4th edition!

[skywalker]

Yah, I have to say that at my gaming table, laptops make everything better, not worse. It requires a little more planning on the part of all participating, but there are very powerful tools around that can help tremendously. I think the online D&D will be great. Or are y'all talking about something different from what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the virtual table, or whatever. Which is just like PbP, but better.

As for laptops increasing table clutter, I have to say from experience, that that is not the case. You have the MM, the DMG, and the PHB all right in front of you, hyperlinked and speedy. Now, I am very proud of the fact that I can find a spell in the PHB before my DM can find it in the SRD, but that doesn't change the fact that having everything on computers speeds up the game tremendously. If I had access to a .pdf copy of Tome of Battle, I literally wouldn't need any books for the characters I like to play at all.

I also wonder what all this clamor is about them making some of the books "online only." This sounds like a wonderful business strategy to me. Has anyone else here ever bought an e-book? They're thrillingly cheap, mainly because a large part of the cost of a book you buy is from the printing. So lets see here, instead of spending time printing hardcover, full color tomes full of pictures, they'll publish it online as a .pdf and also not have to worry about errata and the like because there's nothing printed, they just go to the .pdf and change a few words, authorize customers who've already purchased to DL the new version, etc.

Again, they're switching to a format that reduces clutter on the bookshelf and table, saves trees and ink, drives cost down by skipping out on printing and shipping, meaning lower prices for the consumer, meaning they will sell more books, because when one of us used to say, "Ah, well, I'm really interested in MMV, but I'd rather eat for the rest of the month than buy it, plus I'd rather not drive all the way to borders just to see if they have it," we will instead be able to say, "Ah, well, I'm really interested in MMV, I suppose I'll download it and skip a couple rounds with the lads friday night."

I think publishing content online is a wonderful idea, and I'm actually really happy that Wizards is pursuing this method of distribution.

[horseboy]

I've been running games off of lap tops for the last two years or so. Great, you pull up a spread sheet for damage, pew, pew, pew, Bookmarks on PDFs are so nice.

[ray53208]

maybe im old fashioned, but i really hate reading books off of a computer screen. i love the printed page and honestly feel that even if it could be replaced that it should not be. i know im not alone in this.

i know tht pdfs are supposedly the wave of the future (and i have more than a few myself), but i have a buddy at a print shop make hard copies for me. i cannot abide laptops at the gaming table. i have a friend who does that and while it doesnt necessarily get in the way, it is annoying.

remember when gaming was done without computers? i mean the most you had was a calculator and a cassette player. you could play without the need to be near an outlet or in a good wifi area. perhaps its just nostalgia, and i fully accept the label of gamer-luddite.

my concern with the 4th edition is that the dollar came before the fan and that the new way of doing things will create an economic stratification of fans. times are hard for a lot of folks, sometimes the only bit of good times they get in a craptastic work week is around the old gaming table. for those of us the ideal game is NOT one that requires more of a cash investment to fully empliment.

[Green Bean]

maybe im old fashioned, but i really hate reading books off of a computer screen. i love the printed page and honestly feel that even if it could be replaced that it should not be. i know im not alone in this.

i know tht pdfs are supposedly the wave of the future (and i have more than a few myself), but i have a buddy at a print shop make hard copies for me. i cannot abide laptops at the gaming table. i have a friend who does that and while it doesnt necessarily get in the way, it is annoying.

remember when gaming was done without computers? i mean the most you had was a calculator and a cassette player. you could play without the need to be near an outlet or in a good wifi area. perhaps its just nostalgia, and i fully accept the label of gamer-luddite.

my concern with the 4th edition is that the dollar came before the fan and that the new way of doing things will create an economic stratification of fans. times are hard for a lot of folks, sometimes the only bit of good times they get in a craptastic work week is around the old gaming table. for those of us the ideal game is NOT one that requires more of a cash investment to fully empliment.

Well, the thing is, they're still going to publish the books. Downloading .pdf files of the rules will be cheaper, yes, but the books will still be available. You can still have an entirely dead tree-based session, and I seriously doubt the whole idea of five friends ordering pizza and having a game of DnD is going to die. The reason they're emphasizing their new computer stuff is it's new, and they want to show that off.

Besides, it doesn't seem like Internet connections are going to be required, at least any more than they are now. You can download updated electronic rule sets, but when you get down to it, that's just a fancier way of releasing errata. You can play online with that new service, but nothing is stopping you from doing it in person. Really, the service is there so people who don't have other players near them can still play. How many times have you heard some variation of "I have this great campaign idea, but there's no players where I am" or "I came up with this awesome character, but I can't find a DM who'll let me play him"?

The operative word of all of these new electronic upgrades seems to be 'can'. You can play on line with a bunch of strangers, and you can purchase your books as .pdfs.

[Were-Sandwich]

I must say after watching the presentation video, the online game table looks pretty awesome. It keeps track of all the light sources and stuff, and allows the DM to move stuff about in secret, which is always a lot of work in RL.

[Abardam]

Old logo > new logo in my opinion.

[ray53208]

i understand that they will still publish books, but dungeon and dragon magazines are a thing of the past. i do not believe the hobby is better for that. just because they can go online doesnt mean they should.

i understand the gamer tradition of getting around the table and having some fun wont be dying out any time soon. i didnt think that internet connections are required to play, but instead to get full functionality of the new edition. the additional cost of ten dollars a month for what used to be free (errata and updates) or available in a tangible, "dead tree", magazine form (dungeon and dragon magazines) you could read anywhere. i know this sounds wierd but: ten dollars a month is a reasonable price, right up until its not.

also, i found that "funny" teaser trailer video to be insulting and pedantic. i fully accept that i might lack a sense of humor and could be taking things too seriously. it had that "my-poop-doesnt-stink", smarmy, sarcastic feel that usually gets a person smacked.

and the idea of "streamlining", "speeding up" game play, ect, just sounds like dumbing it down to me. they might be moving away from role playing and closer to a board game.

the only thing i like (suprised that i liked something?) was the idea of being able to play with friends online. i have friends scattered across the country and we have been wondering if it were possible to play online around a virtual table. well, what we found out is that it is; but not cheaply, not everyones computer can do it, and not every rules set is compatable. face-to-face gaming is my preferred choice, but since we cant afford plane tickets every month... i still have my local group.

[Asaris]

This is what went out on the Living Greyhawk email list, for those curious about living campaigns:

Year of Change: The RPGA in 2008

As most of you reading this know, Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition was
announced at Gen Con Indy on this past Thursday evening. This means
great things for the game, and with that, big changes for the RPGA
and its programs. Ever since "The Announcement" , one of the hot
topics both at the convention and online has been "What does this
mean for the future?"

At our members' meeting this evening, Ian and I talked to the
assembled players, judges, and staff about the RPGA's future. Even
though many of you can't be with us, we felt it necessary to send out
the "official word" to you as soon as the meeting was concluded, so
you could have all the information in one place. Here we go!

Campaigns Concluding
Living Greyhawk has been the face of organized play for the 3rd
Edition D&D game. Tremendously successful, thousands participate
worldwide in the biggest shared-world D&D game anywhere. LG has been
around since the beginning of 3rd Edition, and it will last to the
end of the 3rd Edition product line. Starting with a two-round
special at D&D Experience 2008 (February 28 – March 2), the campaign
will begin its final story arc – a series of core adventures that
will build into the climactic two-round finale at Origins 2008. We're
pulling out all the stops in these final adventures – no major NPC is
off-limits, and you're really going to be a part of the most world-
affecting story arc we've ever done. We're getting some of the best
authors to ever write for Living Greyhawk to help with these
adventures – what the Circle has planned is nothing short of amazing.
While the campaign concludes at Origins next year, it is our
sincerest desire to provide you an epic conclusion to the campaign we
all love so much.

