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

[Gundark]

...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.

 

[sckeener]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Khairn]

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]

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]

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.

 

[broghammerj]

Crappy airport wireless....double post

 

[Festivus]

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.