log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E What would make you decide against 4e?

Gundark

Explorer
Droogie said:
...if Wotc fails to deliver on their goal of "faster, better, more refined", and instead replace all the old complexities with new ones.

QFT. For me as long game prep is fast and game play is fast....I really don't care what they change.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

sckeener

First Post
MoogleEmpMog said:
Considering that the average age of electronic gamers is 30, I somehow doubt Final Fantasy 12 was targeted to 4-year-olds by Square-Enix's marketing department. Or even 12-year-olds. ;)

true...it was targeted at teens...at least according to the ESRB Rating: Teen. So Final Fantasy is ok.

MoogleEmpMog said:
And I agree about the plots, as long as you're referring to JRPGs. Certainly I've never played a tabletop RPG campaign that came anywhere close to the depth and complexity of Xenogears, especially if you admit the supplementary materials. I've only read a handful of novels that do.

Most of my games are too complex and border on soap operas. They span decades. One game has been running since the early 80s. We play it mostly via email now as most of the original players have moved around. Most of us liked the soap operish world we created together that we run it in our home towns. It is like having a communal setting and sometimes something that one player introduces into his setting takes off in the grand setting. My latest contrib was a small section of fiefdoms between some major city states. I usually add racial or cultural fluff...but I liked that addition to my version and so did the other players....the world of Tellior is the setting.


MoogleEmpMog said:
Frankly, I'm not sure what, outside of some fringe edutainment software, is targeted to 4-year-olds. But then, the post you're responding to is almost certainly either deliberately obtuse or sarcastic, seeing as how it has no connection to reality and doesn't seem meant to.

It was mostly no connection to reality since it would have to be extreme for me not to switch.
 

Irda Ranger

First Post
sckeener said:
true...it was targeted at teens...at least according to the ESRB Rating: Teen.
That's some interesting stuff you're smoking. It has a Teen rating, so it's targeted at Teens? Um, no. That just means it has themes/imagery not suitable for 9 year olds.


sckeener said:
Most of my games are too complex and border on soap operas. They span decades. One game has been running since the early 80s. We play it mostly via email now as most of the original players have moved around. Most of us liked the soap operish world we created together that we run it in our home towns. It is like having a communal setting and sometimes something that one player introduces into his setting takes off in the grand setting. My latest contrib was a small section of fiefdoms between some major city states. I usually add racial or cultural fluff...but I liked that addition to my version and so did the other players....the world of Tellior is the setting.
Do they get amnesia and marry their maid's secret step-daughter?
 

Moon-Lancer

First Post
JoeGKushner said:
I haven't seen anything yet that's going to make me not look at 4e.

From where I sit as an old time player, a lot of stuff looks off to me but no game breakers yet. 3e had a lot of goofy stuff to it and I just tended to ignore the things I didn't like.

I can't think of any deal breakers off the top of my head yet.

How abouto ther people?

If the bard and druid do not make it into the srd, when the warlord and warlock did.
 

Odhanan

First Post
All that surrounds D&D (DDI, e-Dragon and Dungeon, Gleemax, PR and so on and so forth) turns me off so far.

These aside:

For the moment, 4E doesn't look worse than 3rd ed, or much better. The shorter stat block we've seen is definitely a plus, for instance, while the heavy modification of resources management in the new rules seem all but clear to me, so I'm neutral on this until I see exactly how it is modified (regarding wizard's spells, supernatural healing and the like). The prospect of 1 PHB, MM and DMG per year is a HUGE negative turn-off for me, as is the prospect of not having a complete ruleset from the get-go when compared to 3.5. I want all the classic monsters, classes, races from the start, not sprinkled throughout volumes and volumes of PHBs and MMs.

The modification in look of creatures does turn me off so far but for a few exceptions. The streamlining of the cosmology, I'm all for it, the creation of a rigid "D&D world" (i.e. points of light, Empire of Tieflings etc etc) turns me off.

I want to be able to use my 3rd ed stuff and be able to convert easily to 4E what I want to run that's been published under 3rd ed. Given the number of sources I own from 3.X, if I can't do that, I won't convert the 4E, no matter how cool the system ends up to be (that's not like there aren't already TONS of cool RPG systems out there, to tell you the truth).

All of this of course baring an absolute revelation/awe I'd feel in front of the core books when reading them for the first time, which might happen.
 
Last edited:

Khairn

First Post
Despite all my complaining, I know I'll be buying at least the 1-3 books to look through them. My goal will be to see if I can use the rules to play the kind of game that I enjoy. A couple of things that would be a show-stopper for me would be ...

