Why won't you switch?

[Wolfspider]

That doesn't mean required. It has been stated multiple times in multiple mediums that any material other than the PHB/MM/DMG are simply not required to play the game. They are considered 'Core' in the same way that rules presented in splatbooks in 3.x were considered core. But none of those books are required.

I know this. I was just pointing out the reason why some people might have this impression.

In any case, it is ambiguous and misleading terminology. Why use the word "core" in 4e to mean something different than what was established in the past with 3e?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it totally qualitative? Perhaps not. But, at a certain point, you should be able to stop and say, hey, this sucks if enough people say so.

Actually, that's just going to drive away some of the silent ones who didn't have a problem with it, or who thought it was fine. Being told that a rule they've been comfortable with makes the game worse is not going to give them any confidence, and would probably hurt your attempt in a "if it ain't broke" kind of way.

Yes, you may not have had a problem with X. But, you can probably bet that if the WOTC marketing team is allowing people to say, X sucks, then probably they know that there are a hell of a lot of people who agree with that.

And those who don't might feel insulted.

Wheras if you say "X has quality Y that we decided to change to quality Z," you might get the reaction, but at least it'll be about quality Y, and not about X itself.

. Why use the word "core" in 4e to mean something different than what was established in the past with 3e?

Because, my guess is, they found the word "core" sold books. In the same way that the words "dragon" and "magic" did.

 

[DaveMage]

It's marketing.

Yep. It's depressing to me how the marketing is dictating the way the game comes out at this point.

(Not to mention how the OGL/GSL changes might also be affecting certain things. Sad to see.)

 

[Psion]

All the stuff that DM Jeff cites and about half the stuff Celebrim cites* are reasons for me. Especially the bit about WotC telling me things suck about 4e that I don't happen to think suck. There are some changes that sound really positive to me (no more full attacks! Touch AC = reflex DC!) The problem is that for everything I see them doing that seems a bona fide improvement, I hear about another change that seems to be ill-justified and/or a step backwards from my perspective.

* - With the particular exception that I always liked Mearls' work before he went to work for WotC. But when I saw the article about the "kinder gentler rust monster", I knew there was trouble ahead.

However, the principal reason is somewhat in line with what Spoony alludes to here:

The 3e design team had one major advantage over the 4e one - they had a guy that had been there since near to the game's beginning - Skip Williams. Now this is a guess - but I'm thinking Skip helped keep Monte and Bruce in check with some of the wilder changes that were proposed and dismissed (and now lost to the mists of time).

I don't know if I'd lay all the responsibility on Skip here, but I do feel that when entertaining changes, you need to keep touch with why some people play the game through various editions.

I may frequently disagree with changes that the design team are making, but when it comes down to it, most of them are experienced, intelligent designers and will produce a playable, fun game. But I see a shift in the nature of the background material and concepts that have grown up from 1e-3e. ("Fluff" if you will, but more "metasetting".) So it may be a great game, it will be a game like Exalted or Burning Wheel that might be an interesting fun game, but no longer a game encapsulating the core concepts that are part of the continuing campaign I have had since 1e. As such, like those games, they have to "start fresh" with earning my interest.

I want continued support of classic creatures, classes, races, planes, as they existed and evolved over 1e-3e etc:
1) Because I like them.
2) As Erik Mona put it, it's part of the imaginative framework I am used to using. When I think of adventure for my game, I think in terms of things I have learned over the years. To have ideas I want to use shot down or too much of a PITA to implement is not something I am willing to put up with. If it's more work to run the adventures I want to run in a new edition than the old, then the old edition is the logical choice for me to use.
3) At no time have the ideas of the current spate of designers been so good and so complete that the idea of earlier designers (editions) not been worth plugging into. So long as the same basic assumptions exist in the game, I can continue to tap into previous editions' material; I have been able to do so easily for all editions up to and including third edition. But 4th edition proposes a shift in the baseline cosmology, races, creatures, and classes significant enough that this usage of older material will be compromised.

Ultimately, I'll probably play 4e just like I play a variety of other non-D&D games. But I don't see 4e replacing 3e as my edition of choice for my home games.

 

[Sunderstone]

"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

The 3e design team had one major advantage over the 4e one - they had a guy that had been there since near to the game's beginning - Skip Williams. Now this is a guess - but I'm thinking Skip helped keep Monte and Bruce in check with some of the wilder changes that were proposed and dismissed (and now lost to the mists of time).

4e is all new faces. There is no old guard at all on the design team - the oldest face among them only stretches back to right around the acquisition of TSR by WotC. The leads are all new. The previews have shown us the result of that approach, an edition without any respect whatsoever for what has come before it.

These are my thoughts as well as to the "why" of the fluff changes. Maybe a new crowd eager to rewrite everything from the ground up?

