D&D 4E Rich Baker on Gnomes in 4E
- Thread starter SPECTRE666
- Start date
Didn't hear about Druids being kicked out...yet another reason for members of my group not to buy into the new system. :\
3.XEd, while not transparent to 2Ed, tossed out no class, race or magic style- the basics of character creation. That enabled our (then) 5 year old group to convert active campaigns to the new system. While I was convinced of 3.XEd's quality early on, convincing the others took time- but only a month or so passed after the initial release before the other players were at least buying the Core.
Even in my other main group (running since 1987 or so), the 1Ed/2Ed hybrid campaign was having its characters slowly but surely updated to the 3.XEd regime.
Assuming 4Ed gets Druids, specialist mages, enchantment and polymorphing magic and PHB treatments of gnomes & half-orcs by 2009 (in hardcover form), you're talking a minimum 6 month lag before our current main campaign could even consider converting to 4Ed. (While I'm at it, are monks in? If not, chalk up another negative.)
My second main group probably won't update at all.
[sarcasm]Simply brilliant.[/sarcasm]
Will this affect sales? Certainly. Will WotC notice? Probably not. Its hard to count people who don't buy your product, and I'm sure 4Ed will attract many new people to the hobby. I'd be surprised if 4Ed Core doesn't sell at least as well as 3.5. Core did.
In a very early thread, I and others posited that there might be a few 3rd party publishers who might do quite well continuing to support 3.X. Since that thread, Paizo, for one, has announced that they'll be doing just that, at least for some time. If they make a profit at it, be sure that others will follow.
I think 2008-10 will be very interesting times for D&D.
3.XEd, while not transparent to 2Ed, tossed out no class, race or magic style- the basics of character creation. That enabled our (then) 5 year old group to convert active campaigns to the new system. While I was convinced of 3.XEd's quality early on, convincing the others took time- but only a month or so passed after the initial release before the other players were at least buying the Core.
Even in my other main group (running since 1987 or so), the 1Ed/2Ed hybrid campaign was having its characters slowly but surely updated to the 3.XEd regime.
Assuming 4Ed gets Druids, specialist mages, enchantment and polymorphing magic and PHB treatments of gnomes & half-orcs by 2009 (in hardcover form), you're talking a minimum 6 month lag before our current main campaign could even consider converting to 4Ed. (While I'm at it, are monks in? If not, chalk up another negative.)
My second main group probably won't update at all.
[sarcasm]Simply brilliant.[/sarcasm]
Will this affect sales? Certainly. Will WotC notice? Probably not. Its hard to count people who don't buy your product, and I'm sure 4Ed will attract many new people to the hobby. I'd be surprised if 4Ed Core doesn't sell at least as well as 3.5. Core did.
In a very early thread, I and others posited that there might be a few 3rd party publishers who might do quite well continuing to support 3.X. Since that thread, Paizo, for one, has announced that they'll be doing just that, at least for some time. If they make a profit at it, be sure that others will follow.
I think 2008-10 will be very interesting times for D&D.
The Ubbergeek
First Post
Why are you so bad because a few options are not there?
There is also a few new ones.
Really, maybe you should give it a try - you can profit of the occasion at least to make something new, new campaign. If you ever wanted to start anew, it's the time...
They annoucned they wanted to do new, to change things... You have to accept that it may bring this. You want the butter and the price of the butter, as my people say.
There is also a few new ones.
Really, maybe you should give it a try - you can profit of the occasion at least to make something new, new campaign. If you ever wanted to start anew, it's the time...
They annoucned they wanted to do new, to change things... You have to accept that it may bring this. You want the butter and the price of the butter, as my people say.
Aeolius
Adventurer
The Ubbergeek said:
And for those of us who don't want to start new campaigns? I would have preferred to convert my 3.5e campaign into a 4e campaign, much as I converted my prior campaign seamlessly from 1e to 3e.
Every "change for change's sake" bit that I hear about 4e makes me less inclined to even purchase the core books. What about those of us who consider druids, half-orcs, gnomes, separate succubi/erinyes, and brass/bronze dragons integral to the D&D experience?
I've had a campaign concept on the back-burner for years, now. I thought I would flesh it out with the 4e rules, but alas it requires druids.
The Ubbergeek
First Post
And how about the ones who wanted serious changes, not just minor or changes for change? What about the ones who find them reducdant or useless?
Why should WOTC tailor the game according the wish of everyone?
Why should WOTC tailor the game according the wish of everyone?
I wasn't going to have Druids in my campaign setting originally, but I was increasingly intrigued by the Feywild, so I think I'm going to have to cobble some up. I want a divine controller, so I'll probably end up modifying the wizard class or the fey pact warlock. I didn't like the way that 3e made druids the shapechanging class. I prefered them in 2e, where they were more about making the natural world fight for you and calling down lightning.
