Why won't you switch?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Mishihari Lord
First Post
I was going to switch right up to the point I read about the weird new diagonal movement rule.
If they're prioritizing simplicity over verisimilitude to that extent, I have serious doubts about the rest of the game.
If those doubts are justified, I won't want any part of it.
If they're prioritizing simplicity over verisimilitude to that extent, I have serious doubts about the rest of the game.
If those doubts are justified, I won't want any part of it.
Mark Hope
Hero
My reasons for not switching have very little to do with 4e itself, and plenty to do with 3e.
I'm not done with 3e by a long shot. I have loads of material I have barely used and am looking forward to many happy years playing this stuff. Its flexibility is a big draw for me and I see no reason to change from something I am happy with. Plus I can't justify added expenditure when what I already have works fine for my needs. 3.5 alive!
From the 4e side, I just haven't been wowed by what I have read. Simple as that. And I'm not keen on the discarding of the classic D&D cosmology and changes to the assumed setting. I didn't always use it, but I liked it a lot and think it's a shame that it has fallen by the wayside.
Oh, and I was irritated by the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon and those elements of 4e marketing that tried to tell me that I wasn't having the right kind of fun, or that 3e was broken when I didn't think that it was. These issues left a sour taste in my mouth that I have come to associate with 4e. This isn't entirely rational of me but the effects of PR, good or bad, rarely are. Oh well.
Still, there are clearly plenty of folks who are stoked about 4e and more power to them. I have always hoped that fans of D&D can still hang out by the water-cooler and swap tall tales of high adventure, regardless of edition. This thread gives me encouragement in that regard
.
I'm not done with 3e by a long shot. I have loads of material I have barely used and am looking forward to many happy years playing this stuff. Its flexibility is a big draw for me and I see no reason to change from something I am happy with. Plus I can't justify added expenditure when what I already have works fine for my needs. 3.5 alive!
From the 4e side, I just haven't been wowed by what I have read. Simple as that. And I'm not keen on the discarding of the classic D&D cosmology and changes to the assumed setting. I didn't always use it, but I liked it a lot and think it's a shame that it has fallen by the wayside.
Oh, and I was irritated by the cancellation of Dragon and Dungeon and those elements of 4e marketing that tried to tell me that I wasn't having the right kind of fun, or that 3e was broken when I didn't think that it was. These issues left a sour taste in my mouth that I have come to associate with 4e. This isn't entirely rational of me but the effects of PR, good or bad, rarely are. Oh well.
Still, there are clearly plenty of folks who are stoked about 4e and more power to them. I have always hoped that fans of D&D can still hang out by the water-cooler and swap tall tales of high adventure, regardless of edition. This thread gives me encouragement in that regard
.TessarrianDM
First Post
1. To switch over to 3.0 and 3.5, I had to announce to the group we were changing, purchase everyone (9 players plus myself) Players Handbooks, and do all conversions. I choose not to invest that kind of time or money a third time.
2. My players are not interested.
3. I have spent too much time customizing my DMGenie program with non-core classes, spells, etc. to toss all of that work out and switch over.
2. My players are not interested.
3. I have spent too much time customizing my DMGenie program with non-core classes, spells, etc. to toss all of that work out and switch over.
delericho
Legend
It's a fairly large topic. Where to begin...
Firstly, I was annoyed about the decision to end Dragon & Dungeon magazines. Academically, I understand why it was done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit. Given how badly they appear to have dropped the ball with the electronic versions of these magazines, that's a big strike against them.
Secondly, there was what felt like an excess of anti-3e statements coming from WotC with the 4e announcement. I have has a great deal of fun with that system over the last nine years, despite it's flaws; don't try to persuade me that the game was somehow broken or unfun because it just won't fly.
Thirdly, I don't like the Wizards policy of "spreading out the core". Again, this makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and I understand why it is being done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit.
Fourthly, they really have done a good job of un-selling me on the game. A case in point was the handling of the approved playtester comments thing. When Mouseferatu first commented on his positive experiences, it made a huge difference - I had been about to give up hope on the game, but positive comments from a designer I respect led me to think that maybe I should withold judgement for a little longer. But then there came rumblings that maybe these comments were censored, that this was perhaps all goodfacts authorised by Wizards as part of their propaganda. And then it emerged that actually there was an email. Now, the restriction to only pass on the positive, while reporting the negative to them is entirely sensible, and I accept that on a rational level. But marketing isn't about the rational, it's about perception, and the perception wasn't good.
