D&D 4E I'm really concerned about 4E

[Failed Saving Throw]

Honestly, in reading everything I have about 4E, I realized that it's pointless to get upset about or rail against anything until the products come out. And then I'll judge them on a case-by-case basis. Just look at 3.5 - there's a lot to like, then there's some mediocre releases, and there is outright garbage that I wonder if anyone really uses. And I know everyone really felt sad about the passing of Dungeon and Dragon out of print form, but in my opinion, half the content in both magazines was unusable anyway.

That said, I plan on collecting just about everything for 4E if it proves to be worth the coin. I did that when I was younger with 2E and it was an awful lot of fun. I came back to D&D in the waning hours of 3.5 and - let's face it - not all of the products are worth buying. I'm hoping for some improvements with 4E.

 

[rounser]

I get what you're saying, JohnSnow, but how do you equate PH 1, 2, 3 etc etc to equate to less books that 3.5 in the end? From what I understand, we'll have several books for campaign settings, and so on. Sounds like we could just as well have gazillions PHs, DMGs, MMs, campaign settings, etc etc?

They realized PHB2 and DMG2 sold well in 3.5, and they want to confirm by shooting the ball out of the park after the touchdown.

Reading this thread, I can't help but think of a company I was told about that always stays "one version behind" with regard to the Windows operating system (i.e. they only switched to XP when Vista came out).

With every new edition, the D&D sandcastle gets knocked over, and has to be rebuilt. We seem to be seeing hints that next year's initial core books will be missing some favourite and arguably "fundamental" D&D monsters and classes, and we'll be left waiting for later years to get them. It therefore sounds like this sandcastle is going to take longer to rebuild than normal.

3E is essentially complete, and has entire campaigns already written for it. There may be more fun to be had remolding some adventure path like Age of Worms in your personal image than in riding the 4E rollercoaster, which won't have this level of resources built up for years. 3E is in much less desperate need of a rules overhaul than 1E and 2E were. The books are going to be going cheap on ebay, too.

Anyways, regardless of the luddite grognard fogeyism connotations of such heretical thought, it's a thought nonetheless.

 

[Vigilance]

Reading this thread, I can't help but think of a company I was told about that always stays "one version behind" with regard to the Windows operating system (i.e. they only switched to XP when Vista came out).

With every new edition, the D&D sandcastle gets knocked over, and has to be rebuilt. We seem to be seeing hints that next year's initial core books will be missing some favourite and arguably "fundamental" D&D monsters and classes, and we'll be left waiting for later years to get them. It therefore sounds like this sandcastle is going to take longer to rebuild than normal.

3E is essentially complete, and has entire campaigns already written for it. There may be more fun to be had remolding some adventure path like Age of Worms in your personal image than in riding the 4E rollercoaster, which won't have this level of resources built up for years. 3E is in much less desperate need of a rules overhaul than 1E and 2E were. The books are going to be going cheap on ebay, too.

Anyways, regardless of the luddite grognard fogeyism connotations of such heretical thought, it's a thought nonetheless.

I don't think it's any of these things.

However, it does miss the fact that riding roller coasters is fun, and that its one reason why the "new and shiny" aspect of new editions is appealing to people.

You get to discover the game with your friends and figure out its quirks, strengths and weaknesses.

This is a game within the game that a lot of people like playing even when they don't realize it.

It's also why the core books for each new edition of D&D sell very, very well. Even people who are 99% sure they won't like the new edition will pick the game up "just to see".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Odhanan, I couldn't agree with you more.

In all honesty, I'm a system addict. I buy numerous systems each year and have no problem mixing and matching rules, style and flavor to suite my taste at the moment. Nothing about the new rules really strikes as a major problem or necessarily something that is really unique or revolutionary. Many of 4E's new features I've seen (and played) in other games over the years, so they are no big deal.

But the periphery components of the D&D Experience give me a reason for concern. I'm seeing nothing that really grabs me, but I am seeing a number of things that leave me cold. I was a Dragon subscriber, the FR lorekeeper for my group and an RPGA player and GM who loved Living Greyhawk and had played in the setting for over 20 years. So right there I have a problem with whats being offered. Only a couple of my players (2 out of 19) are even the slightest bit interested in 4E. The DDI is offering me nothing as I actually play face - face with players, and we only have a couple of players with lap tops. And what I've seen and heard about E-Drag and E-Dun leave me underwhelmed at best.

