PDA

View Full Version : So, do you think 4E is catching on?



ken-do-nim
2008-07-29, 10:09 PM
I'm curious as to whether fourth edition is actually going to overcome 3rd edition in popularity. Does anybody have any insight into what the split is right now? My total guess, leaving 10% for prior edition/spinoff players, is something like:
3.5/Pathfinder: 60
4E: 30
TSR editions & spinoffs (like C&C): 10

Of course I realize that the same person can play both games, so I guess these percentages reflect actual games in play. I imagine that many people are trying out 4E right now, but I wonder if those same people are going to go back to 3E exclusively after doing so.

Kyeudo
2008-07-29, 10:12 PM
4th is getting pretty big. Swing through the PbP section of the forums and about half the D&D games are 4th.

Ralfarius
2008-07-29, 10:13 PM
"Those are some impressive numbers, Sovereign!"

Tallis
2008-07-29, 10:21 PM
Probably too early to tell. 4e is still new enough that a lot of people are trying it out, therefore lots of 4e games. We still don't know what their final choice will be though.

My personal opinion is that I will stick with a modified 3.X as my main game, but I'd also play 4e if it was available. However I don't have enough 4e experience to say that's my final decision yet.

nobodylovesyou4
2008-07-29, 10:26 PM
4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.

grinner666
2008-07-29, 10:26 PM
Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

FoE
2008-07-29, 10:27 PM
"Those are some impressive numbers, Sovereign!"

"Oh, Watch, will you ever learn?"


Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

Uh ... thanks for letting us know you don't care about 4E.

'Cause, you know, that was keeping me up at night.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-07-29, 10:31 PM
4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.
Very probably, also considering that 4e is easily much more newbie-friendly than 3.5...or any previous edition, for that matter. It guides you through the mechanics, provides a section on roleplaying, and setting up a character by choosing class powers is incredibly easy. Combat is rather smooth, it seems. All in all, a good game for the new players to get into.

Shades of Gray
2008-07-29, 10:33 PM
Couldn't tell you. I read the 4E PH, loathed and despised it, and went back to 3.5 ... so I have little or no interest any more in what's going on with 4E.

Then you'll see how 5e turns out.

Sinfire Titan
2008-07-29, 10:36 PM
I do not think it is popular in this area. This is due to most DMs in the area wanting to play at the lower levels, and combat sucks for 4E at the lower levels. This leads to massively drawn-out battles that take up most of two sessions because no one can hit a damn thing even with a 15+, a number of DMs who just try to get the combat finished so they can get back to the ICRPing, and the crap they call experience (I've all ready house ruled out the rules for dividing the XP amongst the party because of how pathetic it is).

I myself want to switch systems and go back to 3.5, solely due to how much more entertaining it is to make a character than it is in 4E. The sheer diversity alone makes up for the time it takes, as I've yet to see anyone in my group play the same character twice (save for my little brother, who I pretend doesn't exist due to how obstinate and anger-driven he is).

Covered In Bees
2008-07-29, 10:47 PM
I do not think it is popular in this area. This is due to most DMs in the area wanting to play at the lower levels, and combat sucks for 4E at the lower levels.
What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.


This leads to massively drawn-out battles that take up most of two sessions because no one can hit a damn thing even with a 15+
First-level characters are hitting defenses of 15-18 with attack bonuses of +4-8 (and +2 situational, and buffs, usually).
I submit that if your battles are taking up most of two sessions, somebody is doing something wrong. Our Brutal Scoundrel rogue was hitting with an AB of +8 for 2d6+2d8+12 or so, and that's with an encounter power. Enemies didn't last too long.


a number of DMs who just try to get the combat finished so they can get back to the ICRPing, and the crap they call experience (I've all ready house ruled out the rules for dividing the XP amongst the party because of how pathetic it is).
What's wrong with it?


I myself want to switch systems and go back to 3.5, solely due to how much more entertaining it is to make a character than it is in 4E. The sheer diversity alone makes up for the time it takes, as I've yet to see anyone in my group play the same character twice (save for my little brother, who I pretend doesn't exist due to how obstinate and anger-driven he is).
You can't say the same for core-only 3E. It'd take you quite a long time to get through all the 4E core options.



Edit: on-topic, 4E is definitely gaining popularity around here. A lot of people are hearing good things, trying it for themselvs, and having a good time.

SoD
2008-07-29, 11:05 PM
I personally am happy with 3.5e. That's what I own, and it's what I know. I have the PhB, DMG and MM on PDF, but, although a friend has started a campaign in 4e, I'm about to start one in 3.5e. 4e seems fairly popular, although most of my friends agree that although 4e is more balanced, we've think that 3.5e is more fun.

Sadly, however, I cannot buy any more 3.5e stuff at the local gaming store.

EvilElitest
2008-07-29, 11:11 PM
Bees, and a lot of people are catching on to the flaws


But anyways, 4E is popular because its new and exciting, and simply to learn. There is a lot of dislike of it, but that isn't anything new. Personally, i think that 4E will gain popularity, but not as much as 3E did to 2E. reasons why

1) Minor, but 3E is closer to 2E than 4E to 3E, easier transition. Not that there weren't and still are people who strongly support 2E, just less
2) Still minor with the internet more powerful, anti 4E people can make their options know much loudly and more annoyingly than earlier. In teh same note however, 4E can advertise just as easliy
3) Personally, i think people will start looking for better quality, and 4E will lag for a while, then more new people, who have only played 4E will come and 4E will get back on its feet (providing WotC doesn't do anything stupid) and keep rising
4) The only option not realated to my dislike of 4E, 3E had something that 4E did not. An open game license. If you want to publish in 3E, you don't have to get WotC permission, just go ahead (can't use stuff like mind flayers and what not, but you can still use a 3E like system). 4E doesn't have that, and so unlike when 2E went to 3E, there already powerful companies (not WoTC level of course) that can publish 3E just as 4E comes out, like Paizo
from
EE

Sinfire Titan
2008-07-29, 11:21 PM
What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.

The risk makes it more fun, IMO. A number of my fellow DMs agree that 4E doesn't have that sort of risk or chance. And most of the players I have make characters who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe, thank you. They have some very serious tricks up their sleeves.


First-level characters are hitting defenses of 15-18 with attack bonuses of +4-8 (and +2 situational, and buffs, usually).
I submit that if your battles are taking up most of two sessions, somebody is doing something wrong. Our Brutal Scoundrel rogue was hitting with an AB of +8 for 2d6+2d8+12 or so, and that's with an encounter power. Enemies didn't last too long.

Most of our party has to check what their powers do every time they use them, only because there are no direct references. Some effects require us to look them up (whereas I have a number of hindrances memorized for 3.5, at least for the abilities I use a lot). And even our best character can't deal more than 20 points of damage, and he is a Rogue too. And I think you are miscalculating the damage values if you are getting a +12 to the damage rolls. If the power says 3[W]+Dex, then it doesn't multiply the Dex modifier.

One of the problems is that a DM who wants a fast-paced campaign at the lower levels can't have it, because any attempts to level the party up without using DM Fiat ends up with someone in the negatives making Death saves every round. The party I play with could handle a Mature Adult White Dragon at ECL 5th in 3.5. Now in 4E they can barely stand up to a Kruthik at 2nd level.


What's wrong with it?

Look at how much XP a party of 5 1st levels gets for beating an encounter 3 levels above them. Jack s***. Couple with the lack of WBL guidelines that are actually coherent enough to work, poor Skill challenge systems, and serious inexperience, and you have a very ill-equipped party dealing with low-CR enemies that still pose a threat for XP in the 50's. When they need somewhere in the 3000's just to level.


You can't say the same for core-only 3E. It'd take you quite a long time to get through all the 4E core options.

Indeed I cannot, but a caster party still has a solid chance and good options to work with. I can make characters with no real thought behind them in 4E, and still have them excel when compared to other party members. In 3.5, the only one with a handicap is my brother as he can't read the books without a CCTV. While this does result in party strife and someone wearing the pants for an entire campaign, it also suits gaming for the party to have a distinguishable leader rather than a bunch of bungling fools with barely a trick to taking their shirts off, much less for fighting.


In the end, some of us do not find the system effective. Some of us prefer the gaps in power to the obvious failure that results when the party fights.

I'll cite an example for you. A 2nd level party was put up against a Giant Beetle in 4E. To put it plainly, they got lucky. The thing went down after the Paladin and Wizard rolled crits on the damn things with their daily powers. The Paladin had all ready blown through his uses of Lay on Hands, and the Ranger in the group was below bloodied. The Cleric? Dead. Not because of the beetle though. He outright quit mid-fight the previous session after being humiliated by a Kruthik who doesn't even get hit for 19 (yes, exact count) rounds. When I handed out XP for each of those encounters, they were furious over the measly 35 XP per person, which is the RAW for a CR 2 encounter, and even the full 150 XP from the CR 4 beetle didn't budge their opinion on the CR/XP system.

I even put them up against a CR 10 trap, and let them BS the entire ordeal with it, and they got less XP than they did for the CR 4. Granted, I was using the RAW for XP when I threw the trap at them, but still... Its rather pathetic when a party gets less for a CR 10 than they do for a CR 4.

BizzaroStormy
2008-07-29, 11:31 PM
4e will catch on, seeing as most people who are just starting DnD will pick up 4e. when i first starting playing a few years back, i didnt pick up adnd, i got 3.5 because thats what was out. in a few years, 3.5 will be surpassed by 4e.

Just to clarify, you got 3.5 because thats what I bought. I didn't really know there were different versions. Hell, all I knew vefore reading the manual was that the game involved a d20, which up until that point I only used as a life counter in MTG.

EvilElitest
2008-07-29, 11:32 PM
guys, i remind you of the open game license
from
EE

thegurullamen
2008-07-29, 11:48 PM
EE's got a point there. The GSL is the single worst legal document most of us will ever have the displeasure to read. This coupled with the Pathfinder RPG marks a decent split in WotC's original market.

But it's not definitive. As WotC has stated repeatedly, they hope to bring new blood in with 4e. Seeing all of the pros 4e has going for it, it shouldn't prove too hard for them as long as the word gets out. This on top of some of the original base's distaste over 3.5's many flaws should cement 4e as a solid edition (if not the most popular or successful [though only time will tell on these points.])

Overall, I think 4e's popularity is in an unstable place. On the one hand, it's popular, carries the namebrand of roleplaying and is enjoyed by many gamers, both old and new. On the other hand, it's coming off of an edition with a much better gaming license which translates to 3rd party support which, if nothing else, contributed to D&D's status as a key rpg. That and the radical changes between the two editions has split the fanbase and, unlike the 2e/3e jump, 3.x supporters have a new product to turn to for new updates: Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. In my opinion, WotC's moves over the next year are going to be pivotal in 4e's long-term success.

skywalker
2008-07-30, 12:18 AM
A bunch of intelligent stuff.

This sounds really, really bad but there actually is some truth to it. The amount of XP you get for a potentially lethal encounter in 4e does not seem appropriate. I hadn't thought of it before it was brought up, but it is true. Sometimes, it is incredibly hard to hit enemies while it seems like they're destroying you with their +11 to hit. That means they hit a character with ac 16 75% of the time :smallconfused:

To me, this actually makes 4e encounters potentially more lethal, especially at low levels.


All of that being said...

I think 4e is becoming pretty popular. My DM is the manager at my local game store. He says sales of 4 edition books have been very good. Then again, he is a Wizards fan boy. For one, 4th Edition has found traction in that group. We won't be going back... In my other group, I'm about to start DM'ing Keep on the Shadowfell. So far, it seems rather popular.

Overall, I think 4E is making its statement, and will become the dominant form of D&D by the end of 2008.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 12:41 AM
The risk makes it more fun, IMO. A number of my fellow DMs agree that 4E doesn't have that sort of risk or chance. And most of the players I have make characters who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe, thank you. They have some very serious tricks up their sleeves.
Who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe at level 1?
And who on earth considers it fun to die because that orc rolled a 20? Level 1 in 3.5 is almost always played with kid gloves, just because the luck of the roll matters so much.


Most of our party has to check what their powers do every time they use them, only because there are no direct references. Some effects require us to look them up (whereas I have a number of hindrances memorized for 3.5, at least for the abilities I use a lot).
I can see that happening, and I suggest power cards--they made all the difference when one of my groups was getting used to Tome of Battle, and they should speed things up a lot here. They're even easy to handmake.


And even our best character can't deal more than 20 points of damage, and he is a Rogue too. And I think you are miscalculating the damage values if you are getting a +12 to the damage rolls. If the power says 3[W]+Dex, then it doesn't multiply the Dex modifier.
A Brutal Scoundrel bugbear rogue with 16 STR/DEX bumped to 18/18 using Torturous Strike 2d6 (2[w] with oversized dagger) + 4 (Dex) + 4 (Str) 2d8 (Sneak Attack with Backstabber) + 4 (STR damage to sneak attack from Brutal Scoundrel) = 2d6+2d8+12, or an average of 28 and a ridiculous max/crit of 42, which our rogue got the first time he used the power. This is, admittedly, quite optimized, but even 20 damage is pretty significant (and should bloody any standard monster you face). A 3[w]+Dex power will do similar damage. Artful Dodgers will do less damage, but be safer and help teammates out more.


One of the problems is that a DM who wants a fast-paced campaign at the lower levels can't have it, because any attempts to level the party up without using DM Fiat ends up with someone in the negatives making Death saves every round. The party I play with could handle a Mature Adult White Dragon at ECL 5th in 3.5. Now in 4E they can barely stand up to a Kruthik at 2nd level.
That's because you could break 3.5 to all hell. If you consider that a feature not a bug, I guess there's not much I can say.


Look at how much XP a party of 5 1st levels gets for beating an encounter 3 levels above them. Jack s***.
A level 4 encounter for a party of level 1s is very hard. It'll be worth 175 XP per PC. Five of them and a weaker sixth will level the party up.


Couple with the lack of WBL guidelines that are actually coherent enough to work
What?! The parcel method makes distributing treasure incredibly easy. Where on earth is the problem? It's far simpler than making sure your party has WBL yourself.


poor Skill challenge systems
Have you seen the errata? The skill challenge system is quite nice, and they've fixed all the problems that did exist.


and serious inexperience, and you have a very ill-equipped party dealing with low-CR enemies that still pose a threat for XP in the 50's. When they need somewhere in the 3000's just to level.
A group of X level 1s facing an encounter of their level will each gain 100 XP. That means 10 such encounters will level them up--fewer, if you sprinkle on a few skill challenges, traps, etc. This is faster than it was in 3E. Then 10 encounters of five level 2 standard monsters (or the equivalent) will get them to 3.


Indeed I cannot, but a caster party still has a solid chance and good options to work with. I can make characters with no real thought behind them in 4E, and still have them excel when compared to other party members. In 3.5, the only one with a handicap is my brother as he can't read the books without a CCTV. While this does result in party strife and someone wearing the pants for an entire campaign, it also suits gaming for the party to have a distinguishable leader rather than a bunch of bungling fools with barely a trick to taking their shirts off, much less for fighting.
I can't help but feel that you're doing something wrong, so I'm going to look some stuff up. A single Kruthik Adult is a level 4 brute and "costs" 175 XP. That means it, a level 2 monster, and a level 1 monster make a level 4 encounter.
It has defenses of AC 17, Fortitude 14, Ref 15, Will 13. A level 2 wizard with 18 INT and a +1 implement is attacking at +4 (INT) + 1 (tool) + 1 (level) = +6 vs. a defense of 13, and will often have Combat Advantage as well. How on earth can he have problems hitting? A rogue with a +1 dagger and 18 DEX attacks at +10 vs. AC 17, usually +12 (trying for Combat Advantage). He hits the thing on a 5+!
The Kruthik has HP 67. It shouldn't take a party more than two or three rounds to chew threw that.


In the end, some of us do not find the system effective. Some of us prefer the gaps in power to the obvious failure that results when the party fights.

I'll cite an example for you. A 2nd level party was put up against a Giant Beetle in 4E. To put it plainly, they got lucky. ... a Kruthik who doesn't even get hit for 19 (yes, exact count) rounds. When I handed out XP for each of those encounters, they were furious over the measly 35 XP per person, which is the RAW for a CR 2 encounter, and even the full 150 XP from the CR 4 beetle didn't budge their opinion on the CR/XP system.
You're going wrong SOMEwhere. You do realize that a monster's level isn't the same thing as 3.5 CR? In any case, a single standard level 4 monster (not a level 4 encounter, or even a level 2 one) should indeed give 35 XP. A level 4 ENCOUNTER is considered hard, but should give 175 XP per PC.

There is no such thing as a Giant Beetle in my MM. You mean the Kruthik Adult, a party of five level 2 characters should take the thing down in two rounds or so, without using any dailies. It's possible to do it in one if they get lucky and someone crits or they roll well.