I know you want more specifics, now that the cat's out of the bag.
Regions will have up to 6 adventures next year – all of them will
premiere no later than June 30, 2008. Metaregions will have 4
adventures next year, with the same premiere deadline. All adventures
released in 2007 and 2008 will be playable until December 31, 2008.
We're also looking at increasing play opportunities for your
characters in 2008 so they have a better chance of reaching the goals
you've set for them. The two specials next year – the first and last
adventures in the final core story arc – will be available for all
conventions soon after they premiere at their respective shows. Many
more players will be able to enjoy all of the final adventures for
Living Greyhawk, as the specials come to their local shows.

More information on Living Greyhawk's conclusion will become
available in the next few weeks on the website.

Xen'drik Expeditions will also be concluding at Origins 2008. As the
D&D Campaigns programs use 2-year story arcs, the campaign pulls into
its last stop right on time. The Factionmasters have prepared a great
final story arc that really engages all of the factions into a final
two-round spectacular at Origins next year. Stormreach will never be
the same after it's over.

We also bid a fond farewell to Living Kingdoms of Kalamar in 2008. At
D&D Experience next year, LK will run its special finale adventures.
All other adventures will be playable through the RPGA until March
31, 2008.

So, with the existing campaigns ending, what will rise up to take
their place? Read on!

Campaigns Beginning
At D&D Experience 2008, you'll be able to get your first full-on play
of D&D 4th Edition in its final form. This will come in the form of
preview adventures for the next Living campaign – Living Forgotten
Realms! The most popular campaign setting for D&D finally gets its
turn as a regionalized Living campaign. If you like the system for
Living Greyhawk, you'll love what we have in store with Living
Forgotten Realms: more play opportunities for the average gamer,
fully supported online and offline play, and a greater shared-world
experience than we've ever done before with a Living campaign. Living
Forgotten Realms will be the first truly global Living campaign.

But we can't do it without your help! We're placing a call out for
administrators to help us on both a global and regional level.
Information on how you can help will be available in September on the
RPGA website. Global and regional administrators will get previews of
4th Edition material as they work to provide the most immersive game
experience you'll ever find in an organized play campaign.

D&D Experience 2008 is the place to be for exciting previews of the
new Living campaign; the campaign fully launches at Gen Con Indy 2008.

With Xen'drik Expeditions ending, a new D&D Campaigns program will
take its place. As it is scheduled to begin in late summer/fall 2008,
we can't yet announce what it will be, but it will improve upon the
success of Xen'drik. (Of course, we'll be looking for help with that
as well – once again, check on the website in a few weeks for more
info.)

More to Come!
As 2007 rolls on, we'll have a lot more to talk about regarding our
current programs, the upcoming programs mentioned above, and other
exciting new programs coming out in 2008 and beyond. There's still a
lot more information we want to get out to you, but we have to save
some of our goodies for a little later!

Thanks to everyone involved in the RPGA for making our organization
the success it is today. Stay with us, as it's going to get even
better.

Game On!

Ian Richards
Chris Tulach

[Aasimar]

Check out StarWars Saga edition. It's very very likely that it's being used as a test-bed for d&d 4th edition.

[ray53208]

Check out StarWars Saga edition. It's very very likely that it's being used as a test-bed for d&d 4th edition.

that would explain the need for errata and clarification that is rampant in the saga edition. instead of playtesting for free, why not make people pay 40 bucks and get all that precious info to boot in the deal?

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

4th edition? Horror of horrors! I haven't even bought all the books I need for 3.5 yet! It's not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:smallfurious:

[Eldpollard]

They say it's evolutionary not revolutionary. This makes me feel like it'll be 3.75 or something.

[Matthew]

2e to 3e was arguably evolutionary... in short, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from that particular statement.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I like what I've seen so far. A lot of what they're talking about for 4th Edition is stuff I normally house-rule in for 3rd Edition, or is similar to splat books I enjoy using. If they can just refine it all and make it work without me needing to make it all up on the fly, I'll be satisfied. I'm especially intruiged by the idea of different melee attacks for different weapons, all based on different stats. It's sort of like a more core-friendly interpretation of ToB.

[Aasimar]

that would explain the need for errata and clarification that is rampant in the saga edition. instead of playtesting for free, why not make people pay 40 bucks and get all that precious info to boot in the deal?

Well, yeah.

[Doc_Outlands]

But will it still be OGL-friendly or will it be proprietary mechanics?

[Doc_Outlands]

AND it seems they've obliterated all the 3.5 archived stuff from the website? That or I'm just blind and/or dense...

[Leto]

AND it seems they've obliterated all the 3.5 archived stuff from the website? That or I'm just blind and/or dense...

You're just blind. It's been archived.

[Doc_Outlands]

You're just blind. It's been archived.

Ah, ok. My fury has been (slightly) dampened.

Sooo - where's the archive?

[ray53208]

4th edition? Horror of horrors! I haven't even bought all the books I need for 3.5 yet! It's not fair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:smallfurious:

yeah, another things that chaps my hide is how they keep saying that things wont change in peoples campaigns in the near future and that there are still 3.5 products coming out... and that folks should buy them.

why? if the new star wars saga edition is an indicator at the changes to be made the game will be significantly different enough as to make the older books obsolete. oh, except for "flavor text". yeah... that was worth my 30 bucks a pop.

[Overlord]

What's striking to me about this discussion is that while I've seen multiple people , such as ray53208, who have taken a very anti-4th Edition stance, I've yet to see someone adopt a pro-4th Edition stance with equal intensity.

I've seen plenty of people ready to rant about the evils of 4th Edition, and many who give well-constructed criticisms of the flaws in the 4th Edition announcement. I've seen nobody ranting about how "4th Edition ROXXORS!!!" I've seen nobody giving a long, detailed, rational argument supporting Wizards' decision and praising the new edition.

The most I've seen from the pro-Wizards crowd is "What do you expect! Wizards is a company, and they need to make money!" Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of ranting. But when people start launching tirades, you can get a feel for how the...more reactionary consumers feel about this. Not necessarily the lowest common denominator, but definitely the vocal minority. There just doesn't seem to be any of that on the pro-Wizards side.

Now many of you, my fellow posters, have given rational arguments deflecting some of the criticism aimed toward Wizards. But all of your arguments seem to stem from a feeling of "Hey, now, let's be reasonable about this and give Wizards a chance," as opposed to "4th Edition really is going to be great!" And I think it's a noble goal, trying to make sure people keep an open mind about this. I'm sure trying to. But most of you, as well as the majority of the D&D community (myself included) have a mindset about this that can best be summed up as:

"Meh."

I'm definitely going to give Wizards a fair shot at this. But the fact is, sadly, my faith in the company has reached a new low.

[Zincorium]

Me, I'm excited for the possibility that it could be good. I'm eagerly looking forward to finding out.


The reason there's no "4th Edition is teh bomb!" speaches is simple:


We have no idea what it's going to be like.


Very difficult to have an opinion on something that was brought out as a surprise, has no solid info available, and is very important to the gaming community as a whole. Even though 3.5 and previous will still be around, for most intents and purposes 4th ed will be D&D.

[Skjaldbakka]

But most of you, as well as the majority of the D&D community (myself included) have a mindset about this that can best be summed up as:

"Meh."

My response:

Meh.

[horseboy]

The reason there's no "4th Edition is teh bomb!" speaches is simple:

We have no idea what it's going to be like.

Very difficult to have an opinion on something that was brought out as a surprise, has no solid info available, and is very important to the gaming community as a whole. Even though 3.5 and previous will still be around, for most intents and purposes 4th ed will be D&D.
Quoted for truth. Personally I'm completely ambivalent. The only reason I even played D&D was for Living Greyhawk, and with it gone, this is nothing more than a purely intellectual exercise.

[ray53208]

What's striking to me about this discussion is that while I've seen multiple people , such as ray53208, who have taken a very anti-4th Edition stance, I've yet to see someone adopt a pro-4th Edition stance with equal intensity.