As an example Dave Noonan falls into this category. While not exactly new, he has come a long way. Ive been a Noonan fan since his 3E dungeon adventure "Interlopers of Ruun-Khazai" but alot of the work on the PH2 screams of a warcraft influence (like the Druids rejuvenation/HoTs, faction rep grinding/affiliation rules, and the Knight class/essentially a Warrior from Warcraft). Im not sure exactly which concepts of the book are actually his but his name alone is on the cover.
These external influences arent even subtle anymore and 4E seems to be firmly into that type of "non-classic" feel for me.

Im not saying that D&D couldnt benefit from an external source like WoW every now and then but too much of that makes it into a new game for me. On the other side of the coin, I see WoW things heavily influenced by D&D as well. My point is that I enjoy both and I like to keep them seperate.
I play wow alot but I treasure my D&D time more. If they become too much like eachother id quit one or the other.

Not trying to start a new WoW or anime or video game debate here, but 4E seems to be heavily influenced (some 4E designers too) by these sources. Regenerating health, talent trees, per encounter stuff (sorta seems like a regenerating mana bar to me, next encounter id be full on mana/spells), etc. The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?) or the cartoony/comic bookish Dragonborne just doesnt feel D&D-ish to me.

 

[Dragonblade]

The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?)

There are no Warforged in Full Metal Alchemist. They do have Auto-Mail which is sort of the fantasy equivalent of cybernetic prosthetics. The walking suit of armor is actually a unique character in the story. Its been a long time since I have seen the show, but one of the main character's bodies was destroyed in a failed attempt to resurrect his deceased mother using forbidden alchemy (the series version of magic). Before his soul could depart the mortal realm, his older brother used his alchemy to bond the soul to a suit of armor. The older brother's arm and leg were also destroyed in the accident and replaced by Auto-Mail. Since he has metal prosthetics, he is nicknamed the Full Metal Alchemist (hence the series name).

The series is basically about the two brothers going on this quest together to restore the body of the younger brother and to restore the destroyed limbs of the older brother.

Later on the brothers realize that their attempt to resurrect their mother allowed evil beings to enter the world from the underworld. So they try to stop them as well. I'm sure I got some details wrong. I haven't watched the show in a long time and I never saw the whole series. My wife was a bigger fan than me. I'm more of a Naruto/Bleach fan myself.

 

[AllisterH]

Not trying to start a new WoW or anime or video game debate here, but 4E seems to be heavily influenced (some 4E designers too) by these sources. Regenerating health, talent trees, per encounter stuff (sorta seems like a regenerating mana bar to me, next encounter id be full on mana/spells), etc. The anime style Warforged (Full Metal Alchemist?) or the cartoony/comic bookish Dragonborne just doesnt feel D&D-ish to me.

The funny thing is, reading Worlds & Monsters and Race & Classes, I find that 4E seems to be moving more towards a mythic/legendary background. The Cosmology, the monster themselves, the classes all seem more grounded in what I've found in mythology/legend.

For example, the Feywild, the Shadow realms, the killing of a god and exile of the devils all seem to me to be straight out of a textbook on mythology. Compared to the planar wheel and the Blood War which basically is pure D&D.

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?

 

[Fenes]

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?

I never heard of 3E until I saw the PHB (the one with the char gen CD ROM), and a few minutes with the PHB made me want to switch.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The funny thing is, reading Worlds & Monsters and Race & Classes, I find that 4E seems to be moving more towards a mythic/legendary background. The Cosmology, the monster themselves, the classes all seem more grounded in what I've found in mythology/legend.

For example, the Feywild, the Shadow realms, the killing of a god and exile of the devils all seem to me to be straight out of a textbook on mythology. Compared to the planar wheel and the Blood War which basically is pure D&D.

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E? Why were people not as offended when 3E basically invalidated their 2E books (they're basically useful only for fluff in 3.5)?

The difference is: One is game mechanics, the other is story, and each of these also have several aspects. I think it is important to differentiate both the larger elements mechanics and story, as well as their components, and understand how they affect each other (and how they don't). Sometimes I get the impression that some people don't do this...
But: Since this is a "Why won't you switch" thread, I think addressing this here would be a thread hijack.

 

[Psion]

Query: Why weren't people as offended by SKR when he went on his spiels talking about the badwrongfun from 2E?

Not sure exactly what you are referring to, but his nits about Infravision and Drow Weapons are just the sort of "personal nit" and "player entitlement" sort of rants/changes that I am seeing now that I fundamentally disagreed with then.

But those two seems minor compared to the changes I see coming in 4e. Putting disintegrating drow weapons back in seems a much more trivial a house rule to me than removal of death effects, shift to per encounter ability accounting, shift in the basic core races, and the like.