D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[JayBrickwall]

"This I think is the entire problem. 4e seems to be D&D made by people who don't like D&D. And made for people who don't like D&D."

"That observation is worthy of being added as a signature."


If I worked at WotC as a game designer, and someone pointed out that post to me, and all the posts in agreement with it... I would be hard pressed to get out bed and go to work the next day.

I mean, are ENposters really advocating that the 4e WotC designers "don't like DnD"? Seriously? Its their project that they've thrown themselves into, and (probably) in some cases, staked their livelihoods on. And some ENposter is going to sit there and say something like that, as a consumer with 7% of the finalized information needed to justify it?

I hope none of the advocates of this statement have EVER, EVER tried to create anything, or add anything meaningful into a pursuit or hobby they partake in. But, if in the future you HATE something so much that you decide to make it your life's work for more than a year, I hope someone can come along and make the same statements about you and your project. (Yes, the original statement is a personal attack on the designers!)

Moderators, I feel like I've reigned in most of my outright disdain at this, and tried to post within the bounds of EN's rules and regulations... but if not... ban away. I won't be visiting these boards for awhile, until all the bile and conclusion-jumping (on both sides of the 4e issue) has passed and, books in hand, we can settle into a forum to discuss the game WE ALL PLAY AND LOVE, no matter what the front cover might say.

I mean, really? What a joke.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

They changed a lot -- they took out things.
In the intial 2E transition, TSR removed half-orcs (for whom the most likely origin was rape), assassins, demons, devils, and MM nudity. See a pattern here?

Removing disdainful elements from the game while keeping the rules the same? Not a change, IMO. The reasons for removal were based on pressure from outside groups.

Postponing the publishing of certain elements to make sure they fit within the new ruleset? Now that's a change. The reasons for removal are based on design concepts.

One could argue that the 2E designers wanted to save certain elements so they could be done right within the new ruleset, like finally publishing the barbarian again as a kit instead of a class. But that one element of change, the Kit, did not seem to be part of their original 2E development. It seemed to be created the same way new elements arrived in 3E, like Bo9S.

To claim that 4E decisions mirror those of 2E is as distorted as looking at oneself in a funhouse mirror.

 

[Silenttimo]

I do not intend to switch to 4E.

However, I do intend to have a look at the PHB to see if there are stuffs I can use or take, and if the answer is "definitely yes !", I'll get one copy of that book only.

1st - I have too many books / adventures 3.0-3.5 to use, DM or play ;
2nd - I do not want to go all over on being dragged (but fully aware of it) in a process of buying Complete X or Compendium Y, "coz it rocks", since I already have plenty of material to use, not so much money I want to spend in new rules ;
3rd - my players (when I DM) have bought PHB or complete books in the past 12 months, and I do not want to appear as I am "forcing their way" into new rules, and I guess they have become quite pleased with 3.5 ;
4th - I am so disappointed by several things WOTC has made in the past 10 months : taking license back for both Dungeon & Dragon magazines ; taking license back for Dragonlance ; trying to launch Dungeon mag online & Dragon mag online with a result that I did not find that good, efficient, practical and useful ;
5th - the complete drop of the Greyhawk world ;
6th - the "not-so-understandable" changes I have read here or there (quests ?, races & classes, mix of deities from several worlds, ...) ;
7th - I know the 3.0-3.5 rules, and I do not want to go all over on the process of learning new rules, even if they are easier : I've got less time.

I am also saddened that the communication was not that good that it divided the whole gaming community into "pro" and "anti" 4E.

I guess WOTC could have launched a brand new game, as it has being said and written several times.

So, I intend to stick to 3.5 for at least 8 years (I've got so much material !!) until my son is around 8-9 years old.

BTW, maybe I could be called a "grognard", since I began in spring 1984 with basic D&D, quickly switching to AD&D 1st ed...

 

[Odhanan]

"This I think is the entire problem. 4e seems to be D&D made by people who don't like D&D. And made for people who don't like D&D."
(...)

I mean, are ENposters really advocating that the 4e WotC designers "don't like DnD"? Seriously? (...)

I mean, really? What a joke.

I agree.

There are several things that should stop I think when talking about 4E. One of them is the systematic talk of "pro" and "anti" 4E people. Putting people into opposing camps or categories never helps any kind of exchange or communication. Same thing about the stereotypes and the "us against them" attitude.

I think that pretending the designers of 4E don't like D&D is ludicrous, as you pointed out.