I've seen plenty of people ready to rant about the evils of 4th Edition, and many who give well-constructed criticisms of the flaws in the 4th Edition announcement. I've seen nobody ranting about how "4th Edition ROXXORS!!!" I've seen nobody giving a long, detailed, rational argument supporting Wizards' decision and praising the new edition.

The most I've seen from the pro-Wizards crowd is "What do you expect! Wizards is a company, and they need to make money!" Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of ranting. But when people start launching tirades, you can get a feel for how the...more reactionary consumers feel about this. Not necessarily the lowest common denominator, but definitely the vocal minority. There just doesn't seem to be any of that on the pro-Wizards side.

Now many of you, my fellow posters, have given rational arguments deflecting some of the criticism aimed toward Wizards. But all of your arguments seem to stem from a feeling of "Hey, now, let's be reasonable about this and give Wizards a chance," as opposed to "4th Edition really is going to be great!" And I think it's a noble goal, trying to make sure people keep an open mind about this. I'm sure trying to. But most of you, as well as the majority of the D&D community (myself included) have a mindset about this that can best be summed up as:

"Meh."

I'm definitely going to give Wizards a fair shot at this. But the fact is, sadly, my faith in the company has reached a new low.

you know, ive been gaming for about 23 years. d&d was my first game. i loved it and through all its incarnations i held out against nay-sayers and critics. i think that i have given the game makers a fair shot. in the past ten years, specifically, i have gone along with all the changes and modifications with the feeling that it was to make the game better. i suppose i really believed it was for the love of the game.

this is the first time i feel it isnt about love of the game, or the fans. i wish i could remain as dispassionate as some folks are. i wish i could purchase this new edition and feel as if it was a necessary change and done because the company cares.

i can not accept the reasoning that the capitalistic paradigm of corporate america is just cause enough to make these changes. i realise this is the way it is, doesnt mean i think its the right thing to do.

i suppose the addage holds true that there is no hatred like that reserved for those whom you onced loved. betrayal is an ugly feeling and a powerful force to reckon with.

[Thinker]

you know, ive been gaming for about 23 years. d&d was my first game. i loved it and through all its incarnations i held out against nay-sayers and critics. i think that i have given the game makers a fair shot. in the past ten years, specifically, i have gone along with all the changes and modifications with the feeling that it was to make the game better. i suppose i really believed it was for the love of the game.

this is the first time i feel it isnt about love of the game, or the fans. i wish i could remain as dispassionate as some folks are. i wish i could purchase this new edition and feel as if it was a necessary change and done because the company cares.

i can not accept the reasoning that the capitalistic paradigm of corporate america is just cause enough to make these changes. i realise this is the way it is, doesnt mean i think its the right thing to do.

i suppose the addage holds true that there is no hatred like that reserved for those whom you onced loved. betrayal is an ugly feeling and a powerful force to reckon with.

A new edition is necessary. They have run out of material to provide new experiences for 3.5e. They have also come to realize their mistakes with that edition. To make a more balanced game they needed a new edition and this is it. Don't complain about it until you have seen it, just as I withhold my praise until I have seen it.

[Jack Mann]

Like Zinc said. It's hard to get really behind an unknown. Until we've seen 4th edition, we can't very well start cheering. We have to know what it's really going to be like. I mean, what do you expect us to say? "I don't know what it is, but I like it!" We're not going to get too gung-ho about it until we've seen the system and tried a game or two. At that point, you'll start to see 4e zealots making with the "4th edition is the bomb diggity roxxors my soxxors l33t 1f i wr1+3 l1k3 +h15, /\/\4yb3 50/\/\30n3 \/\/1ll l0v3 /\/\3." If it's good, you'll also see some more rational defenders.

That said, the changes they've presented so far are mostly things I agree with. I'm cautiously optimistic about the new edition.

[TheOOB]

I am very excited about what 4e has the potential to be. Many of the things they have mentioned sound quite fun, and considering WotCs track record, I'm quite optimistic about 4e.

I'm not ready to say it's the best thing ever, but I see no downside. If the game is good, it will be fun, if not I won't give WotC my money.

[Overlord]

Like Zinc said. It's hard to get really behind an unknown. Until we've seen 4th edition, we can't very well start cheering. We have to know what it's really going to be like. I mean, what do you expect us to say? "I don't know what it is, but I like it!" We're not going to get too gung-ho about it until we've seen the system and tried a game or two. At that point, you'll start to see 4e zealots making with the "4th edition is the bomb diggity roxxors my soxxors l33t 1f i wr1+3 l1k3 +h15, /\/\4yb3 50/\/\30n3 \/\/1ll l0v3 /\/\3." If it's good, you'll also see some more rational defenders.

That said, the changes they've presented so far are mostly things I agree with. I'm cautiously optimistic about the new edition.

The thing is, you and Zinc are speaking from the perspective of logical, reasonable people.

My point was, in summary, simply this: Wizards of the Coast has very few fanboys (or girls, or whatever the accepted term is).

It doesn't take much for people to blindly rally behind something. The fact that I haven't seen very many crazed fans going nuts for 4th Edition leads me to believe that either A: D&D gamers are almost all calm, rational fellows, or B: something is off with Wizards' levels of fan support, compared with what they had in previous years.

But it's probably just me. I'm sure that if either of those two notions are accurate, it's A. But again, that's just my gut reaction.

[Jack Mann]

Because of the breadth of Wizards' catalog, it's hard to find a fanboy specifically for the company, since few people are going to be interested in all aspects of the company. People are more likely to align themselves with specific brands rather than the company as a whole. So, you can find Magic: the Gathering fanboys (just go to my local gaming store on Saturday night), D&D 3.5 fanboys (who are now up in arms), and fanboys for other products from Wizards of the Coast. However, 4.5 is so new that you're unlikely to find any fanboys for it yet, for the reasons mentioned.

In other words, you don't see Wizards of the Coast fanboys for the same reason you don't see many Hasbro fanboys.

[ray53208]

A new edition is necessary. They have run out of material to provide new experiences for 3.5e. They have also come to realize their mistakes with that edition. To make a more balanced game they needed a new edition and this is it. Don't complain about it until you have seen it, just as I withhold my praise until I have seen it.

i just dont buy this somewhat revisionist idea that the game was broken and unbalanced all along and needed "fixing". the game, as it was, was an evolving mechanic. a new edition wasnt necessary to repair any "problems". the only problem was hasbro wanted more money.

you know what? i fully accept that its fully within thier rights to do whatever they want with the product they own. my point has been again and again that just because something is possible, doesnt make it the right thing to do. i reserve the right to remain critical of the way it is being done and to voice my sense of betrayal.

we might have had a significant glimpse at the 4th edition. the star wars saga edition seems to be more than a little taste of whats to come. why did i accept the change in the star wars mechanic? because the rules before the change were a messy mismash of 3 and 3.5 ideas, it was a smaller brand, and d20 (as it was) wasnt ideal to represent the star wars galaxy. the change represented a less restrictive shift for a highly cinematic setting. the saga edition is better... FOR STAR WARS.

im not sure its a matter of being a hasbro, or wotc, "fanboy". its about being a fan of d&d.

[Charity]

http://www.seibertron.com/images/scoobydoo.jpg

[Arlanthe]

this is the first time i feel it isnt about love of the game, or the fans. i wish i could remain as dispassionate as some folks are.

I concur. I'm on board with you, and am not very happy about this. If things were borken they could have been "fixed" in 3.5. This is a money grab.

[Ulzgoroth]

Well, with the new 3.5 facts thread, I'm sold on 4.0 being unworthy of even a PHB purchase. This (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3) tells me that WoTC's idea of basic logic is toxic to mine. 'Oh, no, I'm not like those other minotaurs. They're monster minotaurs, for DM use only. I'm a PC minotaur, intended to have a minotaur feel without being at all the same as a real one.'

BURN

[Zincorium]

The funny thing to me is, all the things they're doing, I like.

There, said it.

If it pisses you all off that they decided to actually change things in a BRAND NEW EDITION, well, that sucks for you. If you actually play 3.5, have fun with it, there's more than enough stuff to last you for a large part of your gaming career, considering the wealth of 3rd party supplements (which apparently unlike wotc aren't there to get money for the people who make them).

