D&D 4E Who else is going to be a deserter when 4e comes out?

[GQuail]

I didn't post in this thread back in the day, though I think I recall reading it at the time. (I was possibly just an anonymous lurker back then, though: I didn't join up for quite some time.) So I'm afraid I can't really contribute my hilarious change of opinion, and I apologise for that.

However, on a wee skim through the old threads (mainly because I wanted to see what was bewildering JustKim ;-) ) I found a couple of comments which seemed interesting:

I'll probably switch quite quickly. The reason? Dungeon Magazine. They'll probably make the switch immediatly, and I'll follow suit rather quickly.

Rav

I think one thing that helped many people accept 3.0 was the fact that Dragon Magazine ran previews of some of the rules. This would be a good strategy for future editions. Possibly, Dungoen Magazine might also jump into the action next time -- which I hope is a few years away.

It's sorta weird to look back and remember that we were once taking Dragon and Dungeon for granted - which just shows how far before 4E reared it's head we were still getting fed up of talking about it. ;-) It's also interesting (to me, anyway) to wonder how having e-Dragon and it's particular sort of coverage of 4E pre-release influenced people who had been expecting something else a few years ago.

 

[TerraDave]

But by 2008, it (4E) could be good.

Called it!








What...thats not what we are supposed to do with this thread?

Edit: Oh, turns out we are...

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

I'd be surprised if we had a new edition that soon but, if we did, I bet BryonD will be nothing if not vociferous in his condemnation of it, DaveMage will never make a move that may undermine the use of his extensive 3e library, Paizo will probably jump off the WotC bandwagon (like due to license issues), and everyone will - for a year or too - gnash their teeth and pull their beards for a year or so. Then it'll all calm down. Again. This is the standard cycle. It'll take time getting used to the fact that - I predict - all classes will have spells in 4e (or powers, talents, whatever) and that the game itself will be significantly simplified with some of the sacred cows slaughtered...

Dude...tell me I'm not awesome.

 

[Gundark]

I was both right and wrong.

3.5 was nearly perfect, especially for players... until I started running high-level games later that year. Then was when I started frustrated with some elements. Under 10th level, I still could run D&D with the supplements that were out right after that time that year, with few problems.

Their work with the NPC & Monster rules and for encounter design were, indeed, the main thing that got me interested in the rules.

I was still a 3.5 supporter at this point. The falling out didn't occur until near the end of 2006. Running high level 3.5 did it for me. I was ready for 4e when it was announced. In fact 3.5 would have been pretty darn perfect if the game stopped at 10th to 12th level.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Dude...tell me I'm not awesome.

You're not awesome.

Awesome doesn't seem to cover it...

 

[delericho]

It's sorta weird to look back and remember that we were once taking Dragon and Dungeon for granted... It's also interesting (to me, anyway) to wonder how having e-Dragon and it's particular sort of coverage of 4E pre-release influenced people who had been expecting something else a few years ago.

Indeed. For me at least the cancellation of the print mags has had a huge impact - I went from having three years of outstanding subscription to each of the magazines to barely glancing at most of Wizards' coverage of the new edition. I just don't like reading large blocks of text online.

It's entirely possible that had I had three high quality 4e adventures delivered to my door each month, including the first third of an Adventure Path that left me thinking, "I must run this" (as "Age of Worms" and "Curse of the Crimson Throne" did), I would be a whole lot more enthusiastic about the new edition.

Plus, the announcement of the end of the magazines marked the point where I stopped perceiving WotC as a company I would be willing to go the extra step to support, to them becoming just another business producing a product I like. I understand why the decision was made, but that didn't make the end of a magazine I had read off and on for nearly twenty years any easier to take, and that's something that has coloured my opinions ever since.

 

[Psion]

Dude...tell me I'm not awesome.

I notice you are missing the distinctive "original post" link. As Larry Niven says "any damn fool can predict the past."

 

[DaveMage]

Dude...tell me I'm not awesome.

Heh.

Nice try.

 

[WizarDru]

But there seems to be a default assumption that the hypothetical 4e will be a radical departure from 3e, and that they won't be readily compatible. I don't accept that as truth, or even likely. Any 4e that does appear, IMHO, will be an incremental change with errata...not unlike 3.5.

Well, missed THAT one. Of course, I'm also glad to have been proven wrong, but that's another story.

Also, I am now OLD.

 

[Janx]

I don't recall posting in on this thread (too lazy to find out).

pre-4e release, I was looking forward to the new edition. cleaned up monster & NPC stats for GMing sounded good. Cleaned up skill list. Mostly it was the stuff that Star Wars saga had that looked like they might be 4e elements in the making.

Then 4e shipped, a friend got ahold of it, and the disappointment sank in. All the PC classes were wired up for combat only. My friends had just got back from a trip where they did an all rogues game, and as they summed it up, they wouldn't be able to make the same characters in 4e. (yes they could make rogues, they couldn't make the kind of rogues they made).

So, where my group was going to buy into 4e, we didn't. Instead, we tried out Vampire (an older edition, cheap), and now we're trying out Shadowrun 4th.