- 1 Too simplistic IMHO 3E is a very easy game to play, and understand. A couple of rules are quirky, but that's why we have house rules. If 4E dumbs the game down to much I won't be playing it.

-2 DDI If I even get a whiff of important or key elements of the game only being available to those players who pay the monthly subscription fee, I will drop the game without any hesitation. Its a table top game, not an MMORPG.

- 3 No Pizzazz If the game doesn't "wow" me, I won't be recommending it to my groups and I doubt we'll be playing it. I've got 2 exciting D20 games going right now with all players happy with the results, even though we all wish we could play more often. 4E is just one of a number of alternate systems that we will be considering for the future. If there's no "pizzazz" in the books, they won't make it to our table.
 

jolt

First Post
Some good points here. I'll just reiterate the ones that apply to me.

Originally Posted by Droogie
...if Wotc fails to deliver on their goal of "faster, better, more refined", and instead replace all the old complexities with new ones.


Agreed. I'd like to add to this and say it would also turn me off if they go too far and oversimplify (e.g. all Wizards look identical).

Originally Posted by Celebrim
Flavor so intimately tied to game mechanics that a particular game world is virtually assumed by the text and conversion to different assumptions are difficult.


Absolutely. As a world builder this would be a big peeve for me.

Originally Posted by BryonD
If the ability to customize is reduced, then I am out.

You can have simple default methods for quickly building monsters and npcs without forcing cookie cutters on PCs and NPCs that the DM wants to develop. But it is also possible to just short cut into simplification with dumbing down. So far it isn't clear which way they are going...


Agreed. This sort of ties in with the previous two points.

Originally posted by WyzardWhately
If there's still weird stuff like Glassteel and long-duration Rope Tricks in there, I'm pretty much in. If it's all strictly combat-oriented, I'm out


Agree here as well. It's the weird stuff that makes magic feel unusual as opposed to just being the group's howitzer.

jolt
 

broghammerj

Explorer
1. Too many wuxia fighter type abilities to mimic Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

2. No class available that suits a good introductory role for new players ala a straight forward fighter. Start adding too many choices/per encounter abilities and a fighter could be too complex. At the same time dumbing down of the mage character.

3. Alteration of the fluff and sufficient DnDisms to change the game enough so that it doesn't resemble what I am playing now. The addition of Teiflings/Eladrins, removal of gnomes, perhaps no druid is starting to sound less like the game I play now.

4. Getting swept up in the DnD supplement creep in order to get characters/races/etc that I are already included in core 3.5.

5. Getting bastardized versions of PC races that can be played out of the monster manual only to be further replaced in a supplement. Gnomes I am looking at you. Either you include PC types stats for every monster or you put them in a separate book. I don't want contradictory info in two books or needless duplication.

6. NPC creation better be darn simple. I suspect it won't since we have more impact of racial abilities and per encounter choices to make.
 


Festivus

First Post
Mistwell said:
So far I am liking most of the things they have talked about.

I like most things... with the exception of new core books every year. In a few years it will be just as bloated as 3.5 is currently.
 

ivocaliban

First Post
jolt said:
Some good points here. I'll just reiterate the ones that apply to me.

Originally Posted by Droogie
...if Wotc fails to deliver on their goal of "faster, better, more refined", and instead replace all the old complexities with new ones.


Agreed. I'd like to add to this and say it would also turn me off if they go too far and oversimplify (e.g. all Wizards look identical).

Originally Posted by Celebrim
Flavor so intimately tied to game mechanics that a particular game world is virtually assumed by the text and conversion to different assumptions are difficult.


Absolutely. As a world builder this would be a big peeve for me.

Originally Posted by BryonD
If the ability to customize is reduced, then I am out.

You can have simple default methods for quickly building monsters and npcs without forcing cookie cutters on PCs and NPCs that the DM wants to develop. But it is also possible to just short cut into simplification with dumbing down. So far it isn't clear which way they are going...


Agreed. This sort of ties in with the previous two points.

Originally posted by WyzardWhately
If there's still weird stuff like Glassteel and long-duration Rope Tricks in there, I'm pretty much in. If it's all strictly combat-oriented, I'm out


Agree here as well. It's the weird stuff that makes magic feel unusual as opposed to just being the group's howitzer.

jolt

All of this goes for me, too, but add to it GregK's earlier comment about not yet seeing any reason to side for the new edition. I don't really like the assumption that 4e is somehow The One True Way and that the rest of us are rebelling against it. The way I see it, WotC should be convincing me that 4e is something I want and would enjoy...and so far they're not doing that.
 