I even put them up against a CR 10 trap, and let them BS the entire ordeal with it, and they got less XP than they did for the CR 4. Granted, I was using the RAW for XP when I threw the trap at them, but still... Its rather pathetic when a party gets less for a CR 10 than they do for a CR 4.
A level 10 trap on its own is worth 500 XP. Each PC would get 100 XP. However, level differences that high are strongly not recommended. Two level 2 monsters, a level 2 elite, and a level 2 trap would be a simple-to-put-together level 2 encounter.

So... what the hell is your party doingthat they're so incompetent? How on EARTH could they avoiding hitting a Kruthik Adult's 17 AC and 13 Will defense for that many rounds? I swear, that sounds impossible.

The_Werebear
2008-07-30, 01:03 AM
I think it is catching on, and will eventually be unquestionably more popular than 3.5. Already, my friends are scavenging mechanics and ideas out of it for our own mutant systems (Hey, look. A liver. If we hollow this out, it will make an excellent lung!).

At the moment, I am still worried about the aggressive expansionist viewpoint Wizards seems to have towards the game more than 4E's immediate failings (Which, I will admit, I don't see as much as some of the 3.5 diehards do). The number of power options for each class is strictly limited, giving maybe a total of 3-6 solid builds before you get overlap and concepts start to merge too much. This can be easily addressed by books with more powers and initial selection options, but that encourages WOTC to print dozens of them, not to mention new classes. If 3.5 taught us anything, it's that the power will creep upwards, and balance will get shaky. While a much better job of balancing has been done in 4th and 3rd, dozens of new books coming out at the (personal prediction) rate of 1 per month is going to be impossible to keep even.

If that happens, my guess is that there will be an exodus back to 3.5 or other systems. This is especially true if, after 3 years, a "4.5" revamp is announced and wipes out several hundred dollars of book investments.

If WoTC doesn't play a colossal jerk in that manner, I think that 4E will be the dominant RPG until 5.0, and the 3.X only crowd will fall into a severe minority position, much like the 2.X only crowd was in 2007.

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 02:21 AM
If WoTC doesn't play a colossal jerk in that manner, I think that 4E will be the dominant RPG until 5.0, and the 3.X only crowd will fall into a severe minority position, much like the 2.X only crowd was in 2007.
True, except for the 4.5 part. When 3.5 came out, a lot of people complained (rightfully they didn't want to buy variants of the same core books they had), but eventually either the 3.0 became a minority or passed on to 3.5 because it was an actual improvement of the game. So seeing 3.5 I suppose that even if 4.5 comes out, it would improve 4e enough to convince most people.

Gralamin
2008-07-30, 02:49 AM
The newest errata has caused a bit of... strange rules for skill challenges. (More information and a potential fix can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4568187&postcount=1). Thread is only 10 days old so posting in it is fine.)

Regardless, I think 4E will continue to catch on, as it is doing now.

nagora
2008-07-30, 04:36 AM
I'm curious as to whether fourth edition is actually going to overcome 3rd edition in popularity.
It's interesting that my local gamestore has still not started to stock it. No one's been asking for it, apparently.

I doubt that it will reach 3/3.5's level of popularity, but I don't think it will flop unless Hasbro decide to drop it for some reason.

Ashtar
2008-07-30, 05:15 AM
Well, I just had a mail from one of my players saying:

"Je dois t'avouer que nos parties du weekend me redonne de plus en plus goût au JDR."
Translated to "I must admit that our week-end games [4e] are bringing back my taste for Role playing games"

So at least for my group, it is catching on. Maybe we needed a change, maybe it's the different style, one thing is sure: For the moment, we are having fun!

SoD
2008-07-30, 06:15 AM
It's interesting that my local gamestore has still not started to stock it. No one's been asking for it, apparently.

Lucky bastard. Mine's not stocking any 3.5e stuff any more, save a few adventures, and that's just because they haven't managed to sell them yet. I tried going there to buy PHBII the other day.

nagora
2008-07-30, 06:28 AM
What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.
Opps! Another "3.5=all previous editions" post. 1e didn't (I'm not sure about 2e but I don't think it did either) have crits, and I'm generally of the opinion that crits are a bad idea in any game with hit points, although it's often hard to convince players of that.

Part of the game is to start off just slightly better than the average person and work your way up to being the big hero. A normal person CAN'T survive a good solid hit with a long sword. A fighter at 1st level in 1e has a good chance of doing so, and a 4th level fighter probably will survive four such attacks. That's just part of the game, and making it past the low levels makes reaching the higher levels more satisfying.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-30, 06:30 AM
I'm confused. There was a 3rd edition? I thought it went D&D, AD&D, and 4e?

I did have a really bizarre dream about a couple of very improbably bad, failed editions with things called CoDzillas, Batman wizards, and a level 5 omnipotent kobold named Pun-Pun, but of course that's just silly and was obviously only a dream ...

... right?

Glawackus
2008-07-30, 06:32 AM
The only complaint in my group has been that Barbarian and Bard are gone, but I think that this is only because we have one group member who really likes, well, barbarians and bards. :smalltongue:

Glawackus
2008-07-30, 06:33 AM
I'm confused. There was a 3rd edition? I thought it went D&D, AD&D, and 4e?

I did have a really bizarre dream about a couple of very improbably bad, failed editions with things called CoDzillas, Batman wizards, and a level 5 omnipotent kobold named Pun-Pun, but of course that's just silly and was obviously only a dream ...

... right?

"Of course it was..."

*Skip Williams, Monte Cook, et all step out of the shower*

:eek:

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 06:44 AM
Opps! Another "3.5=all previous editions" post. 1e didn't (I'm not sure about 2e but I don't think it did either) have crits, and I'm generally of the opinion that crits are a bad idea in any game with hit points, although it's often hard to convince players of that.
20 = hit, though. And at level 1 a hit is likely to kill you. Especially if you didn't roll so well for hit points.
(Rolling for hit points. UGH.)


Part of the game is to start off just slightly better than the average person and work your way up to being the big hero. A normal person CAN'T survive a good solid hit with a long sword.
Starting off as specifically better than average is not an integral part of the game. Doing it every time would get really old.

People have been starting games at level 2, 3, 4, whatever for a long, long time.


a 4th level fighter probably will survive four such attacks. That's just part of the game, and making it past the low levels makes reaching the higher levels more satisfying.
The idea that an attack that "hit" and deals HP damage has to be described as a good solid hit is really pretty played out.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 06:44 AM
True, except for the 4.5 part. When 3.5 came out, a lot of people complained (rightfully they didn't want to buy variants of the same core books they had), but eventually either the 3.0 became a minority or passed on to 3.5 because it was an actual improvement of the game. So seeing 3.5 I suppose that even if 4.5 comes out, it would improve 4e enough to convince most people.

Most people I talked to shifted to 3.5 because all new books were addressed to 3.5 edition and they wanted to use this material. After all, new x.y edition is moment to relaunch all core books and most of sourcebooks like complete something or tome of something else. An update for setting is also good, now you can reprint green wizard of red order with few changes and get 3 pages of book with little effort.


4ed is here, and within 2 years non-4ed players will be small minority. When 4.5 will arrive I predict only 5% od d&d players will use 3.x edition.

It's like windows vista.

Jayabalard
2008-07-30, 06:47 AM
4th is getting pretty big. Swing through the PbP section of the forums and about half the D&D games are 4th.People in pbp games are not necessarily representative of D&D players as a whole; it's heavily biased. I'm not saying anything about 4e popularity vs 3e popularity; I'm just pointing out that what you're using as a metric is a bad one.

my suspicion is that 4e will become more popular, especially since it's aimed at getting new players, but that 3e will retain a significant following, never becoming the tiny minority that 2e and 1e players did.


It's like windows vista.That seems an apt comparison since there's nothing in vista that's an upgrade for most people, but I'm not so sure that agrees with the rest of your numbers. I havn't met anyone who was excited to downgrade to Vista, and mycrosoft is in a stronger position to force people to change, since the lack of support for win2k is a bigger deal than the lack of support for 3e D&D.

nagora
2008-07-30, 06:51 AM
It's like windows vista.
Well, I think Hasbro are probably hoping that it's not like Windows Vista, where large numbers of users are holding on to their XP installs and waiting to see if Windows 7.0 is going to be an improvement.

It is possible that 4e will surplant 3.5 in shops and still not be a big success. The danger for Hasbro is that the big changes in the system will simply split the user base.

Morty
2008-07-30, 06:57 AM
my suspicion is that 4e will become more popular, especially since it's aimed at getting new players, but that 3e will retain a significant following, never becoming the tiny minority that 2e and 1e players did.

I'm inclined to agree, if only because it seems -I don't have much experience with AD&D- 4ed is more different from 3ed than 3ed is from previous editions.
I know that at least my group isn't going to play 4ed instead of 3.5.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 07:08 AM
It's like vista not because of simmilarity - it's like vista because all over internet people are complaining but within two years 95% of them are going to install vista anyway.

It was the same with XP - "what, collorful interface, no big improvements, very heavy - we are going to stay with 98se/Millenium/2000". Now same people are complaining about Vista.

New stuff is going to be released for 4e, books for 3x are going to be harder and harder to get, big part of community is going to switch so staying with 3e means "out of social circle" - very little blogs/forums/webpages for you. hasbro is not Microsoft, but their impact is really great when we talk about RPG - so if independent publishers will roll with it and go 4ed - 3e is doomed.

Philistine
2008-07-30, 07:09 AM
@Nagora: I'm pretty sure AD&D 2E did have critical hits. I remember looking at the rules for crits in 3E and thinking how obnoxious it was that they were changed to require confirmation rolls. And even without crits, a low-level mage or thief could be killed by one bad roll.

@ Sinfire Titan: I am also interested in the answer to one of the questions asked by CiB, namely, "How do level 1 characters survive soaking up spear and scythe crits?" Seriously - an unlucky crit with a spear can ding you for 24 damage; a scythe for 32. So, do your players start out at level 1 with CON scores in the 34 to 50 range? Massive DR? What kind of "serious tricks" exactly do they have "up their sleeves," that "most of the players I have make characters who can withstand a crit from a spear or scythe"?

nagora
2008-07-30, 07:24 AM
It's like vista not because of simmilarity - it's like vista because all over internet people are complaining but within two years 95% of them are going to install vista anyway.
Well, we're well off-topic but Vista is never going to reach 95% install base except perhaps on new machines in homes. In offices, it's really struggling and Win7 will replace it before it has any chance of 95%.

I think 3e is doomed in some ways as you say, but that doesn't mean that 4e will pick up all the fallout.

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 07:26 AM
I think that it will supersede the previous version for these reasons:
- most new people will start with 4e
- those who buy splatbook will be forced to move on at some point
- some people actually like it more than 3.x (unconceivable!)
- it will get more support from the creators

I think that some people will stick with previous versions for these reasons:
- they don't want to change the game they've played so far
- they don't care about splatbooks or support

So 4e will take over 3.x, there is no escaping that. But as long as you aren't a splatbook addict it won't really mean much if you want to keep playing an older versione.
My 2e DMs think that 3.x is worse than 2e, one didn't even know 4e was out. They don't bitch about it, and keep playing the edition they prefer (I don't prefer it, but have no problem with it).

On a separate note: what's this thing with splatbooks? No one I have ever played with has ever bought one as far as I know, and the idea never crossed my mind... What's the reason to buy a pricey book that is equiparable to homebrew?


1e didn't (I'm not sure about 2e but I don't think it did either) have crits
It does, it also has the same "roll 1 = failed save, roll 20 = succesful save" rule. Oh and yes, they didn't need to be confirmed.


Well, we're well off-topic but Vista is never going to reach 95% install base except perhaps on new machines in homes. In offices, it's really struggling and Win7 will replace it before it has any chance of 95%.
Well Vista and XP are different from the previous MS OSs in that the release cycle is a bit longer and there is less overlap. But no, it won't ever reach 95% because it's an impossible result for any OS.

tyfon
2008-07-30, 07:29 AM
Well, we're well off-topic but Vista is never going to reach 95% install base except perhaps on new machines in homes. In offices, it's really struggling and Win7 will replace it before it has any chance of 95%.

I think 3e is doomed in some ways as you say, but that doesn't mean that 4e will pick up all the fallout.

Ok, really no off-top, I'm IT professional myself and I've seen different approaches to "Vista problem".

Anyway - sure - not all people will go 4ed, but more new people will move there so total cashflow will be same or better. I don't know single person playing 2ed now, 3e also (not 3.5).

people will move - sure - but I think that there is little competition when it comes to Heroic Fantasy RPG.

Matthew
2008-07-30, 08:04 AM
@Nagora: I'm pretty sure AD&D 2E did have critical hits. I remember looking at the rules for crits in 3E and thinking how obnoxious it was that they were changed to require confirmation rolls. And even without crits, a low-level mage or thief could be killed by one bad roll.

Critical hits were an Optional Rule in AD&D 2e (and a bad one, in my opinion). They didn't officially exist for AD&D 1e (except maybe in the pages of Dragon Magazine) and were discouraged by the author.



Anyway - sure - not all people will go 4ed, but more new people will move there so total cashflow will be same or better. I don't know single person playing 2ed now, 3e also (not 3.5).

Well, we all move in different social circles. I don't know a single person playing 4e (excusing people I 'know' on the internet).

Jimp
2008-07-30, 08:24 AM
I think it could become more popular as more power sources, powers and feats are added. 3rd edition had lots of books that added new classes, feats, etc which helped its popularity, in my experiences anyway, since it became easier to find a class or character concept that you would like to play.

Thrawn183
2008-07-30, 08:43 AM
Every campaign that I hear being discussed as a possibility is being introduced in 4e. Why? Let me put it this way, the four or five new players that I've met over the last year had, and still have, an extremely limited understanding of the rules. Only one isn't interested in 4e and that's because she's my DM's gf and is only doing 3.5 because of him (and he's hell-bent against switching). In addition to this, several of my friends who never got into 3.5 because they couldn't handle the rules listened to the Penny Arcade podcast on 4e (where they did something like an 8 hour session) and immediately started trying to find any DM's running 4e because they finally felt like they could get into the game.

In the end, I think that 4e will catch on because people can make a character and not have to worry whether or not their sword and board guy is in the same party as a leap-attacking shock trooper or a Robilar's Gambit'ing spiked-chain-wielding lock down build. They can just show up and have a good time.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 09:20 AM
It isn't catching on around here. There is one game I've heard of starting up around here that is 4E, and that is being run by a guy who hates the system, but wants to give it a fair shake in a real game. As opposed to the playtest.

I don't imagine he would run 4E if had to pay for the books.

Also keep in mind that there is a lot more support nowadays for 3.5 "grognards". Like Paizo, for example.

Eldmor
2008-07-30, 10:32 AM
At the gaming club I go to at the college I attend, most people have switched to 4e with a few anti-4e naysayers trolling the boards. I plan on inviting them to a game of 4e when next quarter comes up in part so they see the system isn't what they see it for, and forum troll poo is hard to clean.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 10:35 AM
4E is exactly what I see it for, which is a change from simulationist design philosophy to gamist design philosophy. D&D doesn't compare favorably to the gamist systems I play (BESM, Savage Worlds). As a simulationist game, it compared pretty well to World of Darkness, given the lack of genre crossover there.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-30, 10:41 AM
WoD is not a simulationist game. It's narrativist. What simulationist game has "scene" as a way of measuring time?

GURPS is simulationist.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 11:06 AM
OK, so technically a false dichotomy. However, Gamist and Simulationist are opposite ends of a spectrum, and WoD is very much on the simulationist side of that spectrum.

Pirate_King
2008-07-30, 11:37 AM
I finally ran a 4e game last night, and it went fairly well; it definitely changed the mind of someone who as entirely negative throughout the character creation process the day before. I'll still play 3.5 with the people who know it, but there are a couple new people that want to learn the game, and I'll probably start them on 4. I feel like it's a lot simpler for someone just starting.

EvilElitest
2008-07-30, 12:52 PM
EE's got a point there. The GSL is the single worst legal document most of us will ever have the displeasure to read. This coupled with the Pathfinder RPG marks a decent split in WotC's original market.

But it's not definitive. As WotC has stated repeatedly, they hope to bring new blood in with 4e. Seeing all of the pros 4e has going for it, it shouldn't prove too hard for them as long as the word gets out. This on top of some of the original base's distaste over 3.5's many flaws should cement 4e as a solid edition (if not the most popular or successful [though only time will tell on these points.])

Overall, I think 4e's popularity is in an unstable place. On the one hand, it's popular, carries the namebrand of roleplaying and is enjoyed by many gamers, both old and new. On the other hand, it's coming off of an edition with a much better gaming license which translates to 3rd party support which, if nothing else, contributed to D&D's status as a key rpg. That and the radical changes between the two editions has split the fanbase and, unlike the 2e/3e jump, 3.x supporters have a new product to turn to for new updates: Paizo's Pathfinder RPG. In my opinion, WotC's moves over the next year are going to be pivotal in 4e's long-term success.