But you know what?

The only way you can vote is with the dollar. If you don't want to pay for a new edition, they're not going to make an effort to please you. If you think there's enough of you, boycott. But it's not going to help you in the slightest, because wotc is going to be finished with 3rd ed, and they're not going to start back up again.

[Ulzgoroth]

...and if you think you can vote with a dollar, you grossly overestimate their ability to measure your votes. Even if they're interested in adapting 4th ed based on feedback they get now, there's no way they'll be able to read the mass opinion one way or the other.

However, it's nice to see someone can be smug about the blind leviathan lurching in his direction of choice.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I concur. I'm on board with you, and am not very happy about this. If things were borken they could have been "fixed" in 3.5. This is a money grab.

So how do they fix it? It seems that everyone thinks class balance is the biggest problem. Fixing this would involve a rewrite of the base classes. This would mean that alot of prestige classes may not behave the way they want them to (since they were designed with a certain type of 'fighter' or 'wizard' in mind that no longer exists). There's more revisioning. Then there are monsters, which were designed according to PC power standards that no longer exist. So now this entails a rewrite of the core books. 'Fixing' it is pretty much releasing 4th ed. (would you feel better if they said that instead of 4th ed it was 3.75?).

[Zincorium]

...and if you think you can vote with a dollar, you grossly overestimate their ability to measure your votes. Even if they're interested in adapting 4th ed based on feedback they get now, there's no way they'll be able to read the mass opinion one way or the other.

However, it's nice to see someone can be smug about the blind leviathan lurching in his direction of choice.

You're kind of missing the point of what I said.

You can't change anything about what WotC is making if you're not going to buy what is good. You can only stop them from making anything at all by driving them into bankruptcy.

And it's weird how many people have decided that 4th edition is being churned up in a vat somewhere in the former soviet union by cthulhu's servants.

It's made by people who liked games enough they decided to make it their career. They're playtesting it. They're taking audience feedback according to what they've said, and they're active on their forums.

Anything that's in there is there because somebody liked it when they played it. The fact that their taste is not yours doesn't mean they're a mindless slave to the machine. And I'm pretty sure they're insulted when they read comments like that.

[Dausuul]

...and if you think you can vote with a dollar, you grossly overestimate their ability to measure your votes. Even if they're interested in adapting 4th ed based on feedback they get now, there's no way they'll be able to read the mass opinion one way or the other.

However, it's nice to see someone can be smug about the blind leviathan lurching in his direction of choice.

WotC is trying to improve their product. Sure, they want to make money, but the way you make money in any business is to make something people want to buy. Everything I've heard about 4E suggests that it will be a dramatic improvement over 3.5E, which has (in my view) serious fundamental flaws, far beyond what could be fixed by releasing splatbooks and errata.

If WotC is the "blind leviathan" you make them out to be, then they must be uncommonly lucky to be lurching so consistently in the direction I and all of my gaming friends want to see them go.


What's striking to me about this discussion is that while I've seen multiple people , such as ray53208, who have taken a very anti-4th Edition stance, I've yet to see someone adopt a pro-4th Edition stance with equal intensity.

*shrug* It's pretty simple, really. On the anti-4E side, the arguments tend to revolve around "3E is perfect the way it is!" and "I don't want to have to buy more books!" Both of these are based on things people know firsthand. If you think 3E is perfect the way it is, you don't need to know anything about 4E to know it can't be an improvement (from your perspective).

On the pro-4E side, we can only guess about what's coming based on the statements WotC has given. We haven't seen 4E itself yet. Hard to get that psyched about something you haven't seen.

And then, too, people on Internet forums get a lot more worked up about stuff they hate than about stuff they love.

[Tormsskull]

And it's weird how many people have decided that 4th edition is being churned up in a vat somewhere in the former soviet union by cthulhu's servants.


Past experience / a bad reputation tends to leave the customers with that impression.



It's made by people who liked games enough they decided to make it their career. They're playtesting it. They're taking audience feedback according to what they've said, and they're active on their forums.


At this stage I would think that most all of what is 4th edition is already largely decided, otherwise they would have waited longer to announce it. What the average D&D player as a whole has to hope for is that when they said that they listened to what the community had to say when they were designing 4th edition, that they actually did that.

Honestly, from what I see about 4th edition, I'm looking forward to it. Fighters getting more versatality? Check. Spellcasters not running out of spells and becoming impromptu archers? Check. Computer tools to help DMs prepare for their games/facilitate easier online games? Check.



Anything that's in there is there because somebody liked it when they played it. The fact that their taste is not yours doesn't mean they're a mindless slave to the machine. And I'm pretty sure they're insulted when they read comments like that.

Depending on what you mean by "taste", I'd respond to this in a few different ways. If you mean that if they decide to make wizards primary blasters for example, and make battlefield control spells much weaker, then some people will like that and some will dislike that. If they choose to do that, then I'm fine with it.

If you mean they all sit around and say "Well, we're selling this product to our consumers, and they all really want X, but that's not to our taste so we're going to do Y", then not only is that a bad business decision, but I don't think most gamers would care about the designer's taste then.



If WotC is the "blind leviathan" you make them out to be, then they must be uncommonly lucky to be lurching so consistently in the direction I and all of my gaming friends want to see them go.


No offense Dausuul, but if WotC consistently go in the direction that you want them to go, then I'd assume that you are either incredibly easy to please, or just have a very passive, "go with the flow" attitude associated with followers.

Most players who see a new edition come out and then buy it will like a portion of it, and dislike a portion of it, that's natural. If they like a larger portion than they dislike, they'll adopt it and either reconcile their differences through house rules / interpretations, or just plain accept it. And that's also totally natural.

Anyone who says that the latest thing is exactly what they were looking for pings on my spider sense.

[nagora]

So how do they fix it? It seems that everyone thinks class balance is the biggest problem. Fixing this would involve a rewrite of the base classes.

No, actually that's the easiest thing in the world to fix: simply give each class an XP ladder that reflect the power of the class, just as was done pre-3ed. Problem fixed.

[Nota Biene]

In other news, wizards will be able to cast 25 level spells. Given that there will be 30 levels, is it possible wizards will get a new spell almost every level? Or is wizards hinting at some way to increase the "level" of a spell for mechanical purposes (i.e, similar to circle magic in Forgotten Realms.)

Is it for the powergamers, or a revolutionary innovation?

Discuss!:smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

As I have said elsewhere, my guess would be Saga style:

1/2 Character Level + Trained (5) + Focused (5)

Which would mean 25 Spell Levels over 30 Levels. It also means much smaller increments by level (which is apparently a 4e game design aim) and means that Level 1 Characters will appear more viable (also apparently a 4e design aim). Just a guess, though. It would make much better sense to have 30 Spell Levels over 30 Character Levels, but then you would have the same old Multi Class problems (which is also something Wizards are attempting to 'fix').

[SpikeFightwicky]

No, actually that's the easiest thing in the world to fix: simply give each class an XP ladder that reflect the power of the class, just as was done pre-3ed. Problem fixed.

Personally, I'd feel better if they worked more on class balance (without regard to XP) than balance through XP. It's basically like saying 'Yeah, we know fighters suck, but don't worry, you'll get your bonus feats faster'. I'd prefer a 'Yeah, we knew fighters sucked, but now we've improved them so that at any given level, they're alot more useful than before'.

Another thing that I'm not sure has been mentioned yet:
3rd ed. was released in 2000, which meant that it was likely developed in 98-99. There wasn't much of an online community back in those days (relative to nowadays). As such, they've had alot more player feedback for this version than any previous version out there. Hopefully they'll put it to good use.

[nagora]

Personally, I'd feel better if they worked more on class balance (without regard to XP) than balance through XP.

I know many would but the counter-argument is: it's impossible.

