I feel like

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
I have  to post this here

Just startet a Dungeon World campaign and I´m also a supporter of 13h age.
Since Wizard is dropping the 4th edition and I tried to get into the "D&D Next" thing,
it isn´t, how do I say this in a nice way, appealing to me !
D&D Next is ( i wanted to write "tihs "but i don´t ) a move into roleplay oblivion !!!

I think D&D 4e is a masterpiece.
13th Age is nice, Dungeon World is nice.

4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !
I actually wrote a wall of text but...

(I actually wrote lots but I erased nearlly all of it because I wanted to keep this post as short as possible)

thats it

I agree with you 100%.  Happy gaming!

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

That's hardly a wall of text mate, and as it stand I agree with you. Next right now is sort of an amorphous inbetween of 2nd and 3rd that seems to have forgotten all the AMAZING lessons 4th had to teach. I have a lot of hope for next still, because it's still just a playtest, but if it were released today in it's current state I don't think I'd be really hyped for it.

Next has a lot of potential behind it, but so far the execution has been sort of bumbly, they're really trying to reinvent the wheel when they don't need to. If they want a version of the game that everyone will enjoy they should just do Print on Demands of all WotC and TSR D&D publications. I personally know I would spend SO much money.
I think Next's design process is being informed heavily by fear. There was a backlash to 4e sufficient in size to make them scared of including ANYTHING that anyone would recognize as an influence from that and yet trying to appeal to "everyone" by kludging together various things that people recognize without a central driving vision. It's a damn shame is what it is.

This may be the first edition I give a miss.
4e is a masterpiece in its own right, it's the first version of D&D to do a lot of things and it's one of the first GAMES I've ever played that gave a damn about the GM. 4th's greatest lesson is that the GM is a player too and his fun is just as important. I love that if I want to run a goblin dungeon I don't have to spend 4 hours writing up various goblins to use, or else have to stick with just 1 bland goblin 50 times.

Balance between tabletop and roleplaying is more a group to group thing. 4th is as good as any edition of D&D in this regard because it takes a very rules light approach to roleplay situations, which was a good design choice at least in my mind as a gamer of nearly 20 years.

As for the backlash, the prime reason for that is Paizo being the publisher of Dungeon and Dragon in the days of 3rd edition. WotC gave another COMPANY carte blanche to print whatever they wanted about D&D and when the time came for an edition switch and Paizo lost their liscense they did what any company would do in a dire situation; attack their competition. Not change their business model, not adapt, not even develop their own games, for pete's sake! I personally hate Paizo because of their business model, which is basically legal theft because wizard's was so kind with 3rd's OGL, this is also the reason the 4th edition version of the OGL is much more restrictive, to prevent this from happening again.

The major problem with 4th, as I see it, is simply one of longevity. The AEDU power system while revolutionary, and very cool, is inherently restrictive from a design standpoint. You can only do so much with it before classes start to blend together. The other main problem is that in their zeal to modernize the game and bring it into the 21st century they lined up and slaughtered a few too many sacred cows: some had to go (save or die), but some should have stayed for the long haul (original FR setting, alignment).

Anyway my two cents. If you ask me why I love 4th I'll tell you it's because I love to DM it. I despise dming 3rd, 2nd is alright, if a bit oddball at times, and most games I own give little to no consideration to the GM and assume you're willing to put 40 hours a week into your game (I'm looking at your mutants and masterminds!). So wizards, if you take anything forward from 4th have it be the monster design and DM tools! Please don't revert back to monster stat blocks of yore and samey creatures that have no distinguishing features and only 1 of each creature to be a representative.
I think 4e is a masterpiece because it gets the balance right, no rules lawyers and everybody gets something to to in a round.
And I see 4e more like a tabletop game with roleplaying elements.

The wall of text was a bit of a misunderstanding, I edited my first post.

Exalted btw. has a brilliant background and fluff but a miserable rule system.

I actually didn't want to start a ****storm but I realised it a bit late that this thread is probably
end in one.

Happy gaming





Have you started a blog?
It shouldn't be a 3e vs 4e edition war
But looking at the state of 5th edition I don't understand why it actually exists.
There is really no need for it.
Instead WotC should have concentrated on developing stuff for 3e and 4e.
They could, for example, make an 3e Essentials aswell, thats exactly what 5th is for me at the moment.

Damned, I actually didn't want to post anything :D
It's a business venture. WotC has to make money and they're taking a calculated risk that a new edition could bring back some of the people who jumped ship when 4th was released. It's likely too that they just want to make a new edition, I mean making games is what they do, it's why everyone who works there is there.

I would like if the supported multiple systems, even if only with print on demand of already published materials, but I don't see that as being super likely. They would have to have seperate dedicated teams for each edition they worked on, which would mean either hiring new staff or splitting up their staff, which probably isn't realisticly possible. Plus over ambition was the final death knell of TSR so by focusing on making just one product, and making a good one hopefully, they don't run the risk of over extending themselves.