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
Celebrim said:
Good list. Let me add to it:

a) No significant cleanup of the bases classes in terms of flexibility and space covering, quickly leading to 3.5's unending proliferation of classes, prestige classes, and unplaytested class power combinations all over again (or even worse).
b) No significant improvement in the big holes in the 3.X skill system - spot vs. hide, diplomacy, vague professions or vaguely defined skill areas, etc. leading to no real improvement in handling commonly encountered cases.
c) Encounters that tend to play out in very formulaic ways. Ei, everyone uses thier per encounter powers in the same sequences every combat.
d) Gamist per encounter concepts, for example, mundane classes that mysteriously can only perform a particular manuever once per encounter even though they have the physical resources to perform an equally strenous but different maneuver in the next round. Encounter beginings and endings that are vaguely and arbitarily defined under the rules.
e) Lots and lots of actions that are passively triggered and so must be maintained in memory at all times to run encounter smoothly/correctly (this is IMO worse/harder to run than lots of choices for actively choosen abilities).
f) Reduced player choice. For example, Wizards that cannot be built as necromancers, summoners, enchanters, etc. without new base classes, new talent trees, prestige classes, etc.
g) Design bandaids by which I mean root problems are ignored in favor of patching up the system in some other area. For example, per encounter resources slapped on as solution to 15 minute adventuring day.
h) Scope reduction as a system solution, by which I mean problimatic or difficult features of the system are simply removed because fixing them seems too difficult. For example, 'save or condition' is problimatic because it bypasses ablative hitpoints, so the option are simply removed rather than the system fixed. Or for example, overly narrow skills which are rarely used are simply removed leading to situations where either its not clear what skill applies or else character suddenly is found to be unexpectedly proficient in seemingly unrelated skill. For example, removing a little used profession skill resulting in all characters with wilderness lore being experts in handling sailing vessels, or all tightrope walkers also being expert kayakers, etc. Problimatic spells (divinations, shape changing) solved by thier removal.
i) Balance achieved through cosmetic variaty. That is, all classes are fundamentally identical spellcasters with common arrays of abilities that in practice differ only slightly outside of the classes fluff. For example, a fighter with the per encounter ability 'long strike', 'knockdown' and 'power attack' and a wizard with the per encounter abilities 'energy blast', 'telekinetic push', and 'arcane blow' where the various abilities are fundamentally interchangable except for thier flavor. Alternately, everyone explicitly plays a spellcaster in some form, resulting in a Wuxia world were anyone who is anyone can 'fly'.
j) Loss of genericness. Flavor so intimately tied to game mechanics that a particular game world is virtually assumed by the text and conversion to different assumptions are difficult.
k) Christmas tree/multiple overlapping transient buffs/effects back in new clothes with little or no net gain to justify the disruption.
l) Rapid acscension to 'epic' levels of power assumed by the game system.
m) Demonic/diabolic themes pushed as fundamental to game play.


I agree with pretty much all of those points. I'd like to add particular emphasis to the magic part. The stuff they've said so far about Wizards has me very worried that they will just be evokers with few utility spells. Where do I get this idea? Well based on the fact that the Wizard schools are all elemental things like acid or ice. Why would a Transmuter or Diviner specialize in acid spells? I worry that they have "adressed" spells like scrying and teleport simply by removing them. I also worry that they have completely removed some schools from the wizard (enchantment, necromancy, etc) in favor of new base classes to be added in some future supplement. If they do this, I'm out for sure. Either include those classes in the core or leave the Wizard alone.

I will also be very displeased if they don't include all of the current races in the PHB. We shouldn't have to wait for some future supplement to play Gnomes, just so that they could put Eladrins (puke) and Tieflings in the core book. I'll also be *extremely* displeased if they leave out the Druid, possibly to the point that I will be too angry to buy the game if they do that. I'm not going to buy supplement after supplement to feed WotC's greed just to be able to play character types that I've been playing for years.

As of right now, some of the stuff I've heard has me intrigued, some of it has me scratching my head, and some of it leaves me just plain disguisted (Eladrin, I'm looking at you). I don't like all of the changes to the "fluff" of D&D they're making. But I still hold out hope that the new rules will be a big enough improvement to merit buying it, and that the fluff changes won't be so extensive that it will be a nightmare to try and houserule it back to "true" D&D.
 