There's too many variables to class balance without different XP ladders for different classes. Nor do I think it really makes any sense. Why shouldn't a fighter go up levels faster than a wizard, really?

Well, it hardly matters now. The results are in and WotC have reaffirmed their commitment to Monty Hall and all that he stands for.

[Dausuul]

No offense Dausuul, but if WotC consistently go in the direction that you want them to go, then I'd assume that you are either incredibly easy to please, or just have a very passive, "go with the flow" attitude associated with followers.

Or, perhaps, the 4E designers and I have similar priorities in game design.

I'm certainly not super-easy to please. I have plenty of beefs with 3.5E, which typically results in a list of house rules as long as your arm whenever I run a game. I'm sure I'll find things to dislike about 4E, too, when it comes out. But the vast majority of the changes I'm hearing are things I've been wanting for years, or would have wanted if I'd thought of them.

As far as the "consistently" thing, bear in mind that I was drawing a contrast with what another poster was describing as the lurching of a blind leviathan, and attempting to illustrate how this lurching was not in fact blind. I wasn't trying to say 4E was going to be perfect.


No, actually that's the easiest thing in the world to fix: simply give each class an XP ladder that reflect the power of the class, just as was done pre-3ed. Problem fixed.

Which requires that you know how powerful the class is at each level. And if you know that, you can balance it without resorting to different XP ladders.

I've never understood why "different XP tables" is touted as a solution to class balance problems. It's not a magic fix for all that ails the class system, it's just another balancing technique, and a clunky one at that. You can get exactly the same results by increasing or decreasing the power of the classes at various levels while keeping their progression the same.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I know many would but the counter-argument is: it's impossible.

That's pretty much my thought, but WotC does seem to think they've accomplished it, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Other than banishing Ravenloft to 3rd party licensing (don't get me wrong, I like what S&S did, but the lack of 1st party support like published adventures, and online tie-ins sucks), they haven't done anything to make me lose all my faith.


There's too many variables to class balance without different XP ladders for different classes. Nor do I think it really makes any sense. Why shouldn't a fighter go up levels faster than a wizard, really?

Well, it hardly matters now. The results are in and WotC have reaffirmed their commitment to Monty Hall and all that he stands for.

I guess time will tell. What if 4th ed. ends up being a major boost for the system? They can't please everybody (some people still play 1st and 2nd ed., and I'm sure there will still be some 3.0/3.5 players out there long after 4th ed. is released), but if the majority likes it more than 3rd ed., it can't be all that bad.

[Kibegami Jubei]

I refuse to believe in 4th edition. I just got done getting all the books I need to run a game in 3.5! I'm a 1st time DM and don't really want to try to figure out a whole new set of rules. I'm getting to old for this stuff.

[Matthew]

This appears to be a new Article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a

I'm not impressed, I also hate this:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070816b_drdd_2med.jpg

[Morty]

This appears to be a new Article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a

Nothin new, nothing interesting. All those things were already obvious. Martial classes are better than average swordguys because of their intense training and natural toughness. Yeah, we didn't know that.

[Matthew]

Just confirmation, which I think is interesting, even if I don't like it much.

[Ulzgoroth]

WotC is trying to improve their product. Sure, they want to make money, but the way you make money in any business is to make something people want to buy. Everything I've heard about 4E suggests that it will be a dramatic improvement over 3.5E, which has (in my view) serious fundamental flaws, far beyond what could be fixed by releasing splatbooks and errata.
I agree that 3.5 is dramatically flawed. Until I ran into the post that I mentioned, I was cautiously hopeful for 4th. That made me give up hope that they won't unconcernedly sacrifice everything I, personally, consider essential in favor of other factors. That really only makes a trivial difference to them, though. I'm one person, I understand they have no reason to be asking my opinion.

If WotC is the "blind leviathan" you make them out to be, then they must be uncommonly lucky to be lurching so consistently in the direction I and all of my gaming friends want to see them go.
I'd say, rather, that you and your friends are uncommonly (or perhaps only commonly) lucky to agree with the decisions their new designers have made. They certainly are trying to make the game better and/or better-selling. But for all that they have more feedback than ever before, and probably better, they're still ultimately picking something and running with it. It'll make some people more happy, some people less, and at least in someone's marketing projections land at a more popular equilibrium than 3.5. Measuring that last accurately will be tricky at best after they've set down their endpoint. Thus, they're wandering (with fairly good intentions) in the dark. Or the shadowy illumination, at best.

[Techonce]

My thoughts.... if anyone cares.

My group will not be moving towards 4th edition. Heck with members of my group having children (including me), we may not even be playing by next May.

I've spent alot of money on 3.0 and 3.5 books and have alot of material to run games for many years, along with material from the now dead Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Will 4th Edition fix some things. Probably. Will it mess up others. I'm sure it will do that as well. I'll look over what material I can get ahold of, and incorporate it into my game if it works, but unless WotC starts handing out free books, we are one group that will not switch and money is the big reason.

4 players + 1 DM =

4 PHB's (My wife and I share)
1 DMG
1 MM
-----
6 books * $30 = $180.

Plus throw in 4-5 additional books to add mroe rules to clarify and add new options and you have about $400 that doesn't ahve to be spent if we stick with 3.5. Also no massive amount of new rules to learn as well.

my 3 cents (darn that inflation!)

[Techonce]

My thoughts.... if anyone cares.

My group will not be moving towards 4th edition. Heck with members of my group having children (including me), we may not even be playing by next May.

I've spent alot of money on 3.0 and 3.5 books and have alot of material to run games for many years, along with material from the now dead Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Will 4th Edition fix some things. Probably. Will it mess up others. I'm sure it will do that as well. I'll look over what material I can get ahold of, and incorporate it into my game if it works, but unless WotC starts handing out free books, we are one group that will not switch and money is the big reason.

4 players + 1 DM =

4 PHB's (My wife and I share)
1 DMG
1 MM
-----
6 books * $30 = $180.

Plus throw in 4-5 additional books to add mroe rules to clarify and add new options and you have about $400 that doesn't ahve to be spent if we stick with 3.5. Also no massive amount of new rules to learn as well.

my 3 cents (darn that inflation!)

[Techonce]

My thoughts.... if anyone cares.

My group will not be moving towards 4th edition. Heck with members of my group having children (including me), we may not even be playing by next May.

I've spent alot of money on 3.0 and 3.5 books and have alot of material to run games for many years, along with material from the now dead Dragon and Dungeon magazines.

Will 4th Edition fix some things. Probably. Will it mess up others. I'm sure it will do that as well. I'll look over what material I can get ahold of, and incorporate it into my game if it works, but unless WotC starts handing out free books, we are one group that will not switch and money is the big reason.

4 players + 1 DM =

4 PHB's (My wife and I share)
1 DMG
1 MM
-----
6 books * $30 = $180.

Plus throw in 4-5 additional books to add mroe rules to clarify and add new options and you have about $400 that doesn't ahve to be spent if we stick with 3.5. Also no massive amount of new rules to learn as well.

my 3 cents (darn that inflation!)

[Attilargh]

I also hate this:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070816b_drdd_2med.jpg
Me too. The only remotely bearable is the one-edged sword, and that's just because it reminds me of Asheth Magnus's Foecleaver from Iron Kingdoms.

The article is remarkably devoid of any actual content. The part about rogues makes me think of the Talent system of Saga (Yay! :smallsmile: ), but I'm not quite certain how that meshes with the fighters' weapon-specific stuff. Maybe the Talents let them access the styles of different weapons?

Meh, I want some actual information, with less poor artwork.

[Hurlbut]

This appears to be a new Article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a

I'm not impressed, I also hate this:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/4e/20070816b_drdd_2med.jpgIf you're not a dwarf, don't look at that art. They appeared to be very much stylized for dwarves.

[Rayek]

A new edition is necessary. They have run out of material to provide new experiences for 3.5e. They have also come to realize their mistakes with that edition. To make a more balanced game they needed a new edition and this is it. Don't complain about it until you have seen it, just as I withhold my praise until I have seen it.