Thanks you



Basically, WotC has been trying very hard to make sure they dominated all of 4E, and wh yare putting a lot into "appealing to new players" which they will. However, unlike 2E and 1E, the old fans, and the people who like WotC will actually have something to turn too


Also don't forget third party companies. There are hundreds are 3E based games that use the free license (like the WoW RPG for example, very good game, or Mongoose Publishing) They are going to keep using 3E, because it costs money to publish in 4E, and its easier for them than making the switch. Anybody who plays any third party game will have to know the basics of 3E.

There will be people of course, who simply don't like 4E at all and will turn to 3E, because unlike 2E and 1E, it is an actual option (back then, if you didn't like 3E, well sucks to be you then) WotC isn't handing their license away (i mean they did cancel Dungeon and Dragon sadly, but now we have path finder) and new people will be coming to 3E, unlike 2E where they aren't very many new people showing up at all.


My two personal options are below

1) I think people will get fed up with 4E after a while and try to move on to bigger things. I see it like a board game, and some people will move on to try out more option filled games
2) More importantly, this is bloody WoTC we are talking about. They no longer have the monopoly they use to, and so they will make mistakes eventually and people will just get fed up with them.

but that is just hopes on my part, nothing to actually back it
from
EE

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 12:58 PM
1) I think people will get fed up with 4E after a while and try to move on to bigger things. I see it like a board game, and some people will move on to try out more option filled games

You know, I've heard that sentiment expressed quite often from the local crowd. It gets compared to Descent and Runebound.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 01:05 PM
4E is exactly what I see it for, which is a change from simulationist design philosophy to gamist design philosophy. D&D doesn't compare favorably to the gamist systems I play (BESM, Savage Worlds). As a simulationist game, it compared pretty well to World of Darkness, given the lack of genre crossover there.

As I've quoted to you, the AD&D DMG specifically calls D&D out as a gamist game that doesn't try to simulate anything. If you think D&D has ever been simulationist, you're pulling the wool over your own eyes--just look at the Profession skill. There is pretty much nothing simulationist about D&D. FOR GOD'S SAKE, IT USES A D20, which produces the same. Probability curve. For everything. It's not even a bell curve!

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-30, 01:51 PM
WoD is not a simulationist game. It's narrativist. What simulationist game has "scene" as a way of measuring time?

GURPS is simulationist.

Not only that, but 3.x never even compared favorably to WoD as a simulationist game. Bringing up GURPS, which is actually intended to fill that niche (and does so rather well), is just overkill.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 02:02 PM
As I've quoted to you, the AD&D DMG specifically calls D&D out as a gamist game that doesn't try to simulate anything.

The AD&D DMG can say what it wants. It is however, incorrect. Gamist design philosophy does not include rules for lighting a fire, and certainly doesn't require a non-weapon proficiency to do so.

Nor does it have things like Use Rope and Profession as skills. At all. Except perhaps in a Western or a Pirate game.

If I were to draw a scale, with 10 being gamist, and -10 being simulationist, I'd put WoD somewhere around -5 or 6, and 3.5 somewhere in the -6 or 7.

Neither extreme strikes me as playable. Rolling dice on a chart for every conceivable action would be -10. Determing whether something works based on 'how cool it sounds' would be a 10.

Here's a hint:

You often here 4E detractors complain about the lack of internal consistency, as compared to 3.5. Maintaining internal consistency is not an issue for a gamist design. At all. That stuff gets hand waved away in favor of spending more game time on the 'exciting parts'.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 02:14 PM
The AD&D DMG can say what it wants. It is however, incorrect.
Uh, okay. I'm glad you know more about the design approach of the game than the guy who MADE the bloody thing holy crap can you really be this arrogant it doesn't seem possible.


Gamist design philosophy does not include rules for lighting a fire, and certainly doesn't require a non-weapon proficiency to do so.
NWPs aren't things you can't do without having the NWP, in most cases. A person without the Jumping NWP can jump.

I don't think you really get "gamist design philosophy". And not every gamist game has to be designed to be 100% pure gamism--that really would be a board game.


Nor does it have things like Use Rope and Profession as skills. At all. Except perhaps in a Western or a Pirate game.
Or in a game where people might want to tie someone up.

DID YOU REALLY JUST SAY PROFESSION IS SIMULATIONIST? The skill with which beggars and lawyers make the same amount of money? It's intended as a handwave, NOT as simulation. It certainly doesn't simulate working for pay, or an economy, or anything of the sort.

Skjaldbakka
2008-07-30, 02:24 PM
You don't get it. The inclusion of a skill like profession is simulationist. The fact that profession doesn't work well is independent of that. There's no reason to bother with having a skill called Profession in a gamist system.

Tell me, is there a skill called Profession in 4E?

You also seem to be drawing the false conclusion that calling 4E gamist is bad thing. It isn't. Gamist is fine. More gamist is not what I want in my D&D. I don't like things like "getting better at swimming makes you a better climber", which is a symptom of the more gamist design philosophy.

EvilElitest
2008-07-30, 02:35 PM
You don't get it. The inclusion of a skill like profession is simulationist. The fact that profession doesn't work well is independent of that. There's no reason to bother with having a skill called Profession in a gamist system.

Tell me, is there a skill called Profession in 4E?

You also seem to be drawing the false conclusion that calling 4E gamist is bad thing. It isn't. Gamist is fine. More gamist is not what I want in my D&D. I don't like things like "getting better at swimming makes you a better climber", which is a symptom of the more gamist design philosophy.

wait, so my swimming lessions are worthless now? Awwwwwwww
from
EE

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-30, 02:40 PM
You don't get it. The inclusion of a skill like profession is simulationist. The fact that profession doesn't work well is independent of that. There's no reason to bother with having a skill called Profession in a gamist system.
Profession has a mechanical function. You can use it to do something. Therefore, there's obviously at least some reason to bother with it.

The fact that profession works so very poorly is because Profession wasn't ever intended to simulate anything. It was intended to represent something, at best, which falls outside the usual gamism/simulationism conflict.


Tell me, is there a skill called Profession in 4E?
Well... no. But a game that doesn't have you roll a die to see how much money you made being a beggar/lawyer/etc seems less gamist, not more. Narrativist, perhaps.


I don't like things like "getting better at swimming makes you a better climber", which is a symptom of the more gamist design philosophy.
An Athletics skill isn't inherently more or less gamist than having Climb, Swim, and Jump as separate skills. "Gamism" doesn't mean "more rules".

I'm not sure you really understand what gamism is, and I don't know that CiB does, either, and you guys need to clear that up before going any further.

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 02:41 PM
As a side note: 3.x is has by far the most complex (not best) non-combat skill system of all editions, but 4e is definitely second in that race, so you can only define 3.x as "simulationist" on that matter.

Also: putting skills that are not useful in combat (as the Profession line) together with those that are means that they are going to get ditched most of the time. Not really helping, no?

And on the "skills that don't make sense" thread: Languages. I mean, at least make 1 point to learn and 1 point to perfectionate...

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-30, 02:42 PM
As a side note: 3.x is has by far the most complex (not best) non-combat skill system of all editions, but 4e is definitely second in that race, so you can only define 3.x as "simulationist" on that matter.

Simulationism isn't the same thing as complexity...

AstralFire
2008-07-30, 02:45 PM
This entire topic makes my head hurt. Narrativist :frown:, Gamist :eek:, Simulationist :mad:.

You're all making me see red, you bunch of Communists! :furious:

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 02:45 PM
Simulationism isn't the same thing as complexity...
You tell them! :smallsmile:

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-30, 03:24 PM
This entire topic makes my head hurt. Narrativist :frown:, Gamist :eek:, Simulationist :mad:.

You' re all making me see red, you bunch of Communists! :furious:

Other types of gaming:

Fatalist: Nothing we can do is ever going to change anything anyway. Why bother rolling at all?

Existentialist: Where is the meaning? For what purpose do I seek to retrieve this Ring of McGuffin? There is, of course, no identifiable purpose at all. The choice is entirely mine, and I shall bear the consequences of my actions.

Narcissist: Look at my Charisma and Appearance scores! Am I teh sexah or what? I'm going to write a novella that details just how hawt I am and how much everyone loves, admires and idolizes me.

l337i57: lulz j00 c4nn07 d3p|-|347 /\/\4|-| dr00d!

Marxist: Class, class, class! The problem with D&D is its division by class!

Abstract Expressionist: 54yh~ *

AstralFire
2008-07-30, 03:25 PM
Other types of gaming:

Fatalist: Nothing we can do is ever going to change anything anyway. Why bother rolling at all?

Existentialist: Where is the meaning? For what purpose do I seek to retrieve this Ring of McGuffin? There is, of course, no identifiable purpose at all. The choice is entirely mine, and I shall bear the consequences of my actions.

Narcissist: Look at my Charisma and Appearance scores! Am I teh sexah or what? I'm going to write a novella that details just how hawt I am and how much everyone loves, admires and idolizes me.

l337i57: lulz j00 c4nn07 d3p|-|347 /\/\4|-| dr00d!

Marxist: Class, class, class! The problem with D&D is its division by class!

Abstract Expressionist: 54yh~ *

You just made me giggle. +1 Cookie for you.

ken-do-nim
2008-07-30, 03:26 PM
The AD&D DMG can say what it wants. It is however, incorrect. Gamist design philosophy does not include rules for lighting a fire, and certainly doesn't require a non-weapon proficiency to do so.

Nor does it have things like Use Rope and Profession as skills. At all. Except perhaps in a Western or a Pirate game.



You are making me laugh (at you). The original 3 AD&D books do not contain any "non-weapon proficiencies". There aren't rules for lighting fires and using rope. Having a profession is resolved by a simple roll on a secondary skills table. You don't have to waste precious skill points that would otherwise be spent on spot or listen on a profession.

That being said, AD&D is certainly the most combat simulationist of the D&D editions; it takes into account how certain weapons fare against certain armors, how their length affects initiative, which weapons can unseat a mounted opponent, and how much space they require. I find that when I play AD&D 1E, I can't help but dive into learning about how medieval combat worked. AD&D combat also stresses simultaneous movement; a breath of fresh air from other editions where the side that wins initiative moves up fully to the other.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-30, 03:30 PM
snipped hilarity


...I think I love you.

ken-do-nim
2008-07-30, 03:30 PM
There will be people of course, who simply don't like 4E at all and will turn to 3E, because unlike 2E and 1E, it is an actual option (back then, if you didn't like 3E, well sucks to be you then) WotC isn't handing their license away (i mean they did cancel Dungeon and Dragon sadly, but now we have path finder) and new people will be coming to 3E, unlike 2E where they aren't very many new people showing up at all.


There is a lot more 2E, 1E, and Classic D&D play even today than you realize. I have no trouble whatsoever finding games for those editions. It certainly isn't the case of 'sucks to be me'. Older editions are quite popular (see my original post for the 10% estimate).

Rachel Lorelei
2008-07-30, 03:32 PM
That being said, AD&D is certainly the most combat simulationist of the D&D editions; it takes into account how certain weapons fare against certain armors, how their length affects initiative, which weapons can unseat a mounted opponent, and how much space they require. I find that when I play AD&D 1E, I can't help but dive into learning about how medieval combat worked. AD&D combat also stresses simultaneous movement; a breath of fresh air from other editions where the side that wins initiative moves up fully to the other.

...meanwhile, in 2E, the combat round is one minute long.

Now that's abstract!

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-30, 03:51 PM
...I think I love you.

You can be my cohort anytime.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-30, 04:30 PM
This entire topic makes my head hurt. Narrativist :frown:, Gamist :eek:, Simulationist :mad:.

You're all making me see red, you bunch of Communists! :furious:

Let me explain them to you.

Narrativism - a game should encourage creating an interesting story from all the parties.
Gamism - a game should be challenging, fair and offer many mechanical options.
Simulationism - a game should be believable, possess verisimilitude.

In other words, the best system is 50% narrativist, 40% gamist and 10% simulationist. Something like Exalted.
Okay, that's my opinion. But this opinion is far from humble.

AstralFire
2008-07-30, 04:31 PM
Let me explain them to you.

Narrativism - a game should encourage creating an interesting story from all the parties.
Gamism - a game should be challenging, fair and offer many mechanical options.
Simulationism - a game should be believable, possess verisimilitude.

In other words, a best system is 50% narrativist, 40% gamist and 10% simulationist.
Okay, that's my opinion. But this opinion is far from humble.

I'm quite familiar with what each of the terms mean. I just think that they've gone beyond usefulness if we're arguing about what category a Profession skill falls under.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-30, 04:33 PM
Ah, okay. Well, at least it was an opportunity to shove my beliefs into other people's faces, so nothing wasted.

thegurullamen
2008-07-30, 04:43 PM
Let me explain them to you.

Narrativism - a game should encourage creating an interesting story from all the parties.
Gamism - a game should be challenging, fair and offer many mechanical options.
Simulationism - a game should be believable, possess verisimilitude.

In other words, the best system is 50% narrativist, 40% gamist and 10% simulationist. Something like Exalted.
Okay, that's my opinion. But this opinion is far from humble.

Sig'd.

Taking a cue from you, I personally prefer a 20/35/45 blend, respectively. With some existentialist abstractism throw in every other month to keep things metaphysically grounded.

EvilElitest
2008-07-30, 04:44 PM
There is a lot more 2E, 1E, and Classic D&D play even today than you realize. I have no trouble whatsoever finding games for those editions. It certainly isn't the case of 'sucks to be me'. Older editions are quite popular (see my original post for the 10% estimate).
oh no, i'm not saying that 2E/1E aren't popular, the sad thing is, that the vast majority of the players during the 2E/3E switch ether switched to 3E or didn't play at all, kinda leaving 2E in the dust. 2E has still persisted, and certainly hasn't died as of yet, but for a while it wasn't a competition with 3E. I'd say currently, your 10% thing may be true, but what i'm saying is that this change isn't going to be like the old one, where 2E is for a while somewhat forgotten save for a few loyalists. In this switch, 3E's fan base will have a place turn to instantly, unlike 2E where alternate publishing took a while to show up.


And i have to agree with you on the whole combat thing, i did really respect 2E for that




Simulationism isn't the same thing as complexity...
No, 4E just lacks both in terms of non combat. But i digress
from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-07-30, 04:49 PM
oh no, i'm not saying that 2E/1E aren't popular, the sad thing is, that the vast majority of the players during the 2E/3E switch ether switched to 3E or didn't play at all, kinda leaving 2E in the dust.
Sad but true, at least on my end. My dad started way back at the begining (I mean Chainmail) and played his whole life, and he flat out refuses to play 1e or 2e any more. Says he likes 3.5, which is fine, 'cause I do too, but I've always wanted to try the older editions, and don't know anyone else who has or does play them. Also, the sourcebooks are hard to get ahold of, at least in my area.

Viruzzo
2008-07-30, 04:52 PM
Something like Exalted.
Exalted is fine, but unless you are in the dice industry you will need to fin some fountain that sprouts buckets of (differently colored if possible) d10s. :smallsmile:
However yeah, any system based on the premise that you are a demigod and plain rock calls for an awesomeness check.

EvilElitest
2008-07-30, 04:56 PM
Sad but true, at least on my end. My dad started way back at the begining (I mean Chainmail) and played his whole life, and he flat out refuses to play 1e or 2e any more. Says he likes 3.5, which is fine, 'cause I do too, but I've always wanted to try the older editions, and don't know anyone else who has or does play them. Also, the sourcebooks are hard to get ahold of, at least in my area.
yep. Through Paizo is now publishing 3E, which is great


In other words, the best system is 50% narrativist, 40% gamist and 10% simulationist. Something like Exalted.
Okay, that's my opinion. But this opinion is far from humble.
No a good standard game would be 40% gamist 40% stimulist, 10 % narrativist, 10% other
Exalted, like WoD is a niche game. It is a game made from one style of game and one style of play, and it does taht very well.
from
EE

Jayabalard
2008-07-30, 05:02 PM
No a good standard game would be 40% gamist 40% stimulist, 10 % narrativist, 10% otherNope; a good standard game is is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.

AstralFire
2008-07-30, 05:08 PM
A good game is no less than 60% fun.

Reinboom
2008-07-30, 05:13 PM
Results from the FLGS I work at says:
Very yes.
We are barely able to keep the adventures on the shelves, the boxed sets we were constantly out of within a day or two of a reorder, and we are light on every other book - and this is noting that we ordered many cases (enough to fill 6 4-foot book rack sections) worth of books.

The 3.5, which we still carry, however has only slowly dwindled. Apast the few (including me) who jumped on our markdown right when it occurred, we only sell 1 or 2 books a week now of it.
Every group that plays in store is also playing 4e as well.


Note: The store I work is the largest (or at least, the largest that I am personally aware of - and we try to keep in contact with the others) nonelectronic gaming specific store in salt lake county/salt lake city area.

tiercel
2008-07-30, 05:23 PM
4e will probably catch on over time, just because of the passage of time, and also with additional supplements... right now, there are people who probably are sticking to 3.5e because they have all these extra Core+mountain o' splatbook options, as opposed to 4e Core.

