Some thoughts on 4e getting long in the tooth.

[Jan van Leyden]

I keep reading how it's so difficult or near-impossible to create characters without DDI because there is so much "crunch" to keep track of. Before DDI and 4e, that wasn't an option because very, very few games used every single book.

In my 1e experience, characters were straight out of the PHB . . .and maybe Unearthed Arcana. 1e lasted ~11 years from the release of the PHB to the release of 2e.

In my 2e experience, characters were made with the PHB and maybe a relevant campaign setting book or splatbook. 2e lasted around 11 years from the release of 2e to the release of 3e.

This is where I start to differ. While we avoided most of the splats, Tome of Magic, Complete Psionics, and the books about specialty priests quickly became quasi-core material.

In my 3.x experience, characters were made with the PHB, and maybe a couple of splatbooks or campaign books. I only saw talk of using "every" book in CharOp/MinMax contexts. 3.x lasted as a "current" edition from August 2000 until June 2008, that's a shade less than 8 years.,

The 3.0 splats didn't stand a chance at our tables, but the Book of Eldritch Might and Book of Song and Power (?) gained a prominent place. During the 3.5 era all payers were expecting the new splats like children Santa Claus.

I have no 4e experience, but I keep seeing talk about how characters are made with every book and how you need DDI to keep it all straight, and this isn't in a CharOp context, it's in regular gaming talk. 4e has been current from June 2008 and ~3.5 years later I'm seeing talk about waiting for 5e to reset everything again.

I think it's just the other way round. You don't need DDI to create and run a perfectly viable 4e character. But you'd have to develop an impressive level of system mastery to manually optimize him. DDI is an extremely powerful tool for CharOps and MinMaxers. Furthermore it makes maintaining a character and planning his career very comfortable. Small wonder that many (or most?) DDI subscribers don't want to throw away this level of comfort.

 

[Mercurius]

See, I think part of what WotC hasn't realized is that aesthetics and the general feel of something really impacts a person's feeling for the game. You ( @delericho ) and I may rationally agree that anyone can take what they like of the game and make it their own, and it doesn't matter if art like page 131 of the 4E DMG exists - I can just bypass that and play the game I want to play. But the problem is that everytime I skim by page 131, I am reminded that this iteration of the game was not created with my demographic in mind; it was intended for a much younger group that might say "keewwwl" and be drawn in by that sort of goofiness. OK, maybe that's a bit harsh but my point is that even someone like myself, that takes the "Make it my own" approach, is off-put by that sort of aesthetic; much of the hardcore fanbase of D&D is even more traditional than I am.

The problem is that the diehard core of D&D gamers remain an aging set. As far as I can tell, there were two major "migrations" to the game: those, like myself, that started in the early 80s with AD&D and are in their late thirties to forties, and those that started with 3E a decade ago and are in their mid twenties to early thirties. This doesn't mean that there aren't D&D players outside of those zones, but that the bulk of the "bird in hand" is in there--between about age 25 and age 45. It is my opinion that WotC, no matter how much they want to attract new players, should focus their core game on that group--on keeping the bird in hand--because it is that group that will come back and spend hundreds of dollars a year on splat books and will probably play the game until they die.

I would even say that it is those core, classic ideas of D&D that set it apart from MMORGs and more modern contrivances, and that for D&D to remain viable deep into the 21st century it is going to have to offer something much different than more computer-generated simulationism (although still remaining technologically up-to-date, but with technology as enhancement, not the focus, but that is another conversation really).

So I'm all for dragonborn and tieflings and shardminds and whatever else being part of D&D. But if Mike & Monte are really talking about a more simplified core with a complexity dial, than there is going to be a core game that is at the heart of the D&D experience and, imo, that core game should be classic D&D with only relatively mild flavorings of more recent, exotic offerings.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And I still believe this is only partially true. I agree they're complete and independent as core rulebooks, but I can understand the general feeling that goes toward the idea that this specific D&D incarnation cannot deliver the core D&D experience with the three core books only,

But see... you're not answering in response to my point... you're creating your own point (one that, quite frankly, I don't care in the least about). So yes, you are absolutely right to your own point, if you wanted to recreate basic First and Second Edition character generation options, you'd need at minimum Player's Handbook I & II. But that doesn't change the fact that my point is also 100% correct.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...I am reminded that this iteration of the game was not created with my demographic in mind; it was intended for a much younger group that might say "keewwwl" and be drawn in by that sort of goofiness.