Judging by many of the more the recent 3.5 books I've used (I can try before I buys, thanks to a public library that has almost all things D&D), I agree that they're running out of new material. I would not be shocked if more than 50% of the reason for 4e is this. We have how many years worth of 3.0/3.5 Splat Books that can now be recycled for 4e? At least enough to get Wizards' R&D department through the next few without breaking a sweat.

Now, could the current system stand a little cleaning up? Sure. Would having an integrated online component be really fun and handy? Probably. Can both be done without creating a new edition? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a professional game designer (although that would be neat gig to have), so I'm not an authority. Maybe the only way to do what they wanted to do with the game, was to rebuilt it. However, has anyone come out and actually said that yet? From what I've read, it's been inferred, but no one has said flatly "we had to rewrite it, because it was the only way to accomplish what we wanted." Maybe they have at this point. If so, can someone please post a link to the article?

If memory serves, part of the explanation for 2nd edition in '89, was that 1e had too many contradictory rules scattered across too many books. 2e was supposed to clean up the rules and consolidate them into new core books. It actually did a pretty good job of it. Unfortunately, it didn't stop there. Over the next few years, tons of 2e books were released and the new system became even more bloated and confusing than the one it had replaced.

I feel that we're seeing the same thing here. 4e is supposed to fix the broken rules in 3.5 and streamline a bloated system. In a few years; however, I won't be surprised if 4e has developed as many or more issues than 3.5 had. Then they'll announce that 5e is here to fix 4e. I really, really hope I'm wrong, but the precedent was set years ago.

[Overlord]

Zinc, I think we can agree that if anything is wrong with this edition of D&D, or with the company that makes it, it's not the designers' fault.

Some of those guys have been around since the really early days of TSR. We know they're good. If one looked at a list of Wizards designers, picked a random name random from the list, and examined their resume, you would find at least one product that most of them each made that you think is awesome.

No, the problem with Wizards is Hasbro. Hasbro, and the other economic forces that drive the company. I'm sure those designers are being pulled every which way by Wizards to get them to crank out the next product. In fact, I would be surprised if very many of them actually appreciate the new products they are being forced to work on. They just take whatever project they're assigned, and do their best to make something good out of it.

Why do I think things are going poorly?

Let's consider one of the oldest video game companies in history: Atari.

In the early days of Atari, the company consisted of a few dozen men (and, I think, a few women). They had an extremely...casual work environment. They would sit around and just brainstorm for days, frequently while high (not that that was a good thing). They didn't really have as many of the "big company" concerns and pressures that all of the video game development companies have today. And you know what? They made some great games. But, when Atari got bought by Warner, that casual environment dissapeared. They, under corporate pressures, began producing titles faster, and began making worse and worse games. Eventually, after such fiascos as E.T. the videogame, and the Atari 7800, the company was sold by Warner. And the ironic thing is, if Atari hadn't been sold to a larger company, they never would have been able to acheive the degree of market penetration that they did. The company wouldn't have been able to grow without the large corporation.

That's how I think it is with TSR, and now Wizards under Hasbro's management. Except the sad thing is, unlike Atari, which was sold at their height, TSR waited until they were mired in debt and on the verge of oblivion when they were bought by Wizards.

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

Um, If I can be so bold, isn't ANYTHING a company makes a money grab? I mean, unless you guys live around businesses that try not make money...somehow...

[Tormsskull]

Um, If I can be so bold, isn't ANYTHING a company makes a money grab? I mean, unless you guys live around businesses that try not make money...somehow...

In a word: No. Most people are happy to spend money on things that they enjoy. A "money grab" IMO would be when something isn't needed, but the company knows they could make more money out of it. As an example, if J.K Rowling's publisher convinced her to write another book that she really didn't want to write about Harry Potter, it would likely be considered a money grab.

When car companies announce that they are retiring a model (camaro, firebird) and then a bunch of people rush out to buy the "last" model of that car, only to have that model be revived three years later, that could be described as a money grab.


Plain and simple, if a company makes a good product, customers are going to purchase it. If a company makes an intentionally-flawed product with the intent of selling you the "fix" a few years later, that's a money grab.

[Kibegami Jubei]

The good thing about sticking with 3.5, is all the books will be significantly cheaper!!! YAY 4th Edition!

[Attilargh]

I feel that we're seeing the same thing here. 4e is supposed to fix the broken rules in 3.5 and streamline a bloated system. In a few years; however, I won't be surprised if 4e has developed as many or more issues than 3.5 had. Then they'll announce that 5e is here to fix 4e. I really, really hope I'm wrong, but the precedent was set years ago.
It's called "rules creep", and I think it's a perfectly normal part of a game's life cycle. It happens slowly every time new mechanics are introduced, some of which might not be quite perfect or work with other new mechanics quite as intended. Some games combat it by avoiding changes that affect the existing stuff. An army list for a miniature wargame might never be expanded, but new, self-contained lists would be introduced. It doesn't solve the problem, but slows it down somewhat.

[nagora]

This appears to be a new Article: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070820a


That's interesting. They've managed to sum up bad roleplaynig for us and put it in an article:



“I’m playing a 3rd-level human fighter named Graelar.”

“Cool. Is he weapon and shield or two-hander?”

“He’s sword and board, man.”

“Longsword?”

“Yeah. I thought about going high Con and using a hammer, but I wanted to start with the chance to make a couple of attacks, so I’m using rain of blows as my good weapon attack, and I went with high Wis so that I can switch to the better oppy powers later.”

If that's the sort of cretin they're viewing as their target audience there's no hope for the game at all.

[Tormsskull]

If that's the sort of cretin they're viewing as their target audience there's no hope for the game at all.

That's inevitable. Its been that way since WotC took over. Gotta market to who's buying the products (prominently younger males), and appeal to their tastes (The WOW generation so to speak).

[Rob Knotts]

Probably the most ironic developer statement to date, revealing reasons for both why a new edition is needed, and why D&D fans are suspicious of another new edition:
Mike Mearls (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13460104&postcount=3)

BTW, who knew that so many people disliked Vancian spellcasting? The entire audience in yesterday's seminar cheered and clapped when we told them it was (mostly) gone.Who knew? How about: anybody who's played D&D in the last 2 decades?

[mudbunny]

That's interesting. They've managed to sum up bad roleplaynig for us and put it in an article:



If that's the sort of cretin they're viewing as their target audience there's no hope for the game at all.

That article you quoted isn't even roleplaying, so I don't know why you characterized it as such.

It is a discussion between two players what type of fighter one is playing.

Now if it had gone

“I’m a 3rd-level human fighter.”

“Cool. Are you weapon and shield or two-hander?”

“I am sword and board, man.”

“Longsword?”

“Yeah. I thought about going high Con and using a hammer, but I wanted to start with the chance to make a couple of attacks, so I’m using rain of blows as my good weapon attack, and I went with high Wis so that I can switch to the better oppy powers later.”

That is bad roleplaying.

[Matthew]

Question
"WotC_ScottR, a lot of gaming groups have one person buy a book, and then many players using the book. I understand that only one account (attached to the person who buys the book) will have access the online digital version of the book, but will there be a way for players to populate the database attached to their online accounts with rules from a book that they did not personally buy?

If not, are you saying the only way for a group of 5 people to use the options of one book with the DI database is for all 5 people to buy the hardcopy of the book?"

Originally Posted by WotC_ScottR
yes.
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
(and I try not to use Smileys)

Taken from: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908272

[Rob Knotts]

If not, are you saying the only way for a group of 5 people to use the options of one book with the DI database is for all 5 people to buy the hardcopy of the book?That's not unusual now. I buy all the books for my own game group, but every time I attend a public game at a store or a convention, most, if not all the other players bring thier own copies of at least the basic books (not to mention supplements they want to bully the DM into allowing).

Besides, if I'm running a game in person and not using the "virtual tabletop" they have planned, I don't want any of the players to have laptops (or even cell phones) at the table. Let them play WoW on thier own time.