Plus, you know, there are the people who have particular favorite things they don't see in 4e, like being able to play, I dunno, a bard. (Sure, fine, a bard isn't necessarily something so primary it needs to be in a *simplified* Core, though it's somehow managed to be a base class for the last, let's see, 19 years, and 4e has managed to convince itself that we need, for instance, Chaotic Evil and Evil, but not Lawful Evil, and Lawful Good and Good, but not Chaotic Good... so it's not just a "simplicity is better" thing. Blah. </rant>)

At least some people are probably waiting a bit to see what the "whole game" (well, more of it) looks like before converting en masse.

Deepblue706
2008-07-30, 05:25 PM
4E is definitely catching on. Many people are bored with old mechanics and want more spunk. There's a lot of aspects of 4E I don't like, but I admit it has plenty of spunk.

darkzucchini
2008-07-30, 05:59 PM
What? Compared to what? I'll take level 1 in 4E over level 1 in any previous edition any day. "20, you die" isn't a good thing.



Some of us like the thrill of being able to die in one hit, makes the combat feel realistic and dangerous. I personally felt that the sweet spot in 3.x is 1st through 3rd level (with some small problems, like casters not having enough spells at that level) and have been working on a homebrew of 3.x to keep the game deadly throughout all 20 levels.


In my area, very few people that I know who game have come down with 4e fever. I LARP once a month with about 20 or so people who actively play DnD and only 2 of them prefer the new system to 3.5.

I, for one, will keep my 3.5 (e)books and fend off Covered in Bees with my broom when he comes to my door and tries to sell me a shiny new set of 4e books.

Pirate_King
2008-07-30, 06:14 PM
Some of us like the thrill of being able to die in one hit, makes the combat feel realistic and dangerous. I personally felt that the sweet spot in 3.x is 1st through 3rd level (with some small problems, like casters not having enough spells at that level) and have been working on a homebrew of 3.x to keep the game deadly throughout all 20 levels.


In my area, very few people that I know who game have come down with 4e fever. I LARP once a month with about 20 or so people who actively play DnD and only 2 of them prefer the new system to 3.5.


Have you looked at Grim and Gritty? it's terribly dangerous

also, where and how do you larp? I'm a Dagorhir person, used to be part of mittelmarch until I moved to ohio for college.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 06:22 PM
Some of us like the thrill of being able to die in one hit, makes the combat feel realistic and dangerous.
And some of us think that's boring and encourages a lack of investment in one's character.

Your preference is your preference, but you know there are games out there that handle this vastly better than D&D, right?


I, for one, will keep my 3.5 (e)books and fend off Covered in Bees with my broom when he comes to my door and tries to sell me a shiny new set of 4e books.
I don't care what you play. If I was selling you on something it'd be Weapons of the Gods or Spirit of the Century.

clericwithnogod
2008-07-30, 06:46 PM
Other types of gaming:

Fatalist: Nothing we can do is ever going to change anything anyway. Why bother rolling at all?


Unfortunately, I've played (briefly) in games like this.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-30, 06:57 PM
Unfortunately, I've played (briefly) in games like this.

So have I. It was one of those games where the GMPC basically did everything important, and the rest of us were sort of tag-along supporting cast. I was too new, nice and naive at the time to do the kinds of maliciously destructive things I'd do now in such a game.

Jayabalard
2008-07-30, 07:25 PM
Personally, I think that 3e has even more of a solid niche than 2e or 1e did, so it's going to have it's rabid fans for even longer.


And some of us think that's boring and encourages a lack of investment in one's character.You've always had the option to start at a higher level, while those who wanted the deadlier game started at level 1. Previous editions could accommodate both preferences, 4e only accommodates one.

FreiSchultz
2008-07-30, 07:31 PM
I, for one, will keep my 3.5 (e)books and fend off Covered in Bees with my broom when he comes to my door and tries to sell me a shiny new set of 4e books.

Huh? Covered in Bees? I keep hearing this term as a reference to 4e, am I not getting it?

Covered In Bees
2008-07-30, 07:35 PM
You've always had the option to start at a higher level, while those who wanted the deadlier game started at level 1. Previous editions could accommodate both preferences, 4e only accommodates one.

3E accommodated it half-heartedly for a couple of levels. I'm glad to lose'em, and I don't think many people played at those levels exclusively (and the ones who did weren't, I'd think, big buyers).


Huh? Covered in Bees? I keep hearing this term as a reference to 4e, am I not getting it?

Hi.

AJCSIV
2008-07-30, 08:00 PM
Yeah... you don't want me in a fatalist game. I'll generally work out what the current standing situation is then completely ruin the game plan for the DM, which is great fun even for the DM if he is adaptable, but if he's fatalistic in his course of the game and he can't adapt to change...

Swordguy
2008-07-30, 08:24 PM
In the end, I think that 4e will catch on because people can make a character and not have to worry whether or not their sword and board guy is in the same party as a leap-attacking shock trooper or a Robilar's Gambit'ing spiked-chain-wielding lock down build. They can just show up and have a good time.

Yup, this.

My players don't want to spend any time outside the session reading rules or working on characters, or optimizing, or anything in any way related to mechanics. 4e allows them (and other, similarly minded, "casual" players) to play at their preferred involvement level, and not be completely gimped because they don't read the CO boards 24/7.

EvilElitest
2008-07-30, 08:53 PM
The game play i don't think is the issue so much as the licence. Even if 4E becomes poplular (through some people will get fed up with its limatitions and lack of options) the real thing is that 3rd parties won't want to pay WoTC, so they will just publish in 3E. Wish paizo already doing so, 3E might stay ahead simply because of accessiblity, after the interial checking 4E out period wears off
from
EE

The_Werebear
2008-07-30, 10:34 PM
The game play i don't think is the issue so much as the licence. Even if 4E becomes poplular (through some people will get fed up with its limatitions and lack of options) the real thing is that 3rd parties won't want to pay WoTC, so they will just publish in 3E. Wish paizo already doing so, 3E might stay ahead simply because of accessiblity, after the interial checking 4E out period wears off
from
EE

I honestly don't see lack of options ever being a problem with the way WoTC runs stuff. Like I mentioned earlier, I expect at least a book a month of new classes, powers, feats, and other various accouterments of the system.

darkzucchini
2008-07-30, 10:56 PM
Have you looked at Grim and Gritty? it's terribly dangerous

I have looked them over a bit and a I like a lot of the ideas, but the patch seems to run into a tough spot when working with spells. The system I am working on starts with the magic system (with a bit of tweeking) and works from there rather than working from hit points. Its still in the development stage though, so we will see how it performs with play testing.


also, where and how do you larp? I'm a Dagorhir person, used to be part of mittelmarch until I moved to ohio for college.

I LARP in a small boffer call-and-count system in Ithaca, NY that rose out of the ashes of an old Nero game (and two other predecessors). Its called Finger Lakes Adventure Gaming (FLAG) and has a pretty cool unique system that was invented by some friends of mine a couple of years ago.

Morty
2008-07-31, 05:13 AM
My players don't want to spend any time outside the session reading rules or working on characters, or optimizing, or anything in any way related to mechanics. 4e allows them (and other, similarly minded, "casual" players) to play at their preferred involvement level, and not be completely gimped because they don't read the CO boards 24/7.

I have a distinct feeling that in several years it'll no longer be the case. Maybe 4ed will suffer from it to a lesser degree, but power creep is inevitable. It probably won't be as bad as when 3ed melee characters went from "underpowered but playable, especially at lower levels where casters aren't broken" to "useless hobos unless you use ToB or twink them up to the sky", though.

Jerthanis
2008-07-31, 05:34 AM
I came to this thread thinking I'd write about how I totally think 4th edition is catching on... but then I noticed a trend towards people who I recall from other threads who enjoy 4th saying that they think it IS catching on; other people I remember in other threads expressing distaste for 4th edition claiming it's NOT catching on...

I realized I could be very wrong in my impression of its catching on-itude.

Dragor
2008-07-31, 05:42 AM
Catching on? Yes, I think so. There's much less 4th Ed-phobia than there was before it launched (no offence to people who dislike it), and my group, which was originally sceptical, have embraced it with open arms due to its simplicity and easy-to-make characters, allowing us to jump pretty much straight into the action.

The appeal of 4th Edition to me was that I found 3.5- my first experience of D&D- incredibly harassing. All the wealth of options overwhelmed me, so many feats, and then there was the worry that I wouldn't be as balanced as the other players. Now it's less of an individual effort and more of a group effort as we build our characters, and it's great fun. I can understand the loss of options making some players, who value complexity, unhappy; to me, as someone who just wants to do 'think of a concept, write down quirks, do character, go', though, it's a relief.

So yes, it's catching on, in my opinion.

Gwain
2008-07-31, 08:38 AM
People will slowly switch to 4th edition, in 2 years it will be the standard de-facto.

Then, in 8 years, when there will be the 5th edition, we will have these topics revamped, and people will talk about 3rd edition like they do now when talking about 2nd ("oh yeah, that old edition.. i remember i played it...")


...or you could do like me and stop playing for a whole edition, i did that once, it isn't that bad ;)

Thrawn183
2008-07-31, 09:40 AM
Woot, my getting quoted got the thread back on track!

Jerthanis, I think the point of this thread was for people to talk about people they know in real life so that others could look at the situation from a different perspective rather then try and figure out what forum posters personally feel. (Forum posters aren't always representative)

EvilElitest
2008-07-31, 09:46 AM
People will slowly switch to 4th edition, in 2 years it will be the standard de-facto.

Then, in 8 years, when there will be the 5th edition, we will have these topics revamped, and people will talk about 3rd edition like they do now when talking about 2nd ("oh yeah, that old edition.. i remember i played it...")


...or you could do like me and stop playing for a whole edition, i did that once, it isn't that bad ;)

that is the thing through, as long as 4E has that absurd license 4E can't become the standard de facto, because so many third parties will be publishing in 3E, which never happened in 2E and 1E.

Werebear, i'm talking about how 4E is more limiting in terms of character options than 3E
from
EE

Dausuul
2008-07-31, 11:02 AM
My group plunged straight into 4E the moment it came out, and we haven't looked back since. (Well, that's not true. We've looked back and said, "Damn, this edition is so much better.")


that is the thing through, as long as 4E has that absurd license 4E can't become the standard de facto, because so many third parties will be publishing in 3E, which never happened in 2E and 1E.

Third parties are a tiny, tiny fraction of the RPG market, which is completely dominated by D&D. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third party publishers, but claiming that they'll have an impact on the adoption/failure of 4E is like claiming that your local mom-and-pop store's price policy is going to have an impact on the bottom line of Wal-Mart.

Starbuck_II
2008-07-31, 12:00 PM
People will slowly switch to 4th edition, in 2 years it will be the standard de-facto.

Then, in 8 years, when there will be the 5th edition, we will have these topics revamped, and people will talk about 3rd edition like they do now when talking about 2nd ("oh yeah, that old edition.. i remember i played it...")


...or you could do like me and stop playing for a whole edition, i did that once, it isn't that bad ;)

8 years is par for the course: it does fit time line (every full edition took around average 8 years).

I still remember 2nd and 3rd: they had there moments, but since the beginning I noticed power issues (some classes better). I've always belived in fairness and balance so that might be why I like 4th.

I do worry that the FR Swordmage is almost too good. Granted, we only see preview so far.

I do think 4th is catching on.

Gwain
2008-07-31, 12:22 PM
Third parties are a tiny, tiny fraction of the RPG market, which is completely dominated by D&D. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third party publishers, but claiming that they'll have an impact on the adoption/failure of 4E is like claiming that your local mom-and-pop store's price policy is going to have an impact on the bottom line of Wal-Mart.

And when the vast majority of players will switch to 4th edition, the already tiny fratcion of RPG Market will become even smaller, it would be a suicide for most 3rd party publishers to continue selling on a dying market.

I mean, sure you will have some publishers continuing to publish for the 3rd, but don't really expect 3rd edition to live thanks to them.

Economically Speaking, 3rd edition is dead.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-31, 12:51 PM
I do worry that the FR Swordmage is almost too good. Granted, we only see preview so far.

What we've seen isn't any better than the Fighter (which is really exceptionally well done this time around).

thegurullamen
2008-07-31, 01:19 PM
it would be a suicide for most 3rd party publishers to continue selling on a dying market.

I mean, sure you will have some publishers continuing to publish for the 3rd, but don't really expect 3rd edition to live thanks to them.

It would be suicide to publish for 4e under the current GSL. The sacrifices a company has to make to publish nearly anything in 4e far, far outweigh whatever economic boons publishing uder the new system might bring.

As for your second statement, I disagree. I think Paizo's Pathfinder RPG will continue the 3.x edition well enough for those who prefer it over 4e. Of course, it won't be nearly as strong as it was before, but it's there and I think 3.x will still be around when 4.5e/5e is announced.

Viruzzo
2008-07-31, 01:27 PM
It would be suicide to publish for 4e under the current GSL. The sacrifices a company has to make to publish nearly anything in 4e far, far outweigh whatever economic boons publishing uder the new system might bring.
I'm not very informed on the GSL, I only understood that is less liberal that the OGL (quite obviously, since it was a very open license). Can someone explain me in what ways it makes so much worse for publishers to use it?

thegurullamen
2008-07-31, 01:31 PM
I won't describe it here (lest I do some disservice through a possible misinterpretation of the legalese) but here is the link (Warning: .pdf file.):

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/GSL_20080617.pdf

Gwain
2008-07-31, 01:35 PM
It would be suicide to publish for 4e under the current GSL. The sacrifices a company has to make to publish nearly anything in 4e far, far outweigh whatever economic boons publishing uder the new system might bring.

To be honest i agree with you, but i was talking about what people can do with the 3rd edition, not the 4th. As i see it, WotC doesn't want 3rd party competitors. (For economic/game balance issues, 99%/1% of course)


As for your second statement, I disagree. I think Paizo's Pathfinder RPG will continue the 3.x edition well enough for those who prefer it over 4e. Of course, it won't be nearly as strong as it was before, but it's there and I think 3.x will still be around when 4.5e/5e is announced.

That's pretty possible, but you will agree with me that 4th edition will be the new standard in 1 year (when the Phb2 will come out). I just smile at the people that thinks the 3rd edition will be revamped after WotC "notices" how they don't like the new system.

There's no way back, guys. For WotC 3.x is dead.

thegurullamen
2008-07-31, 01:39 PM
That's pretty possible, but you will agree with me that 4th edition will be the new standard in 1 year (when the Phb2 will come out). I just smile at the people that thinks the 3rd edition will be revamped after WotC "notices" how they don't like the new system.

There's no way back, guys. For WotC 3.x is dead.

Right you are, though most of us 3e'ers wish it weren't (EE, I'm looking at you.) As for the "WotC readopting a previous edition" thing, I have to say I've never heard that opinion before. Seems especially naive, even for the Internet.

Gwain
2008-07-31, 01:43 PM
Right you are, though most of us 3e'ers wish it weren't (EE, I'm looking at you.) As for the "WotC readopting a previous edition" thing, I have to say I've never heard that opinion before. Seems especially naive, even for the Internet.

my fault :)

i meant "looks like people hope for a 3rd ed. revamping"
as opposed to "people asks for a 3rd ed..."

Estovus
2008-07-31, 01:44 PM
I think 4E will catch on, eventually. However, about 10% of 3E or 3.5E players won't switch, mostly because of stubbornness. I am one of these players. I've read the 4E PHB, and I must say, since I haven't tried it, I'll stick with 3.5. This is because 3.5 is tried and true, and switching to 4E would be quite experimental for me. Normally I'm fairly adventurous, but with this I'll stick to 3.5. Why? Because rulebooks are expensive. And 3.5 is good - damn good.

Just my two øre.

wodan46
2008-07-31, 02:21 PM
One should understand that 4e isn't about reading, but doing. The system works much better in practice than it does on paper.

Swordmage is ok, now that its confirmed that they get +3 AC with 1 hand empty and +1 AC with both hands in use. This gives them better AC than other light armor wearers, but unlike the light armor wearers, they're more likely to be in the heat of battle and need their armor on the same level as a Fighter or Paladin.

+3 Ward, +5 Int, and +2 Leather armor means a Level 1 Swordmage can have 20 AC, but they will have very weak Fort/Will.

Starsinger
2008-07-31, 02:46 PM
+3 Ward, +5 Int, and +2 Leather armor means a Level 1 Swordmage can have 20 AC, but they will have very weak Fort/Will.

Why? I.. I don't understand.

