Why so many in a hurry to leave 3E?

[Treebore]

Not sure if my AoW game will be done by May. And even if it is, we're playing M&M next (Paragons, baby!). I'll probably give 4E a shakedown at the local RPGA club, which I'm sure will convert from LG to LFR. Not really my gaming style, but it's good way to learn the game.

AoW? Thats Age of Worms? I'm not getting the "LG" and "LFR" abbreviations either.

 

[WayneLigon]

AoW? Thats Age of Worms? I'm not getting the "LG" and "LFR" abbreviations either.

LG = Living Greyhawk
LFR = Living Forgotten Realms

 

[Treebore]

LG = Living Greyhawk
LFR = Living Forgotten Realms

Oh! Makes sense now! Guess I should have guessed RPGA.

Thanks!

 

[ruleslawyer]

To answer the OP's question:

Because 3e was a vast improvement over 2e, and because I think 4e will be a significant (probably not quite so vast) improvement over 3e.

Just because you think that revisions to something make it better doesn't mean that you thought the "something" was bad or lacking.

 

[Greg K]

But I was at GenCon, I've seen the demos, I've talked to the designers and had a chance to hear what they think. I'll be the first to admit, I have contemplated regressing to 2e for the XP track alone, but my hate of PrCs and players controlling the rules over GMs administrating the games ran a close second and third. The rules glut was getting unbearable. As a DM, I was burning out.

Players controlling the rules over GMs has never been a problem with our group. We would simply kick out the offending player. Problem solved. This has been the situation with every group with which I have played.

As for rules glut, I never understood this. The problem is easy to solve-learn to say "no!". The DM should only allow into the game that which they are comfortable. Many DM's only run core. Others run core with just a few extra. So it can be done.

As for myself I run mostly core with some extras and house rules. None of the extras include XPH, Magic of Incarnum, ToB:Bo9S, Tome of Magic, or any class (base or PrC) from the DMG or WOTC supplement. I allow a few things from Unearthed Arcana (some replace standard rules), about 12-14 class variants (UA, PHBII, Complete Champion (used since 3.0 when Monte suggested them ), expanded skills (Complete Adventurer, Races of the Wild), some domains, spells and feats (from various books), and a few 3rd party products (including a few class books from Green Ronin, and some articles from Sean Reynold's website).

 

[Treebore]

Players controlling the rules over GMs has never been a problem with our group. We would simply kick out the offending player. Problem solved. This has been the situation with every group with which I have played.

As for rules glut, I never understood this. The problem is easy to solve-learn to say "no!". The DM should only allow into the game that which they are comfortable. Many DM's only run core. Others run core with just a few extra. So it can be done.

As for myself I run mostly core with some extras and house rules. None of the extras include XPH, Magic of Incarnum, ToB:Bo9S, Tome of Magic, or any class (base or PrC) from the DMG or WOTC supplement. I allow a few things from Unearthed Arcana (some replace standard rules), about 12-14 class variants (UA, PHBII, Complete Champion (used since 3.0 when Monte suggested them ), expanded skills (Complete Adventurer, Races of the Wild), some domains, spells and feats (from various books), and a few 3rd party products (including a few class books from Green Ronin, and some articles from Sean Reynold's website).

Sounds cool. If you've eliminated AoO I'll wish I could sign up.

 

[blargney the second]

There are a few reasons I'm looking forward to kicking 4e's tires:
1) It's new & shiny, whee!
2) A lot of the parts I like best about 3.5 are things that have been released recently, and it will likely be built right in as a core part of 4e instead of subsystems. That's a best of both worlds proposition, right there.
3) There is definitely room for improvement upon 3.5, and hope springs eternal.
-blarg

 

[Treebore]

There are a few reasons I'm looking forward to kicking 4e's tires:
1) It's new & shiny, whee!
2) A lot of the parts I like best about 3.5 are things that have been released recently, and it will likely be built right in as a core part of 4e instead of subsystems. That's a best of both worlds proposition, right there.
3) There is definitely room for improvement upon 3.5, and hope springs eternal.
-blarg

I like Book of 9 Swords, actually. However I am not sure how I would feel about it being "core D&D". Right now it makes me think I may as well play BESM DragonballZ. Obviously I need to wait to see how 4E is actually written, but it definitely is making me wonder.

 

[Greg K]

Well, affter reading the latest article regarding the fight with the Dragon, I will definitely not be buying 4e. Despite having not been impressed with the design philosopy at WOTC or their offerings for some time, I was willing to give the designers the benefit of the doubt to produce something I would like with 4e. Unfortuantely, the information from the designers and reports from Gen Con left me with serious doubts and the latest design article has convinced me that WOTC is not going to produce a 4e that i would like.

As of now, WOTC is now pretty much dead to me with the possible exceptions of both Dragon (up until 4e is released) and the Rules Compendium. After that, adios WOTC. Thank you for 3.x , but whether you succeed or fail with 4e, I could care less.

 

[blargney the second]

I like Book of 9 Swords, actually. However I am not sure how I would feel about it being "core D&D". Right now it makes me think I may as well play BESM DragonballZ.

How come?
-blarg

ps - While Bo9S was definitely one of those things I was referring to, MMV & PHB2 are of equal attractiveness to me. It's the glimpses of the whole picture that make me hopeful.