Making the Switch-4e.

[TempusCCK]

This is not a thread to flame on 4e or any of the things about it, this is a simple explanation of fact and my opinion that I hope will inspire some meaningful discussion on the issue /end disclaimer.

I am not making the switch to 4e, for many reason, however, the foremost of them being that which I choose to discuss today. 4e is not designed for me. It's a simple fact that Wizard's is trying to make as much money off of D&D as possible, which is understandable. However, today I made an almost complete redo of the Bard class to make it fit more of what I wanted, and while I was doing that, I realized something...

Wizards would rather have me buy gazillions of splatbooks to make the Bard class into what I wanted it to be. I'm the type of person who will sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and come up with a brand new class to fit the system, rather than looking to the system to design my class. I represent a zero-profit demographic for them. They'd much rather market to the player who will search through twenty books in search of the perfect combination of character stuff, because he has spent more money to do it. Me, on the other hand, I'll just make up something to fit what I need.

They are going to design the system to fit what is going to make them the most money, that includes people who are going to search religiously for exact rule, and are going to look deep into the system for character options. I'll have flexibility and versimilitude thank you very much. Not option that work on one enemy and not the other because it'll kill them too quickly and others it won't. Mechanics for mechanics sake is NOT my D&D.

[Jayngfet]

Though I wholeheartedly agree, take this over to general RPG.

[Rutee]

I wish I had the wherewithal to make a thread about why I personally will switch, rather then feeling it sufficient to say so in a thread on the topic in general. I also wish I didn't know 3e enough to claim 4e could possibly be /more/ splatbook based.

[Reel On, Love]

...except, of course, that they're designing 4e to be less about character building and searching through splatbooks for chracter options, and more easy to whip up a class or alternatives for. If I wanted to make an INT-heavy rogue variant, the Cunning Trickster, say, all I have to do is invent another option for the Rogue Tactics class feature, and then write a power or two of each level that fits the Trickster (and some of which work better if you're a trickster, like letting you get 1+INT where non-Cunning Tricksters just get 1).

I should think it'd be obvious that if they want to make money, they'll design a system that's fun to play, rather than catering to some specific subset of D&D gamers (those who like searching through splatbooks).

[Crow]

Good for you, dude.

My group is going to give 4e a try. I'm not really a fan of what I've seen so far, but it isn't so bad either, and it's not like 3.5 really supports the kind of play I like anyways. My group would like to try it, so that is good enough for me, even though I don't particularly care to. The only condition on my part is that I'm not going to fall into the splatbook trap. If my players want to buy a couple, they are well and fine. But me? Core three and no more.

[Rutee]

Good for you, dude.

My group is going to give 4e a try. I'm not really a fan of what I've seen so far, but it isn't so bad either, and it's not like 3.5 really supports the kind of play I like anyways. My group would like to try it, so that is good enough for me, even though I don't particularly care to. The only condition on my part is that I'm not going to fall into the splatbook trap. If my players want to buy a couple, they are well and fine. But me? Core three and no more.

Aye, that's sensible. Particularly the "No Splats" rule.

Plus it's economic for you as a GM

[Skyserpent]

I can respect this.

I'll be giving 4e a whirl as well, though I guess it IS designed a little more for me.

I do hope that you'd be willing to at least try the system eventually before just abandoning it because the stuff they've shown hasn't met your standards...

I like to think this way with Movie Trailers... A bad trailer can still have a good film, and a Fantastic Trailer will, quite often be tied to a rather underwhelming cinematic adventure...

Good luck though, It IS nice to have a consolidated 3.5 system.

[EvilElitest]

I"m getting the book to check it out, but i doubt there will be anything to actully warrant a switch
from
EE

[Neo]

Well from reports from friends who have tried the 4e taster adventures so far, things seem to be positive for people who didn't like D&D previously. If you're a 3/3.5 fanboy you'll probably not like it, but i'm gonna still get it, as they seem to have taken on board some of the streamlining and ideas from SWSE and reworked the D&D model so far.

As for Wizards being out to make money, well that's a shocker...

[EvilElitest]

Well from reports from friends who have tried the 4e taster adventures so far, things seem to be positive for people who didn't like D&D previously. If you're a 3/3.5 fanboy you'll probably not like it, but i'm gonna still get it, as they seem to have taken on board some of the streamlining and ideas from SWSE and reworked the D&D model so far.

As for Wizards being out to make money, well that's a shocker...

sad thing is i don't like 3E, just i don't like 4E ether
from
EE

[Jayngfet]

sad thing is i don't like 3E, just i don't like 4E ether
from
EE

Then why not play something else, not like there's a game or system shortage.

[EvilElitest]

Then why not play something else, not like there's a gamr or system shortage.

no because D&D has wonderful potential, more than any other system i've seen. Just nobody has been able to handle it well.
from
EE

[Swordguy]

Then why not play something else, not like there's a game or system shortage.

...because unless you advertise you're playing "D&D", you can't find people to play with?