Snooder
2008-07-31, 02:54 PM
I won't describe it here (lest I do some disservice through a possible misinterpretation of the legalese) but here is the link (Warning: .pdf file.):

http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/GSL_20080617.pdf

Just read it, and it seems fairly straightforward. Only downside I can note is the provision for revocation of the license which seems necessary. And from the paragraph, it looks like the license revocation simply forces the licensee to stop using WotC logos for advertising and prevents them from continuing to use proprietary material in the future. The new license seems necessary to prevent abuses such as d20srd.org as well as to disassociate themselves from shoddy products.

Simply put, from a business standpoint, the OGL was too lax. And from a quality control standpoint it was WAAY too lax. WotC doesn't so much sell a name as a brand, and allowing third parties to dilute the brand with inferior product is not good for anyone. The new license simply gives WotC a recourse when that happens.

Tenadros
2008-07-31, 03:47 PM
As for myself and my gaming group I can say that we are sticking to 3.5ed. While I do find 4th to be too close to world of warcraft for my tastes. The reason is far more simple than mechanics. I/we have all the 3.5 books that we need to run a theoretically infinite number of games in an equally infinite number of and flavors of worlds. I then see no reason to buy completely new books and learn new rules simply to play in these same theoretical worlds. I like 3.5 its a decent system, a few house rules to take care of some flaws, but a solid flexible system that I know and have the resources for. Buying the new system gains me nothing. I already have a game for fantasy gaming why should I then buy a completely different game when the differences are not readily discernable.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-31, 04:11 PM
+3 Ward, +5 Int, and +2 Leather armor means a Level 1 Swordmage can have 20 AC, but they will have very weak Fort/Will.

Hide Armor Proficiency for additional 1 AC. Ah, and Swordmages' Fort won't be that horrible, since apart from Int they also need Con or Str, depending on the build.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-31, 04:15 PM
As for your second statement, I disagree. I think Paizo's Pathfinder RPG will continue the 3.x edition well enough for those who prefer it over 4e. Of course, it won't be nearly as strong as it was before, but it's there and I think 3.x will still be around when 4.5e/5e is announced.

The problem with Pathfinder is, well...

It feels like it was designed by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea what those things actually are.

AKA_Bait
2008-07-31, 04:18 PM
The problem with Pathfinder is, well...

It feels like it was designed by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea what those things actually are.

You know... that's just about the best way of expressing my issues with pathfinder I've read. Well done sir!

AstralFire
2008-07-31, 04:18 PM
The problem with Pathfinder is, well...

It feels like it was designed by people who know that dark, terrible things happen in the depths of the CharOp boards, but have no idea what those things actually are.

Now I'm tempted to pick this Pathfinder stuff up for a laugh.

Starbuck_II
2008-07-31, 04:32 PM
Hide Armor Proficiency for additional 1 AC. Ah, and Swordmages' Fort won't be that horrible, since apart from Int they also need Con or Str, depending on the build.

True, they get +2 Will from Class.

I'd expect great Reflex, Good Fort, decent Will at low levels.
Fighters: I'd expect Great Fort, decent Reflex, okay Will.

I do think Con focused Swordmages are a little better. I mean Shielding 8 or so damage 1/round from an enemy attack? Sweet.

At low levels, that is almost complete protection (except Crits).

RukiTanuki
2008-07-31, 04:35 PM
For the OP: every 3e player I have played one trial game of 4e, then said 4e was their preferred system. It's anecdotal to be sure, but it certainly shapes my opinion. :)

Covered In Bees
2008-07-31, 04:39 PM
You know... that's just about the best way of expressing my issues with pathfinder I've read. Well done sir!

Thanks. I am paraphrasing something I read somewhere on the internet, I'll note. I forget what and where, though.

Starbuck_II
2008-07-31, 04:40 PM
For the OP: every 3e player I have played one trial game of 4e, then said 4e was their preferred system. It's anecdotal to be sure, but it certainly shapes my opinion. :)

Did they have pre-conceived ideas about 4th? Or were they open minded?

I have same expereince as you when my brother and his friend played. But it is important to note if this was with or without pre-games ideas.

Both of them had a few. Like that it seemed a little video gamey (and they don't even go to forums), but once they tried it they liked it.

Kinda like vegetables. As a kid you might not like them, but after trying some you like a few (I like Brocoli for example).

Viruzzo
2008-07-31, 04:58 PM
I won't describe it here (lest I do some disservice through a possible misinterpretation of the legalese) but here is the link (Warning: .pdf file.):
Thank you, but I knew where to get the file. I just wanted a quick and dirty resume of why it is so bad. I've read it though, and I don't see anything particularly terrible, the "don't go back to OGL" clause is nasty but not going to reall kill anyone.


Kinda like vegetables. As a kid you might not like them, but after trying some you like a few (I like Brocoli for example).
It's "broccoli", but anyway well said! It's hard to face change, but curiosity may lend good results.

tiercel
2008-07-31, 05:01 PM
For another perspective on the thread's original question:

Core book ratings at Amazon.

The ratings seem to be pretty bipolar: for 4e PHB, there are 149 customer ratings, of which 42 give five stars and 52 give one star.

Similarly for the other Core books: 42 reviews for the 4e DMG, 11 of which are five stars and 16 of which are one star; 44 reviews for the 4e MM, 13 of which are five stars and 21 of which are one star.

Tengu_temp
2008-07-31, 05:02 PM
Thanks. I am paraphrasing something I read somewhere on the internet, I'll note. I forget what and where, though.

No hope asking for examples, then?

Viruzzo
2008-07-31, 05:11 PM
The ratings seem to be pretty bipolar: for 4e PHB, there are 149 customer ratings, of which 42 give five stars and 52 give one star.
Any serious rating mechanism and statistic should exclude the max and min votes. Also this applies (both in positive and negative) only to 1) those who buy on amazon 2) only to the country of that version of Amazon (presumably you considered Amazon.com and so the US).
As a side note: are you require to buy to vote? If note, that invalidates any hope of serious reading.

Covered In Bees
2008-07-31, 05:27 PM
No hope asking for examples, then?

Last I saw, for example, specialist wizards didn't get bonus spells... but specialist conjurers got Gate as a spell-like ability eventually.

DrowVampyre
2008-07-31, 05:50 PM
It's important to note that the Pathfinder RPG is just about to go to beta, where things will be changed. It's been in alpha, so more...shall we say radical ideas were being tested. Beta's free, though, as is alpha, so if you're curious, go download them from Paizo's site. I've been playing Alpha 3 a bit, and I must say that while there are still some issues, I think they've done a good job overall.

And Paizo, unlike WotC, is very receptive to their customers and excellent on customer service. Post on their forums about something integral to the game itself, or even a lot of things that aren't, and there's a good chance you'll get a response from one of the editors, the lead designer, or even the CEO.

tiercel
2008-07-31, 10:55 PM
Any serious rating mechanism and statistic should exclude the max and min votes.

Except that's kind of hard when there are only 5 stars -- if you actually throw away 1/5 and 5/5 votes, you are making the total vote kinda meaningless.


Also this applies (both in positive and negative) only to 1) those who buy on amazon 2) only to the country of that version of Amazon (presumably you considered Amazon.com and so the US).

I'd imagine that people who buy on Amazon are not wildly unrepresentational of people who buy the books generally -- and I did look at amazon.com, since the US site generally has more sales than any other country site (and I was looking for the best overall statistics, such as they were). But again, I'm not sure that US D&D players have a systematically different view of 4e than the rest of the world.


As a side note: are you require to buy to vote? If note, that invalidates any hope of serious reading.

I am not citing Amazon as anything approaching a scientific survey, such as THEY are... but it is a bigger collection of anecdotal experience/opinion than any one person is likely to have in their own lives. As it is, you aren't required to buy to be on this thread, either, and yet people are discussing it anyhow.

My point isn't that Amazon proves anything, just that anecdotally, out of the 149 people who chose to give a rating (however good or bad), 94 of them chose to give an extreme rating, and those split between good and bad (slight weighting toward bad). That just illustrates with moderate unscientific numbers what seems to be the case generally on forum threads I've read -- it's kind of split decision on 4e right now, some people think it's great, some people hate it.

Kiara LeSabre
2008-07-31, 11:09 PM
My point isn't that Amazon proves anything, just that anecdotally, out of the 149 people who chose to give a rating (however good or bad), 94 of them chose to give an extreme rating, and those split between good and bad (slight weighting toward bad). That just illustrates with moderate unscientific numbers what seems to be the case generally on forum threads I've read -- it's kind of split decision on 4e right now, some people think it's great, some people hate it.

I would expect as much, mainly because people are most frequently moved to comment at all when they're either extremely happy or extremely unhappy, not so much when they're just "okay" about something. Also, 4e represents as radical a departure from 3.x as 3.x represented from
AD&D (which some of you whippersnappers don't remember, so you may not realize how big of a change 3.x really was).

Covered In Bees
2008-07-31, 11:20 PM
And Paizo, unlike WotC, is very receptive to their customers and excellent on customer service. Post on their forums about something integral to the game itself, or even a lot of things that aren't, and there's a good chance you'll get a response from one of the editors, the lead designer, or even the CEO.

That's part of the problem. They are listening to a general audience of people who, overall, are allergic to mathematical analysis of D&D and even the idea that balancing is good.

thegurullamen
2008-07-31, 11:36 PM
That's part of the problem. They are listening to a general audience of people who, overall, are allergic to mathematical analysis of D&D and even the idea that balancing is good.

Would you care to qualify this in any way at all?

clericwithnogod
2008-07-31, 11:40 PM
I'm heading back to 3.5. I was having a pretty good time with 4e, but the re-writing of the stealth rules really took a lot of the cool out of the game to me.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 12:05 AM
Would you care to qualify this in any way at all?
It comes from reading the Paizo forums once upon a time. You can read'em yourself.


I'm heading back to 3.5. I was having a pretty good time with 4e, but the re-writing of the stealth rules really took a lot of the cool out of the game to me.
...how so?

clericwithnogod
2008-08-01, 01:14 AM
...how so?

They raised the bar on what it takes to become hidden too high. Stealth went from darting around the battlefield, slipping in and out of shadows, to hiding in one place, probably a corner, (sometimes over and over). Fun stuff that was possible before like slipping behind the enemy to engage artillery and battleshipping the enemy skirmishers in the woods before they crept up on the wizard or sprang out to flank the fighter just doesn't work if you can't get into stealth.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 01:17 AM
They raised the bar on what it takes to become hidden too high. Stealth went from darting around the battlefield, slipping in and out of shadows, to hiding in one place, probably a corner, (sometimes over and over). Fun stuff that was possible before like slipping behind the enemy to engage artillery and battleshipping the enemy skirmishers in the woods before they crept up on the wizard or sprang out to flank the fighter just doesn't work if you can't get into stealth.

I hate to tell you, but you couldn't actually do that in 3.5, by the rules. You'd need Hide in Plain Sight for that.

Besides which, check out the Rogue's stealth utilities, they're pretty awesome.
And on top of that, 4E doesn't kill stealth after level, oh, 10, with Tremorsense/Blindsense/Blindsight/etc all over the place.

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 01:23 AM
What is this need of yours, CiB, to respond to every claim of 3.x superiority in some manner, true or not, with a retort on how 4e is better? I mean, it's great that you think so and can get passionate about a hobby (actually, "great" might be overstating it. We're all geeks; passionate is par for the course), but you seem to need to have others agree with you.

Why?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 01:29 AM
What is this need of yours, CiB, to respond to every claim of 3.x superiority in some manner, true or not, with a retort on how 4e is better? I mean, it's great that you think so and can get passionate about a hobby (actually, "great" might be overstating it. We're all geeks; passionate is par for the course), but you seem to need to have others agree with you.

Why?

I asked why he thought something. Then I pointed some stuff out.
Clearly, I cannot rest until everyone accepts I'm right.

Why not go ask EE why he need to comment about 4E in every thread?

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 01:44 AM
I actually thought about doing that, but it's in his name: Evil Elitist. Besides, I've seen his writing style on these boards more often than I've seen yours and experience says that with you, I'm less likely to get a long-winded diatribe about how every aspect of my statements are wrong and completely without merit. (Though not by much, if your post war with EE is an indicator.) Also, yours comes with better spelling and grammar. The Eddie Izzard quote is just a sweet cake-y bonus.

As for
I asked why he thought something. Then I pointed some stuff out. it's an easy pattern to spot. The man stated he'd made up his mind, you asked him to explain a point, then deconstructed it, ending on the 4e-over-3.5 point. It looks harmless, but like I said, the man had already decided on a course of action. I doubt your statements could have persuaded him to do the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do, so what was the point in posting to begin with? I suppose to clarify the point he made about 4e stealth in general so others pursuing 4e wouldn't hit this same stumbling block (if it is in fact a stumbling block) and become dissatisfied with the game. This is a nice, objective enough approach, but you seem to be replying to most posts regarding 3e/4e decisions favoring 3e over 4e with posts about 4e's superiority.

Hence the question. I sense a reply coming, and if I can be so bold, I'd prefer it free of sarcastic italics, please. :smallbiggrin:

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 02:00 AM
so what was the point in posting to begin with?
It's a post on the internet. I feel like making it, I make it. Don't overthink this.


I suppose to clarify the point he made about 4e stealth in general so others pursuing 4e wouldn't hit this same stumbling block (if it is in fact a stumbling block) and become dissatisfied with the game. This is a nice, objective enough approach, but you seem to be replying to most posts regarding 3e/4e decisions favoring 3e over 4e with posts about 4e's superiority.

Hence the question. I sense a reply coming, and if I can be so bold, I'd prefer it free of sarcastic italics, please. :smallbiggrin:
I was just pointing out that maybe 4e isn't so relatively bad for stealth after all. You know, because apparently he cares about that. Again: post. Internet. Don't overthink it.

clericwithnogod
2008-08-01, 02:22 AM
I hate to tell you, but you couldn't actually do that in 3.5, by the rules. You'd need Hide in Plain Sight for that.

Besides which, check out the Rogue's stealth utilities, they're pretty awesome.
And on top of that, 4E doesn't kill stealth after level, oh, 10, with Tremorsense/Blindsense/Blindsight/etc all over the place.

Wow thanks. I haven't read any of the 3.5 rules and never thought to read any of the 4e rogue powers before playing one or DMing. :smallsigh:

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 02:24 AM
Wow thanks. I haven't read any of the 3.5 rules and never thought to read any of the 4e rogue powers before playing one or DMing. :smallsigh:

Hey, for all I know from the kind of posts I usually see here, you haven't.

Charity
2008-08-01, 02:25 AM
Well this thread has picked up a bit
Oh no my mistake


I cannot rest until everyone accepts I'm right.

So many quotable lines to take out of context..


and if I can be so bold, I'd prefer it free of sarcastic italics
I just thought I'd underline your pun for anyone whom missed it.

I imagine it's difficult to dedicate time to navel gazing when one is covered in bees...

Every one of my RL gaming mates is keen as mustard to play 4e, I just need to kill em all off finsh my campaign so we can get started.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 02:33 AM
Well this thread has picked up a bit
I imagine it's difficult to dedicate time to navel gazing when one is covered in bees...


http://bigblackglasses.com/images/CoveredInBees.gif

Titanium Dragon
2008-08-01, 05:15 AM
D&D: 60%
White Wolf: 20%
Everyone else put together: 20%

Pathfinder is insignificant.

Charity
2008-08-01, 05:49 AM
^ Where did you get those figures from?


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40929000/jpg/_40929546_koreabeesap220.jpghttp://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/images/320/eddieizzard.jpg

We love Eddie.

clericwithnogod
2008-08-01, 09:59 AM
Hey, for all I know from the kind of posts I usually see here, you haven't.

Cool. I'm glad you've come to show us the error of our ways. :smallsigh:

Starbuck_II
2008-08-01, 10:42 AM
I suppose to clarify the point he made about 4e stealth in general so others pursuing 4e wouldn't hit this same stumbling block (if it is in fact a stumbling block) and become dissatisfied with the game.
This is a nice, objective enough approach, but you seem to be replying to most posts regarding 3e/4e decisions favoring 3e over 4e with posts about 4e's superiority.


True, but I'm glad someone dispels the myths. I mean, not to date myself, but a few months back someone made a thread with lies about 4th and future posters believed every word. Eventually the guy told the truth that he had lied, but posters kept believing what he said because they only read first post.

So I say anyone that spread a truth is okay in my book.
BTW, doesn't being covered in bees make it hard to type?

EvilElitest
2008-08-01, 12:55 PM
on 3rd party sources, the thing that made them insignificant is that they were just doing the same thing that 3E was doing, so they had no real value. Now that the people who don't like 4E are actually in some form of mass, WOTC control over power over 3 rd party sources is going to be limited. 3E people are going to go to pathfinder, which while not perfect, to some people is far better than 4E. So pathfinder could actually become important now.

Titanium dragon, any backing for those statistic. And with its support, path finder won't be unimportant for long.


