will 4.0 succeed?

[Fallen Seraph]

To me, that's the same thing as "fluff players". Perhaps there's a subdistinction between "fluff player grognards" who care about polearms and read about the Crusades and "fluff player non-grognards" who don't care about polearms, but to me, it's all about deep immersion in and interaction with the world.

Maybe it is different things though . . .

I would say so. Since there are many Storyteller gamers, who don't care about polearms or accuracy, they care about the story and not about building a accurate world which I view that more as.

Hell if anything in my eyes it is much less world-building. Since your not building a world, the world doesn't exist outside what the story shows, nor does it have to follow any internal logic since you don't know what is going on outside the story since it doesn't exist.

So the world doesn't need to be grounded and there doesn't need to be accuracy with polearms and such. Since well, for example their story could deal with; magitech robots, players who jump off walls firing twin revolvers, fanciful footwork, taking down hundreds of minions, etc. Or uncovering the secrets behind a cult, or winning a political war between two Guilds, etc.

None of that has to deal with making a world, simply just making stories. They both can draw you in and make you engrossed but in very different ways.

This style plays well for 4e, since 4e is much more about making those cinematic moments and creating scenes that could be played out like in a book or movie, a perfect rule example of this would be minions.

 

[Dragon Snack]

What I mean by the "just play" people is that they genuinely are not much interested in the fluff (the "when all NPC's were there to be killed" people of DCC lore) and genuinely not much interested in fancy builds of their character...

I think I see where your coming from. Those are the players who play whatever the DMs wants.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What I mean by the "just play" people is that they genuinely are not much interested in the fluff (the "when all NPC's were there to be killed" people of DCC lore) and genuinely not much interested in fancy builds of their character. These folks pick a paladin with a trident as his main weapon because:
1) They feel like playing a meatshield, and they haven't done a paladin in a while.
2) They've never used a trident.

Hmm, this certainly fits to me, too.
"Hey, 300 was an awesome movie. Let's play a Fighter with a spear and a shield. We never did that before".
off course, then my power-gaming kicks in and I look for the best feats (Weapon Focus, Shield Specialization Route) and PrC (none?) work for this character. I don't know about the personality or goals of the characters beforehand. Just identified a kind of "style" and then looked where this would lead me to...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Dannyalcatraz

I'm hard pressed to think of a single piece of fiction in which magic was involved- comic, novel, movie, or RW legend- in which you didn't use magic or at least arcane knowledge to combat magic, at least at the highest level.

The problem in 3.5 is not that you need magic to fight magic, it's that at higher levels, you need magic to fight anything.

That is simply untrue...or at least an incomplete statement.

You only need magic to fight things more powerful than a certain power level of opponent- a naked (i.e. magicless) 20th level fighter will have no problem fighting low-level critters.

Its only beings impervious to normal weapons or who are intensely infused with magic (by use or nature) who require magic to defeat- precisely the kind of critters you expect high-level PCs to be pitted against.

To use a superhero analogy, Superman- and indeed most superheroes- can fight your average thugs all day long without using their full suite of abilities. In most cases, superhuman abilities are simply not required to right wrongs and do justice.

It is only when their foes reach a certain level of competence that they are challenged to a sufficient point that they must start using their bag of tricks in order to assure victory.

So the more accurate statement would be:

The problem in 3.5 is not that you need magic to fight magic, it's that at higher levels, you need magic to fight anything challenging.

And I have no problem with that. Again, it conforms to what we see in myth and legend.

At higher levels, the opponents you're likely to face may not use magic, but they are definitely suffused with it. There simply aren't creatures out there that challenge higher level PCs that are simply mundane- they all have supernatural abilities of some sort.

Which is something you'd expect in a fantasy world in which natural selection operated. Alpha predators would need supernatural powers to bring down top prey, just as prey would develop supernatural defenses to survive such predators.

 

[haakon1]

Hmm, this certainly fits to me, too.
"Hey, 300 was an awesome movie. Let's play a Fighter with a spear and a shield. We never did that before".
off course, then my power-gaming kicks in and I look for the best feats (Weapon Focus, Shield Specialization Route) and PrC (none?) work for this character. I don't know about the personality or goals of the characters beforehand. Just identified a kind of "style" and then looked where this would lead me to...

