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

[Maggan]

Am I the only one who still believes that when a WotC employee talks about something being 'Core' simply means 'not setting-specific'?

That's how I tend to look at it as well, even though I use core to mean the Big Three books, and then "sorta core" for the rest that's not tied to a campaign setting.

/M

 

[messy]

Layout on a website is not the same thing as layout on a page. Reading a PDF is not the same as turning the pages of a magazine on your couch. The smell of it, the touch of it?

i completely agree with you here, ben. there's something about holding a magazine in your hands and sitting on your couch/chair/bed reading it that is lost when reading a pdf on your computer. this is something i will really miss with dragon and dungeon.

messy

 

[hopeless]

Okay...

I just got to get it out of my chest.

I'm tired of teasers. I want some facts. When I get some facts, I get the first online articles of Dragon. I still feel just as concerned as before. I'm worried. I'm not talking about the rules, again. I'm talking about all that surrounds it (marketing, DI, virtual tabletop). I'm really uneasy about all that stuff. It feels like even if I dig the new core books, I won't be able to keep up with all the changes around them because well... I won't want to, to tell you the truth.

I agree and it looks as though they know it isn't going to go over well.

When they said tieflings and warlocks were going to be core THATS when I realised they had mde a major mistake well unless like others you saw the video presentation and the best thing about that is it left me wondering how long it took them to cook it up...

I suspect they're going to be mullered unless they promote this to the one section of the crowd that has absolutely no interest in what has come out before.

These points of light in the darkness schtick they've talking about?

Thats only worth it if they get their own campaign setting NOT as part of the core rule books.

All we actually need is the new core rulebooks and we'll decide what we want to run thank you!

Thats their problem it isn't yours keep an occsional eye here if you looking for answers one or the other but make no mistake you're not alone in your misgivings.

 

[Fifth Element]

These points of light in the darkness schtick they've talking about?

Thats only worth it if they get their own campaign setting NOT as part of the core rule books.

This is such an overwrought complaint. If you don't want to play a "points of light" campaign, don't. The 3E PHB assumed Greyhawk as a default setting, and no one seemed to have a problem ignoring that wholeheartedly if it's not what they wanted.

 

[WayneLigon]

Okay let me get this straight...D&D isn't defined by it's rules? Huh, I'm confused. So if I pick up the Exalted corebook and say I'm playing D&D...you guys will know exactly what I'm talking about when I ask if my Essence 3 Solar Twilight caste can use a perfect defense charm?

This makes no sense. D&D is defined by it's rules...the only uncertainty is what rules and how much they define it.

If you took an Exalted book, pulled the cover off, put a D&D 4E cover on it, and released it.. then yes, we would know what that means because we'd all have the same rules set and be exposed to the terminology. The actual rules or fluff or terminologies themselves have no bearing on whether or not something 'is D&D'; it's the core attitude that is brought to the table. You can play most games as if they were D&D - there's not as much difference there as you might think once you realize that rules are, in this sense, meaningless.

 

[WayneLigon]

That's the marketing, the PR, the digital initiative, Gleemax, e-Dragon and e-Dungeon, that truly worry me. Everything that would make up the "D&D culture" we discuss on these boards every day. So far, all of that does not remotely appeal to me, and as a result, I'm afraid I'll disconnect myself from the D&D culture, since I would not invest in anything that does not remotely attract me as a customer.

OK, I finally understand what you're talking about, I think, but I fail to see how these things actually feed in to the overall general subculture of D&D. Almost every table is a different subculture; I've sat at different games, talked to the people there, played with them and realized that I had absolutely nothing in common with them whatsoever. My understanding of what the game was and my desires for a campaign were 180-degrees off what they wanted. Is that the kind of disconnection you're fearing?

I don't see how those specific things could, anyway. The vast majority of D&D players never buy an issue of the Dragon (And if we can beleive the 'for every person that buy Dragon, 4 people read it' quote, a significant majority of them have never seen an issue) or go to the Wizards boards or come here. So, just by coming here, you're already somewhat disconnected from the 'mainstream' of D&D culture.

 

[Imaro]

If you took an Exalted book, pulled the cover off, put a D&D 4E cover on it, and released it.. then yes, we would know what that means because we'd all have the same rules set and be exposed to the terminology. The actual rules or fluff or terminologies themselves have no bearing on whether or not something 'is D&D'; it's the core attitude that is brought to the table. You can play most games as if they were D&D - there's not as much difference there as you might think once you realize that rules are, in this sense, meaningless.