Bees, i don't randomly comment i often have a point. So don't make that argument

thegurullamen,- personally, i'd rather have a well backed argument, then somebody saying "your wrong"
from
EE

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 01:14 PM
So I say anyone that spread a truth is okay in my book.
BTW, doesn't being covered in bees make it hard to type?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1406/830763165_3d2685f163_o.jpg
Yes.

RukiTanuki
2008-08-01, 01:55 PM
Did they have pre-conceived ideas about 4th? Or were they open minded?

I have same expereince as you when my brother and his friend played. But it is important to note if this was with or without pre-games ideas.

Both of them had a few. Like that it seemed a little video gamey (and they don't even go to forums), but once they tried it they liked it.

Their foreknowledge of 4e was listening to me talk about things that had changed, and replying "Yeah, that was a little annoying in 3e. The new way sounds a lot easier." We sat down for a game with preview characters, I spent a few minutes talking about what changed, we ran several combats, and I heard "I like this much better" repeatedly. They all want to finish the current campaign and go immediately to 4e, and I've been drafting a 1890s-flavor, frontier-focused, steampunk/magepunk campaign world to suit them. They, in turn, have been drafting characters, and for the first time, they're focusing on who the PCs are, rather than what they can do.

You won't get "video game" applied as an insult from this crowd: we play them a lot, and no one considers them a "lesser" form of entertainment. Most of my players are actually video game developers. They enjoy D&D because it's a social activity, and because unlike a video game, their characters can try anything, and stand a reasonable chance of success. (At the very least, they expect an appropriate reaction to their character's actions.)

The overwhelming response I've heard as I recanted the discussions here has been amusement. They consider the 3e vs. 4e debate to be the equivalent of Star Wars vs. Star Trek (in no particularly correlating order): a discussion over the collective worth of what is ultimately personal preference.

So, in summary, yes, I have open-minded players. For that, I am quite grateful. :)

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 03:17 PM
True, but I'm glad someone dispels the myths. I mean, not to date myself, but a few months back someone made a thread with lies about 4th and future posters believed every word. Eventually the guy told the truth that he had lied, but posters kept believing what he said because they only read first post.

So I say anyone that spread a truth is okay in my book.
BTW, doesn't being covered in bees make it hard to type?

I've no problem with the truth spreading, but at some point, we as Americans (non-Americans can stop reading here) must stand up and ask "At what cost?"

(non-Americans may resume reading if they had already stopped as suggested)

What do I mean by this? It's hard to say. Even I'm not entirely clear on why I'm writing.

So, comments:

EE- Walls of text make my eyes bleed. (Literally busted a capillary reading on this screen.) Can you add a summary at the end of your posts for those of us less inclined to get migraines/chronic blindness?

CiB- How do you type with boxing gloves bees on your hands?

Everyone else- Sorry about the pun.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 03:35 PM
CiB- How do you type with boxing gloves bees on your hands?


Like this.

EvilElitest
2008-08-01, 03:38 PM
guys, i would remind you taht having an open mind doesn't mean that you ahve to over see flaws. I mean, i could have an open mind about FATAL, that doesn't mean i have to say it is good, or even an acceptable creation on every level


ON my walls of text
Sure, i'll add a summery, but you can't blame me if it doesn't seem detailed
from
EEE

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-08-01, 03:49 PM
FATAL and 4e are rather different things.

There's quite a lot more things in FATAL that are hard to accept even with an open mind (complex mechanics, highly questionable and disturbing atmosphere)...as opposed to 4e, where the only big hang-ups for people are streamlined mechanics.

And I say that 4e is easily going to catch on. New blood always makes up the majority of the current generation of gamers.

darkzucchini
2008-08-01, 05:09 PM
That's part of the problem. They are listening to a general audience of people who, overall, are allergic to mathematical analysis of D&D and even the idea that balancing is good.


This could indicate that D&D should not require heavy mathematical analysis and that balance is really unnecessary in a cooperative game.


from
EEE

So... whats the extra E for? Egotistical Evil Elitist, Erroneous Evil Elitist, Ergonometric Evil Elitist, Explosive Evil Elitist, Erotic Evil Elitist (ok, now thats a little weird, you're like 16 or something). Anyway, its killing me... I need to know.

Hehe, just joking with you mate.

Viruzzo
2008-08-01, 05:22 PM
Now that the people who don't like 4E are actually in some form of mass, WOTC control over power over 3 rd party sources is going to be limited.
I know I shouldn't respond to you, but still... Whatever the number of people who just hate 4e is, it will diminish. There is no escaping that.
As for the control, many publisher will eventually move on to 4e: since you cannot (with the GSL) make a 3.x and a 4e version of the same product, sooner or later they will updated their series and abandon 3.x, simply because the market will move towards 4e.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 05:22 PM
This could indicate that D&D should not require heavy mathematical analysis and that balance is really unnecessary in a cooperative game.
D&D is a high-crunch game. FATE doesn't require heavy analysis; D&D does. It's a game with a lot of numbers. If you don't care how the numbers turn out, then either play a more rules-light game or let the people who *do* care about the numbers work with them.

The idea that balance is unnecessary is pure bunk. Very few people really have fun being the chump that can't contribute. And those who want to be one, in a balanced D&D, can be one intentionally; it should not be forced upon everybody who picks a certain class.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 05:29 PM
ON my walls of text
Sure, i'll add a summery, but you can't blame me if it doesn't seem detailed
from
EEE

I think he means that you should divide your posts into smaller paragraphs.

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 05:34 PM
If you don't care how the numbers turn out, then either play a more rules-light game or let the people who *do* care about the numbers work with them.

The idea that balance is unnecessary is pure bunk. Very few people really have fun being the chump that can't contribute. And those who want to be one, in a balanced D&D, can be one intentionally; it should not be forced upon everybody who picks a certain class.

Yeah! If y'all don't like America, then you can just leave!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 05:36 PM
Yeah! If y'all don't like America, then you can just leave!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Rules-light games exist for very good reasons. I like a number of them. They function fundamentally differently than rules-heavy games. Treating a rules-heavy game like a rules-light one, or vice versa, tends to end in tears. Or at least bees.

Poison_Fish
2008-08-01, 05:39 PM
I think he means that you should divide your posts into smaller paragraphs.

I think we should have all arguments be reduced to catchphrases and 10 second sound bytes.

On that note: 4E will pierce the heavens, causing new players to fall from it.

In reality, I'm not a huge fan of D&D in general. But I agree with the general assessment of the new system, considering it's objective is to gather, to quote the butcher "Ahhhh, Fresh Meat".

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 05:40 PM
On that note: 4E will pierce the heavens,
With its drill?

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE ARE?!

samurai
2008-08-01, 06:26 PM
this debate about 4e has been raging for quite a while but here's what I think about 4e

1)It plays like a dumbed down WoW
2)It has a unfair and unrealistic skill system
3)It is totally geared towards combat
4)It is newbie friendly

That being said 4e is very slick easy to learn system it just doesn't have the depth and options that 3.5 has but many players claim that 3.5 has very overpowered casters and too many rules. Take tome of battle for example theirs is tons of options for martial charecters like new stances and manuvers. But to use them you have to learn all about all those manuvers and calculate how many you have and how many times you can use them. It can cause the game to stagnate whereas 4e the charecter creation is fast and easier to get into a game.

Bottom line if you like a rules heavy that has a a lot of options then play 3.5 if you like a game that plays fast and easy but not with a alot of classes and options then play 4e so it all depends on the player.

Pandaren
2008-08-01, 06:30 PM
I've browsed thorugh the 4e Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual, needless to say, I'm not impressed. It just seems so.......what's the word? Pointless?

Starbuck_II
2008-08-01, 06:33 PM
With its drill?

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK WE ARE?!

Rawr Rawr, I'm the Monster!?

(I love that rap song, I keep thinking it says White the power though)

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 06:38 PM
this debate about 4e has been raging for quite a while but here's what I think about 4e
1)It plays like a dumbed down WoW
3)It is totally geared towards combat


Well, I guess I don't need to bother reading that post! Thanks for letting me know so fast.
I guess the skill challenge mechanic is there to let you kill people, and it gives xp because... uh... oh, wait, if the game were totally geared toward combat it wouldn't. How do you get XP in 3.5 again?

---

Incidentally, Stealth update: http://ww2.wizards.com/dnd/insider/skill.aspx?id=20&searchterm=stealth

There ya go, whoever the guy was who had a problem with the skill.

Also, please note how, once again, it explicitly suggests that the DM adjudicate something reasonable/common-sense. So much for the whole "hurr they're making it a video game derp" thing.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-01, 08:01 PM
Rawr Rawr, I'm the Monster!?

(I love that rap song, I keep thinking it says White the power though)

Do the impossible, see the invisible, row row fight the powa!

That's how it goes.

Now I want to make an Inspiring Warlord who will use TTGL-like speeches.

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 08:09 PM
Rules-light games exist for very good reasons. I like a number of them. They function fundamentally differently than rules-heavy games. Treating a rules-heavy game like a rules-light one, or vice versa, tends to end in tears. Or at least bees.

Bees. My God.


Well, I guess I don't need to bother reading that post! Thanks for letting me know so fast.
I guess the skill challenge mechanic is there to let you kill people, and it gives xp because... uh... oh, wait, if the game were totally geared toward combat it wouldn't. How do you get XP in 3.5 again?

You did it again. Sure, samurai could have been slightly more precise with his rhetoric (not using words like "totally" to imply the entirety of 4e in an opinion, for example), but he does show why he likes the edition he does and says "Live and let live" towards the end. (Oops, for got you didn't read that far.) Free summary for you!:smallbiggrin:

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 08:15 PM
You did it again. Sure, samurai could have been slightly more precise with his rhetoric (not using words like "totally" to imply the entirety of 4e in an opinion, for example), but he does show why he likes the edition he does and says "Live and let live" towards the end. (Oops, for got you didn't read that far.) Free summary for you!:smallbiggrin:
I responded to a post in a thread! OMG NOES.

I'm a big boy. I can post on my own. It's OK to not follow me around helping me out. Really. In fact, I'm pretty sure doing so is against the rules.

thegurullamen
2008-08-01, 09:08 PM
I responded to a post in a thread!

(sigh) So did I. I apologize if I've made you feel like I've been reading over your shoulder. I'm not out to moderate your posting behavior nor am I the Thought Police in any incarnation. I'm just a Poster in the Playground. It just so happens that yours are the posts I find most repliable (which is not a word, but I'm going with it anyway.) Why? Could be tone, could be content, could be something involving the alignment of the stars in accordance with basic numerology and fatalistic floes. Who knows? It's just a "gut" thing or, as you once put it,


It's a post on the internet. I feel like making it, I make it.

So, don't take this as a sign of disrespect, but, It's a post on the Internet. I feel like making it, I make it.1



Bibliography:
1Source: Covered In Bees

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 09:27 PM
So, don't take this as a sign of disrespect, but, It's a post on the Internet. I feel like making it, I make it.
Yes, it is. It's also against the rules. These things are not mutually exclusive.

Sequinox
2008-08-01, 09:53 PM
I, so far, have only 1 problem with 4e: the treasure system. I know that it works well in organized games with the DM having time to prepare, but the games I play tend to be slightly... disjointed I guess. I'm running two campaigns: a normal story campaign, and an Ars-Ludi West Marches style game. Try googling it, you'll see what I'm talking about.

Anyway, my West Marches style world is the world I improvise in. I have all the important stuff mapped out/statted ahead of time, but for things like random encounters? No way to figure it out. For now, I'm improvising.

So my only problem is the lack of a random treasure system. Other than that, I love it.

And as to Kruthiks: they are very common for my players to fight, and they have no problem with it at all. Unless they are very unlucky.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 09:58 PM
And as to Kruthiks: they are very common for my players to fight, and they have no problem with it at all. Unless they are very unlucky.

Yeah, we still haven't heard back from Sinfire how his players managed to miss something they should all be hitting on a 10+, even if they're horribly deoptimized, for 19 rounds.

Did they drop 8s in their primary stats or something?

darkzucchini
2008-08-01, 10:21 PM
D&D is a high-crunch game. FATE doesn't require heavy analysis; D&D does. It's a game with a lot of numbers. If you don't care how the numbers turn out, then either play a more rules-light game or let the people who *do* care about the numbers work with them.

The idea that balance is unnecessary is pure bunk. Very few people really have fun being the chump that can't contribute. And those who want to be one, in a balanced D&D, can be one intentionally; it should not be forced upon everybody who picks a certain class.

Its amazing how so many of us thrived for so long under the oppressively unbalanced rules of the 3.x system. Truthfully, in my opinion, this whole 3.x being unbalanced thing is blown way out of proportion. Yes, fighters weren't any good at high levels and were rarely used for anything but picking feats to qualify for a prestige class in the future (as they will hopefully change to this new, more powerful class before high levels it isn't such a huge problem). And most of the truly powerful spells are buffs (like haste) and save-or-suck (like slow) spells that only aid the more mundane classes in combat. There are a few truly broken spells (Shapechange comes to mind, but hey, its 9th level, I'll give it a break), but I have never said that the game was without flaws. I just thoroughly believe that you can play a fighter in 3.x without bawling your eyes out due to your inability to fully contribute (I am living proof to this) and balance one of the least important attribute for many people for having a fun game.

EvilElitest
2008-08-01, 10:23 PM
I know I shouldn't respond to you, but still... Whatever the number of people who just hate 4e is, it will diminish. There is no escaping that.
As for the control, many publisher will eventually move on to 4e: since you cannot (with the GSL) make a 3.x and a 4e version of the same product, sooner or later they will updated their series and abandon 3.x, simply because the market will move towards 4e.

1) With 3rd party publishers making 3E products, yes there will be be no diminishing, at least not for a few decades.
2) Um, dude, you can split parts of teh compeny, Paizo does it really easliy. It takes like a day to split your companies, and then you can publish both. There isn't a problem
3) and 4E has a retarded license. I mean, why would WoTC do that, if it was like the 3E one, they could spread 4E so much easier. I mean i shouldn't complain, but even so it is bloody moronic. As i said, it is pretty much an end to WOTC control of the market

Personally i think now that people have an actual real option (unlike the 2E/3E shift) 4E will lose a lot of people. It won't die, unless WotC does something retarded, but it might fall apart.


As for EEE, there should be a vote. i'm thinking Extremly Evil Elitest
and yeah, i'll be 17 this september


and bees, pointing out flaws in 3E doesn't make 4E better you realize.
from
EE

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 10:44 PM
Its amazing how so many of us thrived for so long under the oppressively unbalanced rules of the 3.x system.

Not really. I mean, people thrived under 2E, for goodness' sake.


and bees, pointing out flaws in 3E doesn't make 4E better you realize
Nah, 4E's good on its own. But the point was that it mechanically supports non-combat stuff more, not less, by having a developed mechanic and awarding XP for skill challenges and quests. Contrast this with, say, AD&D.

EvilElitest
2008-08-01, 11:10 PM
Not really. I mean, people thrived under 2E, for goodness' sake.

Dude, 2E was actually a good system. extremly unbalenced of course, but it was a very good system, in depth, logical, and hell, i mean read the damn DMG, that is a they adress so many issue that came up in 3E



Nah, 4E's good on its own. But the point was that it mechanically supports non-combat stuff more, not less, by having a developed mechanic and awarding XP for skill challenges and quests. Contrast this with, say, AD&D.
Yes, i've heard that 4E makes a great board game. But 2E has had the best diplomancy system of any D&D edition thus far, through it wasn't perfect, it actually relied on logic.
from
EE

Covered In Bees
2008-08-01, 11:26 PM
Dude, 2E was actually a good system. extremly unbalenced of course, but it was a very good system, in depth, logical, and hell, i mean read the damn DMG, that is a they adress so many issue that came up in 3E
This is very, VERY funny. It's also 100% untrue. Logical? All archers can shoot two arrows per minute, period!


Yes, i've heard that 4E makes a great board game. But 2E has had the best diplomancy system of any D&D edition thus far, through it wasn't perfect, it actually relied on logic.
from
EE
The best Diplomacy system? "YOU TALK AND THE DM DECIDES" isn't a diplomacy system.

Apparently, mechanical support and incentive for noncombat stuff makes 4E a board game now. Quest XP and skill challenges and skill challenge XP make it more like a board game?

{Scrubbed}

Starsinger
2008-08-01, 11:27 PM
Yes, i've heard that 4E makes a great board game.

The elephant is very much a wall.

Woot Spitum
2008-08-02, 12:15 AM
1) With 3rd party publishers making 3E products, yes there will be be no diminishing, at least not for a few decades.I seriously doubt it, for one simple reason: 3.x has already published books covering pretty much everything. There are few, if any ideas for new splatbooks left that will sell enough copies to be financially viable. This is why coming out with a new edition that makes radical changes to the preexisting formula makes sense.

Why should someone buy 4th edition? Because it offers a new way to play an old game. Why should someone buy Pathfinder? I can't think of a good reason, mainly because I can keep on playing 3.5 instead of spending good money on a system that basically plays exactly like one I already have.