[horseboy]

Wooo. Triple post. ^

Zinc, I think we can agree that if anything is wrong with this edition of D&D, or with the company that makes it, it's not the designers' fault.

Some of those guys have been around since the really early days of TSR. We know they're good. If one looked at a list of Wizards designers, picked a random name random from the list, and examined their resume, you would find at least one product that most of them each made that you think is awesome.

No, the problem with Wizards is Hasbro. Hasbro, and the other economic forces that drive the company. I'm sure those designers are being pulled every which way by Wizards to get them to crank out the next product. In fact, I would be surprised if very many of them actually appreciate the new products they are being forced to work on. They just take whatever project they're assigned, and do their best to make something good out of it.

I know it wasn't aimed at me, but I would have to totally disagree with this. CoDzilla, Batman, "worthless" fighters, Polymorph, glittercheese and all the rest of the broken spells, are not the fault of Hasbro. Hasbro doesn't care one whit about game mechanics. Those faults lie solely on the heads of the developers. They created a slip-shod product that Hasbro has had to "make do" with.

[SpikeFightwicky]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
(and I try not to use Smileys)

Taken from: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=908272

Which part is he saying yes to? That wasn't a really helpful answer...

It's like asking:
Q: "Will 3.5 be directly compatible with 4.0? If not, will there be conversion guides to help speed up the conversion process"

A: "Yes"

[Rayek]

Question
"WotC_ScottR, a lot of gaming groups have one person buy a book, and then many players using the book. I understand that only one account (attached to the person who buys the book) will have access the online digital version of the book, but will there be a way for players to populate the database attached to their online accounts with rules from a book that they did not personally buy?

If not, are you saying the only way for a group of 5 people to use the options of one book with the DI database is for all 5 people to buy the hardcopy of the book?"

Originally Posted by WotC_ScottR
yes.


From a business standpoint, they don't want people sharing books (the horror of it all). To sell as many books as they can, it actually makes sense to make sharing them with other people as hard as possible. I ran into this with a 'Self Help' book (that shall remain nameless) I had to read for work. The only way to get the most out of the book, was to take the online test that went with it. To take the test, you had to provide the unique code that was printed inside the cover. Once you took the test, that was it. The code could never be used again. If a friend wanted to take the test, they had to go buy a copy of the book for themselves. It was quite the coup for the publisher. Our company bought 2,000+ copies of the book so every employee could have one. Me thinks someone was friends with the author.:smallwink:

[nagora]

Zinc, I think we can agree that if anything is wrong with this edition of D&D, or with the company that makes it, it's not the designers' fault.

That's an interesting angle.


Some of those guys have been around since the really early days of TSR.

So has herpes.


We know they're good.

"By their works shall ye know them". They are not good. Past non-D&D projects are of no interest, although people like Tweet clearly wanted D&D to look more like Ars Magica than D&D and it perhaps explains some of the design blunders.

I agree with the rest of your post in outline but no one forced these guys to make a mess of AD&D - they chose to do it. Taking a paycheque is a reason but it's no excuse.

Yes, it is possible to make more money by appealing to children with disposable income with Yu-Gi-Oh! level masturbatory power-up mechanics but I have no obligation to assume that

MAKING MORE MONEY=IMPROVED DESIGN.

by that logic, Mozart was a rubbish composer and Rupert Murdoch the new messiah.

[ray53208]

Plain and simple, if a company makes a good product, customers are going to purchase it. If a company makes an intentionally-flawed product with the intent of selling you the "fix" a few years later, that's a money grab.

incidentally, you guys do realise that the saga edition had nearly 20 pages of errata and clarifications within the first month of publication, right? methinks i see a revised edition on the horizon for another 40 bucks...

money grab indeed.

[Overlord]

I know it wasn't aimed at me, but I would have to totally disagree with this. CoDzilla, Batman, "worthless" fighters, Polymorph, glittercheese and all the rest of the broken spells, are not the fault of Hasbro. Hasbro doesn't care one whit about game mechanics. Those faults lie solely on the heads of the developers. They created a slip-shod product that Hasbro has had to "make do" with.

Okay, I made an error when typing my post: I wasn't clear which edition I meant when I said "this edition." I meant 4th edition, and I was mostly referring to the "money grab" aspect and MMORPG-ification, and not the rules issues that might occur in 4th Edition. And I wasn't referring to 3.5.

Yes, most of the errors in 3.5 are indeed the fault of the designers. I think that the designers could do better--and many of them have done better, when working on 2nd Edition AD&D. Many of these guys have done awesome work on AD&D, not other stuff as nagora was suggesting. If you want me to prove it or something, I can point out some wikipedia articles detailing stuff that current Wizards designers have made. Here's a hint: it's better than the stuff they're making now.

And why is that? Well, you're suggesting it's simply due to their own laziness. You're also posing the other side of the chicken-and-the-egg question I gave. Are the designers making worse material because they're being placed under undue pressure by Hasbro, or is Hasbro having to put up with weaker material because the designers are incompetent.

The world may never know exactly which one is correct, but I tend to believe the first is more accurate. Why? Two reasons:


As I had said, many of those designers have serious TSR experience under their belts. They didn't suddenly become lazy slobs when they started working on 3rd Edition..which happened immediately after Wizards bought TSR. Now, I don't think that 3rd Edition was that terrible in terms of balance. And AD&D wasn't exactly a paragon of well-crafted game balance either. But those guys helped craft the foundations of the modern game. The only thing Hasbro has ever done for me is produce a few toys. That's why I tend to side with the designers.
[Although you already noted this, I'll say it anyway.] If Hasbro was really having to put up with poor design, do you really think they would keep those designers? No! They would kick 'em to the curb and go hire some guys from third-party companies who seem to know what they're doing. If you look at Paizo's work, it totally outclasses Wizards. There's gotta be a reason for that. That reason is either A: They're flat-out better designers than Wizards employees, B: Paizo maintains a superior working environment for RPG designers, or C: Both.


Really, I don't doubt the possibility that the current designers at Wizards simply stink. But at the moment, I see no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt. They aren't oblivious to the ire of the gaming community.

[TSGames]

After reading some of the facts about the 4.0 release, my first thought was "Yay! Almost completely non-backwards-compatible!"

[horseboy]

Okay, I made an error when typing my post: I wasn't clear which edition I meant when I said "this edition." I meant 4th edition, and I was mostly referring to the "money grab" aspect and MMORPG-ification, and not the rules issues that might occur in 4th Edition. And I wasn't referring to 3.5.

Yes, most of the errors in 3.5 are indeed the fault of the designers. I think that the designers could do better--and many of them have done better, when working on 2nd Edition AD&D. Many of these guys have done awesome work on AD&D, not other stuff as nagora was suggesting. If you want me to prove it or something, I can point out some wikipedia articles detailing stuff that current Wizards designers have made. Here's a hint: it's better than the stuff they're making now.

Yes, and $ellouticA (http://members.tripod.com/~gravyboat/meTallica/meTallica.html) used to rock. But as far as their "old stuff" being better than the new, that wouldn't be hard. You can smear a stick in dog doo and set it on fire and it would be better than 3.X. (After all chasing trespassers with flaming dog doo is kinda fun.:smallbiggrin: ) But seriously, unless they worked for ICE or FASA or something I'm probably not going to be impressed.

[Pokemaster]

The Paladins of Asmodeus may very well be the most awesome thing the 4th Edition has to offer, and I never would have thought about wishing for it. Screw you, Blackguard! Screw you, your pointless Hide requirement and your useless sneak attack ability! Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Attilargh]

incidentally, you guys do realise that the saga edition had nearly 20 pages of errata and clarifications within the first month of publication, right?
I think I'm missing about 15 pages. Could you perhaps direct me to them?

