Why won't you switch?

Kzach said:
As someone who has been playing WoW for the last three years in a rather addictive fashion, and one of those years as the top rogue in an SSC/TK raiding guild (rogues have a lot of math to crunch), I can vouch for this comment :D

The math in WoW is so incredibly convoluted that there is no way in Hell you could do a direct correlation to P&P without massive amounts of conversion and simplification.
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with my point.
The baseline system of scaling attacks, damage, defenses, and hp with level is there. (as a key but far from only example)
Piling vast variations on top of that in a computer game is of course going to make the final system far more complex.

If you want it to be a two way street then you are not catching the point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Geron Raveneye said:
Wow, now the OP has started second-guessing and cross-questioning the posters as well. I think the thread can be savely labeled "Titanic" now and be left before the icebergs show up. :lol:
0.o

Sorry for involving myself in the discussion. I wasn't aware that this is a statement only thread and that no discussion of issues was allowed.
 

BryonD said:
I'm not a professional game programmer, but yes I do.

But my point has nothing to do with the simplification point. You are blurring two different points on my list. I see common points in how the 4e math "works" and how WoW math "works".

I see common points in how 3E maths works and how WoW maths works. Insert generic food metaphor here.
 

BryonD said:
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with my point.
The baseline system of scaling attacks, damage, defenses, and hp with level is there. (as a key but far from only example)

Attacks, saves, spells and hp scale with level in every version of D&D ever made.
 

Geron Raveneye said:
Wow, now the OP has started second-guessing and cross-questioning the posters as well. I think the thread can be savely labeled "Titanic" now and be left before the icebergs show up. :lol:

man what
 

Ebon Shar said:
Now why would that be a deal breaker? I've known people who could not stand halflings. They simply choose not to play them. Why does the arbitrary inclusion of a race that you don't like disquality an entire edition of the rules? If you find that 4E is right up your alley, the best thing to happen to D&D since the flumph, would you still refuse to play, or would you simply disallow tieflings in your campaign?
I think of Tieflings as a PC race in the PHB as a deal-breaker, but not by itself. It's a sign of a pervasive attitude that seems to fill 4e, the disregard of established setting presumptions and meta-setting information.

As was pointed out, the 4e design staff are not longtime D&D design veterans. We don't have the likes of Skip Williams who had been with D&D since the early days at work here, we have people who are excellent designers, but ones with not as much investment in the traditions of the game and as dedicated to making a game that is as much a continuation of what came before as a good game in its own right.

When 3e came out, one reason I knew a lot of longtime veterans switched over was that it had a lot of respect for what came before with D&D, it brought back things that hadn't been in 2e but in 1e (Assassins, Monks, Barbarians, Half-Orcs), it acknowledged Greyhawk as the standard D&D world (at least in theory). 4e dumps Greyhawk, it dumps Monks, it dumps a lot of the "legacy code support" that made 3e popular to some veterans.

Previously, Tiefling PC's were treated as something possible, but only on the fringe. They weren't PC's at all in 1e, not in any official source I know of. In 2e they were a planescape-specific race. In 3e they were included in the FRCS but were still implied to be rare and generally only found in a few places and Tiefling NPC's were very rare. In 4e they are going right into the PHB. . .replacing Gnomes that had been there since 1e. Out goes something people expect in the core rules of D&D (and not the newspeak definition of Core), in something comes that is not associated with the main body of the rules. The races in the PHB are generally assumed, or at least are by the gamers I know IRL, to be the most common ones in the gaming world. So, D&D 4e now presumes gnomes are so rare as to be a "monster" race, but Tieflings and glorified lizardmen are as common as gnomes once were.

D&D before had been built to have a presumed flavor, and that was a pseudo-medieval theme, a little Tolkienesque, borrowing in places from a few other fantasy sources, and in some part a library of it's own unique setting presumptions. From what we've seen so far, 4e is throwing out the pseudo-medieval Tolkienism and the unique setting presumptions for a different flavor and set of setting presumptions altogether.

So, tiefling PC's in the PHB might not be the reason to skip 4e on it's own, but it's a symptom of the design mentality which is chasing some of us away.
 

Personally, I haven't seen anything in 4E "crunch" or "fluff" so far that I would have considered either innovative or interesting. Quite the opposite, in fact, but I'm not going to elaborate this further, because pretty much all of my reasons have already been posted on this thread.