That's just not true. I don't know how to say it in any other way. You're telling me right now D&D offers nothing more or less than every other fantasy game? That's absurd. Some examples...

Playing a starting character in Exalted/D&D/Warhammer are all very different experiences. Why? because of the rules. A starting exalt will destroy a starting D&D character and a starting D&D character will own a starting Warhammer PC. This definitely evokes a different feel for each game, that it's fans prefer.

The default worlds for each are also different.

Your argument is rules don't matter...but if you make the rules of D&D something else and sell it as such then everyone will know what you are talking about. This is exactly the opposite of your argument. Rules do matter for giving a baseline and a comparative neutral point. If you say you want to play a high powered game of D&D people know how to make suggestions for this because they have a common baseline. How do you not see this?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We tend to accept that there are "a slew of external emotional indicators", but unless you can objectively determine the emotions of a subject, you cannot objectively correlate the indicators to the emotion.

From a subjective standpoint, you may believe that these "indicators" indicate the emotions/thoughts you think they do, but you cannot actually know.

RC

Well, I think you're going a bit to far here.
The only thing I can determine is that I think and therefore exist. I have no way to prove that you think and are just not a robot reacting to some external input, or that you're a figment of my imagination.

Science only works on observations, which always include a margin of error. But by repeating observations, we get a certain degree of certainety that the conclusions we made based on our observations are true. Now, that might be totally wrong and in fact the universe is entirely chaotic and it just happens we are in a phase where it _seems_ as if our conclusions and predictions based on some observations are true. But assuming that doesn't help us any further.

So, if a scientist has measured neuronal activity on a few hundreds to thousands or millions of test subjects and linked their emotional descriptions with his measurements, we can pretty much rely on these data.


Er... So what what were we discussing?

Playing a starting character in Exalted/D&D/Warhammer are all very different experiences. Why? because of the rules. A starting exalt will destroy a starting D&D character and a starting D&D character will own a starting Warhammer PC. This definitely evokes a different feel for each game, that it's fans prefe

That's not entirely true, not if you're comparing combat power. A D&D character and a Exalted character can't play in the same game, because they use different rules. What would 12 points of D&D fire damage mean to a Exalted character? What does his +4 attack bonus mean? These have only meanings within the game.

It's a bit different with other skills: How high is the success chance for a 1st level D&D character to climb a knotted rope? How high is it for a Warhammer character? How high for an Exalted character?

 

[stormdragon]

You know, I've been reading the forums and watching the information about 4E come in since Gen-Con. I've kept quite about it because when 3rd edition came out I jumped on the hate bus without really understanding what was taking place. I also understand how some 3rd edition players might feel. I have played since the white box days, and have been part of the RPGA since there has been a RPGA.

And personally I haven't been this excited about a version of D&D since I play tested the 2nd edition rules. WotC understands that technology is for better or worse becoming a huge part of our lives, maybe not for a few hold outs, but for people in general it is, and just as many if not more D&D players are already using 3rd party applications to play D&D over the internet because people move away, not all of us live in areas that has a gamer community, and sometimes schedules don't mesh. Playing on line is nothing new folks have been doing it since the first modem was plugged into the first computer.

As for the rule changes, I can go back and read the forums during the 3rd edition preview and see the same concerns, and read the same dumbing down accusations, I never could grok why spewing esoteric and comvoluted rules made one more intelligent, Id' much rather have fun and not spend five days setting up a five hour D&D session.

Do I love everything about 4th ed? Nope, I have concerns over several things, but I'm going to wait and see how it shakes out. WotC is smart in sticking to their plan and tweaking where necessary. The sky simply isn't falling, D&D will remain and will probably bring a lot more players back that had problems getting around a table on a regular basis, and it will introduce a whole new generation to the game the same way the previous edition has. To me Wizards is doing the smart thing, and in several features it is way, way over due.

 

[WayneLigon]

Rules do matter for giving a baseline and a comparative neutral point. If you say you want to play a high powered game of D&D people know how to make suggestions for this because they have a common baseline. How do you not see this?

The rules per se don't matter; the baseline does. Any rule at all can form the baseline; thus the individual rules themselve have no meaning, just that we have rules at all.

If I release D&D with, say, no classes and no spells, just collections of class abilities and talent trees hung on a base archtype, and a collection of powers and modifiers in place of spells, then we'd all still know what a person was talking about when they talked about a high power or low power game because we're all using the same ruleset. The rules themselves don't matter at all, but what does matter is the fact that we're all on the same page. The idea of 'high power' and 'low power' are neutral terms when talking about rules, because one doesn't follow from the other.