D&D 4E The WotC designers will be bashing 4e once 5e is announced . . .

[ColonelHardisson]

Nope, I defended it too, because I really like it. You and me -- lone points of light in the darkness!

Yeah, it felt that way. I should be ready for 4e, then!

 

[Raven Crowking]

deleted

 

[Grog]

Funny how no one said that back in 2000. Heh heh. But, you know, since 4e is coming, I guess it's now fashionable to say things like, "Man, those legacy issues sure mucked up lots of the 3e monsters."

Or, you know, maybe it's because in 2000, 3rd edition had only been out for a few months and nobody had enough experience playing it yet to figure out what the problems were?

But I guess it's now fashionable to disparage the motives of people who disagree with you.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Or, you know, maybe it's because in 2000, 3rd edition had only been out for a few months and nobody had enough experience playing it yet to figure out what the problems were?

There's a lot of truth in this. Time changes a lot of things - it reveals things that were hidden, and gives new perspectives on just about anything as experience and insight grow and develop. Remaining static and never learning from the past are unnatural states for humans.

 

[Acts]

Notice that all the WOTC D&D people are rabidly enthusiastic about 4E and nary a nay sayer in sight? That doesn't usually happen like that in real life. Ergo - the party line.

Down with the man. Those wretched corporate hacks.

All I've been reading is how much they've working on improving the current incarnation of the 4E rules, about how not everything jives yet.

Just about every developer they've hired has a piece in 4E now. I think the allegiance is based less on reading some memo verbatim - their enthusiasm is a result of their contributions.

 

[Merlion]

When 3rd edition first came out, I was pretty purely excited about it, because it did away with SO MANY of the things I disliked about previous versions of the game.

But, I quickly became aware of various things I disliked about it. Some in a general way. Some because, as the OP seems to not acknowledge, peoples very tastes can change. I used to like the concept of characters strongly devoted to gods, and the idea of the Cleric class. But I realized the Cleric was mechanically broken, and that the concept of religion within D&D wasnt all its cracked up to be.

3.5 fixed some of the things I didnt like, or added things I liked better, but also added stuff I didn't like. I'm sure 4e will be the same. Conceptually at least...I dont actually get to play, well, much at all. But I still like to keep track of things.

I think slowly the WOTC people are coming to realize that these types of games are interactive, ever changing and ever-improving things. I think 3.x made so many changes to the previous rules, a need for an eventual ironing out was inevitable.

 

[Merlion]

If anything about 4e has given me pause, it's this issue. I don't like the idea of returning to the old way of monster design. But I'm willing to wait and actually see if the change is as great as many seem to think before I make a decision.

Its also important to remember that too much of a good thing can be bad. I think the "new" monster design philosophy may have gone a little too far in its direction, so they decided to pull back to some of the "older" ideas about it, at least slightly.

 

[ptolemy18]

. . . and, for one, am already looking forward to the doublethink that will ensue.

Seriously, for years now (literally) we've been giving 3.5 a group hug. And now suddenly out comes this long list of things that "don't work".

You're totally right. Standard corporate behavior. I've always really liked 3.0/3.5, and I can't think of any problems I have with it (aside from the combat rules occasionally degenerating into tactical fine-tuning just a little too much... but that's just the kind of game it is).

On the other hand, it's not like the original designers of 3rd ed., Jonathan Tweet and Monte Cook are out there saying "D&D 3rd edition sucks! We were wrong!" D&D 4th edition is (apparently) being spearheaded by a different group of people, so presumably they're just bringing their new ideas to it. So really, it just depends on whether the new group of people is good or not. Heck, one of the things which made me so EXCITED about D&D3.0 was because Jonathan Tweet was involved with it. YOU RULE, JONATHAN TWEET! "OVER THE EDGE" WAS AN AWESOME ROLE-PLAYING GAME!

As for this Mike Mearls dude... well, I don't know him, that's all... :/

Jason

 

[reanjr]

. . . and, for one, am already looking forward to the doublethink that will ensue.

Seriously, for years now (literally) we've been giving 3.5 a group hug. And now suddenly out comes this long list of things that "don't work".

Hey, some of us have been bitching about 3e for years, thank you very much...

And most of the changes for 4e are very welcome in my opinion.

 

[ssampier]

It's the usual 'gear-up' before anything new. I don't think it's a statement of "3e sucks!" as much as, "4e is great, you'll love 4e." If 3.5 was perfect we wouldn't need a 4e much, would we?

That said, I think they are just releasing 4e a titch too early. Luckily I didn't buy into the 3.5 era....

...

We'll go through it again in eight years or so, when 5e gets announced.

Designed by Kevin Kulp?!