D&D 4E My biggest concern about 4E

[zoroaster100]

So far I have been keeping an open mind about 4th edition. I have in fact actually been looking forward with hope to better mechanics that will make the game easier to run, especially at mid- to high levels than 3rd edition. But as more news trickled out I've become more and more concerned, and just now my concern has crystalized in form and I know its cause.

What I am concerned about is that I'm not liking most of the changes in flavor to the game, to the "story" of the game. I like the existing "story" of D&D. That is what attracts me to the game I've been interested in for so many years. I don't mind when new settings are created which tweak or even radically change the "story" of the game for that setting. But I don't want the core setting changed significantly. Sure, if the core default setting is different from what I like can I theoretically create my own. But the truth is that I just don't have the time or energy to do so at this point in my life.

I want to be able to run my campaign in Greyhawk, where I most always have. And with all the changes to angels, devils, demons, core gods, this grows more and more challenging. BUt the real difficulty to me seems to come from the change in core races. If every new adventure or other product is filled with NPC tieflings, eladrin and dragonborn, it could be a royal pain to remove these from the adventure and replace them with suitable NPCs of races that fit the flavor of the game I want to run.

 

[danbuter1]

I think you hit the nail on the head for a lot of older gamers. Which isn't going to help WotC's bottom line at all. I think they are forgetting the average gamer is probably late 20's, early 30's' and not a teenager. Now if they can get a ton of teens to suddenly drop their WoW accounts or Wii remotes and play DnD, more power to them.

 

[Aloïsius]

If every new adventure or other product is filled with NPC tieflings, eladrin and dragonborn, it could be a royal pain to remove these from the adventure and replace them with suitable NPCs of races that fit the flavor of the game I want to run.

Eladrin = high elves
Elves = wood/wild elves.
Not a problem : we already have those.

Tieflings and dragonborn are somewhat more tricky. But how many half-orc and gnomes NPC were there in 3.5 products ?
I think there maybe a 4e gazeteer for RPGA living greyhawk, where you will have all your standard races and what to do with the new one.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The cosmology changes and the changes to devils, demons and so far don't worry me much, though that might be only because I rarely used each of them.

If I think of the Adventure Paths I played so far, not of these changes would have a big impact. The Blood War was never in the foreground, and the planar setup was rarely delved on much.

I think I used Gnomes approximately once in my campaigns (with a Gnome Psion serial killer that the characters had to catch in a Dragonstar-based campaign), and I never played one.
So I guess removing them and adding two other races I might use just as less, but potentially more, doesn't worry me much, either.

I never played in a game where the changes from the 4th edition fluff would change things much. But I definitely see more potential to use some of the new fluff than I did with the old.

This is all just anecdotical, but at least the adventure path look like a "common" experience among gamers.

If you used more of it in-game, and based entire adventures on it, things would probably feel different. But even then, the only point at where you get a real conflict with the new fluff is in published adventures that might no longer match your current setting. But maybe if you want to use it, you just use the new (implied) setting? If the adventures are worth to be played, the new setting shouldn't hurt much.

 

[Cbas_10]

So far I have been keeping an open mind about 4th edition. I have in fact actually been looking forward with hope to better mechanics that will make the game easier to run, especially at mid- to high levels than 3rd edition. But as more news trickled out I've become more and more concerned, and just now my concern has crystalized in form and I know its cause.

What I am concerned about is that I'm not liking most of the changes in flavor to the game, to the "story" of the game. I like the existing "story" of D&D. That is what attracts me to the game I've been interested in for so many years. I don't mind when new settings are created which tweak or even radically change the "story" of the game for that setting. But I don't want the core setting changed significantly. Sure, if the core default setting is different from what I like can I theoretically create my own. But the truth is that I just don't have the time or energy to do so at this point in my life.

I want to be able to run my campaign in Greyhawk, where I most always have. And with all the changes to angels, devils, demons, core gods, this grows more and more challenging. BUt the real difficulty to me seems to come from the change in core races. If every new adventure or other product is filled with NPC tieflings, eladrin and dragonborn, it could be a royal pain to remove these from the adventure and replace them with suitable NPCs of races that fit the flavor of the game I want to run.

I'm in the same position as you are; long-time DM favoring games in Greyhawk. The transition from 2nd to 3rd editions worked very well for me. Multiclassing made more sense, allowing simpler construction of concepts like elven gish-types, more easily describing major NPCs who seemed to have multiple talents, and more. The new concepts of domains helped to separate clerics of different faiths and actually allow them to play differently. Monster classing and templates facilitated more sensible creation of monster leaders and other major antagonists. More and more...but I digress. From 2nd to 3rd, many of the concepts stayed the same, even if rules changed.

