3.5 stuff, I stopped buying "player" stuff after 3.0 (learned a lesson )
Actually, I am really exited about the new edition, they try to fix nearly all issues I had with 3.5. (Game Speed, Prep Time, extended Sweet Spot) If they succeed it will be fantastic, if not... I doubt it will be a worse play experience than 3.5
)Actually, I am really exited about the new edition, they try to fix nearly all issues I had with 3.5. (Game Speed, Prep Time, extended Sweet Spot) If they succeed it will be fantastic, if not... I doubt it will be a worse play experience than 3.5
Magus Coeruleus
Explorer
I'm not upset because after ending a 7 yr campaign I ran and a 4 or so year one I played in with D&D 3.xe, (after many years of DMing OD&D previously), I am flat out tired with D&D. The insane amount of time to create NPCs, the ridiculous number of stacking and overlapping modifiers, the flabbergasting number of magic items and equipment on a person, the obnoxious way that...ok sorry I got carried away. My point is it's just so bloated it ceased to be fun anymore, and so my next RPG campaign is going to be a different genre and system, a simpler, faster playing one (MEGS/DCH/BOH).
Oh yeah, the reason I'm not upset is because I am very curious to see if they work on any of the problems I have with D&D and I won't really be impatient because I've lost my taste for D&D and am happy to move on and away from it. So I can look at the previews they'll release with interest and curiosity without getting obsessive or overeager. By the time it comes out, if it addresses my issues, I may even be willing to give it a whirl. But I don't have much invested in 4e so I can't really be upset at all.
Oh yeah, the reason I'm not upset is because I am very curious to see if they work on any of the problems I have with D&D and I won't really be impatient because I've lost my taste for D&D and am happy to move on and away from it. So I can look at the previews they'll release with interest and curiosity without getting obsessive or overeager. By the time it comes out, if it addresses my issues, I may even be willing to give it a whirl. But I don't have much invested in 4e so I can't really be upset at all.