I do, however, think that 4E is designed for people who don't like D&D. To rephrase the statement and clarify, 4E is marketed to people who, for reason X or Y, are unhappy with third edition. It emphasizes that 3rd ed is so inherently flawed that a switch to 4E is a no-brainer, and it is just wrong. Wrong, because there are many DMs and players out there who are perfectly fine with the rules as they are now, who make choices as to what they want to use in their games or not on an every day basis and don't need a new set of rulebooks to tell them what the proper choices are.

4E has not been addressing this crowd of fans of third edition by presenting them compelling evidence of the superior assets it has compared to 3rd ed. They are told they cannot translate their home campaign and would be better off starting again from scratch. They are told that some of their iconic classes, races and whatnot are thrown out the window because they "aren't fun" (To WHOM exactly? ).

For me, it is clear that 4E tries to appeal to people who are unhappy with core elements of the D&D game as it stands, so much so that they applaud a complete overhaul of the system and implied setting. I'm fine with these people, I hope they'll be as pleased with the new game as they already clamor loud and clear (despite the lack of concrete, interconnecting information we have according to Mike Mearls). That doesn't mean, however, that everyone has to just welcome all these changes. Far from it.

I say: let's respect those who are happy with 4E's presentation, and let's respect those who feel disoriented, confused, or sad because of it. Let's discuss and agree to disagree, because it seems to me now that obviously the people posting on these boards and elsewhere sometimes have a very different idea of what they want out of "Dungeons and Dragons". If we want our opinions to be respected around here, it's time to stop the snide remarks, the passive-aggressive attitude, the characterization and stereotyping, the vindictive humor, the straw man arguments, and all those attacks against other people who don't share our opinions.

Too many people around here just want to be the only ones right. This has got to stop.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

To rephrase the statement and clarify, 4E is marketed to people who, for reason X or Y, are unhappy with third edition.

Even more, they're going after the fraction of RPG gamers who didn't like D&D at all -- including those who turned away long before 3E. The shift away from Vancian spellcasting is HUGE, as that was always one of the most significant differences between D&D and every other game on the market. One of the defining characteristics of D&D, and one of the reasons most cited by fans of alternative systems for why they didn't play D&D (IME, of course).

For me, that change is one of my biggest reasons for not playing 4E. It is a deal-breaker change. There were DOZENS of other systems I could have played for the past 23 years, none of which had Vancian spellcasting. If I didn't want to play such systems then, why would I want to play one now?

 

[Wolfspider]

"This I think is the entire problem. 4e seems to be D&D made by people who don't like D&D. And made for people who don't like D&D."

"That observation is worthy of being added as a signature."


If I worked at WotC as a game designer, and someone pointed out that post to me, and all the posts in agreement with it... I would be hard pressed to get out bed and go to work the next day.

I mean, are ENposters really advocating that the 4e WotC designers "don't like DnD"? Seriously? Its their project that they've thrown themselves into, and (probably) in some cases, staked their livelihoods on. And some ENposter is going to sit there and say something like that, as a consumer with 7% of the finalized information needed to justify it?

I hope none of the advocates of this statement have EVER, EVER tried to create anything, or add anything meaningful into a pursuit or hobby they partake in. But, if in the future you HATE something so much that you decide to make it your life's work for more than a year, I hope someone can come along and make the same statements about you and your project. (Yes, the original statement is a personal attack on the designers!)

Moderators, I feel like I've reigned in most of my outright disdain at this, and tried to post within the bounds of EN's rules and regulations... but if not... ban away. I won't be visiting these boards for awhile, until all the bile and conclusion-jumping (on both sides of the 4e issue) has passed and, books in hand, we can settle into a forum to discuss the game WE ALL PLAY AND LOVE, no matter what the front cover might say.

I mean, really? What a joke.

OK then....

 

[Sunderstone]

OK then....

qft

 

[collin]

That was all secondary. The real reason for 2e was to remove the name Gygax from the game completely.

True.

 

[collin]

I agree. I remember feeling that way as well when I looked at the 3E PHB for the first time. "Monks are back! COOL!" I really don't get this vibe from 4E. If anything, 4E actually reminds me of 2E: taking off assassins or monks or bards because they are "problematic". "Gnomes? Who wants to play a gnome? It's out. Bards aren't fun. Out." Etc.

Right know I just think 4E is to 3E what 2E was to 1E. Maybe worse. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath any more.

Exactly what I've been saying. Odd editions = good; even editions = not so good.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I want to read it first. So far it sounds like they simplified it too much. I'll give it a look, but not looking forward to it so far. Sounds way to limited at the moment.