Shouldn't we wait until passing judgement?

[Greg K]

I have seen a few people on this and other boards declaring their hate for the new edition and their intentions to not buy the 4e books.

Honestly, isn't it a little too soon to be declaring this? It's been barely over a week since 4e was announced. We do have Star Wars SAGA as a preview, but really there is SO much we don't know.

You might look a little silly declaring your hate now and your love a year from now

Lets see:
1) Threshold abilities appeared in the preview on battling a dragon: already used in MMV
2) Per Encounter: already used in Star Wars, Bo9S
3) The cleric in the Dragon example on WOTC boards: looks like a maneuver from Bo9S
4) The 4e Monster design philosophy has been described in the designing a Monster Manual article, covered in Mike Mearl's monster redesigns and been utilized in MMV
5) We have been told that Bo9S, Star Wars Saga, and MMV are supposedly previews of what we can expect.

Therefore, if I have seen per encounter, monster thresholds, and anything else I disliked either in a product or described in an example (the wizard healing the cleric by striking the dragon) and did not like them now, I can reasonably expect not to like those aspects in the new game.

And as for other matters of design philosophy, I have played enough games to know if the philosphy agrees with my play style and that of my group (and that is all I care about). I don't have to see the new monster manual to know if I agree with the current philosophy on monster design as described on the WOTC boards or Mearl's monster redesigns. I also don't need to see the final implementation of announced plans like racial ability improvements or gaining new racial abilities with level, the mechanics do not matter. I do not like the idea- I don't like monster classes (Savage Species), I don't like bloodlines (UA), and I don't like racial substitution feats after first level (and only if the feat reflects some cultural difference).

If the new game is to include design philosophy and mechanics found in current products that I do not like now, I am quite capable of deciding the impact that their implementation in 4e will have on my enjoyment of the new game. Right now, it is almost all negative.

Of course, my reaction is based on the direction WOTC is currently taking as revealed by them. If they scrap many of the current plans and take a new direction during playtesting, then, yes it is possible they might create a 4e that I enjoy.

 

[Patlin]

We certainly should wait on more data before passing judgment, but what fun would that be?

In the absense of hard data, speculation is king. I couldn't sleep for hours last night while pondering what the new magic system might be like, and the available data is totally inadequate. It's a guilty pleasure.

So let's all speculate, but try not to take it too seriously.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Lets see:

And see, while I disagree with most of Greg's feelings on the matter--I like most of what I've seen of 4E--I respect his reasoning. If the mechanics he's seen so far don't appeal to him, then that's certainly a good reason to expect he won't be switching.

It's the hyperbole and, in some cases, blatant factual inaccuracies I object to, not the notion that "Oh, noes! Someone doesn't WUV 4E!!!!!one!!"

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I have seen a few people on this and other boards declaring their hate for the new edition and their intentions to not buy the 4e books.

Honestly, isn't it a little too soon to be declaring this?

Of course not. Otherwise this wouldn't be the internet!

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

1. 4e is gonna have to be compatible with my 3e books regardless. FR books will be bought and any other fluff book they release but I dont want to have wasted thousands of dollars on a game I love and works fine for a game that doesnt work with my old stuff. There are other games i would like to buy and rebuying what I already have doesnt appeal to me.

2. SWSE as a significant preview is a turn off right away. It seems to work for Star Wars but in D&D I dont know. This is already a reason for me not to buy it.

3. The DI. I wont pay for internet subscription based content. Not gonna happen. I want something I can hold. The game table looks shoddy and cumbsersome to use based on that preview video. I dont want digital versions of Dragon and Dungeon. Im one of the few 24 years old who like to hold a nice book in there hands or in this case magazine. Gaming over a distance for me is a little awkward. Even with the chance of me moving, I wouldnt pay for the service of being able game with friends over the net, Id rather buy and expensive conference call thing and have a one time cost. And I bought the books I dont wanna pay for the special features. That to me would be like buying any of the DVD formats out there and not being able to acces their special contenet without first buying it online and viewing it on your computer. Even at 9.95 I dont think its worth it. two months of that is a new book on Amazon or several of my favorite comcs. 6 Months is a new 360, wii, PC or PS3 Game.

4. Yeah theres this rumor of no 4e gnomes. yeah boo!

And Im sure if asked in a few months I'll be albe to add more to this lsit as we learn more. but so far 1-3 are my major gripes and 4 is kinda a minor one.

