Why won't you switch?

[S'mon]

I'm running C&C for my core campaign world and I don't think 4e will be a very good fit with my setting, so it's unlikely I'll adopt it as my core game though I may run it and I'll certainly play it. 4e seems too miniatures-focused for my tastes and so far the feel of the game isn't what I'm looking for.

 

[TessarrianDM]

They made you buy them all new books?

I'd find new players instead...

No, they did not make me. I was excited about the possibilities I saw with 3E and wanted to run a 3E campaign. My group of players (the core of which has been together since 1982) felt they had invested enough in 2E that changing over was not a good financial decision. I made the decision to purchase them all books to encourage the changeover, and did the same thing when 3.5 came out. To date, few of them own anything besides the PHB and maybe the Spell Compendium.

The change to 4E has not generated the same excitement in me. The previews of 3E in Dragon did. Wizards chose to drop the print version of Dragon prior to the announcement of 4E. This irritated me so much (having subscribed to it since the 80's) that I have only purchased the Rules Compendium since-a drastic change from when I was spending $30-$50 every other week on sourcebooks and miniatures from them.

I still follow the game developments, though exclusively on this board. If I see things that are interesting new abilities or mechanics, I present them to my group and see if they want to houserule them. If not, no problem. We are satisfied with our game as it is.

 

[Nellisir]

Personally, I'm experiencing a certain euphoria knowing that soon I'll have a complete rules-set, and won't be spending $300-plus a year on rules supplements for a long time to come.

Man, I know. Isn't it a happy feeling?!

 

[Rauol_Duke]

1. Still only halfway done with STAP.
2. Rise of the Runelords adventure path is not 4E.
3. Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path is not 4E.
4. The Second Darkness adventure path will (hopefully) not be 4E.

I have so much stuff still to do and try out in 3.x, why would I want to start over. I'm still having loads of fun with a ruleset that I think works extremely well.

 

[Desdichado]

A number of reasons:

• Because my group isn't interested. I can't play the game by myself.
  
  
• Because I have tons of 3e/3.5 books, and what bores me about D&D are the base concepts. Having all that variety and being forced to go back to the basic three "core rulebooks" again would be a major step backwards. Call me again 2-3 years after launch to see if there's enough material out there to tempt me back. To say nothing of the tons of other stuff that I probably won't get updated until... who knows when. My Monsternomicons, for instance, or Book of Fiends.
  
  
• I don't want to spend all that money over again. I spent a buttload of money on 3e/3.5 and I don't feel like I've fully "depreciated" all that value by playing enough of it yet.
  
  
• I like the 3e/3.5 rules pretty well. There's a few things that I don't think work all that hot, but I can avoid those pitfalls, for the most part. My play experience is pretty darn good at the moment.
  
  
• The 4e previews have been kinda hit or miss. I haven't hated anything I've seen, and I've liked a lot of it, but I've been kinda ambivalent to a lot of it too. I just don't have any "energy" or excitement around the idea of new rules.
  
  
• Looks like lots of things have been simplified (yay!) but just as many things have been needlessly complicated, based on previews I've seen so far (boo!) The flavor doesn't bother me (unlike many who aren't planning on switching) but the mechanics---what we know of them---don't thrill me, and many of the articles have actively turned me off.

 

[Razuur]

Simple.

I True20.

It fulfils all of my needs.

I use it for Fantasy, Star Wars, and would use it for a host of other things (would life permit)

Razuur

 

[Greg K]

I have not invested a lot of money into Third Edition (although there is currently about $300-500 worth of products (primarily third party) that I want to buy)

1. Per encounter combat abilities
2. Per encounter magic abilities
3. the new skill system
4. the consolidation of skills
5. removal of craft, profession skills
6. bards, druids, and gnomes not in the phb 1
7. warlord, tieflings and dragonborn in the phb 1
8. the new death and dying rules and keeping negative hit points
9. bleeding triggering abilities.
10. some of the new racial abilities.
11. monster AC appears to not be broken down like in 3e.
12. The Paladin smite abilities
13. Unearthed Arcana and several third companies have mechanics that, imo, do a better job of solving most of my problems with the 3.x rules than what we has been revealed to date.
14. My players agree with the above reasons (except for one player who likes TOB and has no problem with issue 1) and don't want to switch.

