Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[MichaelK]

If you are proudly anti-4E, what can you tell me to convince me that this time you really mean it?

Well, I'd class myself as skeptical and wary, not planning on changing to the new edition until I'm convinced that it's a better choice rather than "proudly anti-4E", still it's a valid question.

I started playing OD&D which I liked. I saw 2nd edition, was excited, read it, liked it and upgraded (I somehow missed 1st edition). Then I saw 3rd edition, was excited, read it, liked it and upgraded. Then I saw 3.5, was a little confused about a ".5 edition", read it, liked it and upgraded.

Now I look at 4th edition. I was really excited at first until I learned a bit more about what they're doing. I read the releases and didn't like it. Now I'm worried whether changing to 4th edition could be considered upgrading and don't plan on buying it unless I'm really impressed.

So why should you take my concerns seriously? (Aside from their intrinsic worth and any logical reasons therein). Because I've played 4 editions and converted 3 times without a moment's hesitation yet when I look at the new edition I'm worried. I think that's enough to be asking yourself 'why'.

 

[vagabundo]

Me: Yeah, I've never played 3rd edition; what's it like?
DM: Well, 3rd edition is D&D for dummies. 3.5 is D&D for Dummies for Dummies.
Me: Vin Diesel plays 3.5.
DM: ?

Man I didnt know that. haha WOTC should hire him as the face of DND 4th edition ...

 

[JeffB]

Haven't read anything but the OP but, I think all the arguments are the same really...in the general sense. There was a big furor over 3E.

However, I believe from what I've seen at the various boards, the number of people thinking there is need to scrap and rebuild the game (i.e. bring out 4E) is far fewer today than 9 years ago when 3E was coming out..when AD&D was woefully behind the times in RPG design and theory (not that I personally care, just saying as compared to it's peers).

I'd say there were many more people excited about 3E at the time, and fewer 2E/1E holdouts than there are today, where the split between 3e and 4E seems more even.

Thats my perception anyway.

 

[smetzger]

Oh, wise and mighty EN World community. Your ways are just, and your words are as a sweet ambrosia of truth. I submit to thee a query:

When 3rd Edition came out, I heard a lot of the same complaints from the people I gamed with as I do now with 4th Edition:
"They're dumbing the game down and taking away all the intricacies that I enjoyed."
"It isn't the same game as the one that I love playing."
"The new rules don't support the style of play that I like."
"There's nothing in here except fighting, fighting, fighting."
"This is soulless corporate gimmickery."
"It just doesn't feel like D&D."

I didn't hear those complaints. The only complaint I heard was "They told us they weren't making a 3rd edition"

2e was around longer than 3e was and it had gotten to the point that you could not play without having lots of house rules. The 'kits' were a fiasco.

 

[Gorrstagg]

To be quite honest, I believe the biggest issue folks are having with this shift from 3.5 to 4th Edition. Is that just 5 years ago, they did the shift from 3.0 to 3.5. And 3.5 could of honestly just been put out as a splat book for "Fixing" 3.0.

I still think the shift from 3.5 to 4 is too fast. But when I take into account the shift from 3.0 to 4, it's at the right spot. I've hit the wall as far as running 3.5. Takes entirely too long, and is not balanced very well. Way too much save or die stuff.

So when I hear folks with their righteous furor building because of something they don't like about 4th edition. I respect it.

I recognize where their concerns are. But I've been running incredibly fun and intricate adventures. And the sheer amount of time I have to put into making things work as a DM in 3.5 is not acceptable to me.

The underlying math isn't acceptable to me anymore. I'm tired of the class imbalances, I'm tired of save or die. I'm tired of players cherry picking classes, so they can play something interesting, but that is ultimately and hopelessly imbalanced in most cases compared to the proper CR of their level. I'm tired of designing intricate battles with large opponents and watching the battles take forever, (figuratively and literally) and then as the DM, I've got to stat out all those encounters, make sure their math is correct, so I'm not "Screwing" the players. I've got more reasons for the shift.

But I do respect the anger of the timing of this. And with what WotC did with 3.0 to 3.5. That is a really big issue for people even if they don't understand the underlying reasonings.

So am I looking forward to 4th edition. Yes even more than I've looked forward to pretty much any other game system in a long while.

I've been running stuff in Mutants & Masterminds (This is a great game, but for some really creative power constructions, its a lot of work to design stuff for this correctly), I've also been running Warhammer FRP 2nd edition. And I looked at ShadowRun 4th edition and was getting ready to dive into that game to run as I LOVE the concepts and world, then I cracked my head on the rules, and said "Damn, this game puts the FU in fun!" And that's the way I feel about this. Personally, that module coming out in May on the 20th, should be immediately advanced forward to the beginning of that month, let us get in and really get our game on before the 6th of June.