 

[king_ghidorah]

Is it hyperbolic to be fed up with having to purchase and learn 3 new sets of rules in 8 years? In my opinion, it's unheard of in any industry. I'm not even sure if Microsoft is as nasty to their customers. In a niche industry such as the table top role playing market, customers have real power, and by the gods, I think it's time we use it!

Yes, it is hyperbolic.

Several White Wolf games had similar levels of turnaround. Mutants and Mastermind had two versions in a very short period. Not unheard of in the gaming industry. Not sure why this level of turnaround is considered deeply shocking.

Other industries-- software, console games, electronics... have as or more frequent turnaround, with equal or greater costs. I'm not sure how this is considered unreasonable. Undesirable, sure. Uncomfortable or unlikeable, absolutely. Outrageous? Not so convinced.

 

[Mouseferatu]

This is the only part I wanted to comment on, since I've seen it tossed around alot. These "editions" are totally compatible with the earlier ones (with changes basically on a level maybe a little higher than eratta, certainly less than 3.0 to 3.5) so I think it's a little disingenuous to compare them to D&D. I know for a fact CoC 1st edition is far more compatible with 6th ed. than AD&D 1e is with 3.5. It's not just the number, it's also how compatible it is.

Not sure I'd agree that they're less than 3.0 to 3.5 (or 1E to 2E), but I'll agree that the examples I gave are less than 2E to 3E or (from what we're hearing) 3.5 to 4E.

But what about Warhammer? My understanding is that there were dramatic changes there. How many systems has Traveler gone through?

If it is disingenuous to argue the Vampire or CoC metaphor--and I'll agree in retrospect that maybe it was, though it wasn't deliberate--I'd certainly say that it's equally disingenuous to claim that what D&D's doing is "unheard of," as a prior poster did.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Other industries-- software, console games, electronics... have as or more frequent turnaround, with equal or greater costs. I'm not sure how this is considered unreasonable. Undesirable, sure. Uncomfortable or unlikeable, absolutely. Outrageous? Not so convinced.

Exactly. How many Nintendos have come out since the console launched? Who many versions of Windows? Who here is still using an Atari 2600?

Yes, technology changes and evolves. But so does game design and theory. The Atari 2600 still does what it was supposed to perfectly well (if you can find one). It's just that there are multiple generations of machine that do a similar job, only better.

Same for D&D. Old editions still work, for those who want them. But to claim that an edition turnover that renders much--not all--prior material obsolete is unique to RPGs, or to D&D, or to WotC, is inaccurate.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

4. For all the small guys, Necromancer, Goodman, and the other 3rd party publishers and the freelance authors who are getting jerked around by this scheme, just like they were with the release of 3.0, I won't support 4.0. (And guess what, I'm one of those freelance authors.)

Er... I'm not going to address the rest of your issues, since they're pretty standard, but this one just blows my mind.

Speaking as another freelance author, albeit not one who was 'jerked around by' 3.0, I'm really at a loss to see how a new edition can be anything but a massive windfall for me.

All the products released during the original d20 glut? They need new versions and new authors to write those versions. OK, 'need' is probably too strong a term for a lot of these books. Better to say 'they have the opportunity to be done right, or at least better.' 4e won't have a hundred Books of Tieflings or Quintessential Guides to Warlords when it releases (and we don't have those now) - it also won't have hundreds of Books of Elves or Quintessential Guides to Fighters. Huge freelance opportunity.

Wizards' own books will need to be revised and updated for the new edition; from what we've seen so far, Complete Warrior will be far more fully stricken from the canon than Sword and Fist was. Huge freelance opportunity.

All the content released in Dragon? I know I, for one, intend to start revising a lot of my crunchier pieces as soon as I get a better grip on 4e. Huge freelance opportunity.

Whatever new design space, either system-wise or setting-wise, 4e opens up? From the looks of the changes, there will be quite a bit. Huge freelance opportunity.

Quite a few players apparently don't intend to make the switch to 4e, which means there's a whole market WotC will no longer be supporting but d20 publishers can. Huge freelance opportunity.

Of all the people who should be frolicking in the streets at the announcement of a new edition, freelance writers should be leading the pack.

 

[Fobok]

When 3rd edition came out, there was just as much of an uproar. People were predicting the death of D&D all over the place.

If it'd only been 2 or 3 years since the last edition came out, I could see a lot of the point, but 3.5 came out in 2003. 5 Years before the release of 4e. And that's if you count 3.5 as a new edition, and I don't.

As for me, I'm quite pleased with the previews so far.