D&D 4E Is 4E winning you or losing you?
- Thread starter Lonely Tylenol
- Start date
Lurks-no-More
First Post
I'm overall interested, mostly optimistic (with some reservations), and alternatively amused and baffled by the sky-is-fallism.
Howndawg
Explorer
After playing and DMing 3e for a few years, I came to the realization that the target audience for 3e did not include me. Granted, I like most of what they've done in 3e, but the style of game I prefer is not what 3e offered. From what I've seen of 4e, WotC looks to be moving the game in a direction I prefer. I like most of the changes I've heard about. The reduction of the Christmas tree effect, the points of light assumption, and the revised resource management are my biggies. I also like the idea of wizard's implements. Since Mike Mearl's wrote The Quintessential Wizard, which had a chapter on Wizards' Staves in it, I guess I knew this was coming.
There are some I am skeptical about. While I like the new resource management system, I can understand why some people would not. Players who don't want anything to do with resource management (yes, they exist) will no longer have any simple hack'n'slash characters to play. My thoughts on wizard traditions are mixed. I think they add color to a wizard's background, but yet at the same time they can be seen as a straightjacket. You could probably say the same thing about clerics and gods, though.
My biggest concern is that some stuff that many players consider core will be moved to supplemental books, like the rumoured PHB2 and the possible splatbooks hinted at in the Israeli leak. I don't want to buy supplements to buy stuff I consider to be essential. I guess as some people complained about 3e "Heroizing D&D", some others will complain about 4e "White Wolfizing D&D".
Overall though, I am quite looking forward to 4e despite my reservations.
Howndawg
There are some I am skeptical about. While I like the new resource management system, I can understand why some people would not. Players who don't want anything to do with resource management (yes, they exist) will no longer have any simple hack'n'slash characters to play. My thoughts on wizard traditions are mixed. I think they add color to a wizard's background, but yet at the same time they can be seen as a straightjacket. You could probably say the same thing about clerics and gods, though.
My biggest concern is that some stuff that many players consider core will be moved to supplemental books, like the rumoured PHB2 and the possible splatbooks hinted at in the Israeli leak. I don't want to buy supplements to buy stuff I consider to be essential. I guess as some people complained about 3e "Heroizing D&D", some others will complain about 4e "White Wolfizing D&D".
Overall though, I am quite looking forward to 4e despite my reservations.
Howndawg
WayneLigon
Adventurer
Korgoth said:
Far more than most people?
http://www.pen-paper.net/rpgdb.php?op=showcreator&creatorid=2
Cook did far more product for D&D than he ever did for the other companies.
Like as not, D&D needed to - and needs to - break away from the thought patterns and habits of the 1E and 2E eras, both of which went on for far too long. A thing that does not change, adapt and evolve eventually dies.
Tweet brought to the table something D&D needed badly: a new perspective, and one that came from games that did things very, very differently than D&D. That sort of fresh blood is needed, indeed required for any product to improve itself. You have to have new thoughts.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
WayneLigon said:
Like cockroaches.
Seriously, though; I agree with your wider point about Msrs. Cook and Tweet and D&D's need to escape the shackles of prior editions, but this particular statement seemed more than a bit specious.
EricNoah
Adventurer
I am still neutral/leaning toward staying with 3E. I haven't seen anything that really blows me out of the water yet. I have seen some confusing or ... I don't know ... alienating? ... terminology (siloing, party role, etc.) that just doesn't click with me and doesn't make me say "ooh yeah, I gotta get that."
The things that will change my mind will have to do with balancing speed and ease of gameplay with optional depth and complexity. It doesn't bother me that race X, Y or Z might or might not be present in the core rules. What happens to spellcasting might be a big factor one way or the other. And what happens to monsters/monster stats.
The things that will change my mind will have to do with balancing speed and ease of gameplay with optional depth and complexity. It doesn't bother me that race X, Y or Z might or might not be present in the core rules. What happens to spellcasting might be a big factor one way or the other. And what happens to monsters/monster stats.