Like you I have disposable income and a willingness to buy good games, but it feels like WotC is either out of touch with me or not interested in retaining me as a customer.

When I first saw the "WotC firing their customer" post I chuckled and thought it was just a wee overboard. I'm no longer laughing.

Why do you feel like there's something wrong if you don't want to pay for the DI? I don't see why this is even an issue. If you don't need it, that's a good thing, because then you're not spending money on it. It is intended as a tool to make games easier to run and play. If you don't need that, it's probably because you don't have the problems it was intended to solve.

 

[rounser]

I don't think it's any of these things.

However, it does miss the fact that riding roller coasters is fun, and that its one reason why the "new and shiny" aspect of new editions is appealing to people.

You get to discover the game with your friends and figure out its quirks, strengths and weaknesses.

This is a game within the game that a lot of people like playing even when they don't realize it.

It's also why the core books for each new edition of D&D sell very, very well. Even people who are 99% sure they won't like the new edition will pick the game up "just to see".

Yes, it will sell very well, and generate a lot of interest.

But there are other "games within the game" of D&D...

...including worldbuilding (incredibly important to DMs I've discovered since many hang their egos on their homebrews or worship a published setting)

...and adventures (very time consuming to create for 3E if you dot all the i's and cross the t's, so adventure paths are nice to have; will 4E improve on this?)

An initial paucity of resources in either of these departments is inevitable (e.g. it will take years for monsters, classes, region books and adventures to build up to a critical mass), so 3E will have the edge for at least several years in these departments.

4E's novelty will make most overlook that, but nonetheless - it's a thought.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, it is in their best interest to make the DDI as useful as they can - but not a necessity.

The vast majority of gamers still plays offline, and I don't see that changing in the future. Online purchases of PDF products are vastly smaller than of print books. Thus, if they make the DDI a necessity, they will alienate the vast majority of D&D gamers with it - something that cannot be in their best interest.

Hey, I know how we can settle this. Let's make a poll in which we ask whether people use the internet. That way we'll know what percentage of people are likely to be exposed to online gaming, PDFs, and the like, and we can thereby estimate the number of people who will be likely to use the DDI.




...what?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yes, it will sell very well, and generate a lot of interest.

But there are other "games within the game" of D&D, including worldbuilding (incredibly, incredibly important to DMs I've discovered, they hang their egos on their homebrews) and adventures (incredibly time consuming to create for 3E if you dot all the i's and cross the t's, so adventure paths are nice to have; will 4E improve on this?)

An initial paucity of resources in either of these departments is inevitable (e.g. it will take years for monsters, classes, region books and adventures to build up to a critical mass), so 3E will have the edge for at least several years in these departments. 4E's novelty will make most overlook that, but nonetheless - it's a thought.

Well, given that worldbuilding and adventures are essentially rule-independent besides the statblocks required for adventures--which is indeed supposed to be easier to deal with in 4E--I don't suppose that 3E will have any advantage that can't be simply ripped out of the 3E books and stuck into a 4E game.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Wayne, I hope you're right. I can't believe they've even considered charging extra for *virtual* miniatures. Randomized virtual packs ??!? - WTF indeed.

I can understand how it might be reasonable to pay for virtual minis. Considering that the virtual tabletop is an optional purchase, it doesn't make much sense to package virtual minis with the MM (as an unlocked benefit), since it takes a lot of time and money to employ people to model these things. If they charge a reasonably low fee that allows you to unlock all the virtual minis associated with a given book, I could see myself paying for it. If it's that, or tokens, and I'm guaranteed to get the minis I want without blowing my budget, I'd buy it.

I would not buy randomized minis, and I would not buy minis that aren't priced according to what they are: access to a single 3D model. If they price them like real minis, I wouldn't be interested. I'm thinking something like $10-$15 to unlock an entire Monster Manual worth of minis.

 

[rounser]

Well, given that worldbuilding and adventures are essentially rule-independent besides the statblocks required for adventures--which is indeed supposed to be easier to deal with in 4E--I don't suppose that 3E will have any advantage that can't be simply ripped out of the 3E books and stuck into a 4E game.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge in the Free City of Greyhawk to sell you.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

One would think world-building would be system-neutral.

But without knowing what's coming down the pipe, I personally find myself reluctant to get started to any serious degree.