Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 5261343" data-attributes="member: 8863">Interesting.  I haven't played 4e at all, so I have  no idea what, if anything this means. That Magic site could have gotten things wrong, it's possible that WotC could release a new set of Core Books with all the errata cleaned up.  But maybe it means that they're dropping the AD&D model and switching to a Basic model instead.  After all, Essentials is being sold as a new version of the old Red Box, and there's this Rules Compendium coming out.  This model might actually be better for the player base than the three hardback model AD&D and 3/4e have been following for the last 23 years.  Publishing costs are going up, the core books are what, $35 each now?  That's a lot to get into the game, and the only reason it's being done is because it was done that way ever since 1e, but the books were cheaper back then.  If instead they're switching to a model where you start with a Basic set, and move up to a compiled set of rules in one book, that a lot easier for new players.   Then you can add stuff on afterwards in a more modular fashion with splats.  As long as the model doesn't go to <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0049.html" target="_blank">this extreme</a>, it doesn't look too bad to me.  I mean after all, the old Basic RC managed to compile all the important rules into a single volume effectively, and it seems to be remembered quite fondly (I do regret not being able to pick up a copy when it was still on the market).  This talk of extensive errata bothers me more though.  It could mean one of two things.  First, it could mean there were loads and loads of typos in the original books, which isn't very impressive.  Or, and I think this is more likely, it means WotC is changing the rules along the way as they publish stuff.  The latter bothers me more because it's something that complicates the gaming experience and not for the better.  I generally prefer to DM, so I need to have a better grasp on the rules, which is made more difficult by constant changes, whether all at once like the 3.5 shift or a more gradual accumulation of errata.  I tend to be concerned that it means more potential loopholes for rules lawyers, and all of us DMs out there just love rules lawyers, don't we?  I know this isn't new either, WotC has been doing this through most of the 3e days too.  One of the reasons I eventually stopped the whole CCG thing (well besides the cost), was the tendancy of games to constantly errata cards left and right.  Because of errata, cards never did what the game text said they did because they were poorly worded, or the designers didn't like the cheap tactics players were using with certain cards and nerfed them (sometimes they were connected).  It made it too hard to keep track of what you were supposed to do when you had to constantly refer to huge errata tracts.  With D&D it was easier to ignore, just run the game as the book says and damn the errata, at least when playing face-to-face.  Now it's harder to do that with the online tools, since that has all the errata built in.  So if I were to DM, I have to keep track of all of that crap, or have a big argument with the players because the Character Builder and core books no longer match.  Booo, hiss! And the players would be in the right to some degree too, although I could just Rule 0 everything.  But that takes up back to the old days where every DM had his own unique set of rules, and the game's ostensibly been trying to avoid that for a while now.</blockquote>

Verification