...The problem is that the diehard core of D&D gamers remain an aging set.

...It is my opinion that WotC, no matter how much they want to attract new players, should focus their core game on that group.

...I would even say that it is those core, classic ideas of D&D that set it apart from MMORGs and more modern contrivances, and that for D&D to remain viable deep into the 21st century it is going to have to offer something much different than more computer-generated simulationism.

...that core game should be classic D&D with only relatively mild flavorings of more recent, exotic offerings.

Spoken like a true grognard.

 

[SSquirrel]

and it doesn't matter if art like page 131 of the 4E DMG exists - I can just bypass that and play the game I want to play. But the problem is that everytime I skim by page 131, I am reminded that this iteration of the game was not created with my demographic in mind; it was intended for a much younger group that might say "keewwwl" and be drawn in by that sort of goofiness.

Funny I'm 35 and I've played for 24 years now and looking at 131 in the 4E DMG, I see a 2 page picture of a giant undead army nearly in my face. Call me crazy, but yeah, that is pretty cool. I'd hope I had a Paladin and Cleric behind me

Also I completely agree, way too many pointy ears in the PHB. I'm not a fan of the Shardmind personally, but Warforged are fun and I enjoyed the Dragonborn and Tiefling a lot. Toss the Gnome back in, even if he does enjoy being a monster now, and you'd have a core set of races that appeals to both the grognard and those who are a bit more flexible in their beliefs.

 

[FireLance]

See, I think part of what WotC hasn't realized is that aesthetics and the general feel of something really impacts a person's feeling for the game. You ( @delericho ) and I may rationally agree that anyone can take what they like of the game and make it their own, and it doesn't matter if art like page 131 of the 4E DMG exists - I can just bypass that and play the game I want to play. But the problem is that everytime I skim by page 131, I am reminded that this iteration of the game was not created with my demographic in mind; it was intended for a much younger group that might say "keewwwl" and be drawn in by that sort of goofiness.

I'm away from my books right now, but I'm curious: is it goofier than a +3 backscratcher?

 

[RHGreen]

If 5e had an essentials like base but offered swap out options for more customization and complication, it would pretty much satisfy everyone.

In fact 4e already does this, really, it just isn't that apparent because of the separation between the books that these elements are in. If they released a consolidated book they might be able to display it better. If they swap over to 5e hopefully they will release a '4E PLAYER COMPLETE' as a send off with this idea in mind.

In 5e hopefully they will just have ELF with sub-race power/feat options for HIGH, WOOD and DARK. You get all 3 elf races in the PHB but it wont fill up the book too much. Their historys are all interlinked, so why not just put all that in the ELF description and cover the lot in one go.

I can definitely live without halfling and dwarf sub-races, though.

Keep gods (generic or setting specific) out of the PHB, as well as their relevant powers/feats. Put generic (possibly free-cleric, maybe neutralistic), non-god specific options in the PHB and open up specific god stuff in campaign books.

 

[Mercurius]

Wow, I've never been accused of being a grognard before; I must be getting old.

[MENTION=5202]SSquirrel[/MENTION], what I'm talking about has nothing to do with "flexibility in beliefs." Actually, I'm all for unconventional races and ideas (e.g. Talislanta is one of my favorite games, and that's all about exotic races). I just think that D&D would be best served by the PHB being "classic," with more exotic options coming later. Remember when WotC said that "everything core," probably in an attempt to get people to buy everything? I think they got that backwards; rather, they should have defined a core and relatively simple, classic game, with everything else as optional--that includes shardminds and invokers, but also miniature-reliant tactical combat. Part of the problem with 4E--as with 3.x before it--is that it is so damn complex; I think this keeps a lot of folks out of the game. If the core game was as simple as, say, True20 or Castles & Crusades, it would appeal to a broader base; this would not be antithetical to a more complex game that could be layered over it.