I guess my response to the people who don't like that 4e is changing the fluff of D&D is that there is more reasons than just fixing the rules to update editions. I like some of the changes, dislike some others, but that pretty much means I'll be houseruling things even if I didn't switch editions. I've already determined that I want lead dragons rather than adamantine dragons and will not have an elemental chaos.
With any homebrew campaign setting you pretty much have to make changes even if you like a particular edition. For example, if you don't like the underdark but like drow elves, you might be shipping them off to the Shadowfell, writing out the Shadar-kai, and turning them into a necromancy culture. Lolth's demonweb, instead of representing treachery refers to her habit of ensnaring and consuming souls trapped in its strands. Will I have to make new stats for Lolth and build a few dark elven necromancers? Will I have to cobble something together if necromancers aren't available before I need it? Probably. But that's all part of playing the game. If all I was going to get is a wizard with a few negative energy attacks, I could do add that in myself.
I'm not really buying the argument that prior editions suited you homeworld perfectly. There is simply too much to be fussy about. I have several characters that will be suited better under the new rules, and I can't think of any that would be better served under the old ones. For example, I had a paladin with a background as a homeless street urchin. Taking a couple levels in rogue was pointless because a) you couldn't pick locks decently anyway and b) it made you a less effective fighter. With 4e I can play a paladin who can pick locks and bypass dungeon traps, so somebody else can play a warlock or ranger and we won't be hit by every trap in the mud sorcerers tomb.
The only way that your campaign world suit a prior edition perfectly well is if you never tinkered with the mechanics and flavor text at all. If you aren't willing to adopt 4e because of the work of tinkering with the setting or mechanics would put you off, then how many 3.5 products were you going to buy? Have we not reached the point of supplementary sourcebooks for 3.5 that the well is pretty much bone dry? So if not supplements, then there would have to be either pre-made adventures and various regional books of existing campaign worlds. Neither of those seem to be making the cost of their ink back.
Pre-made adventures have never sold well (even Dungeon was less popular than Dragon). so while I'm sympathetic to people who find nothing wrong with 3.5 edition and would just like to see more adventures come out for it, there are not enough of you to really sustain it for the next few years.
The other fans who are upset about the fluff changes of 4e are probably people who enjoy a certain campaign setting. However, the campaign setting books have come out, so really you would have to be interested in regional sourcebook or player's optional rulebooks. To be someone interested in such a regional sourcebook you have to be a fan of the setting, and a fan of a particular region of the setting. Not something deeply encouraging for a FLGS to stock in their store.
On the other hand, there are people like me who are annoyed at many of the fluff and rules status quo, and are thus willing to give a new edition a try. If D&D was a religion instead of a hobby with customers to satisfy, the cries of heresy would be a little more believable.
I guess my response to the people who don't like that 4e is changing the fluff of D&D is that there is more reasons than just fixing the rules to update editions. I like some of the changes, dislike some others, but that pretty much means I'll be houseruling things even if I didn't switch editions. I've already determined that I want lead dragons rather than adamantine dragons and will not have an elemental chaos.
With any homebrew campaign setting you pretty much have to make changes even if you like a particular edition. For example, if you don't like the underdark but like drow elves, you might be shipping them off to the Shadowfell, writing out the Shadar-kai, and turning them into a necromancy culture. Lolth's demonweb, instead of representing treachery refers to her habit of ensnaring and consuming souls trapped in its strands. Will I have to make new stats for Lolth and build a few dark elven necromancers? Will I have to cobble something together if necromancers aren't available before I need it? Probably. But that's all part of playing the game. If all I was going to get is a wizard with a few negative energy attacks, I could do add that in myself.
I'm not really buying the argument that prior editions suited you homeworld perfectly. There is simply too much to be fussy about. I have several characters that will be suited better under the new rules, and I can't think of any that would be better served under the old ones. For example, I had a paladin with a background as a homeless street urchin. Taking a couple levels in rogue was pointless because a) you couldn't pick locks decently anyway and b) it made you a less effective fighter. With 4e I can play a paladin who can pick locks and bypass dungeon traps, so somebody else can play a warlock or ranger and we won't be hit by every trap in the mud sorcerers tomb.
The only way that your campaign world suit a prior edition perfectly well is if you never tinkered with the mechanics and flavor text at all. If you aren't willing to adopt 4e because of the work of tinkering with the setting or mechanics would put you off, then how many 3.5 products were you going to buy? Have we not reached the point of supplementary sourcebooks for 3.5 that the well is pretty much bone dry? So if not supplements, then there would have to be either pre-made adventures and various regional books of existing campaign worlds. Neither of those seem to be making the cost of their ink back.
Pre-made adventures have never sold well (even Dungeon was less popular than Dragon). so while I'm sympathetic to people who find nothing wrong with 3.5 edition and would just like to see more adventures come out for it, there are not enough of you to really sustain it for the next few years.