 

[vagabundo]

Personally, that module coming out in May on the 20th, should be immediately advanced forward to the beginning of that month, let us get in and really get our game on before the 6th of June.

If it is ready now H1 should be released right now.


"Enough with this runi^H^H waiting "...

 

[Psion]

Huh?

Nothing in the rules requires you to use the dryads as written in the MM. Write up your own dryads.

You really are missing the point here.

I've bolded the part that's not nothing. That is WORK.

If I am going to have to stat up everything that they decided to change, that's work on my part. Why should I spend money on 4e if it doesn't support the game I want to play?

Nothing stops you from enforcing lawful goodness from paladin players either. Saying, "You must play a paladin as lawful good," does not affect the mechanics of the system in any way, shape, form or otherwise.

I've already covered this one too. I'll be fighting upstream against player expectations, just like I did against "godless clerics and paladins" in 3.0.

Everything you have said so far is unsupported and, in fact, the opposite of what you're saying is supported by the available evidence.

Repeating something false won't make it true. Saying I can do it myself, or work to extract a race from the book is not "supported". That's work I have to do myself. Those are distinct states of being; your suggestions to the contrary are meaningless spin.

"The planes don't use the Great Wheel cosmology," which can be entirely circumvented in any way you choose without any effect on the mechanics whatsoever.

You keep obsessing on "the mechanics don't prevent me" whilst I've dismissed that as the source of my problem in my prior post. It's not the mechanics. Its the mechanical support, the incompatibility with other supplements for the game, and the player expectations. Those are real elements. Those are not "nothing" by any stretch of the imagination.

So far all I'm seeing from your arguments is a, "4e ruins roleplaying!" mentality.

Did I ever say that? No. Again, I'm talking about metasetting elements, not roleplaying. I'm sure I could have wonderful roleplaying sessions involving treants with wooden bewbs, lawful succubi, chaotic paladins, hawt tiefling warlocks, or archons that are jazzed up elementals if that's what I wanted. But I don't. The classic setting elements that have defined D&D from 1e-3e are my raison d'etre for buying any new edition of the D&D game; you don't support that, there is no reason that I should consider 4e over AE or Iron Heroes or Fantasy Hero or Aeternal Legends or Earthdawn or... whatever other fantasy game you care to name.

So, my point has nothing to do with "4e ruins roleplaying." It's awfully convenient to stuff words in the mouth of someone who disagrees with you to set up a strawman, though, isn't it? Is it too inconvenient for you to believe that there's someone whose reasons for not buying into 4e is different that someone you argued with last Tuesday, so you have to rhetorically "squint your eyes" by redefining all objections into the same frothing argument so you can feel so superior in rejecting it?

Or could you accept that I'm not that person damning 4e for roleplaying and admit that I have my own, distinct, entirely valid reasons that 4e is not for me?

 

[Fobok]

You really are missing the point here.

I've bolded the part that's not nothing. That is WORK.

If I am going to have to stat up everything that they decided to change, that's work on my part. Why should I spend money on 4e if it doesn't support the game I want to play?

Because you're not buying a setting book, you're buying a rulebook? Everybody else who DMs and isn't using purchased setting books (like FR, or Eberron), has to make up their own setting, why can't you?

I, in my entire time DMing D&D 3e and 3.5e, referenced older artwork for both monsters and equipment. And my halflings have always been hobbit-like, both in appearance and culture, despite what the 3e books described. It wasn't much work, really.

As for designing new versions of monsters, given the guidelines that are supposed to be present for designing monsters, it sounds a lot simpler in 4e than in 3e, and yet I managed in 3e.

DMing is work. 4e stands to lower the amount of work involved, but it'll still be work. I don't understand why that would be an issue.

 

[GlassJaw]

All I know is that I played 1ed for a little while and a 2ed for a long time. I hadn't played D&D in any form in probably 10 years.

3ed brought me back to D&D. It addressed all the problems I had with 1ed/2ed and made me excited to play again.

4E has done nothing to bring back that same excitement, quite the opposite actually.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Hey, just like late 3.5, minus the whole TSR thing. Imagine that.

As I said, if TSR had released 3E with the same team that was behind "2.5," I wouldn't have bought it. That's one of the major differences for me between "late 2E to 3E" and "late 3.5 to 4E."

Many of the innovations that I disliked in late 3.5 are not only remaining but taking on a much more prevalent role in 4E.