I will also admit that I'm just not crazy about the style of most of the 4E non-human races. I can't really put my finger on what it is, but most of them seem rather cartoonish or, gulp, video gamish. It might have something to do with the art, but I think it is also conceptual. I just find much of 4E to not be aesthetically pleasing. Does that make me a grognard? Maybe.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Maybe so, but in the core rulebook? Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be included in the game but that the first PHB should be focused on classic tropes with maybe one race and class that is away from that.



I'll take that and raise you one. If I were doing the 5E PHB, I'd only include the core races - Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfing, Gnome and maybe one "exotic" race - and then offer sub-races on DDI and compile them in later splat books. Then, in the 5E version of Character Builder, have an option for just playing the core game--the first PHB--or adding in later resources, races, classes, feats, etc.

Umm, outside of PHB's, how is a gnome a "classic trope"? I mean, name three iconic gnomes, even from D&D fiction. Outside of D&D fiction gnomes might as well not exist.

I've seen far more scaley types in genre fiction, even if they weren't specifically dragonborn, than I have gnomes. At least Dragonborn and Tieflings have flavor. I hope they never ever put gnomes back in the PHB. Complete waste of space IME. Even back when the kerfuffle over gnomes was still hot, I remember polling Enworld on how many people actually played gnomes and it was a tiny, tiny minority.

One nice thing about the online DDI tools is that WOTC knows pretty well how popular any given element is. Just how many tiefling's are there out there?

I do agree that we could lose the straight elves to be honest. I like the eladrin better to be honest. Finally take a spike to all the Tolkienesque crap that's infested the game for years. Eject elves and put in Dryads or some other woodland fae type. Heck, I could even see ejecting elves and replacing them with gnomes.

Never, ever going to happen of course, but, if I ruled the world...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Umm, outside of PHB's, how is a gnome a "classic trope"? I mean, name three iconic gnomes, even from D&D fiction. Outside of D&D fiction gnomes might as well not exist.

Well, if you actually look at European fairy tales, "gnomes" were, like "elves", "goblins" and "dwarves", another kind of fey...sometimes used interchangeably, depending on the translation.

Paracelsus used the term for a kind of diminutive earth elemental.

Draupnir ("Dripping") Odin's magic arm-ring, which every 9th night, dropped eight new bracelets, was created by the gnome Sindri. As I recall, they were master craftsmen who create much of the other magic of the Asgardians- Sif's hair and possibly Mjolnir as well.

JRRT uses the term as an alternative term referring to technologically advanced elves, the Noldor.

In C. S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia, gnomes, or "Earthmen" as they are sometimes called, live in the Underland, a series of subterranean caverns.

William Cullen Bryant and Nathaniel Hawthorne use the term to refer to earth-linked fey.

Alberich in the Der Ring des Niebelungen, is- again, depending on the translation- king of the Dwarves or Gnomes...and that despite the name meaning "Elf King".

The Dutch have the legend of Gnome King Kyrië.

Germans name them Erdmanleins, except in the Alpine areas, where they are called Heinzemannchens. In Denmark and Norway they are Nisse; Nissen is a Swedish variation. In Brittany they are called Nains. Tontti to the Finns and Foddenskkmaend is their name in Iceland. The Polish call they by the familar Gnom. Bulgaria and Albania, however, use Dudje. In Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, Gnomes are called Mano. The Dutch use Kabouter and the Belgian, Skritek. Switzerland and Luxembourg use the same name, Kleinmanneken, which means "littlemen." Domovoi Djedoes is used in western Russia.

Essentially, with the possible exception of their involvement with technology or crafts, D&D and many other western RPGs have essentially taken most gnomish attributes in legend and assigned it to other races, like elves, dwarves, pixies, goblins and kobolds.