Fifth, and this is nothing whatsoever to do with Wizards, it seems that every time a complaint about 4e is raised here, no matter how rational or well thought out, it was met by the "amen chorus", a bunch of posters who would not brook any criticism of the next big thing. Now, I should note that there is a set of anti-4e posters who are just as vehement (and there were people like Razz also, who had the effect of polarising discussion a great deal), but since I have been shifting to the anti-4e position myself, it was the rabid pro-4e posters who I found most irksome. The effect of this, anyway, was to make discussion of the upcoming edition less enjoyable, and by extension my enthusiasm for the edition waned a great deal.
Truth be told, though, these are all fairly minor things. Then there are the specifics of the game itself.
Sixth, there is a flavour element in the new game that I find offensive. That probably says more about me than the game, truth be told. But, as long as it's there, I'm voting with my wallet.
Seventh, I'm not keen on the new policy of monsters not being built on the same lines as PCs, as was the case in 3e.
Eighth, despite claims that the game is going to become simpler to play and run, there have been a number of hidden complexities. Elven aura powers, and those expanded terrain effects are easy to write, and seem simple on a read through, but in play they add a whole new layer of problems. What's my perception bonus? Well, no longer can I just look at my character sheet - at least one applicable bonus is on someone else's sheet.
Ninth, there are the reversals of cool things that I thought were going in. When we heard about wizard implements, and different implements affecting different spells differently, I thought that was really cool. Then we were informed that all implements would affect all spells the same. Bummer. The bugbear strangler uses a cool and exciting special maneuver in combat. Cool. Then it turns out that it is a unique ability to that monster, and the game won't really allow PCs to do that sort of thing. Bummer.
Tenth, and finally, there are the breaks with reality, which have become too bad in my estimation. The whole diagonal movement thing kills the game for me. Square fireballs, and round towers with corners in? Not for me, thanks. And while I can house-rule this (assuming, of course, they don't put another layer of rules in place to correct the mess they've made), this will take my list of definate house rules to a point where it is longer than any list I've ever used for 3e.
So, there it is. I don't expect many people to agree with all the points, and I suspect a lot of people won't agree with any of them (I just hope no-one is actually offended). And I know that they're not entirely rational in every case (can't blame Wizards for the state of discussion on message boards). Still, the question was asked, and that's the answer.
Firstly, I was annoyed about the decision to end Dragon & Dungeon magazines. Academically, I understand why it was done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit. Given how badly they appear to have dropped the ball with the electronic versions of these magazines, that's a big strike against them.
Secondly, there was what felt like an excess of anti-3e statements coming from WotC with the 4e announcement. I have has a great deal of fun with that system over the last nine years, despite it's flaws; don't try to persuade me that the game was somehow broken or unfun because it just won't fly.
Thirdly, I don't like the Wizards policy of "spreading out the core". Again, this makes a lot of sense from a business perspective, and I understand why it is being done, but the needs of Wizards' bottom line do not improve the quality of my gaming experience one whit.
Fourthly, they really have done a good job of un-selling me on the game. A case in point was the handling of the approved playtester comments thing. When Mouseferatu first commented on his positive experiences, it made a huge difference - I had been about to give up hope on the game, but positive comments from a designer I respect led me to think that maybe I should withold judgement for a little longer. But then there came rumblings that maybe these comments were censored, that this was perhaps all goodfacts authorised by Wizards as part of their propaganda. And then it emerged that actually there was an email. Now, the restriction to only pass on the positive, while reporting the negative to them is entirely sensible, and I accept that on a rational level. But marketing isn't about the rational, it's about perception, and the perception wasn't good.
Fifth, and this is nothing whatsoever to do with Wizards, it seems that every time a complaint about 4e is raised here, no matter how rational or well thought out, it was met by the "amen chorus", a bunch of posters who would not brook any criticism of the next big thing. Now, I should note that there is a set of anti-4e posters who are just as vehement (and there were people like Razz also, who had the effect of polarising discussion a great deal), but since I have been shifting to the anti-4e position myself, it was the rabid pro-4e posters who I found most irksome. The effect of this, anyway, was to make discussion of the upcoming edition less enjoyable, and by extension my enthusiasm for the edition waned a great deal.
Truth be told, though, these are all fairly minor things. Then there are the specifics of the game itself.
Sixth, there is a flavour element in the new game that I find offensive. That probably says more about me than the game, truth be told. But, as long as it's there, I'm voting with my wallet.
Seventh, I'm not keen on the new policy of monsters not being built on the same lines as PCs, as was the case in 3e.
