D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[Lonely Tylenol]

4th - The whole notion that there is a HUGE audience for paper and pencil RPGs lurking in the mainstream, greater that that which now exists or which existed at 3.0's launch, is unproven at best and more like unto wishful thinking. Paper and pencil RPGs are destined to become model railroading, or board wargaming - once more popular but now popular at a much reduced level. Merely looking at the progress of electronic gaming more than strongly suggests that the pendulum has already swung well away from paper and pencil RPGs and its not going to be swinging back.

There's that funny "end-ism." From what they've told us over the last year or so at WotC, tabletop RPGs have never been more popular. The actual numbers of people playing are larger now than ever, probably due to the influence of the internet.

 

[korjik]

Overall, I have not been inpressed with the 4th ed info I have seen. I found the announcement presentation to be downright insulting actually. While WOTC is the company behind D&D, we are the players. Having 4th ed presented to me like I was some noob at a trade show as opposed to a long time player and fan was silly. That has left me with a bad feeling of 4th, that I didnt really have with 3.5, and will make me much more skeptical of the product when 4th comes out.

That isnt really all that important to this discussion tho.

The talk about 4th needing to be a great break from 3.x ed flies in the face of evidence. 3rd was only out 3 years when 3.5 was released. Since 3.5 was released for the express purpose of patching 3rd ed, and since as near as I can tell, nearly everyone bought in, even tho it was only 3 years later, why do people think that 4th ed being a patch of 3.5 (fixing what is broke only) is unacceptable 5 years after the release of 3.5?

My concerns with what is being discussed.

First, it seems like the developers are getting too in love with rules. I see this in several places. First, the discussion on roles for each class and monster. While having roles defined for new players is fine, enshrining these roles for experianced players is a needless restriction. The players can do that perfectly fine. However, if there are basic restrictions in the rule base to force a class into a role, or out of a role, I think that that is a needless restriction.

The second place I see rules creeping in is trying to control in-game effects. The player wealth per level is where you started seeing it in 3.x ed, and with the discussion of getting rid of the 'christmas tree' in 4th ed, they are taking on themselves more control over what should be a DM's problem, not WOTCs. You also saw this in WOTCs need to put in the description of any life extending magic that even tho you dont age, when your time is up you die. That again is the DMs choice.

For those now thinking that I could just house rule all this, you are missing the point. I dont want to have to house rule out rules. You should only be house ruling in the rules needed to set up your own game setting, not ruling out sections of the PHB to make your own setting.

This leads me to the concern I have with WOTC under-generalizing the core books. The 3.x core was fairly generic, with the greyhawk material being there mostly to make the cleric useable right away. I am worried that the core books are going to be too slaved to the new setting WOTC is making. The races in every PHB so far have been there because to some degree they are generic. Especially now, everyone knows what an Elf a Dwarf and a Halfling is. No one knows what an Eladrin is. If the background material of the eladrin is too specific, that can really hinder useage outside of the presented setting.

Before anyone thinks I am just slamming 4th ed, there are some things I would like to see. To be honest, while I dont want to see the core books too fixed to the setting, I do want to see the setting. It sounds like what I was wanting to go for for my setting but I didnt really make it.

I would also like to see the changes to the combat and magic systems. While I dont really have a problem with either, I would like to see how the new systems work.

So basically, I worry that WOTC is taking too much on themselves, and that since they are determined to re-invent the wheel instead of just patching the holes in 3.x ed, they are going to end up making a game which misses the mark, and instead of just fixing the game, it ends up making a whole new set of problems, leaving the game in roughly the same place it is now, a good system with some problems.

 

[Aristotle]

So, 3E brought in new blood but 4E can't because of MMO games that make pen and paper gaming obsolete? Those of us left in the hobby should cling to the games we have and guard them against any change for fear that the vocal minority among us who dislikes them will splinter away and quicken the demise of our beloved hobby? Wow, that's really bleak.