The other fans who are upset about the fluff changes of 4e are probably people who enjoy a certain campaign setting. However, the campaign setting books have come out, so really you would have to be interested in regional sourcebook or player's optional rulebooks. To be someone interested in such a regional sourcebook you have to be a fan of the setting, and a fan of a particular region of the setting. Not something deeply encouraging for a FLGS to stock in their store.
On the other hand, there are people like me who are annoyed at many of the fluff and rules status quo, and are thus willing to give a new edition a try. If D&D was a religion instead of a hobby with customers to satisfy, the cries of heresy would be a little more believable.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Or maybe: How?The Ubbergeek said:
The way I look at it, WotC could have given us core Necromancers, Illusionist, variant Dragons with spells, Druids, Gnomes and so on together with everything they have so far.
In 2009. Without handing out any products in the meantime.
But they decided otherwise. They knew they have a good grasp of their rules, and even if tinkering is still possible, they know it's no longer necessary, because it has achieved all design goals they wanted. So they put out the first books with the new rule system in form of the first 3 4E core rulebooks.
After that, they continue working on all the classes, races and other material they want. They bring it out in Campaign Settings and the new Core rulebooks proposed each year.
So basically, the alternatives for people that want Gnome Druids or Half Orc Barbarians were this:
- Wait until 4E is released, but delay it to 2009.
- Have 4E released now, but wait to 2009 for Gnomes and Druids.
If you desperately, 100 % certainly will need the Gnome Druids and can't improvise anything around it (including pretending the exist but not actually using them), well, this means you have to wait to 2009. WotC misses out a few initial sales, but they won't lose them in the long run. Unless they figure out nobody likes 4E. Which means at least they can throw it away and return to 3.x for 2009, not having yet another year without sales.
Never have I shied away from the new options a new edition of a particular game has offered. That isn't the issue at all. The issue is that I and others aren't pleased that some of our options are missing, and they are options that we may well prefer to the new. (
After all, new ≠ better.) We may be interested in the new ruleset, but we aren't neccessarily interested in ditching or retconning an established campaign if we wish to move to 4Ed.
WotC could have made more money out of 3.5 with frequently requested books like Feat or Class compilations, complete with relevant rules revisions, and waited until 2009 or so to release a more complete (and possibly more playtested) version of 4Ed.
They may not lose out in absolute sales as new players replace those lost, but they'll definitely lose particular sales.
While I'm not one of them, I can guarantee you that some people will look at the 4Ed rules and see gaps once filled by their favorite race or class or whatever and simply never touch the rules again.
Incenjucar
Legend
They're trying to capture new market.
People who are fans of the old stuff will have a taste of the old stuff, and have learned how fun it can be, and will survive waiting a bit.
New markets need to be tapped, in the mean time. They have, in many cases, snubbed the old stuff. So new stuff needs to be brought out to try to get them to take a second look.
It'll all be in there eventually, one way or another, but the mixed method rather than all old stuff first is a better marketing strategy.
They may lose the obsessive 1% of the old market (and if you just CANNOT play a game without something named "sorcerer" even though the mechanics are different ANYWAYS, you -are- obsessive) but they may gain 20% more from the new market.
D&D needs to expand, it needs to grow, it needs to try new things.
That which stagnates dies.
People who are fans of the old stuff will have a taste of the old stuff, and have learned how fun it can be, and will survive waiting a bit.
New markets need to be tapped, in the mean time. They have, in many cases, snubbed the old stuff. So new stuff needs to be brought out to try to get them to take a second look.
It'll all be in there eventually, one way or another, but the mixed method rather than all old stuff first is a better marketing strategy.
They may lose the obsessive 1% of the old market (and if you just CANNOT play a game without something named "sorcerer" even though the mechanics are different ANYWAYS, you -are- obsessive) but they may gain 20% more from the new market.
D&D needs to expand, it needs to grow, it needs to try new things.
That which stagnates dies.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I guess we can speculate a lot here, but I think it's fair to assume that WotC does not have unlimited resources. They can design only a certain amount of products, and their goal for 4E isn't just to sell us 3 core rulebooks, but also to give us a lot of supplements and adventures in the months after its release. Maybe it would have been possible to design 4E and produce a few 3.x supplements, but this would have meant that the months after the 4E release, we would see less 4E products then WotC is planning now.Dannyalcatraz said:
I think the compilations might have been nice, but I doubt they'd sell anywhere close to previous supplements. The market is just smaller for them, since people that already have all the splat books are less interested in another compilation of them. Another revision of the rules is next to pointless if you're planning to come out with 4E. But they did something pretty close - the Rules Compendium.
Aside from that, there is the issue of the designers and developers having to design for two games, that still share several similarities, but are distinctively different, too. I think that would be pretty awkward for them, too.
Similar Threads