But now, there are so many new concepts, I am wondering how easy it will be to filter out some items in order to keep a feel for a setting that any particular DM wants to use. Warlocks are cool, but of very limited use in my setting. Same for tieflings, dragonborn, and evidently super-being PCs (yeah...I know, some of you say that characters higher than X-level are super-beings, but I'm referring to some of the base mechanics we've had hints of and some of the basic/low-level powers of classes. I've handled the "potential super-being" via high levels issue in my game quite well). I know we can all always house rule our games and make whatever changes we want....but....at what point do we hit the threshold of needing to alter any future book because of our house rules? If I keep tieflings, warlocks, and dragonborn out of my games, how much will it require me to work around other issues in future books that I'd want to buy?

Games evolve and change through editions, for sure. To me, each edition of D&D has "felt" the same, even though rules have changed and gameplay itself has improved. I'm just wondering how this will feel more like a brand-new game than the next step in D&D. I understand how things will change over time, but if I wanted to get into a new or different game, I would have done so already.

I'm eager to find out just how easy it will be to adapt or ignore segments of the new game; how much the new game works as a basic framework to tool and personalize.

 

[Aeolius]

Perhaps WotC needs to release "The Greyhawk Grognards' Guide to Playing 4e like 3.5e".

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I agree with the overall point about things being taken out and changing. However, I don't think that we know who the "average gamer" really is without some hard numbers derived from surveys. Mearls pointed out years ago that there is the "silent majority" who just buy books and don't comment on the Internet.

 

[Maggan]

However, I don't think that we know who the "average gamer" really is without some hard numbers derived from surveys.

Exactly. I'd like to add that if anyone knows who the "average gamer" is, and who the gamers buying D&D books are, it is WotC.

The data they have might not match up with what a lot of gamers believe about gaming demographics, and a lot of the things WotC does might not make sense without access to those numbers.

If anyone knows the market, it is WotC.

/M

 

[WayneLigon]

I would say that the 'core flavor/setting' is an illusion. It doesn't exist. It doesn't matter what a monster looks like, or is called, or what races are in the PHB, or any of that. Your campaign is the only thing that defines those names, the cosmology (I have a really hard time believing the structure of the cosmology and if a particular thing is a demon or devil actually matters in the course of a campaign to anyone at all but a very thin slice of people that have long-running campaigns set in and among the other planes of existance), etc.

Everytime I start a D&D campaign, I look at the rules anew. I decide what monsters are in or out, what playable races are in or out, what spells are in or out. I decide the tone and flavor of magic, the relationship between races, what flavor-based rules (such as what powers a dwarf gets, or whatever) will be used and which ones wil be modified. If dragonborn are in the 'new race', then in my next campaign I'll decide whether or not they exist. Same with teiflings. Or dwarves. They might be in, they might be out.

 

[zoroaster100]

I know I could address this problem if I went through the effort to design my own campaign setting based on the new rules and determined what races are in or out, etc., but at this point in my life, I simply don't have time to create campaign settings or write entire adventure paths wholecloth.

I was happiest when able to use Dungeon adventure paths for 3rd/3.5 edition set in Greyhawk to run with minor tweaks. I liked that precise flavor, and want to keep using that. Will that be possible? With the destruction of Dungeon as it previously existed, probably not. I was hoping as a viable alternative to use Paizo's new Pathfinder adventure paths and an occasional generic adventure from WOTC, but I'm concerned the new flavor will mean that:

1) Paizo won't switch to 4th edition, forcing me to choose to either stick with 3.5 to run Paizo's quality adventures, or switch to 4th but abandon the flavor I love
2) WOTC's generic adventures will be useless to me because they'll be set in a setting too different from the Greyhawk setting I want to keep using, which will make it too hard to convert their adventures.

I don't know if I am the "average D&D player". I know I am not alone, and there is a whole group like me. I believe the group I'm part of is a group with a lot of money to spend on D&D products, and has been a loyal fan base for several decades. Perhaps WOTC does indeed rightly believe they will profit by "firing" me and those like me from their fan base and that they will more than make up for losing such as me by acquring new fans that love dragonborn, tieflings, eladrin and warlocks and who hate gnomes and the Great Wheel. That is hardly of any comfort or help to me, though, is it?