You don't like the new edition? Tell me about it!

[Mallus]

I don't like it because I am a world builder.

Fair enough. I'm a world-builder too, but I think 4e will do a fine job handling my long-running homebrew, CITY. Most setting elements look easier to model, a few look tougher, none seem particularly difficult.

4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.

How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?

From what I've seen so far after a cursory read-through, 4e allows for more "normal" worlds, with less of an impetus towards the 'Marvel/DC universe in fantasy-drag' that almost always happens with 3.5-built settings.

I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as.

This seems easier in 4e.

Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.

Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.

I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.

This has always been the product of individual DM's and players creating their games. It's not fundamentally a rules/system issue.

 

[ExploderWizard]

How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?.

The skewing comes from the world operating differently for a character because he is a PC. If a PC fights an NPC in a chase/running type of battle and each one has 4 healing potions to use during lulls, the NPC is screwed because he hasn't got the healing surges to use them. There is no problem with the DM designing certain encounters with creatures that exist only to die in a drawn out fight, but the rules of the physical world shouldn't be altered to force this.

From what I've seen so far after a cursory read-through, 4e allows for more "normal" worlds, with less of an impetus towards the 'Marvel/DC universe in fantasy-drag' that almost always happens with 3.5-built settings.


This seems easier in 4e.

If anything this is backwards. 4E PC's are all superheroes from level one. There are essentially only 4 classes that matter now-defender,striker, leader, and controller. You can call them roles but they are the new classes and all more like a super than any class in 3rd or any prior edition.

Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.

Not really. Minion status denotes certain characteristics that 3E didn't use. That CR 2 creature might not be a threat to the level 12 character but its the same creature. A minion could be a large demon of the party's level. They may fight such a creature as a solo or elite monster and almost die trying to overcome it, then march into the next chamber with 6 of the same guys guarding the big bad guy and these all get downed by a pimp slap. Not the same at all.

 

[Mallus]

The skewing comes from the world operating differently for a character because he is a PC.

D&D has always worked like this.

There is no problem with the DM designing certain encounters with creatures that exist only to die in a drawn out fight, but the rules of the physical world shouldn't be altered to force this.

Don't assume the game rules are the rules of the (fictional) physical world, then. And if you want NPC's to have Healing Surges, just do it.

4E PC's are all superheroes from level one.

This just isn't true. But besides that, I was thinking more of the ability to model the opposition and supporting character using 4e. Things like giving everyone access to rituals, minion status, etc. make it easier to represent a lot of classic fantasy archetypes.

That CR 2 creature might not be a threat to the level 12 character but its the same creature.

It's now a creature that can survive one hit from said 12th level PC. So you might as well say it has 1HP. No practical difference.

Not the same at all.

You're demonstrating that a bad DM could use the Minion rules badly. That a bad carpenter can whack the hell out of his own fingers should not reflect poorly on the hammer...

 

[cholke]

I believe that it fails for you in the D&D part.

As an example, el-remmen has described what kind of things he likes from his D&D game. For me, they don't sound like the D&D I played, and I would want to play. Maybe my D&D is not the "True D&D", but what I prefer to think is that D&D can be different things to different people. It matters which edition they "grew up" with (if you can grow up with something at the age of 20) and they had the most fun it. (And if they never had fun it, they probably think of D&D as something bad and the bane of all good role-playing, and play Vampire or Das Schwarze Auge... )

And 4E so far doesn't fail to be D&D for me. But it might very well fail for you or el-remmen at being D&D.

I guess this is where I think it is sad. It seems as if we all could, in some way or another, play in 3.xe. It just seems that some people, myself included, feel as if their style of play is being pushed to the curb. The system that once enabled many styles of play has now eliminated a large majority for pure design reasons.

I know I don't have the direct market knowledge that WOTC has, but I have learned a thing or two. 3e seemed to bring back a lot of gamers that had dropped off and brought excitement to new players. 4e seems to be, with its distinct design principles, leaving a lot of players behind. These players have admitted to spending a lot of money on the prior edition. I myself am at the stage in my life where I don't have to save my allowance or ask someone else to buy my game products. There was a period of about a year where I didn't play at all and probably bought $2000 worth of gaming material. These players have not stopped gaming. They will continue to game and find other outlets potential gaming outlets (we're all junkies) for their money. I understand seeking new players and expanding the market, but to do so at the cost of losing a potentially large customer base due to arbitrary design issues does not seem like the best business sense.

It is quite expected that people that have devoted a large part of their lives to this game feel disenfranchised by this decision. My wife works in brand management. Their is a fine line between taking bold moves in knowing that your brand is strong enough to weather the change and being so different that you lose all the goodwill you have built with a sizable portion of your customer base.

 

[Minicol]

I have no time, no money, and no interest in the new edition, not even one hour to spend to go and get a look at it in the LGS. But... I would like to hear from others how smart I am to remain away from it.

This thread is for those who are disappointed, angry, whatever negative feeling they got about the 3 new books.

I would not answer this again, but since you are wrting from France ...