Eighth, despite claims that the game is going to become simpler to play and run, there have been a number of hidden complexities. Elven aura powers, and those expanded terrain effects are easy to write, and seem simple on a read through, but in play they add a whole new layer of problems. What's my perception bonus? Well, no longer can I just look at my character sheet - at least one applicable bonus is on someone else's sheet.
Ninth, there are the reversals of cool things that I thought were going in. When we heard about wizard implements, and different implements affecting different spells differently, I thought that was really cool. Then we were informed that all implements would affect all spells the same. Bummer. The bugbear strangler uses a cool and exciting special maneuver in combat. Cool. Then it turns out that it is a unique ability to that monster, and the game won't really allow PCs to do that sort of thing. Bummer.
Tenth, and finally, there are the breaks with reality, which have become too bad in my estimation. The whole diagonal movement thing kills the game for me. Square fireballs, and round towers with corners in? Not for me, thanks. And while I can house-rule this (assuming, of course, they don't put another layer of rules in place to correct the mess they've made), this will take my list of definate house rules to a point where it is longer than any list I've ever used for 3e.
So, there it is. I don't expect many people to agree with all the points, and I suspect a lot of people won't agree with any of them (I just hope no-one is actually offended). And I know that they're not entirely rational in every case (can't blame Wizards for the state of discussion on message boards). Still, the question was asked, and that's the answer.
Last edited:
Nellisir
Hero
Expanding on my previous reply, now that I'm a little more coherent....
The mechanics also seem interesting. The diagonal issue isn't an issue for me. Smoother combats would be great. Dragonborn and tieflings aren't a natural fit for my campaign, but I could work them in. So, like I said, I'm planning on buying the (first) core books and some supplements. Playing it by ear, if you will. I'd like to see the Martial Power sourcebook.
Finally, while I've had the True20 rules for awhile, I've only just started really exploring it, and I've discovered that it's got the right mix of structure and customization for me. I can easily define custom roles and paths for my campaign, and I can use my OGC library for new material. Also, the cost for players to join is significantly less (I expect a pdf of the new core True20 book will be $15-$20 or so). And, finally, I can start tweaking True20 right now.
I actually like alot of what I'm hearing about 4e. I think the fluff changes are nice, and the planar changes are actually right in line with stuff I was doing or considering for my own campaign. The amount of fluff that's apparently written into the core does concern me, however (and by this I mean racial origin stories, not planar relationships).Kzach said:Cool. Interesting replies so far and am glad everyone is being civil
The mechanics also seem interesting. The diagonal issue isn't an issue for me. Smoother combats would be great. Dragonborn and tieflings aren't a natural fit for my campaign, but I could work them in. So, like I said, I'm planning on buying the (first) core books and some supplements. Playing it by ear, if you will. I'd like to see the Martial Power sourcebook.
This is a big one for me. I've got well over a thousand dollars, maybe over two thousand, in 3x pdfs alone. My print library is similar or larger. I look at that, and I look at my (post-buying spree) daughter, and my bills, and I just can't justify throwing out that much of an investment. I can't resell pdfs, and with the change from the OGL to the GSL, it's unlikely I'll be able to legally take OGC from the 3rd-party books & pdfs I have and upgrade it to work with 4e. My wiki is OGL compatible, and even though I'm not a "publisher", I like it legal. Gives me reassurance that I'm not abusing some company's policy towards fan material.
Finally, while I've had the True20 rules for awhile, I've only just started really exploring it, and I've discovered that it's got the right mix of structure and customization for me. I can easily define custom roles and paths for my campaign, and I can use my OGC library for new material. Also, the cost for players to join is significantly less (I expect a pdf of the new core True20 book will be $15-$20 or so). And, finally, I can start tweaking True20 right now.
Last edited:
Brother MacLaren
Explorer
That's really not what I get from looking at the responses here. Maybe a poll would be a good idea? "What are your reasons for not switching to 4E (pick up to 3)"?Kzach said:
If you wanted to do that, here's how you might break it down:
1) I am happy with an existing system and don't feel the need for a new one
2) I am unhappy with the mechanical changes or game design principles
3) I am unhappy with the flavor changes
4) I can't afford to buy a new set of books
5) I have a lot of material for other systems that I want to try out first before picking up a new system
6) I am annoyed at some specific actions WotC has taken
7) My gaming group doesn't want to switch
8) It doesn't change enough from 3E
9) I want to wait for more supplements to come out
10) Other
1) 1e was Gygax's D&D, 2e was Zeb Cook's D&D, 3e was Monte, Jonathan and Skip's D&D. 4e is just going to be some other group of developer's version of D&D. The fact that it's the one to come latest doesn't make it any better or more innovative than what has come before. I'm just not that interested in seeing another person's vision of D&D.
