D&D 4E Is 4E the designers homebrew coming to my gaming table?

[broghammerj]

I can't wait until May when the new books come out. The mechanics of 4E will hopefully fix many of the problems associated with 3.5 without generating too many new problems.

My latest reservation is some of the fluff changes they are making:

Elemental planes more hospitable, demons/devil changes, eladrin/teiflings in the core, silly named magic traditions, points of light campaign model, cosmology/great wheel changes, etc.

I imagined the core books providing a game mechanic and fixing problems with how 3.5 played. What I didn't bargain for was a rewrite of some pretty defined themes within DnD. I wonder if this is a bit of the designers homebrew (or office brew if you will) sneaking into 4E

I don't feel that these were broken issues and that the DnD community was clamoring for them to be fixed.

Most importantly, I think the designers should be focusing their attention on rules and soldifying a core gaming mechanic. These fluffy things can be added in later supplements if need be. This seems a bit problematic especially since some of the fixes for 3.5 they have promised appear to be in the works rather than actually resolved (ie multiclassing, gish characters, rapid NPC generation).

Just wondering what others think (beside Treebore and Celebrim whose opinions seem thematically similar to my own) Just kidding guys....feel free to chime in

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Well, as a stalwart opponent of the Great Wheel cosmology, I say that I like the changes being made to the default fluff. Remember, this isn't Greyhawk.

That said, I think a lot of this Fluff is going to end up on DDI, not in the core books themselves. Maybe it will, who knows?

-TRRW

 

[broghammerj]

Well, as a stalwart opponent of the Great Wheel cosmology, I say that I like the changes being made to the default fluff. Remember, this isn't Greyhawk.

I agree that it isn't Greyhawk, but Greyhawk sort of was the original setting for 1E and as a result the Great Wheel is "generic" DND cosmology.

More importantly, was that something that really concerned you as a DnD player? Or to clarify is that something that you had on your wishlist to get fixed in the next edition? My point is that their are bigger fish to fry. Whether you're a Great Wheel lover or not it seems pretty insignificant for the upcoming core books and is likely something someone would change for their homebrew anyways.

I hope you're right that it comes up on DnD insider but I have a sneeking suspicion it will be in the books.

 

[Branduil]

You have to consider that WotC doesn't just want to appeal to old players, but new ones as well. This can partially be done by rewriting the rules to make them more coherent, unified, and simplified, but another way of appealing to new players is by rewriting the setting of the game to make it more intuitive and attractive to newcomers.

 

[Rechan]

I have yet to see a bit of fluff that I dislike.

I was disappointed they yanked the Tome out of the Wizards article.

 

[HeinorNY]

I don't feel that these were broken issues and that the DnD community was clamoring for them to be fixed.

Considering the planes, their argument is that they are turning them into better adventure sites. I don't know about that because I've never really cared about the great wheel cosmology. I don't like all the fluff based on alignments, IMO alignments should be roleplaying tools only and not the foundation of whole cosmologies.
They are also changing that about alignments so I think that's another reason to fit the planes to this new phylosophy.

 

[broghammerj]

Every bit of flavor presented thus far I have liked.

You may have like it and others may not. I happen to be in the not camp. One of the things I am trying to get at with my post is did you think there was a problem to begin with or is it more of a reaction along the line, "Yeah, I like what you're doing here"?

 

[Mouseferatu]

More importantly, was that something that really concerned you as a DnD player?

Well, I changed the cosmology away from the GW in more of my homebrews than I kept it, and the cosmology is one of my favorite things about Eberron. So I certainly have no problem with a new take on things.

My point is that their are bigger fish to fry. Whether you're a Great Wheel lover or not it seems pretty insignificant for the upcoming core books and is likely something someone would change for their homebrew anyways.

Point 1: Saying "there are bigger fish to fry" is meaningless in this context. It wasn't like the designers said, "Gee, we can only change 17 things about D&D. If we have a new cosmology, we're going to have to keep grapple the way it was. Quick, someone flip a coin!"

I'm quite sure that, as far as the designers are concerned, they have fried the bigger fish, and they're also going after some of the smaller ones.

Point 2: We're still working in a vacuum. There could easily be reasons for these changes. Consider that they've already implied that alignment is changing in 4E. If that's the case, perhaps the old Great Wheel--which was built on alignment more than anything else, at least in the outer planes--simply didn't make sense anymore. Rather than try to shoehorn it in and turn it into something it wasn't--which also would have made people unhappy--they've built something new that does fit the current alignment paradigm.

I hope you're right that it comes up on DnD insider but I have a sneeking suspicion it will be in the books.

My guess is that it'll be in the core books to the same extent the Great Wheel was in the 3E core books: You'll find it in places like the demon entries in the MM, and that sort of thing. But just like the Great Wheel was easily changed in 3E, this should be easily changed in 4E.

Now, they might eventually do a Manual of the Planes for 4E, sure. But that--again, like the 3E MotP--would hardly be mandatory for all DMs.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

You have to consider that WotC doesn't just want to appeal to old players, but new ones as well. This can partially be done by rewriting the rules to make them more coherent, unified, and simplified, but another way of appealing to new players is by rewriting the setting of the game to make it more intuitive and attractive to newcomers.

The problem here is the "Is this new coke?" scenario.

The designers and developers love the taste, as do a percentage of the market hearing about the addition of real sugar (as opposed to the corn syrup from before) and the use of grape juice as a flavoring. But... until you release the product, you don't know if the rest of the market will like the taste - or demand their original coke flavour back.

 

[Branduil]

The problem here is the "Is this new coke?" scenario.

The designers and developers love the taste, as do a percentage of the market hearing about the addition of real sugar (as opposed to the corn syrup from before) and the use of grape juice as a flavoring. But... until you release the product, you don't know if the rest of the market will like the taste - or demand their original coke flavour back.

On the other hand, you can have something like the Nintendo Wii, which had, and still has, many "hardcore" gamers throwing hissyfits about its lack of power and unconventional controller. Meanwhile, it enjoys unprecedented success.

IMO alignments should be roleplaying tools only and not the foundation of whole cosmologies.

I think you pinpointed exactly what I don't like about the great wheel.