The Little Raven

First Post
Falling Icicle said:
Where do I get this idea? Well based on the fact that the Wizard schools are all elemental things like acid or ice.

From the article:

"Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring."

Now, unless enchantment, beguiling, and ensaring suddenly become throwing fireballs, this statement isn't correct.

I worry that they have "adressed" spells like scrying and teleport simply by removing them. I also worry that they have completely removed some schools from the wizard (enchantment, necromancy, etc) in favor of new base classes to be added in some future supplement.

You worry that they removed enchantment, when the first tradition discussed in the article has enchantment as it's primary focus?

I will also be very displeased if they don't include all of the current races in the PHB.

Way behind. Gnomes are in the MM.

We shouldn't have to wait for some future supplement to play Gnomes, just so that they could put Eladrins (puke) and Tieflings in the core book.

You don't have to. All of this "You have to wait to play a gnome" business is nonsense, but a group of anti-4e people keep harping on it like it's gospel.

I'll also be *extremely* displeased if they leave out the Druid, possibly to the point that I will be too angry to buy the game if they do that.

Well, have fun wherever you end up, because it sounds like you've already made the decision, since druids are not in the PHB1.

But I still hold out hope that the new rules will be a big enough improvement to merit buying it, and that the fluff changes won't be so extensive that it will be a nightmare to try and houserule it back to "true" D&D.

Nice to know that things that don't fit your assumptions aren't "true" D&D.
 

Falling Icicle

Adventurer
Mourn said:
From the article:

"Serpent Eye cabalists use orbs to focus powers of enchantment, beguiling, and ensnaring."

Now, unless enchantment, beguiling, and ensaring suddenly become throwing fireballs, this statement isn't correct.

You worry that they removed enchantment, when the first tradition discussed in the article has enchantment as it's primary focus?

Pardon me, I meant to say Illusion and Necromancy. The lack of any "school" specializing in those types of magic could be a hint of their absence. The 4 specialties listed are enchantment, fire, force/thunder and cold/acid. 1 enchanter and 3 evokers. That's a far cry from the 8 schools we have now. The list in the article may not be complete, and I certainly hope it's not.

Mourn said:
Way behind. Gnomes are in the MM.

Well, have fun wherever you end up, because it sounds like you've already made the decision, since druids are not in the PHB1.

Neither of those things have been officially announced and are still subject to change. Perhaps, if enugh people voice their dissatisfaction, WotC will change their minds and include them. The whole reason they left them out is probably because they're under the impression that not enough people care about them. And no, I haven't made a decision as to whether or not I'm going to get on the 4e boat yet, but thank you very much for attempting to read my mind and make a pronouncement for me. In the future, I'll be sure to pay you the same (lack of) courtesy.

Mourn said:
Nice to know that things that don't fit your assumptions aren't "true" D&D.

Wow, I merely express my opinion and get flamed. What are you so defensive about? Why do you care whether I play 4e or not? If you like everything you've heard so far, well good for you. Why does it bother you so much that I don't? I don't personally attack those who have been singing 4e's praises simply because their opinions differ from mine. But then, I've never really been one to be offended simply because someone doesn't agree with my view. You should try it. It will make your life less stressful.

What is "true" D&D? Well, the D&D I've been playing for almost 2 decades, with the old Elves and elemental planes and demons, to make the list very short, as that's only barely touching on all of the fluff changes they're making and that I'd rather not list here.
 
Last edited:

Aeolius

Adventurer
Mourn said:
All of this "You have to wait to play a gnome" business is nonsense, but a group of anti-4e people keep harping on it like it's gospel... Well, have fun wherever you end up, because it sounds like you've already made the decision, since druids are not in the PHB1... Nice to know that things that don't fit your assumptions aren't "true" D&D.

Perhaps Icicle recently started a new campaign, as I did. I don't want to start a new game. I want to continue the one I am playing. 4e will not allow this; it only allows one to keep the "flavor" of the character (PCS in my game all taste like sushi, anyway). The game is set entirely beneath the surface of the sea. The BBEG is a bard and there are a fair number of druids.

My game assume that most sentient races can be used as character options. I need sea elf, locathah, and merfolk to be in the MM, at a bare minimum. I tend to use a lot of hags in my games, as well, so make sure the night hag, sea hag, green hag, and annis are in there as well. Gotta have some bad guys, so perhaps asking for morkoth, sahuagin, kuo-toans, and aboleth isn't going too far?