I have seen nothing in 4e previews that I find even remotely attractive.
None of the highlights appeal to me.
All of the bad points (nuking FR ... ) are actually repulsive to me.
I don't need it, as I have a group of players who share my views.
(edited reason)
There are plenty of other games that actually appeal to me and look far superior.
It looks like a giant battlemap with no goal.
The marketing was horrible and severely insulting, and I don't condone and reward this kind of "professionalism".
I don't want to learn the new system.

4 e is my nemesis.

 

[BryonD]

Fair enough. I'm a world-builder too, but I think 4e will do a fine job handling my long-running homebrew, CITY. Most setting elements look easier to model, a few look tougher, none seem particularly difficult.

If you see it that way then you need to start educating the 4e defenders who trumpet the virtues of "the rules are not physics" and "the rules apply to PCs differently" and "the rules shouldn't need to handle things that happen when the characters are not on stage."

Why did Mearls say it wouldn't appeal as much to world builders?

This double standard has repeated over and over. People praise 4e for cutting through so much stuff and then turn around and try to act like it has not cut through anything when the down sides are pointed out.

4E can not come close to providing the quality of model that I've been enjoying for years now.

How exactly? How is the 'skewing' --which stems from the need for an escalating of PC challenges-- any different in 4e than in the previous editions?

Please, there has been thread after thread praising this exact aspect of 4e. In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world. They are designed to function in a certain way, within certain mathematical constraints, during the limited time that they are on stage with the PCs. They are skewed into being only presented relative to PCs and they are skewed to having all their stats fit allowable ranges (right down to just saying that magic items over X limit just don't work) based purely on the meta concept of level.

This seems easier in 4e.

Wrong. The constraints on a creature based on level are much tighter than they were in 3E based on CR. When I was initially optimistic about 4e, the restrictions in place on monsters were the type thing I wanted to see cleared up. Instead they tightened the grip.

Note this is no different from a 1st level 3e character meeting a CR2 creature, then meeting the same one when they're level 12.

No. it isn't. In 3e the mechanics don't change.

This has always been the product of individual DM's and players creating their games. It's not fundamentally a rules/system issue.

That is just simply false. Some mechanics do a vastly superior job of modeling the way a world works than others. I could build a campaign setting for the game Descent. So at the very extreme minimal level, yeah, you can do it for any system. But the rules of Descent do not allow me the latitude to mechanically tie the setting elements to how the world works. 4E is much better than Descent and much worse than 3E for this. Both 4E and Descent are no where good enough for my expectations.

4E is streamlined and faster and easier. Those were design goals and they appeared to have achieved them. That people are trying to act like there was no trade off for these "gains" is laughable to me.

 

[BryonD]

D&D has always worked like this.

That is simply false.
The rules for PCs and NPCs have been completely the same in my games for many years.

Granted, it was somewhat true in editions prior to 3E. But, I left D&D for better games then as well. So I'm just being consistent.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't like it because I am a world builder.

I want a game that is about making a cool world and then using that world to build cool characters in it. 4E, to me, is exactly the opposite. 4E is about building the characters and skewing the rest of the world to fit those characters.

I want a world where a monster is imagined and designed to be exactly whatever the DM sees it as. Not a world where its attack bonus and AC are confined to a range to match its level. Not a world where a monster might be a soldier if you meet it one time and a minion if you meet it another.

I want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength simply make you stronger. Being stronger means being stronger and then you deal with balancing that in the game, or not bothering to balance it, as best fits what is fun to you at the time. I don't want a world where gauntlets of ogre strength are simply as close as you can get to "stronger" within the the math constraints for a encounter expected to include level X items. I don't want anything to be defined by balance. I want everything to be defined by what it is and then have balance work backward from there.

I want a world where magic missle isn't just the wizard's version of a longbow.

I want a game which makes a world where the characters don't matter at all, and then leave it up to the players, including the DM, to make characters that make themselves matter.

Oh, very well said, Sir. I agree 100%.

RC

 

[Creeping Death]

I've been using the great wheel since the 1ed Manual of the Planes. I love Planescape and use it a lot.

I liked some of the things that were added to 4ed, the idea behind minions, skill challenges, and such. But the changes they made to demons, devils, and the outerplanes totally turned me off. So much so, that I won't buy it. I'll look at the books at the book store, I'll even play it if someone lets me borrow a copy of a PHB to create a character, but I won't spend money on it.

I fully expect to be able to pick up 3.xed stuff for a bargain at my local stores or online if need be.

 

[SSquirrel]

Lets see..

1. Its still too soon IMO for a new edition. Theres plenty of material left that could have been done for 3.X before they even considered doing a new edition.

2. WotC have removed pretty much everything that made D&D "D&D." The whole feel of the game has gone.

3. 4th is aimed towards an audience that hasn't the faintist notion of interacting with other people over a tabletop - an audience where powergaming is a must in their WoW lives. This is not the audience that it should be directed at.

1.WotC was down to writing entire books about climate and still not doing a very good job w/them. I think 3.5 came too soon, but I skipped that entire edition so I'm fine w4E coming along now.

2.Obviously our mileage varies

3.(Removed answer)


I hate the insane competitiveness between the "sides" of the editions. I would much rather see people getting along and enjoying a new edition (or the old one), but that hasn't ever happened since they started creating new editions, so I won't hol my breath