2) I already have at least 2 editions of D&D I'm happy with. I don't see any reason to spend money on another D&D. I have better things to spend that money on.
3) Since 1e, I have liked each subsequent edition less than the one that came before it. I am doubtful that 4e will reverse this trend.
4) There are a number of other new, innovative games available that I'm more excited about trying out than 4e.
5) I was actually interested in the concept of the online gaming table for a while, but the digital initiative rollout and subsequent insights into WotC's progress in the online realm have left me with the impression that early adopters are likely to get hosed. At best I will wait a few years until they get all the wrinkles ironed out.
2) I already have at least 2 editions of D&D I'm happy with. I don't see any reason to spend money on another D&D. I have better things to spend that money on.
3) Since 1e, I have liked each subsequent edition less than the one that came before it. I am doubtful that 4e will reverse this trend.
4) There are a number of other new, innovative games available that I'm more excited about trying out than 4e.
5) I was actually interested in the concept of the online gaming table for a while, but the digital initiative rollout and subsequent insights into WotC's progress in the online realm have left me with the impression that early adopters are likely to get hosed. At best I will wait a few years until they get all the wrinkles ironed out.
EricNoah
Adventurer
It isn't 4E that's keeping me from switching to 4E. For me, it's about timing (I have tons of 3E stuff and am in fact still in a campaign that was started when 3E first came out!), and it's about lack of faith in WotC's ability to pull off a decent electronic character/monster generation tool (I was along for every painful step of Master Tools / eTools -- and e-tools did in fact become useful enough to me that I don't want to go to anything less capable than it).
These factors can be fixed. Time goes by; in 2, 5, 7 years I might be ready for a new edition and 4E will be there. And maybe WotC will really knock my socks off with their character generator.
Part of me is disappointed that I won't immediately be playing a Mearls/Wyatt/Noonan D&D version. But not disappointed enough to switch.
These factors can be fixed. Time goes by; in 2, 5, 7 years I might be ready for a new edition and 4E will be there. And maybe WotC will really knock my socks off with their character generator.
Part of me is disappointed that I won't immediately be playing a Mearls/Wyatt/Noonan D&D version. But not disappointed enough to switch.
JediSoth
Voice Over Artist & Author
I'll preface my answer to this question by saying that I switched to 3rd edition (and, indeed, was eager to) because the previews I read in Dragon magazine indicated many changes were things I was already doing through house rules. Plus, I felt the "flavor" hadn't changed significantly. Also, I was not really an active gamer at that point, so it was much easier to switch from that standpoint.
The first strike (for me) against 4E was when the license to publish Dragon and Dungeon was yanked from Paizo and the print magazines were canceled. That really put a bad taste in my mouth towards WotC as I had been collecting these magazines since the mid-80s; I grew up with them and they were, in my opinion, of excellent quality.
It took me a year to make the switch from 3rd edition to 3.5, largely because I felt it was unnecessary and a money-grab by WotC. For the most part I felt the changes helped, but it was pretty close on the heels of 3rd edition (based on the time between 2nd and 3rd edition). Plus, I just really don't like this half-version number stuff...feels too software-ish.
I have invested over $1,000 in various supplements for 3rd edition and I have yet to explore even half of that content. From what I've read, 4th edition will be sufficiently different that conversion will be time consuming. Time is a commodity that is very precious to me.
I don't like the flavor changes that are being made with the new edition. I think feat names need to be short and descriptive, like Power Attack not Singing Wyvern Strike (I made that up, I'm sure, but you get my point). If I can't tell what a feat does just be hearing the name, then that's something else I have to learn, again taking time. Plus, when you start implying a certain feel by naming the feats, that makes it harder to integrate them into a homebrew setting that is radically different from the default setting. Sure, you can change the fluff, but then you have to spend more time noting all of those changes and disseminating them to your players.