In my book, seeing 300 and wanting to make a Spartan-ish character (if only in equipment) makes you more of a Fluff player.

The hoplite in my campaign has the following relevant feats:
-- Near And Far: With reach weapon, attack adjacent and reach opponents.
-- Rank Fighting: Ignore the normal 50% cover provided by a friend between you and your opponent when striking with a reach weapon.
-- Spear and Shield: Use a spear two-handed with a large shield, despite the fact that such weapons normally can't be used together.

Who needs a Hoplite PrC when you can build a hoplite with the Net Book of Feats? With another conventional meatshield in front (bastard sword-armed), this character is quite effective, especially in confined spaces where the PC's should need to go one at time.

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Will 4e bring back 1e/2e gamers?

Certainly, if these boards are any indication (which, I'll grant, is debatable).

Will 4e bring in NEW gamers?

I sure as hell hope so. I think this is what Hasbro is hanging their hat on. The community needs new blood. Badly.

Will it sell more than 3e?

No idea. Probably, mainly due to the recruitment of the old guard.

The success hinges on the ability of the game to bring people to D&D who have never played before. If 4e does that, it's a success. If it doesn't, it's another edition (along with 2e, 3e, and 3.x) that failed. And I'm not sure how many more chances we'll get.

Wis

 

[Steely Dan]

Will 4e bring back 1e/2e gamers?

Funnily enough, 4th Ed is making we want to run a 1st/2nd Ed campaign, for the first time in 14 years, along side a 4th Ed one.

At this point, for some reason, I don't know if I would ever want to run a 3rd Ed campaign again (which I have been doing consistently for the past 3 years).

 

[the Lorax]

The problem in 3.5 is not that you need magic to fight magic, it's that at higher levels, you need magic to fight anything.

And when no one wants to play a cleric, that severely limits my options as a DM. Am I going to set level-draining undead on a party without access to a quick restoration? (Moot point, since I house-rule out level drain, but the point stands).

In order to survive the RAW in 3.5, you need certain things. You need a cleric or someone able to emulate one, you need a wizard. It's extremely frustrating that the rules require you to do certain things in certain ways.

Have your players never heard of friendly NPCs? Really? If they have enemies powerful enough to use badunfun spells upon them, why do they not have friends who can cast Cure Badunfun?

And all the Fighter bashing, Wizards/Priests are the be and end all of high level campaigns? I really cant believe it. Have some of you never played an extended epic level campaign? Using the core rules, at high levels, the true single target damage dealing champs are Fighters and Rogues. These characters can easily do in epic level casters if they get their hands on the caster for one round.

Now Disjunction. Well, thats a spell that I have disliked since before 3.0, and has required house ruleing. A spell with no real cost permanently destroying millions of GPs or even XPs worth of items is crazy, not to mention artifacts.

As for 4E?
My group of 20+ year long players who have gone from one edition to the next with relatively little resistance has almost completly sworn off of 4E. 3.5 is still close enough in the past to be leaving a bit of a bitter taste, and there is (IMO) NO reason to do as radical a revision as 4E seems to be. I know some long time players in another group who want to do 4E, and I'll join them for a game, but at this point I dont see me converting the games I run.

The funny thing is that a lot of the assumed fluff world stuff I've been reading from 4E like Feywild and Shadowfell, no Great Wheel ect. is actually very similar to my homebrew - like similar enough that it looks like someone swiped my pages of notes and sketches on cosmology (where'd those go anyway? )

I was all set and ready to embrace a new edition around 2010 - that's when I expected to need new material and the like. And I'm thrilled that Piazo is doing Pathfinder - the adventures they are putting out are outstanding and I cant wait to run them.

I HOPE 4E does at least reasonably well, as a poor showing would really be hard on the hobby in general, but for me, I'm getting off the edition treadmill, at least for now.

 

[That One Guy]

Yes.

This.

 

[hong]

Qft