I like a new edition every once in a while to stir things up myself. When you first open your PHB for the first time is a magical thing. Exploring the layout, marveling at the art, building your first character unbound by any preconcieved notions. It's one of my favorite parts about gaming, and one of the reason I buy so many different games that I'm not terribly likely to play, that hopefully I'll have that experience with them one day.
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying!

have you ever heard of The Stormwind Fallacy? It can moist simply be summed up as "Roleplaying is separate from the mechanics."

Now, me? I love the variety that 3.5 offers. One thing I do find interesting though, is that the absolute best melee book in 3.5 (Tome of Battle) is a precursor to 4e's "powers/encounter" system. The problem I had with 4e is that it felt like there weren't enough options, and different roles started to feel the same, no matter which class was used by what player.

My hope is that DDN starts with a lot of options, unbalances the classes a little bit (not to the point of unplayability, obviously!) and sticks with having DIFFERENT abilities available to each class every encounter. That's probably not what anyone else wants, though, and there lies the DDN problem: you can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try. 
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as is edition warring.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !




Totally agree. 
I don´t want to post my rpg history right now but it goes further back then AD&D 2nd.
I might have the time to study the 3.5, Pathfinder or any other ruleset but my players don´t.
So i tried several rulesystems : Earthdawn, Pathfinder, Stormbringer, Warhammer, Savage Worlds, Exalted, Weapons of the Gods and whatnot...
One of the game meter is my girlfriend.
If she didn´t fall asleep or could remember the rules next session it was a good sign for a cool system

I nearlly forgot to talk about exalted :
Well after a 1h lecture about solars, lunars, sidereals, dragonborn, abyssals, infernals, alchemicals, primordials and the celestial order, deathlordsthe scarlet princess, 
I lost them ! They went to the fridge to get beer and get drunk
And I didn´t even start to talk about rules, but most of them didn´t like the storyteller system anyway (Vampire).


Anyway, I try to finish this quick :
D&D 4e was successful. With 3e everybody had to consult the rulebook too much.
Then I found out Heinsoo and Tweet where developing 13th age and I thought brilliant,
I buy this immediatly. So I did this last july and waited for the complete rules.

Inbetween I discovered Dungeon World, tried it out and now all my players don´t want to play anything else.

So I´m in a kind of dilemma
I think I own every book of 4e and I still love it but how can I get my players back? ^^






I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as is edition warring.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner. 



Thank you!
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying!

have you ever heard of The Stormwind Fallacy? It can moist simply be summed up as "Roleplaying is separate from the mechanics."

No it cannot. It can be summed up as you do not have to choose between roleplaying and power gaming.

I like that 4E disentangled flavor and mechanics along with a better balance. However, I really like 3.5 psionics. 4E's different approach does cut down on some options, but 3rd lack of balance means certain ideas are not viable and I do not like the attempts to encode roleplaying into some of the rules. Craft, profession, and perform tend to be wonky because of this and then their are alignment restrictions like monks need to be lawful.
Think you can survive a zombie attack? Click here to find out.

It Came From Section Four!
Warning: Posts my contain evil.

Orc in the House of Trolls
have you ever heard of The Stormwind Fallacy? It can moist simply be summed up as "Roleplaying is separate from the mechanics."

No it cannot. It can be summed up as you do not have to choose between roleplaying and power gaming.

Glad you corrected that. Reading it made me twitch, just a little.

Now, me? I love the variety that 3.5 offers. One thing I do find interesting though, is that the absolute best melee book in 3.5 (Tome of Battle) is a precursor to 4e's "powers/encounter" system.

Absolutely agree. My perfect edition of D&D would be a combination of Star Wars Saga Edition, Tome of Battle, and (hear me out) Tome of Magic. I think Saga Edition took the right steps as far as streamlining 3rd Edition's mechanics, Tome of Battle was the right approach to "making melee combat fun", and Tome of Magic gave some interesting, if only half baked, magic options beyond the standard Vancian casting (which I am honestly a bit tired of, god rest both Gygax and Vance). Personally, I like variety. Classes in 4e didn't /feel/ different enough because they were all based on the same framework.

Granted, there are a lot of positive side effects of 4e's standardization, including class balance and ease of play, but for me personally the tradeoff isn't worth it.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
have you ever heard of The Stormwind Fallacy? It can moist simply be summed up as "Roleplaying is separate from the mechanics."

No it cannot. It can be summed up as you do not have to choose between roleplaying and power gaming.

Glad you corrected that. Reading it made me twitch, just a little.
Sorry. I figured "Roleplaying and rollplaying are not mutually exclusive" would sound a bit curt.  
Now, me? I love the variety that 3.5 offers. One thing I do find interesting though, is that the absolute best melee book in 3.5 (Tome of Battle) is a precursor to 4e's "powers/encounter" system.