I saw a lot of people return to gaming, or start gaming, in the 3E era. I saw a lot of people (including a lot of younger people) introduced to pen and paper gaming through miniatures games and MMO gaming. That's right. Neither of us have done extensive market research, so neither of us can prove our perspective, but mine is that MMO games are a gateway to the tabletop rather than from it.


I personally don't care about new blood, I've had the same group for a decade, so I don't necessarily want a game that is just a marketing ploy for new gamers. Luckily I like about 75% of what I've seen of 4E thus far, and could potentially learn to like another 10% depending on how they spin some things in the final product.

*shrug*

 

[wingsandsword]

I would think that there are precious few people who have spent as much time 'considering' the hobby than the people whose job it is to create the mainstay of said hobby, so I'd say that their hunch about what people would like would actually be the best of all possible hunches. If I beleived they were just going on a hunch, which I don't.

Funny, that same logic could have been applied to TSR, and look how they went. TSR made bad business decision after bad business decision, but it was still run by people that were professionals making the mainstay of the industry.

Just because you're a pro, just because you're the industry leader, doesn't mean you're infallible and your business/product decisions are foolproof.

Just remember New Coke.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Honestly, I think the idea that people would prefer "patched-up" 3E to what we're getting seems like a pretty clear "non-starter" to me. People complained enough about 3.5E, that they weren't getting real new stuff, that it was just rehash and minor rules modifications (and they were right), and I have absolutely no doubt that, if 4E had "patched up" the more "broken" aspects of 3.XE, what we'd be seeing would be the following groups:

1) People who felt that the changes were unecessary and they'd stick with 3.5E thanks.

2) People who felt like the changes went too far and thus "it's not D&D any more" (any real attempt to fix 3.XE's extensive issues would hit this).

3) People who felt that the changes didn't go far enough (why do we still have hit points and classes in 2007? etc.).

These three groups exist right now, of course, so no real change there.

What we'd also have, though, would be a VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST apathetic group who just felt completely "meh" about a new-yet-old version of D&D, and thus it would completely fail to drive sales. I know, because I'd be one of those people. The changes which so irk some wierdoes are precisely the ones that make it interesting for me. If it was just "per encounter" abilities, and a few other minor changes, I'd be bemused, rather than interested, and stick with Mutants and Masterminds or whatever (which already has enough "per encounter" and "at will" abilities). The "fixing" (changing) of things which "weren't broke" (but imho, were in many cases, boring, staid, limiting or outright stupid) is precisely what's interesting about 4E, I feel.

So I think potentially sacrificing a smaller group of "it's not D&D!"-types in the name of actually selling some copies is smart, honestly.

 

[Kintara]

Overall, I have not been inpressed with the 4th ed info I have seen. I found the announcement presentation to be downright insulting actually. While WOTC is the company behind D&D, we are the players. Having 4th ed presented to me like I was some noob at a trade show as opposed to a long time player and fan was silly. That has left me with a bad feeling of 4th, that I didnt really have with 3.5, and will make me much more skeptical of the product when 4th comes out.

That isnt really all that important to this discussion tho.

The talk about 4th needing to be a great break from 3.x ed flies in the face of evidence. 3rd was only out 3 years when 3.5 was released. Since 3.5 was released for the express purpose of patching 3rd ed, and since as near as I can tell, nearly everyone bought in, even tho it was only 3 years later, why do people think that 4th ed being a patch of 3.5 (fixing what is broke only) is unacceptable 5 years after the release of 3.5?

My concerns with what is being discussed.

First, it seems like the developers are getting too in love with rules. I see this in several places. First, the discussion on roles for each class and monster. While having roles defined for new players is fine, enshrining these roles for experianced players is a needless restriction. The players can do that perfectly fine. However, if there are basic restrictions in the rule base to force a class into a role, or out of a role, I think that that is a needless restriction.

The second place I see rules creeping in is trying to control in-game effects. The player wealth per level is where you started seeing it in 3.x ed, and with the discussion of getting rid of the 'christmas tree' in 4th ed, they are taking on themselves more control over what should be a DM's problem, not WOTCs. You also saw this in WOTCs need to put in the description of any life extending magic that even tho you dont age, when your time is up you die. That again is the DMs choice.

