Why do I complain about 4E?

[Erik Mona]

Which is why it is awesome that everyone has a game suited to their style. Everyone wins.

--Erik

 

[Campbell]

Which is why it is awesome that everyone has a game suited to their style. Everyone wins.

--Erik

Agreed. It's nice that you guys are carrying the torch for those who prefer 3e to 4e.

 

[pogre]

I picked up 4e for the same reasons I started playing D&D again:

1. It is the easiest game to find players for; and

2. There is a ton of adventure material out for it.

D&D 3.0 & 3.5 aren't bad games, but they are not ideal RPGs for me. They are/were however, quite popular. Over the past few years I have recruited some fantastic gaming groups, but D&D is still the gateway RP of choice.

So I can see at least some of the OP's motivation. He hopes a thriving community remains for a game he loves. He hopes new stuff keeps coming out and he can find players.

Those are the same reasons I will keep up with the current edition of D&D.

BTW - a bit off topic, but I gave my son the new PHB (he's 8 1/2) and he really is fired up about the new game. If the new D&D appeals to young kids, I don't see that as a bad thing at all.

 

[Fenes]

I'll mine 4E for ideas, rules and concepts, I'll mine PF for ideas, rules and concepts, and I'll add them to my house-ruled 3E (which is currently getting adapted to Bo9S).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I agree with that, but my fear is that with 4E, D&D is modernising itself out of relevance. If a 12-year-old picks up 4E today , he or she will know the game and its RPG tradition as a complicated, rules-heavy miniature wargame which his/her PC can run without all the finicky sheets of paper and number-crunching.

This could have been posted -- with at least as much merit -- back in 2000.

The dude abides.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Which is why it is awesome that everyone has a game suited to their style. Everyone wins.

Yep.

I long expected an OGL fork if 4E didn't hew very closely to 3E. I think those choosing the fork should be thrilled that you guys are the ones who went down that path. There are others who would do a credible job of it, I think -- among them Green Ronin, Necromancer and Goodman -- but you guys have the highest profile and the strongest ties to official 3E stuff, so you've got the credentials that soothe a lot of nervous breasts.

Now, having said that: More books like Classic Monsters Revisited and a gnome book to match your elf book. Chop, chop!

 

[Henry]

This could have been posted -- with at least as much merit -- back in 2000.

The dude abides.

You can still find the threads in Google from rec.games.frp.dnd with almost the same wording from 1999 to 2000, in fact. If a rules light D&D is called for, the 1974 version is by far the easiest to teach to young kids, with some of the "mini20" systems running a close second (like microlite 20, Labyrinth Lord, BFRP (I think it's called?), etc.

I long expected an OGL fork if 4E didn't hew very closely to 3E.

Praise the Dancey!

oops -- sorry, I won't get into religious discussion again.

 

[Banshee16]

Now, having said that: More books like Classic Monsters Revisited and a gnome book to match your elf book. Chop, chop!

They did an elf book?

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Indeed. I was stunned when I saw people fighting about the Succubus becoming a Devil, the Cosmology changing from the Great Wheel, and other such things.

I had no idea people cared about that stuff, much less cared to the point of getting nasty or refusing to change editions. I've never cared about anything that strongly in D&D (Okay, maybe kobolds).

The response was almost like insulting someone's political affiliation or religion.

Everyone has their things the like about the game. As a longterm Planescape DM, I detest a huge number of cosmology changes that have been made. 3.0 and 3.5 already changed several things, like getting rid of the para-elemental planes, for instance...but 4E takes almost all of it and throws it out the window.

And it reduces the cosmology from a cool setting with many nuances to "even angels can be evil, so that PCs have an excuse to kill them and take their stuff".

Succubi have been in the game since, what......1982? And they've been demons that whole time. Now they're devils, and Erinyes are gone, because some players apparently couldn't tell the two apart. Why did the changes have to be made?

Some people like those changes, others of us don't. It's pretty simple. Maybe this time around, given how strong 3.5 is, WotC just misjudged the number of people who were unwilling to change that much. I supposed it's inevitable, given the creation of the OGL.

If some people love the changes in 4E, good for them. It doesn't mean we all have to. 4E to me, *accentuated* the undesirable design elements (IMO) that started to appear in 3.5 in some products, towards the end of its run.....I liked 3.0 better and started noticing elements I didn't like (Mystro, the magical, disappearing paladin's warhorse, flavourless classes built with a series of abilities that are described differently, but mechanically do exactly the same thing, in order to be balanced) in 3.5.....and then amplified those traits I didn't like. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

The marketing was pretty miserable as well. Change to 4E, because it's so much better, and 3.5 was inherently flawed? OK.....so you've been selling me a product you knew was flawed for the last 8 years, and you expect me to give you more money now? Uh....no.

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

No, because if the goal is to make it stay compatible with 3.5, making it not compatible with 3.5 is violating their own mandate. It's like everyone started off with a goal in mind, but got excited about the possibility of fixing 3.5, and don't seem to notice that means they're no longer heading for their original destination.

All I know is all the guys I game with are excited about the direction Pathfinder is going in. Admittedly, it does power up the classes....but many of them were starting to lag behind the newer classes like the scout and ninja and duskblade and knight etc. So, giving the core guys some love just returns us to thinking about why we'd want to play one. I think the changes to the sorcerer, for instance, are way cool. The guy who loves rogues loves the changes to the rogue. And the changes to the cleric.

I'm just glad that Paizo is trying this. It's quite audacious.

Banshee