Ruleset as Lingua Franca - I wanna sell my 4E collection

[Neonchameleon]

It seems a more tame order to tell people that we will be playing PF or AD&D, than it would to tell them we are playing 4E. There is a closed set of parameters to play within PF and the other older systems while the edges of 4E and 5E seem like they are ever expanding.

Really? In 4e when DMing I insist that characters are created through an up to date character builder. And after that the only thing I worry about is that they fit the campaign. As DM I don't care - I just use new math for monsters (read: eighteen month old math).

Now let's take Pathfinder. 4e is balanced overall and balance problems can be fixed with minor tweaks. Now imagine that I ask for Pathfinder PCs and the following turn up: Wizard, Druid, Gunslinger, Bard, Monk (all competently made). We gonna have a problem. The Wizard and Druid will almost certainly rock, and the Monk and Gunslinger will almost certainly suck. So who made any sort of mistake? No one at the table. Everyone fitted the campaign concept. Everyone designed a character they wanted to play. No one set out to break things or otherwise turned up with munchkinery.

In PF the parameters may be more static (they aren't noticeably; splatbooks like Ultimate Combat are still being published) but more of them (like power level as well as theme) need to be set by the DM.

 

[Guest 85555]

Nonchameleon: That is certainly something worth debating (while I think 4e is indeed more balanced, I see that as a bug, and I don't agree the monk or bard will be less fun than the druid and wizard in that scenario), but it is a completely different issue than greengoat was discussing. His complaint was the problem of an ever expanding rules system (sonething both 3e and 4e suffered from). Class balance seems like a much different concern (and probably deserving of its own thread---though I think the topic has been exhausted on EN World).

 

[ExploderWizard]

You will probably not get enough money for your 4E books to make the sale worthwhile. If you don't think that you will ever use them for anything then consider donating them to a library. It would give you shelf space, and possibly help bring new gamers into the hobby.

Its the season for giving after all.

 

[OnlineDM]

If you don't enjoy the game and want to get the most possible money out of selling your books, then yes, sell them sooner rather than later. If you enjoy the game and think you'll keep playing it in the future, then keep your books. If you're unsure, I'd suggest erring on the side of keeping your books, as you might get the itch to try "the old game" again in 10 or 20 years.

 

[Mr. Greengoat]

If you're unsure, I'd suggest erring on the side of keeping your books, as you might get the itch to try "the old game" again in 10 or 20 years.

Yes, I too have re-bought back game books that I once got rid of. (Oh Car Wars, how could I be so thoughtless?)

But My Shame, as I refer to my loads of game books in filing boxes, tends to crowd once in a while in my NYC apartment. And I have a hard time purchasing or reading new game books when I am confronted with all this stuff I haven't played yet. The consideration of a sell-off is part of my attempt to separate myself from material goods and the guilt with having unused games that I spent money on.

 

[callinostros]

Sounds like you haven't even played 4E yet. My suggestion is to run a game or two and then make your decision.

 

[scourger]

I voted yes, but here's the caveat: keep the core of 4e that appeals to you. I have not purchased anything for 4e other than 2 modules, but I am interested in part of the Essentials. I doubt that I will actually get it, as there are no settings that wow me; but if I had the Essentials I would probably hang onto it just in case.

When I sold off all editions older than 3.0, I kept the PHBs. It was mostly a 2e purge, and I had already learned with that edition that I was much happier with a core game. Now, I periodically cull my collection. I miss some things, but not enough to get them again; and there are couple that I keep to remind me not to go there again. Overall, though, I am very happy with 1 shelf--and I could reduce that even more dramatically and probably not miss it.

I find a closed rules set easier to manage. I really like Gamma World for that reason. I think WotC tried it as a 4e simplification with 2 expansions and the cards. It seems like the cards were supposed to be like the splatbooks to make a bigger income stream for the publisher, but I am not sure it worked out that way. The downside for my game was that the character advancement was not complicated enough to keep my players interested--the irony.

I wouldn't think Pathfinder would be a good fit for you if you're playing all the old editions except d20. And you don't especially like 4e which is really an evolution of d20. If you're having good fun with those editions, why switch at all?

If you're looking for something that is really contained, easy to run but complex enough to play, I suggest Savage Worlds. We love it. It hits all the areas you seem to like.

 

[Umbran]

The consideration of a sell-off is part of my attempt to separate myself from material goods and the guilt with having unused games that I spent money on.

Ah. So, sell off old books you clearly haven't used, to replace them with new books... that you probably won't use?

It sounds to me like the real issue isn't the value of the game, or being "lingua franca", or anything like that. It's simply your buying habits.

 

[Windjammer]

I voted no.

The rewritten core PHB 1 classes we saw in 2011, some of the appallingly bad material in Heroes of Shadow/Feywild, not to mention a LOT of what's going on in Legend & Lore these past months...

... do these things encourage you to think that 5E will have the design sensibility, bare creativity, or sheer money behind it that both 3E and 4E had?

Has WotC hired any talented designer of late? Have they expanded R&D beyond hiring a MtG hack who's picked up gaming D&D three years ago? Do their pontifications on L&L strike you as well thought out and pushing the game in a direction that is worth pursuing?

To jump on the 5E bandwagon that early, unseen, is beyond hope - it's naivety.

God knows I hope for a strong 5E that can reinvigorate the franchise, and garner more D&D interest across all editions. But I'm not exactly optimistic about it. For what it's worth, both 3E and 4E at least make for a durable game, and have a fairly solid base chassis on which to base campaigns for years to come. That's a lot more than can be said about 5E at this point.

 

[OnlineDM]

The rewritten core PHB 1 classes we saw in 2011, some of the appallingly bad material in Heroes of Shadow/Feywild

Out of curiosity, what did you find to be "appallingly bad" in Heroes of the Feywild? I had issues with Heroes of Shadow, but I've personally been very pleased with Heroes of the Feywild and I don't recall seeing significant complaints about it so far.