Several things are being "fixed" that I don't feel are broken. I don't have a problem with 1-2-1 diagonal movement, nor do I have a problem with grapple. The concepts aren't that difficult and some of the aids I've picked up over the years (various Battleboxes, etc.) make them even easier to use. Things like this feel like "changes for the sake of change." Plus, several things that I felt were sacred cows were slaughtered, like gnomes and bards...I don't like the class name "Warlord" (that's more a title to me, not a profession), I don't think Warlocks should be a core class. I don't agree with a lot of the design decisions, and feel I had no input. At least I got to fill out a survey before the switch from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. After leaving GenCon '07, I had a VERY strong feeling that a lot of the changes in 4E were being done to pander to the RPGA players (whether or not that's true is immaterial, but that's the impression I got). I don't like the RPGA style of play.
I also felt the WotC 4E announcement video was very condescending and the first push of the marketing of 4E was very strongly in the Wrong-Bad-Fun category, if you actually were having fun playing 3.5. I got the sense that I was being told that 3.5 was OK, but it now sucks because 4E is coming out and I'm a loser for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon. As someone who has spent a good portion of my disposable income with this company, I don't appreciate that. Plus, the French Guy in the video said it's the same game. Sure, it's the same, except they're taking out Gnomes and Bards. Except Grapple is changing. Except the magic system is changing. Except the default setting is changing. Except, except, except. With that many exceptions, it's not the same. That's blatent false advertising, in my opinion. Reprinting the PHB with new art and a new cover would be "the same game." (Obviously I'm way too literal and anal-retentive to be a marketing person...that's why I didn't major in Journalism or Marketing).
I feel there is a great deal of doublespeak, and part of this might just come from reading too many message boards. I'm told I can play D&D with just the books, but only by subscribing to DDI will I get the full experience? Why would I not want to get the full experience? That's not really playing the same game, is it? (You might argue that it is, but these are my thoughts, feelings, and opinions). Plus, I'm not a big fan of the subscriber model for extra content, especially with the way it looks like things are going to be nickel-and-dimed. Granted I pay for an MMORPG, but I can play that every day (or nearly so), and I know my money is needed for server maintenance and to pay programmers and graphic artists to build additional content. I know my money towards DDI will be spent similarly, but then again, I play D&D once every two weeks at best, in my basement, around a table, with my friends, not with a computer (except for mood music playback and to access the SRD and PDFs).
Clearly, I'm not the target audience for 4E: I play too infrequently and have way too much invested in 3E to want to give it up. I never did like the Dungeonpunk look of 3E, and I don't care much for the look of 4E. I don't have the time or energy to convert my current settings and adventures to be usable with 4E. There's lot of other systems that have been spawned from 3.0/3.5 (Mutants & Masterminds, d20 Modern, Star Wars d20), plus other games I want to play (Savage Worlds) and I have a hard enough time getting people to play those; I don't need another version of D&D in there as a distraction.
4E might be an awesome game. I might even like it mechanically, even I don't like the fluff. But still, it takes work to strip out the fluff. If someone gives me the books as a gift, I certainly won't toss them out. If people I like to game with run games of it at GenCon, I'll almost certainly play. But I'm in no rush to switch; I don't feel a new edition is called for at this time. I will admit, certain types of high-level play is a pain in the butt with 3.5, but I think a lot of that comes from the types of adventures that have been written for high-level play.
I'm not on the fence. I'm looking over the fence towards 4E and seeing someplace I don't really want to go. I was really excited over Star Wars Saga edition until I read about the changes that were made and I just lost all enthusiasm. By many reports, SWSE was a mechanics preview of 4E. I just don't like enough of what I see.
Maybe I'll strip-mine 4E for ideas (like new undead turning rules), but I'll stick with 3.5 until I at least get in at least one more Ptolus campaign, maybe run Shackled City and Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and get to play in or run an Eberron campaign. I'm sure the industry will leave me behind, but that's OK. We don't ALL have to play the same version to all be Gamers.
JediSoth
The first strike (for me) against 4E was when the license to publish Dragon and Dungeon was yanked from Paizo and the print magazines were canceled. That really put a bad taste in my mouth towards WotC as I had been collecting these magazines since the mid-80s; I grew up with them and they were, in my opinion, of excellent quality.
It took me a year to make the switch from 3rd edition to 3.5, largely because I felt it was unnecessary and a money-grab by WotC. For the most part I felt the changes helped, but it was pretty close on the heels of 3rd edition (based on the time between 2nd and 3rd edition). Plus, I just really don't like this half-version number stuff...feels too software-ish.
I have invested over $1,000 in various supplements for 3rd edition and I have yet to explore even half of that content. From what I've read, 4th edition will be sufficiently different that conversion will be time consuming. Time is a commodity that is very precious to me.