Beleriphon
2008-08-02, 12:25 AM
3) and 4E has a retarded license. I mean, why would WoTC do that, if it was like the 3E one, they could spread 4E so much easier. I mean i shouldn't complain, but even so it is bloody moronic. As i said, it is pretty much an end to WOTC control of the market

It may be unfair compared to the OGL but the GSL makes sense from a function of controlling their license and who can use and how. The OGL didn't do what WotC wanted it to, it let people effectively play their game for free. Or have another company all but copy their game for free and publish it as their own.

EvilElitest
2008-08-02, 12:42 AM
This is very, VERY funny. It's also 100% untrue. Logical? All archers can shoot two arrows per minute, period!

Of course its logical. I mean, read the damn books. These guys actually gave a damn and really put a lot of bloody effort into it. i mean come on, the actually did the best sections on monster encounters, treasure, magic items, spells, alignments (not counting the two 3E books of course, just as far as core goes), monster lairs, NPC reactions and world design i've ever seen in a D&D product, with a few possible 3E exceptions.
so when you say 100% untrue, your really not adressing the point, its almost mildly propagandist. Your not actually responding, your trying to counter a point with a gut reaction, and inspire a need jerk reaction, without adressing the question directly. Its just evading the point.
i love debate, and i love discussion. So please, make a point with backing. Nitpicking doesn't really support anything, it doesn't really do anything actually in the way your using.


For example, i said that 2E was unbalanced. I never said it was a perfect game. I did however say it was a damn fine game, and on par with 3E in terms of quality (having never played 1E i don't know how they compare). It had some damn good ideas, i mean simultaneous combat, that is bloody great thing. It also had a lot of depth and detail, and a quality in its detail.

Fun fact, in real life, good quality archers could shoot at least two arrows per minute.



The best Diplomacy system? "YOU TALK AND THE DM DECIDES" isn't a diplomacy system.
Thanks you for the simplification. Now try that against after reading the DMG section upon that. It isn't just a number situation with the use of dice simply deciding reactions based upon an arbitrary and of course flawed manner, it is real talking, it is actual talking and interacting. flawed? Yes, but still the best we got, except maybe our every own Giant's.


Apparently, mechanical support and incentive for noncombat stuff makes 4E a board game now. Quest XP and skill challenges and skill challenge XP make it more like a board game?
the design and style of play certainly does. The diplomacy system is better than 3E, but WotC would have to actually really try to make a worst system than 3E in that regard.



Wow, you really will say absolutely *anything*, huh?
When i have an actual point yes? Will you adress anything with an actual backing other than nit picks and gut reactions?


You should adress that question to your self. I have held my argument to the same general standards for most of the 4E arguments, so i'm not simply attacking it for its own sake. Your defense of the system however, is incoherent. It is mostly ether pointing out flaws in others systems, relevance aside, or trying to disprove my point with claims that don't actually hold up. I'm fine with criticism, but at least make it honest based on proving me wrong, not trying to evade the question. For example, you could say instead


"the 2E diplomacy system is admirable in theory, but ultimately flawed in its creation. While the DM is given a general idea of how to make NPCs reaction, he isn't given a set standard, and so the effects will vary from DM to DM. This in its self is rather bad, because you lack any sort of patter in DM's 2E dipmacy other than some basic guide lines, and it is nice to have an actual standards. The groups that don't like the improve could use the standard, while the groups that prefer using their own talents could not. However that isn't the greatest flaw in 2E diplomacy, which is that it hurts the players directly. Characters that should have a chrisma bonus, like bards or rogues, don't actually get an innate advantage, because it is basically personal standards than anything else. People with low chrisms in game, but are good talkers in real life will get ahead, regardless of their characters, while people who are good talkers but with good chrisma will suffer. Sure a good DM can avoid this, but it is an improve system and has all the flaws inherent to one."

see, there the point is adress, a valid point is, it is put across, and you cover the main flaw in 2E. Best of all, and i hate to blow my own trumpet here (not really) but it doesn't lend support to any other system, the statement could be said about everyone. if you wanted to support 4E, you could do this

"The good thing about 4E is that it gives everybody a set standard with which to go by in terms of diplomacy. There is an actual cohesive standard to which use to understand the system."

If you want to support the 3E version

"The great thing about 3E diplomacy, is that if you want a quick laugh, just try to find ways to break it"


Anyways, on actual topic, i have to say, what makes 4E rise's limited is that quite frankly, with their bad license, they aren't going to have anything to limit other people from publishing 3E games and so people who don't buy 4E will just buy 3E and support other games. It is an going to be an interesting time for RPGs however
from
EE
edit

First off, while the current license lets WotC control there product, it doesn't actually help them spread 4E. I mean, remember when 3E replaced 2E. One of the reason was that with the free license, most 3rd party publishers would just make their games in 3E, so that you really couldn't avoid 3E. With the 2E being limited to WotC only, people would only publish 2E if they were willing to pay.
The 4E one doesn't actually help it spread its product. A better idea would be to make it free too, so it would slowly but surely replace 2E


I seriously doubt it, for one simple reason: 3.x has already published books covering pretty much everything. There are few, if any ideas for new splatbooks left that will sell enough copies to be financially viable. This is why coming out with a new edition that makes radical changes to the preexisting formula makes sense.

Not at all, 3E actually only touched the surface, there is so much more they could have done, it just would require more commitement than we can expect from WotC. With groups like Paizo actually having their own right to fiddle with things, expect a whole stream of totally new ideas


Why should someone buy 4th edition? Because it offers a new way to play an old game. Why should someone buy Pathfinder? I can't think of a good reason, mainly because I can keep on playing 3.5 instead of spending good money on a system that basically plays exactly like one I already have.

because 3E and 4E are totally different systems. And those crazy people who can't understand the awsome value of 4E will not have somewhere else to blow there money
from
EE(E)

thegurullamen
2008-08-02, 12:46 AM
It may be unfair compared to the OGL but the GSL makes sense from a function of controlling their license and who can use and how. The OGL didn't do what WotC wanted it to, it let people effectively play their game for free. Or have another company all but copy their game for free and publish it as their own.

I'm not entirely sure the GSL is legally enforceable in full. I'm sure some of the more questionable clauses in there have come up in a courtroom before and been either laughed out of the building or legally (and precedent-establishing-ly) dismissed as unethical, unfair or just "wonky".

I understand that it was important for WotC to protect their intellectual investment. That's not what the GSL is though. It fails as a contract and as a business decision on several levels.

By the by, I think there exists an SRD for 4e, which means that people can play it for free, just in a limited capacity. I'll be the first to acknowledge, however, that this might be wrong.

Da Beast
2008-08-02, 12:52 AM
Fun fact, in real life, good quality archers could shoot at least two arrows per minute.

Does this mean that in 2E that anyone could shoot at least twice a minute or that no one can shoot more than twice a minute? Because I can shoot arrows faster than that and I can count the number of times I've used a bow on one hand.

EvilElitest
2008-08-02, 12:54 AM
Does this mean that in 2E that anyone could shoot at least twice a minute or that no one can shoot more than twice a minute? Because I can shoot arrows faster than that and I can count the number of times I've used a bow on one hand.

former, but i'm not quite sure if that is true. I mean, i know, in real life i can shoot three arrows a min. I won't be aiming very well because i'm far from a first class archer on any scale, but i could shoot.

Through to be honest, i'm not quite sure if the claim of anybody being able to shoot twice in a min is actually true for everybody in 2E.
from
EE

Woot Spitum
2008-08-02, 01:12 AM
Not at all, 3E actually only touched the surface, there is so much more they could have done, it just would require more commitement than we can expect from WotC. With groups like Paizo actually having their own right to fiddle with things, expect a whole stream of totally new ideasSuch as? There are already 2 Player's Handbooks, 2 Dungeon Master's Guides, and 5 Monster Manuals (not counting the Fiend Folio). There are 8 books adding more options for existing classes (the complete series), 3 adding options for player races (the races of x series), 2 books for playing extremely good or evil characters, books giving options for using iconic D&D monster types (dragons, undead, aberrations), books that offer new subsystems of play (Tome of Battle, Incarnum, etc.), books for extreme environments, books for different tones of story, heck, they even have an entire book dedicated to Drow. There just aren't that many must-have ideas left.


because 3E and 4E are totally different systems. And those crazy people who can't understand the awsome value of 4E will not have somewhere else to blow there money
from
EE(E)Uh, I just said the reaon to buy 4th edition was because it was a totally different system. If you don't want a different system, there's no reason to buy anything new, as you already have everything you need to play a game you enjoy. People who are content with the edition they have will not make WotC much money because they are happy with what they already have. It's the people who are dissatisfied with the old editions that are going to be willing to buy a few dozen new books to play the same old game.

EvilElitest
2008-08-02, 01:17 AM
Such as? There are already 2 Player's Handbooks, 2 Dungeon Master's Guides, and 5 Monster Manuals (not counting the Fiend Folio). There are 8 books adding more options for existing classes (the complete series), 3 adding options for player races (the races of x series), 2 books for playing extremely good or evil characters, books giving options for using iconic D&D monster types (dragons, undead, aberrations), books that offer new subsystems of play (Tome of Battle, Incarnum, etc.), books for extreme environments, books for different tones of story, heck, they even have an entire book dedicated to Drow. There just aren't that many must-have ideas left.

1) A bloody book on fey. Come on
2) Same old stuff but with new depth or spin. Take paizo's very good new monster book
3) new settings. With WotC gone, the sky is the limit, buget aside
4) expansions upon old concepts, gods alignements ect
5) new spins upon old ideas
6) a races of X series taht actually has some creativity
7) Things that aren't payed attention to in other games but can be in this one.

Hell, one of the reason why the 3E splat books were bad is that most of them really just covered the same stuff, or used the same style



Uh, I just said the reaon to buy 4th edition was because it was a totally different system. If you don't want a different system, there's no reason to buy anything new, as you already have everything you need to play a game you enjoy. People who are content with the edition they have will not make WotC much money because they are happy with what they already have. It's the people who are dissatisfied with the old editions that are going to be willing to buy a few dozen new books to play the same old game.

Compare 3E/2E switch. When that happened, almost all of the players, regardless of what they thought of 3E, switched because other wise they were going to be supported by their hobby. They had no real other options. This time they have something else to turn to. Other companies will make money and for most 3E will still be the default system
from
(E)EE

thegurullamen
2008-08-02, 01:20 AM
Such as? There are already 2 Player's Handbooks, 2 Dungeon Master's Guides, and 5 Monster Manuals (not counting the Fiend Folio). There are 8 books adding more options for existing classes (the complete series), 3 adding options for player races (the races of x series), 2 books for playing extremely good or evil characters, books giving options for using iconic D&D monster types (dragons, undead, aberrations), books that offer new subsystems of play (Tome of Battle, Incarnum, etc.), books for extreme environments, books for different tones of story, heck, they even have an entire book dedicated to Drow. There just aren't that many must-have ideas left.

Oh, I dunno about that. "Must have" is a fairly loose term to begin with. I doubt anything about an RPG is "must have" by any standards, including within the "Need an RPG" framework itself. We do have the 3.5 SRD (and hyperlinked at that!) at our disposal, so we don't really need more than a group of friends and a computer with eaither Internet access or the downloaded SRD.

More to the point, there's a wealth of untapped ideas out there still waiting to be published. Can you imagine if there weren't? Frankly, I don't want to. Ghastly world as it is. Sure, there's no need to buy anything published from here on out, but as I said before, there never was to begin with. We all probably bought the RPG supplements we own on an impulse because something about them appealed to us. I cannot imagine that that same trend wouldn't continue for a considerable while longer.

EDIT: I gotta agree with EE on several of his points. I sure wouldn't mind seeing another steampunk D&D setting, nor a book on fey, constructs, shadow magic (that can stand alone), a newly designed incarnum, law versus chaos in the same vein as BoED/BoVD and a bard-only splatbook. Also, I wonder what D&Dieselpunk looks like?

Woot Spitum
2008-08-02, 01:51 AM
It's not that there are no untapped ideas left (check out the homebrew forum), it's that there aren't enough ideas left either with enough substance to carry a 200+ page book, or with a broad enough appeal to turn a decent profit. Not to mention the fact that the power creep in 3.5 has led many a DM to utter the dreaded two words: core only. Publishing ten books none of which are necessary to play an old game, catering to seperate niche markets versus publishing three books that are entirely necessary to play a new game seems like a smart buisiness decision to me.

EvilElitest
2008-08-02, 01:53 AM
It's not that there are no untapped ideas left (check out the homebrew forum), it's that there aren't enough ideas left either with enough substance to carry a 200+ page book, or with a broad enough appeal to turn a decent profit. Not to mention the fact that the power creep in 3.5 has led many a DM to utter the dreaded two words: core only. Publishing ten books none of which are necessary to play an old game, catering to seperate niche markets versus publishing three books that are entirely necessary to play a new game seems like a smart buisiness decision to me.

there are plenty. I could publish a dozen i had the materials. And that isn't even counting settings, which you can have almost unlimited

Also Core is also broken, so no dice there

Isn't 4E having like ten core books eventually?
from
(E)EE
Edit
That woudl be awsome, we should make our own books

thegurullamen
2008-08-02, 02:14 AM
Isn't 4E having like ten core books eventually?
...That woudl be awsome, we should make our own books

What would be awesome? Why should we make our own books?

And yes, there's more core coming. Sort of, I don't know, defeats the purpose of having a "core", now doesn't it?

Woot Spitum
2008-08-02, 02:18 AM
there are plenty. I could publish a dozen i had the materials. And that isn't even counting settings, which you can have almost unlimited

Also Core is also broken, so no dice there

Isn't 4E having like ten core books eventually?
from
(E)EE
Edit
That woudl be awsome, we should make our own booksDon't forget capital. You need money to publish books. Speaking of which, if you have the ideas, why not just incorporate them into your games, instead of hoping that WotC or Paizo publishes something similar and buying it for $35? Maybe even share them on forums so everyone can use them. We all should make our own content, if only to keep from going broke.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-02, 03:40 AM
Don't forget capital. You need money to publish books. Speaking of which, if you have the ideas, why not just incorporate them into your games, instead of hoping that WotC or Paizo publishes something similar and buying it for $35? Maybe even share them on forums so everyone can use them. We all should make our own content, if only to keep from going broke.

Or write them up and apply for a job. If you've got good ideas, let them make money for you.

Poison_Fish
2008-08-02, 04:00 AM
Also Core is also broken, so no dice there


Ah, but you miss out on one good thing, sir. Core is broken in a way most DM's will understand and be able to deal with, as it is core and every DM will have some knowledge about. Not every DM will have knowledge about some random expansion book that costs $30 that a player brings about.

One of my major complaints of D&D has always been the expansion of the system. There is just so much out there to incorporate into one or two games, most of it won't actually see the light of day.

So much so that even the core classes are enough to get a few games out of without having to rely on all new things.

Then again, I dislike a class based system anyway(At least, ones like D&D. Alternity did it damn well), so that's all personal preference.

Gwain
2008-08-02, 04:11 AM
That being said 4e is very slick easy to learn system it just doesn't have the depth and options that 3.5 has but many players claim that 3.5 has very overpowered casters and too many rules. Take tome of battle for example theirs is tons of options for martial charecters like new stances and manuvers.
[snip]



You should compare Core vs Core (Phb+Dmm+Mm), not Core vs 8 years of development.

EvilElitest
2008-08-02, 12:06 PM
Ah, but you miss out on one good thing, sir. Core is broken in a way most DM's will understand and be able to deal with, as it is core and every DM will have some knowledge about. Not every DM will have knowledge about some random expansion book that costs $30 that a player brings about.

Actually Core is rather in excusable broken. I mean, it is almost impressivly broken. In order to fix it, you need a total revamp, and a lot of it takes a lot of special effort

I mean the other content just adds a special flavor of broken to an already broken system.



One of my major complaints of D&D has always been the expansion of the system. There is just so much out there to incorporate into one or two games, most of it won't actually see the light of day.

That is actually a good thing, because there is already new stuff to do. I mean, that is one of D&D very good points, that there is always more content. People can make their own stuff, but that doesn't mean you can't produce more


3E largest problem is that it has absolutly no orginization at all


So much so that even the core classes are enough to get a few games out of without having to rely on all new things.
That depends on personal perefence, that doens't mean you can't have more stuff


Then again, I dislike a class based system anyway(At least, ones like D&D. Alternity did it damn well), so that's all personal preference.
The class system is quite understandable, through Gurps is good
from
EE

Philistine
2008-08-02, 12:41 PM
Does this mean that in 2E that anyone could shoot at least twice a minute or that no one can shoot more than twice a minute? Because I can shoot arrows faster than that and I can count the number of times I've used a bow on one hand.

In a 2E context, CiB's "All archers can shoot two arrows per minute, period!" line means that "No archer can shoot more than twice per minute." AD&D 2E had some seriously funky stuff going on in it.