(that's how it is around here, at any rate... )

[Behold_the_Void]

From what I can tell, 4e looks like it'll support making your bard moreso than 3e, the streamlining of class functions makes it a lot easier to balance and I'm actually looking forward to taking a crack at homebrewing for it.

The way you describe your style though seems to suggest to me that D&D really isn't a system for you. You might have more luck with point-based systems.

[horseboy]

...because unless you advertise you're playing "D&D", you can't find people to play with?

(that's how it is around here, at any rate... )

You've got to trojan your way in. Sit through half a campaign, then one day when the DM is tired or just really busy, offer to run a game....

[KIDS]

Your opinion is respected but we could argue for hours that half of the reasons "mechanics for mechanics sake or such" were a result of misinterpration or just exaggerated. As long as you don't spit on it too much, it's your choice though...

As a person who doesn't invest hours into rewriting stuff to make it work (I want to pay them for it, which is why I will be pis**d off if 4E doesn't), I don't think it will be any more open or closed to that option.
And I can easily see myself representing all (20 or so) of currently played characters built by using a dozen 3E sourcebooks, being represented just as well and even more detailed in 4E's single core book - that is, ten times less space. Of course they could screw it up but hey, that's what I want and I'm fairly satisfied with what it gives so far.

[Jerthanis]

You've got to trojan your way in. Sit through half a campaign, then one day when the DM is tired or just really busy, offer to run a game....

What I've seen work well is claiming to be interested in playing/running D&D or X where X is the system you really want to play/run, and then when you meet other people who play games, just push really really hard for X.

I'm going to switch, but I'm the sort who doesn't really care for D&D all that much when all is said and done, and I'm not predicting 4th edition will become my very favorite system, I just think so far it sounds like an infinite improvement to a game I'll probably always sort of like.

I'm also going to have to switch back and forth a lot... some of us really want to upgrade, some of us really don't... but we're all willing to play in whatever game is available.

[warmachine]

It seems you want to play GURPS or Hero.

[Gamerlord]

What's so bad about source books?
I see them as a fun and simple way to get brand new items, classes and stuff, like a expansion pack to a video game.

[Rutee]

They cost money. Time I can forgive, but money, less so. More importantly then either, however, they glut the system, without being anywhere near discrete. I can forgive GURPS's, because they're not really meant to operate together. DnD's sourcebooks are. It makes the game enormous. I've also noticed that a lot of DnD conversations on these boards lose me because, hey, I have no idea where most of the crap they're talking about is found, Nightsticks being the most egregious examples (Given how commonly they're mentioned).

Incidentally, on the points based systems notes, I'll also point out MnM 2e, since it operates on d20 rules so it'll be easy to pick up for the OP and his friends (Making it easy to get D20 players to try it)

[Theodoxus]

I'm with you Rutee - between the anacronyms that take me a bit to puzzle out (Mutants and Masterminds for the win!) and not stating source material when talking about things like odd items (nightsticks) or PrCs (Fist of pasta fazule) - reading the forums ends up being half research.

Yay for browser tabs and the genuises behind google, wiki, et al.


Back on topic, I will be making the switch to 4E. Thanks to Amazon's wicked deal and a very generous vendor at work who gave me a $50 gift card, my three core books are gonna cost me less than $15. For that kind of pocket change in this kind of economic climate, I simply can't pass up the oportunity to run a few games. Unfortunately, my current LGG - oops, Local Gaming Group has been quite stodgy about wanting to shake things up, so I might have to recruit a new subset of friends... but that's what makes introverts like me get adrenaline rushes... yay lack of risk of dying from base jumping.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I'll check it out, but D&D 3E was, frankly, bad enough; the settings are fun, and it's the most D&D game there is (as someone who grew up on the Gold Box AD&D CRPGs, that counts for a lot), but it's still inferior as a system. I'll stick with any of a dozen better games I have, and the various d20 games that ironically beat the stuffing out of D&D itself.

[Maxymiuk]

I'm in the same boat as Tempus - I'm a tinkerer, not a splatbook trawler. And the only reason I run D&D at all is, same as Swordguy, because I can't find anyone interested in playing another system. My response is to mod the hell out of what I have to work with - each campaign I run I try different variants, different homebrew rules - I restrict some classes, change others. I'm slowly working my way towards reshaping D&D into a system I can honestly say I enjoy.

So, for now, I won't be making a switch to 4e. I might buy the books and give them a look, but from what I've seen from the preview material so far, the system is moving in a different direction than I want to take it. Not worse, not necessarily better - simply incongruent with my taste and style.

[Rutee]

I'm with you Rutee - between the anacronyms that take me a bit to puzzle out (Mutants and Masterminds for the win!) and not stating source material when talking about things like odd items (nightsticks) or PrCs (Fist of pasta fazule) - reading the forums ends up being half research.

Oh, duh, it would have been wise to actually expand the acronym while discussing that, wouldn't it?

[Learnedguy]

This is not a thread to flame on 4e or any of the things about it, this is a simple explanation of fact and my opinion that I hope will inspire some meaningful discussion on the issue /end disclaimer.