I don't like the flavor changes that are being made with the new edition. I think feat names need to be short and descriptive, like Power Attack not Singing Wyvern Strike (I made that up, I'm sure, but you get my point). If I can't tell what a feat does just be hearing the name, then that's something else I have to learn, again taking time. Plus, when you start implying a certain feel by naming the feats, that makes it harder to integrate them into a homebrew setting that is radically different from the default setting. Sure, you can change the fluff, but then you have to spend more time noting all of those changes and disseminating them to your players.
Several things are being "fixed" that I don't feel are broken. I don't have a problem with 1-2-1 diagonal movement, nor do I have a problem with grapple. The concepts aren't that difficult and some of the aids I've picked up over the years (various Battleboxes, etc.) make them even easier to use. Things like this feel like "changes for the sake of change." Plus, several things that I felt were sacred cows were slaughtered, like gnomes and bards...I don't like the class name "Warlord" (that's more a title to me, not a profession), I don't think Warlocks should be a core class. I don't agree with a lot of the design decisions, and feel I had no input. At least I got to fill out a survey before the switch from 1st ed. to 2nd ed. After leaving GenCon '07, I had a VERY strong feeling that a lot of the changes in 4E were being done to pander to the RPGA players (whether or not that's true is immaterial, but that's the impression I got). I don't like the RPGA style of play.
I also felt the WotC 4E announcement video was very condescending and the first push of the marketing of 4E was very strongly in the Wrong-Bad-Fun category, if you actually were having fun playing 3.5. I got the sense that I was being told that 3.5 was OK, but it now sucks because 4E is coming out and I'm a loser for not immediately jumping on the bandwagon. As someone who has spent a good portion of my disposable income with this company, I don't appreciate that. Plus, the French Guy in the video said it's the same game. Sure, it's the same, except they're taking out Gnomes and Bards. Except Grapple is changing. Except the magic system is changing. Except the default setting is changing. Except, except, except. With that many exceptions, it's not the same. That's blatent false advertising, in my opinion. Reprinting the PHB with new art and a new cover would be "the same game." (Obviously I'm way too literal and anal-retentive to be a marketing person...that's why I didn't major in Journalism or Marketing).
I feel there is a great deal of doublespeak, and part of this might just come from reading too many message boards. I'm told I can play D&D with just the books, but only by subscribing to DDI will I get the full experience? Why would I not want to get the full experience? That's not really playing the same game, is it? (You might argue that it is, but these are my thoughts, feelings, and opinions). Plus, I'm not a big fan of the subscriber model for extra content, especially with the way it looks like things are going to be nickel-and-dimed. Granted I pay for an MMORPG, but I can play that every day (or nearly so), and I know my money is needed for server maintenance and to pay programmers and graphic artists to build additional content. I know my money towards DDI will be spent similarly, but then again, I play D&D once every two weeks at best, in my basement, around a table, with my friends, not with a computer (except for mood music playback and to access the SRD and PDFs).
Clearly, I'm not the target audience for 4E: I play too infrequently and have way too much invested in 3E to want to give it up. I never did like the Dungeonpunk look of 3E, and I don't care much for the look of 4E. I don't have the time or energy to convert my current settings and adventures to be usable with 4E. There's lot of other systems that have been spawned from 3.0/3.5 (Mutants & Masterminds, d20 Modern, Star Wars d20), plus other games I want to play (Savage Worlds) and I have a hard enough time getting people to play those; I don't need another version of D&D in there as a distraction.
4E might be an awesome game. I might even like it mechanically, even I don't like the fluff. But still, it takes work to strip out the fluff. If someone gives me the books as a gift, I certainly won't toss them out. If people I like to game with run games of it at GenCon, I'll almost certainly play. But I'm in no rush to switch; I don't feel a new edition is called for at this time. I will admit, certain types of high-level play is a pain in the butt with 3.5, but I think a lot of that comes from the types of adventures that have been written for high-level play.
I'm not on the fence. I'm looking over the fence towards 4E and seeing someplace I don't really want to go. I was really excited over Star Wars Saga edition until I read about the changes that were made and I just lost all enthusiasm. By many reports, SWSE was a mechanics preview of 4E. I just don't like enough of what I see.
Maybe I'll strip-mine 4E for ideas (like new undead turning rules), but I'll stick with 3.5 until I at least get in at least one more Ptolus campaign, maybe run Shackled City and Age of Worms and Savage Tide, and get to play in or run an Eberron campaign. I'm sure the industry will leave me behind, but that's OK. We don't ALL have to play the same version to all be Gamers.
JediSoth
Similar Threads