The above out weigh the few things that I have heard about 4e and liked.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

There are only two reasons, at the moment, that I would not switch:

1. The Cons outweigh the Pros (currently, on my scoresheet, the Pros are in the lead).

2. I'm still running enjoyable SWSE games, in which case I wouldn't need 4e.

 

[danzig138]

My reasons for not switching are pretty simple:
1. So far, everything the designers have said and shown about the new game (including the references to using Saga and 9 Swords as test beds) has been not just unappealing and uninteresting, but in many cases, contrary to how I think a game should be designed (for my tastes at least). I don't have a problem with this. They aren't designing a game for me, so it'll just be one of many games not designed for my play style.

2. I'm currently using a hacked, mauled, kit-based version of d20. So far, it's done everything I need a game to do. It still needs somw twisting here and there before I'm finished, but knowing my and my penchant for fiddling with rules, it'll never actually be done.

3. I'm not keen on what I've read about the new game license so far.

I hope those who do adopt 4E have a blast with their gaming. Unlike a lot of posters on assorted boards, I don't take the whole change as some kind of personal attack. It sounds like 4E is going to be a great game for some play styles, and that's great. Every edition is going to leave some people behind - that's just the nature of things. I dont' have a problem being behind the SOTA.

 

[Mighty Halfling]

Wow. Just wow. I emphathize with all of your concerns and complaints, and you've all worded them so well.
I know WotC is far to far along to make any significant changes in the product to address many of our concerns, but I'll chime in too. Most of all, I hope the WotC team is reading this thread and saying "What can we do for these guys?"

• Dragobborn. Sorry, that's not a core race to me. Core races should be remarkably human in their look and abilities. As with warforged, they're perfecttly fine for a second-generation campaign book, just not core.
• Expandiing core. The great thing about D&D 3.5e is that all you needed with to play was two (maybe three) books and you could play. Now they say DDI is key and they'll be expanding the corebooks every year.
• No druids. I'm sorry, but these represent a key archetype in D&D lore. Now they've been booted because --- well they haven't really told us have they? What's the deal with that?
• Output is a big factor. Like so many others, 3.5e has been SO successful that I've spent a lot of money on it and used only a small percentage on it. I really, really enjoy 3.5e, and I've got some more things I want to do. Hell, there's easily 100 PDFs I haven't even bought yet that I want!
• My fellow players (at least for now) aren't interested in spending the money on a new set of books and they're far less invested in 3.5e than me.
• Learning a new rule system is always fun, but dammit, 3.5e is an awesome system right now. I've got my fantasy game with 3.5e. Maybe I'll check out Star Wars Saga sometime, but then again, I like Star Wars D6 just fine.
• Strange choices and changes in fluff. Feat names. Gods. Alignment. Racial origins. The killing off of Greyhawk. What's the point of changing these institutions?
• Along those lines, I find it insulting the way WotC has continued to tell me that the last 8 years of playing D&D was an awful experience and that at last with D&D 4e I'll finally have fun. That's the worst marketing effort in a marketing plan that has been abyssmally executed thus far.
• Powers for unpowered classes. Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but not everyone should have magic powers of healing, super attacks and battle effects. Not everyone should be magical.
• Speaking of magic, I think there are some good ideas being tossed about -- free, at will spells; rituals; and a trimming back of some schools of spells --, but I don't think the Vancian Magic system is all that bad. It makes about as much sense as anything else.
• Non-combat, non-adventure skills are important because they help define the character. If I want to prove to my fellow players that my character is a damn good sailor, then let me waste skill points on it.
• The push of the DDI (and the cancellation of the Dragon and Dungeon) are implying that I need a computer to really play this version of D&D. My RPGing experience is about being with friends, goofing around, rolling dice and eating chips. It is not about watching animation on a computer and feeding data into it so I can see what a fireball does.
• Honestly, the lack of backwards compatiblity is the biggest deal-breaker for me. I really only wanted a slight update for D&D. I want a D&D that works with the 90-pounds of books I already own.