I am not making the switch to 4e, for many reason, however, the foremost of them being that which I choose to discuss today. 4e is not designed for me. It's a simple fact that Wizard's is trying to make as much money off of D&D as possible, which is understandable. However, today I made an almost complete redo of the Bard class to make it fit more of what I wanted, and while I was doing that, I realized something...

Wizards would rather have me buy gazillions of splatbooks to make the Bard class into what I wanted it to be. I'm the type of person who will sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and come up with a brand new class to fit the system, rather than looking to the system to design my class. I represent a zero-profit demographic for them. They'd much rather market to the player who will search through twenty books in search of the perfect combination of character stuff, because he has spent more money to do it. Me, on the other hand, I'll just make up something to fit what I need.

They are going to design the system to fit what is going to make them the most money, that includes people who are going to search religiously for exact rule, and are going to look deep into the system for character options. I'll have flexibility and versimilitude thank you very much. Not option that work on one enemy and not the other because it'll kill them too quickly and others it won't. Mechanics for mechanics sake is NOT my D&D.

If that is the case, I wonder if you won't find Fourth ed quite enjoyable? There seems to be a lot of promising stuff in it that would make homebrewing feel fun and creative. Creating your own fighter attacks and stuff like that.

Anyway, it's good that you can make up your mind and stand for your opinions

[EvilElitest]

They cost money. Time I can forgive, but money, less so. More importantly then either, however, they glut the system, without being anywhere near discrete. I can forgive GURPS's, because they're not really meant to operate together. DnD's sourcebooks are. It makes the game enormous. I've also noticed that a lot of DnD conversations on these boards lose me because, hey, I have no idea where most of the crap they're talking about is found, Nightsticks being the most egregious examples (Given how commonly they're mentioned).

Incidentally, on the points based systems notes, I'll also point out MnM 2e, since it operates on d20 rules so it'll be easy to pick up for the OP and his friends (Making it easy to get D20 players to try it)

Splat books at their core aren't actually that bad. Really, i mean look at BoVD, BoED, Lords of Madness, races of Farun, FR champaign setting, hero of Horror, ToB, ToM, ect. I mean, just because WotC screwed things up with the Complete series and the book of undead and other such books which are all crunch and lack any real spirit, doesn't mean the idea itself is bad

Also WotC's biggest problems is their lack of being able to organize there mass of splat books

Also we all know that 4E will eventually have a mass of splat books as well, i mean this is WotC, they need regular income
from
EE

[TempusCCK]

The Mechanics for mechanics sake thing I was speaking of was a Fighter manuever that allows you to deal damage on a mss attack because your attack was so vicious that it gave them bruises/cuts/scratches/etc. However, it is not allowed to work on certain 1 HP enemies because if the fighter used that attack on them it would kill them even on a miss.

Breaks versimilitude and is just mechanics for mechanics sake, because this power would be too useful in situation X, we negate the power in Situation X. That's it, no explanation, no nothing, just a rule out of nowhere to make the situation "balanced".

That simply is taking D&D where I don't believe it should go.

[Rutee]

The Mechanics for mechanics sake thing I was speaking of was a Fighter manuever that allows you to deal damage on a mss attack because your attack was so vicious that it gave them bruises/cuts/scratches/etc. However, it is not allowed to work on certain 1 HP enemies because if the fighter used that attack on them it would kill them even on a miss.

Oh. This is only correct in a universe where characters can see HP, and can see the damage they deal.

What the characters know about a minion: He'll go down to a solid swing, and isn't very strong.
What the characters know about what happened on a miss: They didn't get a good solid swing in. That's why they missed.

[Lord Tataraus]

Personally, I don't care for what I'm seeing in 4e. I can't really point out specifics, but just general things that bug me. The biggest one being the lose of all penalties, that to me is just stupid and the biggest turn off of all. I like penalties and sure you can argue all day that it is the same in most cases, but it is also psychological, my guy has flaws and isn't Mr. Uberpwnzors or Mrs. Perfect. The other side, is I really hate just throwing out all my old 3.5 library, I'm the main librarian of the group when it comes to splats and my group as a whole has almost every 3.5 non-setting specific book. So, we are instead converting to Pathfinder RPG, we get to keep all the 3.5 books with minor conversion and I really like how it is shaping up and there is also the coolness factor of me actually participating in making the product and seeing the results of my feedback implemented in the system. I doubt it'll be perfect, everyone argues about something, but it will be near perfect for me and I can live with minor conversions.

[EvilElitest]

Oh. This is only correct in a universe where characters can see HP, and can see the damage they deal.

What the characters know about a minion: He'll go down to a solid swing, and isn't very strong.
What the characters know about what happened on a miss: They didn't get a good solid swing in. That's why they missed.

1) Your assumption seems to be that the players are morons or have no curiosity.
2) Why would the characters know that? A minion can be strong, weak, or medium. Now when the rules become inconsistent just for the mechinics stake, it is very bad form
from
EE