Rate of Fire
Bows, crossbows, and many other missile weapons have different rates of fire (ROF)--the number of missiles they can shoot in a single round.
Small, light weapons can be thrown very quickly, so up to three darts can be thrown in a single round. Arrows can be nocked and let loose almost as quickly, so up to two shots can be fired in a single round.

and

The Combat Round
If an encounter escalates into a combat situation, the time scale of the game automatically goes to rounds (also called melee rounds or combat rounds). Rounds are used to measure the actions of characters in combat (or other intensive actions in which time is important).
A round is approximately one minute long. Ten combat rounds equal a turn (or, put another way, a turn equals 10 minutes of game time).

So, "Fun fact, in real life, good quality archers could shoot at least two arrows per minute."? Entirely missed the point.

Reinforcements
2008-08-04, 08:00 AM
This talk about how the GSL is so terrible confuses me. Is there something about it I've missed? Last I heard, it didn't cost anything to use and all the preemptive whining turned out to be unnecessary, since the only thing it restricts you from doing is using both lisences on the same product. The only way it's worse than the OGL I can think of is that there won't be a 4e SRD, but that doesn't matter to 3rd-party companies looking to make a 4e-compatible product. So what's the deal?

Matthew
2008-08-04, 09:17 AM
This is very, VERY funny. It's also 100% untrue. Logical? All archers can shoot two arrows per minute, period!



Does this mean that in 2E that anyone could shoot at least twice a minute or that no one can shoot more than twice a minute? Because I can shoot arrows faster than that and I can count the number of times I've used a bow on one hand.



former, but i'm not quite sure if that is true. I mean, i know, in real life i can shoot three arrows a min. I won't be aiming very well because i'm far from a first class archer on any scale, but i could shoot.

Through to be honest, i'm not quite sure if the claim of anybody being able to shoot twice in a min is actually true for everybody in 2E.
from



In a 2E context, CiB's "All archers can shoot two arrows per minute, period!" line means that "No archer can shoot more than twice per minute." AD&D 2E had some seriously funky stuff going on in it.

and

So, "Fun fact, in real life, good quality archers could shoot at least two arrows per minute."? Entirely missed the point.

Okay... let's see if we can clear up some of the misconceptions here. As always, we'll start at the beginning. In AD&D 1e, by default, a character gets one melee combat attack per one minute combat round or can make two attacks with a bow. This is not an absolute value for how many times a character can shoot or strike blows in a one minute period. For instance, during a Surprise segment (6 seconds), a character can attack and shoot arrows at his normal speed for rounds (actually, various interpretations allow from 1-6+ shots in a six second segment, but that's a long discussion).

AD&D 2e removed surprise segments from the game, but kept the standard rates of attack per minute (mainly, I expect, for backwards compatability reasons). Again, though, this isn't the maximum rate at which somebody can shoot arrows or strike blows, it's an abstraction for resolving combat. It has also always been a bone of contention. So much so, in fact, that Basic Dungeons & Dragons (Mentzer version 1983) used 10 second combat rounds (a lot of people came in from BD&D and simply ignored the one minute round, or were not aware of it for most of the time they were playing - like me :smallwink:) and Revised AD&D 2e (1994) switched to 10-15 second combat rounds (5 rounds per minute, I think the ratio was, but actual round length was left variable). That's not to mention the fact that specialisation allowed characters to attack and shoot at increased rates (4 shots per round with bows at level 13+, or one shot per 3 seconds).

The basic default rule, though, was that in combat, a character could take two shots per round in combat. To reiterate, that is not the maximum rate at which the character in question is thought to be able to shoot. In real life two shots in six seconds is pretty much the best rate at full draw (and doing absolutely nothing but shooting), though I have seen even faster rates using shorter staves from horseback.

To be clear, I prefer six second combat rounds, but let's not mix up "how many default attacks a character gets" with "how quickly he can shoot" and "that's not realistic". The number of shots a character can achieve in D20 is frankly wrong in the other direction (5 or maybe even 6 shots in six seconds at Level 16, or with Greater Manyshot, a completely improbable event...).

Let's also be clear that the "rule of cool" was very much the over riding concern in AD&D 2e. The beginning of the combat chapter in the DMG is absolutely sure about that.



Creating Vivid Combat Scenes

Since this isn't a combat game, the rules are not ultra-detailed, defining the exact effect of every blow, the subtle differences between obscure weapons, the location of every piece of armor on the body, or the horrifying results of an actual sword fight. Too many rules slow down play (taking away from the real adventure) and restrict imagination. How much fun is it when a character, ready to try an amazing and heroic deed, is told, "You can't do that because it's against the rules."
Players should be allowed to try whatever they want--especially if what they want will add to the spirit of adventure and excitement. Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.
To have the most fun playing the AD&D game, don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him. And a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.
The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the party!" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and - perhaps most important of all - knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

As with pretty much everything in AD&D, the results are almost completely reliant on the DM.

Kurald Galain
2008-08-04, 09:48 AM
I'm not entirely sure the GSL is legally enforceable in full.
It probably isn't, but it works by the lovely legal system of "whoever can afford the most lawyers, wins".


Why should someone buy Pathfinder? I can't think of a good reason, mainly because I can keep on playing 3.5
The theory is that (1) if a group keeps playing 3.5 and attracts new players, they'll want to buy rulebooks, and since D&D3 is no longer available they'll buy Pathfinder; and (2) the Pathfinder ruleset is intended to fix the problems in the 3.5 ruleset.

Note that I said "theory", because I don't think it'll work out all that well in practice. I doubt that "new players to old groups" is a big enough niche to make much money on, and from what I've seen so far, Paizo is largely unaware of what the actual problems with 3.5 are, and their "fixes" are shots in the dark that are less effective than some of the material on this very forum.

But we'll see.

The moral of the story is this: does anybody here remember WordStar, the word processor that was superseded by WordPerfect? At the time, the PC market was growing so fast that it was irrelevant whether old users would switch to the new system, as long as all new users had access to the new system. Ironically, WP was beaten in the exact same way by MS Word a few years later. This is solid marketing, and it's precisely what WOTC is doing. It doesn't matter if old players swap, as long as many new players come in. And they do.

AKA_Bait
2008-08-04, 10:54 AM
This talk about how the GSL is so terrible confuses me. Is there something about it I've missed? Last I heard, it didn't cost anything to use and all the preemptive whining turned out to be unnecessary, since the only thing it restricts you from doing is using both lisences on the same product. The only way it's worse than the OGL I can think of is that there won't be a 4e SRD, but that doesn't matter to 3rd-party companies looking to make a 4e-compatible product. So what's the deal?

See, here's the thing, the GSL doesn't cost anything to use (at least on it's face) but it contains a few clauses that make any small or medium sized publisher very, very leary.

1. WotC has the right to cancel the GSL or any particular individual/corporation's right to use it whenever they want. If they cancel it, not only can you no longer develop the product line, you have to destroy all your existing stock including electronic copies.

2. Nothing you publish under the GSL can keep WotC from publishing almost exactly the same thing. I.E. I could publish an adventure path or monster book and WotC could publish something so similar that normally they would be liable for copyright infingment but the GSL immunizes them from that liability.

3. If they terminate the GSL, all the sections giving rights to WotC (like the copyright immunity above) survive the termination of the liscence. Meaning, even though you can't develop your idea anymore, WotC pretty much can.

4. WotC can alter the GSL at will. This means, in theory, they could charge a company to use it at a later date. They could also change other terms and conditions to suit their desires.

5. The only notice of cancelation or change WotC need give is posting on their website. Meaning that unless a company checks the WotC site daily they could find themselves in unintentional violation of WotC's IP.

DrowVampyre
2008-08-04, 09:55 PM
See, here's the thing, the GSL doesn't cost anything to use (at least on it's face) but it contains a few clauses that make any small or medium sized publisher very, very leary.

1. WotC has the right to cancel the GSL or any particular individual/corporation's right to use it whenever they want. If they cancel it, not only can you no longer develop the product line, you have to destroy all your existing stock including electronic copies.

2. Nothing you publish under the GSL can keep WotC from publishing almost exactly the same thing. I.E. I could publish an adventure path or monster book and WotC could publish something so similar that normally they would be liable for copyright infingment but the GSL immunizes them from that liability.

3. If they terminate the GSL, all the sections giving rights to WotC (like the copyright immunity above) survive the termination of the liscence. Meaning, even though you can't develop your idea anymore, WotC pretty much can.

4. WotC can alter the GSL at will. This means, in theory, they could charge a company to use it at a later date. They could also change other terms and conditions to suit their desires.

5. The only notice of cancelation or change WotC need give is posting on their website. Meaning that unless a company checks the WotC site daily they could find themselves in unintentional violation of WotC's IP.

Don't forget the wonderful:

6. If you sign the GSL and WotC takes issue with anything you do, and takes you to court, you pay their legal fees, win or lose.

Helgraf
2008-08-04, 10:28 PM
In short, they're reminding you that it's their ball, not yours.

thegurullamen
2008-08-04, 10:55 PM
In short, they're reminding you that it's their ball, not yours.

By putting the ball in the middle of a Saw-esque death trap.

Seriously, there's protecting your interests and then there's saying "WE OWN THIS, MOTHER------S!!" while marking your territory and wildly waving twin chainsaws at anyone who gets too close.

That said, it is rather impressive that WotC manages to mark said territory while dual-wielding chainsaws.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-04, 10:58 PM
Chainsawchucks.

ZekeArgo
2008-08-04, 11:29 PM
Chainsawchucks.

Would that be wielding a single pair of chainsawchucks, or dual-wielding two pairs?

thegurullamen
2008-08-04, 11:38 PM
Would that be wielding a single pair of chainsawchucks, or dual-wielding two pairs?

Dear God, why?:eek::frown:

ZekeArgo
2008-08-04, 11:50 PM
Dear God, why?:eek::frown:

Twice (or is that four?) times the chainsawchuckery?

chiasaur11
2008-08-05, 12:41 AM
Twice (or is that four?) times the chainsawchuckery?

They're called Chainsaw Nunchucks. Two words.
Would Doctors lie to us about this important issue?

Starsinger
2008-08-05, 01:04 AM
They're called Chainsaw Nunchucks. Two words.
Would Doctors lie to us about this important issue?

They're Chainswordchucks, the WH40K version of Swordchucks, duh...

Poison_Fish
2008-08-05, 02:23 AM
This thread needs more Glorious Chainsaw Method (http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=080624)

fraud
2008-08-06, 07:36 PM
I've just got back from my local favourite store (the place where I get my MTG Cards, Comic Books, Collectibles, and my D&D stuff) to find that 4e has terminated the normal D&D section. Now I can barley find 3.5e books! I've heard some people say bad stuff of 4e but now I'm not sure and even now the dark tendrils are reaching out toward me. I'm curious how many people here use 4e and how many use 3.5?

Mushroom Ninja
2008-08-06, 07:38 PM
3.5 or 4.0? -- I sway both ways:smallwink:

_Puppetmaster_
2008-08-06, 07:39 PM
Short Answer: Nope.

Long Answer: I've spent too much on 3.5 to just switch over.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-08-06, 07:45 PM
I'm learning 4e, but I'm involved in three long-running campaigns (okay, one's pretty recent but I hope it keeps going) in 3.5 that I really don't want to bother updating.

If you're looking for 3.5 books, and your Friendly Local Gaming Store isn't stocking them anymore, check out Half-Price Books, eBay, and Amazon.com for new and used 3.5 manuals on the relative cheap.

Kurtulmak
2008-08-06, 07:54 PM
I don't.

My group and I are somewhat interested 4E, but currently it just doesn't have what we're looking for in a campaign. We ARE interested in playing a small, 'practice campaign', a short single plot, no major twists, maybe lasting a month or two of gaming. However, it's not going to replace 3rd Edition, for multiple reasons:

First of all, class in 4th Edition are much more defined. This is a GOOD thing -- to some people. However, it's considerably more difficult to go outside those definitions in 4th Edition. There aren't really any jack-of-all-trade classes, and it's difficult to bring your class out of it's specified role. Our group likes customizability.
Secondly, 4th is much more.. heroic. It's been called very anime, very MMORPG, and there's a reason for that, even if you don't agree. All the classes seem to grow in power exponentially. It's much more difficult to balance things against the PCs without them tearing through the opposition -- it's harder to create a sense of mechanical tension, I guess.
Finally, and most importantly (to me), 4th Edition is MUCH less varied than 3rd Edition got with all their myriad sourcebooks. 4th Edition just hasn't had time to grow to that level yet. If I ever DO start drifting to 4th Edition campains, I think I'd like to wait for a nice amount of source books to come out for it. Something to pad my campaigns out a bit.

In the meantime, we've been looking through the rules and sprinkling a few that we like across 3rd. "3.75 Edition" if you will. Things like shields giving a reflex bonus, a few of the lesser used skills being combined (Athletics, Acrobatics, etc), that sortof thing.

And we're still going to run that test campaign, sometime, just to see how it runs.

So, it really depends on if you like it or not. If you like 4th Edition, great, Wizards is going to be making it for awhile, enjoy it while it lasts.

If you don't, you're not the only one who's sticking with 3rd Edition, so don't feel bad.

RTGoodman
2008-08-06, 07:58 PM
I do, but not exclusively. We've done a bit of session in 4E, but for now we've got two big campaigns to finish up that we're just going to stick to 3.5 for.

I'd suggest giving it a try. It's really a different game, and a LOT of people do enjoy it (even if there is a lot of complaint about it), so you can probably see if your FLGS would be able to do up a demo for you and some folks. You might not be willing to switch over completely, but there's no rule anywhere that says you can't do both at the same time!

SoulCatcher78
2008-08-06, 08:02 PM
If you're looking for 3.5 books, and your Friendly Local Gaming Store isn't stocking them anymore, check out Half-Price Books, eBay, and Amazon.com for new and used 3.5 manuals on the relative cheap.

Amazon has the used or new option with a bunch of different sellers (some better than others btw) and you can pick up new copies of 3.5 books for as little as $8.oo and up. You might be paying $4 in shipping per book but it more than makes up what you would be paying if you had to purchase them in a store.

I've started a 4E PBP game but I've not had the time to get a group together IRL. Learning it seems easy enough but I think a lot of people are frustrated that DMs tend to want to learn it from the ground up rather than jumping in at paragon level, just my opinion but it feels reasonable.

Sucrose
2008-08-06, 08:08 PM
I am happily involved in games in both 3.5 and 4th Edition. I like both of them, though I'd much sooner play core 4th than core 3.5.

Aron Times
2008-08-06, 08:14 PM
I've switched completely to 4E, and with it came vastly decreased workload as a DM. The game is much more balanced than 3.5, and you don't need an uber-optimized character to survive.

It is still possible to create a Jack of All Trades in 4E. In fact, there is a feat called Jack of All Trades that gives you a +2 bonus to all of your untrained skills. This is a must-have for all characters with 13+ intelligence. Also, multiclassing and the Eternal Seeker epic destiny let you mix and match characters from multiple classes.

The best part about 4E, as a DM, is that I don't have to wear kid gloves to keep my level 1 party from getting killed. Level 1 4E characters can accomplish more heroic deeds than level 1 3.5 characters, but they gain in power at a steady rate, unlike 3.5 casters who get exponentially powerful with each level.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-06, 08:41 PM
I've never played DND 3.5, which I consider a bad system (although better than AD&D, and stuff like PHB2 or ToB improved it a little). I play 4e, which, while far from perfect, is a good game - probably the first good DND ever.

Nohwl
2008-08-06, 08:55 PM
im still playing 3.5. ill probably change over to 4e in the next couple years. maybe.

nowiwantmydmg
2008-08-06, 10:17 PM
I've switched completely to 4E, and with it came vastly decreased workload as a DM. The game is much more balanced than 3.5, and you don't need an uber-optimized character to survive.

It is still possible to create a Jack of All Trades in 4E. In fact, there is a feat called Jack of All Trades that gives you a +2 bonus to all of your untrained skills. This is a must-have for all characters with 13+ intelligence. Also, multiclassing and the Eternal Seeker epic destiny let you mix and match characters from multiple classes.

The best part about 4E, as a DM, is that I don't have to wear kid gloves to keep my level 1 party from getting killed. Level 1 4E characters can accomplish more heroic deeds than level 1 3.5 characters, but they gain in power at a steady rate, unlike 3.5 casters who get exponentially powerful with each level.

Exactly This.

4th takes me back to the fun old days of 1e/2e except it's balanced and the rules make more sense.

Dausuul
2008-08-06, 11:52 PM
4th is much more.. heroic. It's been called very anime, very MMORPG, and there's a reason for that, even if you don't agree. All the classes seem to grow in power exponentially.

You do realize that the power curve in 4E is actually much shallower than in 3.5, right? Relative to their 1st-level counterparts, a 20th-level character in 3E is vastly more powerful than a 30th-level character in 4E.