[ray53208]

I think I'm missing about 15 pages. Could you perhaps direct me to them?

feel free to cut, paste, & print the relevant info up, youll find it takes up about 20 pages. i suppose if you made the fonts very small you could fit it all into fewer... but not by much.

faq thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=865406

errata thread:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=864328

i think i have said about all i have to say on the matter. my entire gaming group, and many other gamers i know, feel the same way i do about things. it would be futile to wish things back to the way they were; that wasnt what i was aiming at anyway. i know im not gonna get the people who, for whatever reason, want this change to reconsider that position. im not trying to convince anyone of anything. just stating my feelings and how i and many others are going to respond to the way hasbro/wotc did this.

[Matthew]

Yes, and $ellouticA (http://members.tripod.com/~gravyboat/meTallica/meTallica.html) used to rock. But as far as their "old stuff" being better than the new, that wouldn't be hard. You can smear a stick in dog doo and set it on fire and it would be better than 3.X. (After all chasing trespassers with flaming dog doo is kinda fun.:smallbiggrin: ) But seriously, unless they worked for ICE or FASA or something I'm probably not going to be impressed.

Bah! Don't give me that. They still rock, they just made a very bad public relations decision...

[Pagz]

Read... the whole thread... eyes... burning...

Being relatively new to D&D, playing a little 3.5 and 2nd AD&D, I really do think that D&D as it stands now needs a revamp, a change that can only be done with a new addition. To me, 3.0 tried to hang on too much to AD&D, as to not scare off any 2nd ed. players. Vancian magic system is an example of this. I think that they tried too much to change the rules of the game so its simpler, but keep the classics of 2nd AD&D to keep it feeling like dungeons and dragons for the older players, with this combination of old and new, I don't think they succeeded.

Hopefully with 4th ed, they push the game forward into what needs to be done, even if that means changing a few things that we associate D&D with (like Vancian magic). I think they've done what they thought needed to be done with 3.5, its bloated to the point where making more and more splatbooks would be kind of like a Gengar trying to use hypnosis on a Starmie thats used minimize six times...

With a few well needed houserules, 3.5 is as good as its going to get, for it to become better, we need a change in the basics of the game, thus a new edition.

...and I'm sure they don't mind the money they make from it, either.

[Thinker]

more complaining about a new edition

Every single time you post it seems to be about the new edition. Every one of your posts is about a lack of roleplaying as though it sickens you that people aren't playing a game to become actors. Different people can play an RPG and roleplay to different degrees. While the "poor roleplaying" you cited was not even intended to be that, it was not necessarily bad roleplaying; instead it was different. I'm sorry they don't meet your high degree of excellence and character immersion. Perhaps some people out there are more casual about their play and that is fine.

Unfortunately you seem to have become an elitist. Since when have you had the authority to say who plays properly or not? Mechanics do not dictate how someone can roleplay. If the game's mechanics are on a per-encounter basis, how does that prevent you or anyone from roleplaying? Just because you need to roleplay differently to match similar mechanics does not mean you cannot still do so. You may even have to house-rule something in the new edition to suit your personal tastes...gasp!

I have seen some posts where you have claimed that mechanical balance doesn't matter if you roleplay well. I hate to tell you, but it does. If mechanically a NG wizard can end every combat encounter in a round and does not do so, he is probably roleplaying poorly except in the most niche of personalities. A good wizard would not jeopardize his teammate's lives to any degree. Likewise in social situations a wizard can discover any information he wishes and win over any allies he wishes. Mechanics matter.

I can understand many angles for why someone would wish to not play the new edition, but claiming it promotes poor roleplaying is a poor one. You may be better off with a more free-form game where there are no mechanics; that may finally give you the acting you desire, rather than the game that gets in the way. Rant over.

[SageinaRage]

I played 2nd ed. I saw 3rd, saw that it was a big improvement, and bought it. I saw 3.5, saw that it was a big improvement, and bought it. Now when I look at 4th, it also looks like a big improvement.

Are there lots of rules about combat? Yes, that's what rule systems are for, is for resolving fights and other conflicts. And considering one of the main focuses of dnd is heroicly slaying monsters, this should come as a surprise to no one who has ever played the game.

And considering just how much more cost effective role playing is than pretty much any other hobby, no one has any room to complain about cost.

Honestly, I'M excited about it. I plan on buying it as soon as it comes out, and I'm thinking about buying the Saga Star Wars edition too.

[nagora]

If the game's mechanics are on a per-encounter basis, how does that prevent you or anyone from roleplaying?

I don't understand this bit of your rant; please say more.

[Thinker]

I don't understand this bit of your rant; please say more.

Well now I don't remember exactly what I was ranting about. That was hours ago. I think I recalled some point where someone (may not have been you) said that moving to a per encounter basis hindered roleplaying. I apologize if this was not you and come to think of it, that may have been someone on the wizards forums.

[nagora]

Well now I don't remember exactly what I was ranting about. That was hours ago. I think I recalled some point where someone (may not have been you) said that moving to a per encounter basis hindered roleplaying. I apologize if this was not you and come to think of it, that may have been someone on the wizards forums.

That's alright; we're all tired and emotional round here (ie, drunk).

I do think the "x encounters per day" rule, while maybe useful as a guideline for starting DMs, should be discarded as too mechanical once you're confortable with your players' talents and abilities.

[Thinker]

That's alright; we're all tired and emotional round here (ie, drunk).

I do think the "x encounters per day" rule, while maybe useful as a guideline for starting DMs, should be discarded as too mechanical once you're confortable with your players' talents and abilities.

I like per-encounter because it does the best job I can think of at balancing classes. It also represents that a character gets tired after exhausting activities, but does not necessarily lose the ability to do so altogether. It just requires a few minutes of rest is all. In my opinion it is a happy marriage of strong crunch with easily acceptable fluff.

[AKA_Bait]

The new distributed viral forum/blog/wiki/classified/etc viral advertising engine is here. Spread the word about your product or service in short amount of time to millions of people. Get residual traffic and increase search engine visibility by using long lasting backlinks. Low cost, no pay per click fraud issues and great ROI. http://widecircles.com?imt=3

Wow... a Necrobot... never seen one of those before.

[akumadaimyo]

Why does everyone blame WotC? Isnt Hasbro the one's holding the reins of power to WotC? They do own them after all. I suspect it's Hasbro behind the quick release of 4th ed. They probably have no idea at all how most gamers react to new editions all the time. They probably just see D&D as another toy. *rollseyes* I'm mostly interested in 4th ed but some stuff about it I don't like at all. No alingment restrictions? Not just for Pallies btw! No stat penalties? So a halfling is now as strong as a human? Yeah right. I like the Saga Edition feel with the rules but I heard something about using cards? I hope not. I like my dice damnit. :-p

[Matthew]

Interestingly, it was recently reported that the current President of Wizards of the Coast, Loren Greenwood, is stepping down on March 21st. The new President will be Greg Leeds, a Hasbro man through and through. Or so I hear: New President of Wizards of the Coast Announced (http://www.kenzerco.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36698).

[Reel On, Love]

Why does everyone blame WotC? Isnt Hasbro the one's holding the reins of power to WotC? They do own them after all. I suspect it's Hasbro behind the quick release of 4th ed. They probably have no idea at all how most gamers react to new editions all the time. They probably just see D&D as another toy. *rollseyes*
No, it's WotC behind 4E. It's also not a "quick release".

Do you know how most gamers react to new editions? JUST FINE. Do you know how many editions other big games have gone through? More than D&D, that's for sure, and faster.


I'm mostly interested in 4th ed but some stuff about it I don't like at all. No alingment restrictions? Not just for Pallies btw! No stat penalties? So a halfling is now as strong as a human? Yeah right. I like the Saga Edition feel with the rules but I heard something about using cards? I hope not. I like my dice damnit. :-p
Alignment restrictions are stupid. A halfling isn't as strong as a human unless they have the same Strength score--but seriously, if an Elf is as strong as a Dwarf, why wouldn't a Halfling be about as strong as a human?

Cards would be used to keep track of powers (i.e. you can have a card with each of your powers on it, so it's easy to look them up), not instead of dice.