While I run my game online (via IRC), the D&D Insider does not excite me and will not be used as an element in my games.

Most would not consider my game to be "true" D&D. I am aware of that. I run "my" D&D. My D&D works just fine in 3e/3.5e, just as it did using 1e. 4e, as presented, is not "my" D&D.
 
Last edited:

WhatGravitas

Explorer
What would kill the deal for me:

- Screwing up the game balance totally - but I don't expect they're doing that
- Nerfing magic too much - I want a heap of utility magic - 3E has a good level of them
- Giving melee-fighters too overtly magic abilities - but I can accept Bo9S, so the tolerance is high
- Not being significantly better in game play than 3E - if the new edition doesn't offer many advantages, why should I give up all my 3E material?
- It must be fun - self-explanatory, eh?

Most other things, including my flavour quibbles, are acceptable.

Cheers, LT.
 

Chocobot

First Post
Well, I won't DM 4e if it takes as much or more work than DMing 3e. Everything WOTC has said makes it seem like that isn't the case, but in the end I'll have to see it to be sure. I'm not DMing 3e now for that very reason. If it is significantly easier than I'll start DMing again.

As far as playing... I'll play 4e if my group decides to play 4e. If not I'll keep playing 3e. I enjoy 3e a lot, but I haven't heard anything that would turn me off of playing 4e. Actually I doubt there is anything that could turn me off of playing 4e, since as a player I'm open to just about any system. It's only when it comes to DMing that I'm picky.
 


The Little Raven

First Post
Falling Icicle said:
Pardon me, I meant to say Illusion and Necromancy. The lack of any "school" specializing in those types of magic could be a hint of their absence. The 4 specialties listed are enchantment, fire, force/thunder and cold/acid. 1 enchanter and 3 evokers. That's a far cry from the 8 schools we have now. The list in the article may not be complete, and I certainly hope it's not.

No schools have been mentioned, because these traditions are not actually related to the 3e and earlier concept of schools.

Neither of those things have been officially announced and are still subject to change.

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=5890&pagemode=2&blogid=2072

Gnomes in the Monster Manual.

Druids have not been mentioned at all as being a possibility in the PHB1, while more than 8 other classes have been (and since there's only 8, one can deduce that druid isn't making the cut).

Perhaps, if enugh people voice their dissatisfaction, WotC will change their minds and include them.

This close to launch, not that likely.

The whole reason they left them out is probably because they're under the impression that not enough people care about them.

Or they want to change them since they're going with this power source model for character classes, and instead of just thrusting them awkwardly into "divine," they want to do them justice by providing them with a new power source, like "nature."

And no, I haven't made a decision as to whether or not I'm going to get on the 4e boat yet, but thank you very much for attempting to read my mind and make a pronouncement for me. In the future, I'll be sure to pay you the same (lack of) courtesy.

Forget what you post so quickly?

I'll also be *extremely* displeased if they leave out the Druid, possibly to the point that I will be too angry to buy the game if they do that.

Since druid is almost 100% guaranteed to not make it, then I guess you have to decide whether you'll let your anger override your curiosity.

Wow, I merely express my opinion and get flamed.

Flamed? When did I insult you? I must have missed that part.

Why do you care whether I play 4e or not?

I don't. I was pointing out certain things, like the fact that it's been made abundantly clear that gnomes are in the MM1 and druids will not be in the PHB1.

I don't personally attack those who have been singing 4e's praises simply because their opinions differ from mine.

Did I call your mom names, or kick your dog or something? Did I insult your intelligence or demean your tastes? Did I lace my post with profanity?

You're right that someone in this conversation sounds defensive.

But then, I've never really been one to be offended simply because someone doesn't agree with my view.

Offended? Hardly. Only thing that can offend me is racism.

What is "true" D&D? Well, the D&D I've been playing for almost 2 decades, with the old Elves and elemental planes and demons, to make the list very short, as that's only barely touching on all of the fluff changes they're making and that I'd rather not list here.

So, if I don't play your defined vision of D&D, then I'm not playing "true" D&D?
 

The Little Raven

First Post
Chocobot said:
Well, I won't DM 4e if it takes as much or more work than DMing 3e. Everything WOTC has said makes it seem like that isn't the case, but in the end I'll have to see it to be sure.

Do me a favor. Go to the 4e news page here, then search for the word "easier." The amount of times it pops up in descriptions of systems in 4e indicates that they are saying that it will be less work to run it.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top