We had a vote in all of the groups I game with (four in all) and all of us (20 gamers, including all the DMs) unanimously decided to keep playing 3E until 5E is coming out -- then we'll see if it suits our preferences better than 4E. And it's not as if we don't have enough 3E stuff to keep playing 3E for ten, fifteen years at least. :)
 

wingsandsword said:
Getting back to the topic, why I'm not switching, and other people aren't switching, could be summed up like this:

Why should we switch? We were happy with 3.5, and it might not be perfect but it was pretty good. WotC has to convince us that 4e is better than what we have now, not just present a product and assume we will buy it because it's the new edition of D&D. They haven't convinced many of us to switch. In fact, their marketing/previews have convinced some of us to steer clear instead of switching over.
QFT.

The question for many of us is not "why won't I switch?" but "why should I switch?" There's a different default position there. As I said upthread, my reasons for not switching have more to do with a satisfaction with 3e than with any dislike for 4e. WotC have simply failed to convince me that I need to change. But good luck and good gaming to those who do make the change. Some of us have simply chosen to stay where we are. Such is the nature of gaming.
 

Mark Hope said:
QFT.

The question for many of us is not "why won't I switch?" but "why should I switch?" There's a different default position there. As I said upthread, my reasons for not switching have more to do with a satisfaction with 3e than with any dislike for 4e. WotC have simply failed to convince me that I need to change. But good luck and good gaming to those who do make the change. Some of us have simply chosen to stay where we are. Such is the nature of gaming.

Yeah, this is a point that seems to be lost on a lot of the totally pro-4E crowd.

We finally have a rules set that is basically complete. Core books and class books that have gone through multiple iterations, multiple settings built with these rules in mind, and ancillary books for dragons, aberrations, demons, and undead. I would have liked a book about Humanoids, but that's a nit. Plus, there are numerous adventures and adventure paths, many of which are some of the best pieces of writing ever to be produced for D&D.

Likewise, we have 8 years of accumulated system mastery. I can basically run 3E encounters now without thinking. my 3E battles are just as fast as my 1E battles were.

Suddenly, we're supposed to shelve it all, not because major portions of it were broken, or because gamers were leaving in droves for competing systems, but simply because some bean-counters at WoTC decided it maximized the Hasbro bottom line for us to switch editions every 8 years.

Well, that can work, but there is a big burden on the part of WoTC to show why we should switch systems. So far, I see Hasbro

1) Telling us 4E is cool, instead of showing us.
2) killing the highest-quality publication to be produced for D&D in ages (Dungeon Magazine)
3) sacrificing the simulationist side of D&D
4) Screwing with what got me back to D&D in the first place (the OGL)

None of this makes me want to commit to spending thousands of dollars over the next 5 years acquiring a new system, when the one I have works fine for me.
 

OK, Back to Why I won't switch;

1: I like the current game! The amount of resources that are available to me allow me to create almost anything I can imagine and what I think is the best version of D&D to date allows me to play the game I want to play. I have no desire to "re-learn" D&D and so much that is part of my game will be missing from the 4E inital release (Psionics, Gnomes, Bards, etc) that it just wouldn't be worth it to change over.

2: The desecration of D&D. The cancelling of Dragon & Dungeon magazines, the destruction of the Forgotten Realms and the overall negative attacks on 3rd & 3.5 editions has left a bad taste in my mouth. And what we have seen so far on the WotC website has been of such poor quality and frequency, that it only reminds me of what has been lost.

3: The overall changes of 4E. OK, I think understand why so much has to be changed. The real focus of 4E and the number one goal is simple; Regain control of the D&D product.

WotC made a mistake with the SRD, they gave away control of their product. They never expected the little RPG companies to make their own Player's Handbooks, or games like Mutants & Masterminds and they especially never forsaw that some gamers would just take the free SRD and make their own game from it. But there is a problem, the SRD is eternal. If 10 years from now some company wants to, they could release D&D using the 3rd and 3.5 rules from the SRD.

To reclaim their product, WotC must create a completely different game and call it D&D. In fact, if any aspect of 4E resembles 3rd or 3.5E, it might open the door for a company to use the SRD to gain access to it. This why all the rules must be changed, why the Realms must be destroyed, and why you will never see 4E Greyhawk, Ravenloft or Planescape. Oh and Eberron fans, mark my words, when 4E Eberron is revealed it will get the same treatment the Realms got.

And personally, I don't want or need and a completely new Dungeons and Dragons.
 

Remove ads

Top