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Yeah, it's funny how "evolution" is brought into this all the time as the "way to better results".
Evolution is a process...it can lead to dead ends just as much as to an improved species. There's probably been more species died out due to evolution than those that remained. And some were simply perfect from the start, and only changed slightly in the last few millions of years...crocodiles, sharks, cockroaches...there's plenty of examples around that show a system can work fine pretty much from the start, and only needs slight modifications now and then to stay on top of the food chain. 
Evolution is a process...it can lead to dead ends just as much as to an improved species. There's probably been more species died out due to evolution than those that remained.
And some were simply perfect from the start, and only changed slightly in the last few millions of years...crocodiles, sharks, cockroaches...there's plenty of examples around that show a system can work fine pretty much from the start, and only needs slight modifications now and then to stay on top of the food chain. 
w_earle_wheeler
First Post
I started out excited, then as more details came in (on core changes to D&D mythos, not rules changes) I became less enamored.
When a representative of WotC claimed there would be no 4.5, I once again swung toward the positive spectrum. However, the more details I read about the DI and the effect it may have on the tabletop game swings my 4e meter back in the hesitant spectrum.
Two big factors for me right now:
First, will I be able to do everything I can do with 3.5e with the first three 4e books released? Or will I have to wait for three or four years for 4e to catch up with the hundreds of character options released in 3.5e, only to have 5e peaking around the corner at that point?
Second, will my player's want to switch to 4e? Will there be new adult players in my gaming community running 4e games or wanting to learn the game? This will be a huge factor. Will I meet new gamers in my brick and mortar store, or will they all be playing on their computers?
If it is available for a reasonable price, I will run the 4e preview module for as many people as possible, but I am hesitant to pay out of pocket to promote a for-profit company (basically, buying a preview module or preview product only to do the work of advertising for WotC). I like WotC products and have nothing against their company, but I am no one's shill.
When a representative of WotC claimed there would be no 4.5, I once again swung toward the positive spectrum. However, the more details I read about the DI and the effect it may have on the tabletop game swings my 4e meter back in the hesitant spectrum.
Two big factors for me right now:
First, will I be able to do everything I can do with 3.5e with the first three 4e books released? Or will I have to wait for three or four years for 4e to catch up with the hundreds of character options released in 3.5e, only to have 5e peaking around the corner at that point?
Second, will my player's want to switch to 4e? Will there be new adult players in my gaming community running 4e games or wanting to learn the game? This will be a huge factor. Will I meet new gamers in my brick and mortar store, or will they all be playing on their computers?
If it is available for a reasonable price, I will run the 4e preview module for as many people as possible, but I am hesitant to pay out of pocket to promote a for-profit company (basically, buying a preview module or preview product only to do the work of advertising for WotC). I like WotC products and have nothing against their company, but I am no one's shill.
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Having met a cross-section of the people working on D&D, I can say without hesitation that they absolutely love the game. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a labor of love, and that they have as much fun with D&D as I do. Thus, I'm not harboring a lot of cynicism and mistrust.
I am likely to switch to 4e for my next campaign. I'm liking much of what I've seen so far, certainly enough to give it a chance and put it through its paces. I expect to be pleasantly surprised.
Thing is, I remember the switch from 2e to 3e, and I know for a fact that there's no way to adequately judge the quality of the game when taken piecemeal. I'm thus reserving judgment until I actually read and play the finished game.
I am likely to switch to 4e for my next campaign. I'm liking much of what I've seen so far, certainly enough to give it a chance and put it through its paces. I expect to be pleasantly surprised.
Thing is, I remember the switch from 2e to 3e, and I know for a fact that there's no way to adequately judge the quality of the game when taken piecemeal. I'm thus reserving judgment until I actually read and play the finished game.
Similar Threads
Shadowdark
Finally Played Shadowdark