For those now thinking that I could just house rule all this, you are missing the point. I dont want to have to house rule out rules. You should only be house ruling in the rules needed to set up your own game setting, not ruling out sections of the PHB to make your own setting.

This leads me to the concern I have with WOTC under-generalizing the core books. The 3.x core was fairly generic, with the greyhawk material being there mostly to make the cleric useable right away. I am worried that the core books are going to be too slaved to the new setting WOTC is making. The races in every PHB so far have been there because to some degree they are generic. Especially now, everyone knows what an Elf a Dwarf and a Halfling is. No one knows what an Eladrin is. If the background material of the eladrin is too specific, that can really hinder useage outside of the presented setting.

Before anyone thinks I am just slamming 4th ed, there are some things I would like to see. To be honest, while I dont want to see the core books too fixed to the setting, I do want to see the setting. It sounds like what I was wanting to go for for my setting but I didnt really make it.

I would also like to see the changes to the combat and magic systems. While I dont really have a problem with either, I would like to see how the new systems work.

So basically, I worry that WOTC is taking too much on themselves, and that since they are determined to re-invent the wheel instead of just patching the holes in 3.x ed, they are going to end up making a game which misses the mark, and instead of just fixing the game, it ends up making a whole new set of problems, leaving the game in roughly the same place it is now, a good system with some problems.

I don't understand the complaint about class roles. It's only restricting to the extent you are forced to remain in a single class. It seems to me that all they are doing is making each class/role into "primary colors" that you can mix as you like to create the character you want. I think it's an admirable way to handle it. Monsters will likely be the same way; I got the impression that there will be multiple ways of advancing (or reducing...) monsters.

As for the magic items, I don't know if I totally understand your point. Magic items in 3rd Edition are very much of mechanical importance, so designers need to know what the baseline is for the sort of effect magic items have on the system. Practically everything in the game can be affected by magic items. However, I see no evidence that they are taking any control away from DMs by doing that. The reason why it's good for there to be wealth guidelines is that it helps the designers during the design process. It's extremely easy for DMs hand out more magic items and gold, but difficult to balance as a designer if you have no baseline.

Eladrin may have a funny name, but feel free to rename them. Personally, I like the fey element they bring. Thinking of them as faerie puts them squarely in the traditional fantasy legacy. Also, they could probably easily be renamed grey or high elves, or perhaps they already are. Eladrin could be a Sylvan or Elvish word for them.

 

[The Little Raven]

I understand that. But going from 12 to 5, especially 5 with really "Meh" philosophies, is a step Back to me.

12 lame concepts like "man-hating feminist werewolf" and "irish werewolf" and "viking werewolf" and "hobo werewolf" are part of what bogged Apocalypse down.

I seem to recall the tribe that venerates the Big Nasty Wolf God/Messiah/Paragon didn't much care to group with the other tribes.

Wrong. All five tribes of the Forsaken work together. They all subscribe to different aspects of Father Wolf's place, with the Blood Talons favoring his wrath and the Storm Lords favoring his command over others.

 

[Rechan]

12 lame concepts like "man-hating feminist werewolf" and "irish werewolf" and "viking werewolf" and "hobo werewolf" are part of what bogged Apocalypse down.

Yeah, the main book really bogged the setting down.

But you've all ready demonstrated that we greatly disagree and have vastly different experiences with What People Like about o/nWoD.

 

[hong]

In other words, 4e's audience is the audience for 3X, give or take a de minimis number of gamers. If 4e splits the existing audience, and it is doing so at this point opinion wise, it will do less well than 3x. The pie is finite and it is made up of increasingly grey gamers. If the thought is that 4e will "save" the hobby by bringing in nw blood that is a bigger fantasy than anything in any RPG.

I will call this hypothesis "the world is grognards".

 

[Aeolius]

I will call this hypothesis "the world is grognards".

As I skipped 2e, jumping from 1e to 3e, and have yet to be impressed with 4e as presented, I still call dibs on "leap-grognard".