Absolutely agree. My perfect edition of D&D would be a combination of Star Wars Saga Edition, Tome of Battle, and (hear me out) Tome of Magic. I think Saga Edition took the right steps as far as streamlining 3rd Edition's mechanics, Tome of Battle was the right approach to "making melee combat fun", and Tome of Magic gave some interesting, if only half baked, magic options beyond the standard Vancian casting (which I am honestly a bit tired of, god rest both Gygax and Vance). Personally, I like variety. Classes in 4e didn't /feel/ different enough because they were all based on the same framework.

Granted, there are a lot of positive side effects of 4e's standardization, including class balance and ease of play, but for me personally the tradeoff isn't worth it.

I agree; I don't have ToM, but I find that I prefer all of the other "alternative magic" systems to Vancian casting - psionics, infusions, and even the much-maligned Incarnum.
I didn't get into 3.5 until it had already been out for a couple years, and I played 4e when it was less than a year old; I suppose this COULD have something to do with my "not enough variety" opinion of 4e. I think a solution to that for DDN mould be to release the Core books ALL AT THE SAME TIME, as well as a few splatbooks.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying!

have you ever heard of The Stormwind Fallacy? It can moist simply be summed up as "Roleplaying is separate from the mechanics."

Now, me? I love the variety that 3.5 offers. One thing I do find interesting though, is that the absolute best melee book in 3.5 (Tome of Battle) is a precursor to 4e's "powers/encounter" system. The problem I had with 4e is that it felt like there weren't enough options, and different roles started to feel the same, no matter which class was used by what player.

My hope is that DDN starts with a lot of options, unbalances the classes a little bit (not to the point of unplayability, obviously!) and sticks with having DIFFERENT abilities available to each class every encounter. That's probably not what anyone else wants, though, and there lies the DDN problem: you can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try. 

Yeah Draco you played in its very first year. Which was probably the worst as there wasn't much going on other than core rulebooks. The Powers books helped classes feel unique for sure though. The PHB classes and powers were designed to have just enough difference to make them feel different, even if it only in flavor on some powers, but not enough to where a guy who has played only fighters couldn't play a wizard without hours of flipping through the book to figure out casting. Now if you were to go back to 4e I would recommend the Essentials line as each class does play almost completely differently.

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

I actually may end up playing it soon (though I refuse to she'll out more hundreds of dollars!). That's why I'm looking for a way to convert some of my later, in played, 3.5 concepts to 4e (if it can be done).
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
I really loved Tome of Battle and Tome of Magic. After they came out in 3.5 I basically exclusively used them to build character. Their options were unique, a ton of fun, and felt like a nice inbetween of the fighter's inability to scale properly, and the wizard's over ability to scale. Except the true namer, poor poor true namer.

Arsat the best way to get your players back, in my experience, is to DM a game. If you build it they'll come. 4th edition isn't for everyone, same thing with 3rd, so either some of your players are going to have to make compromises (play an edition they aren't super fond of) or just not play at all. In my experience people would rather play than not.

Glad to see the thread got cleaned up.
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !


If you need a game to do that for you, you're doing it wrong.

Resident Over-Educated Ivory-Tower Elitist [You don't have the Need-to-Know for that, citizen]
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !


If you need a game to do that for you, you're doing it wrong.




QFT!
I survived Section 4 and all I got was this lousy sig Off-topic and going downhill from there
4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !


If you need a game to do that for you, you're doing it wrong.

Going to have to disagree...

I've played quite a few different roleplaying games, and there are some where the rules (at least the rules as written) do get in the way of the roleplaying (Alpha Omega, as much as I love it, falls firmly into this category, as does Anima, GURPS, and quite a few others). There are also some where the roleplaying takes center stage and the "game" is primarily just a mechanic to drive the narrative (looking at you, White Wolf). D&D is pretty middle of the road as far as this is concerned, but there's a pretty wide disparity between the two poles.

None of those games is objectively worse than any other, and they can all be enjoyable: I've had a blast playing both Alpha Omega and World of Darkness. No one is saying that they "need" a game to be a certain way for it to be enjoyable. But Arsat is certainly not "wrong" for enjoying 4th Edition and he's not "wrong" in pointing out that 4th Edition splits the difference between mechanics-driven and story-driven gameplay (and that's a very fair reason to enjoy a roleplaying game). I'd go a step further and say that his statement can be applied to any edition of D&D, though the way that different editions have done it has been somewhat different.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
I agree; I don't have ToM, but I find that I prefer all of the other "alternative magic" systems to Vancian casting - psionics, infusions, and even the much-maligned Incarnum.

Blech Incarnum. That was the only one I didn't really like, though it was mostly because of the flavor rather than the mechanics.
I didn't get into 3.5 until it had already been out for a couple years, and I played 4e when it was less than a year old; I suppose this COULD have something to do with my "not enough variety" opinion of 4e. I think a solution to that for DDN mould be to release the Core books ALL AT THE SAME TIME, as well as a few splatbooks.

That's a big investment for the customer though. I've run a game shop and know that people typically don't buy that many products all at once. They also typically don't buy products after they've been out for a while. Most gamers have budgets. Not necessarily planned budgets in a lot of cases, but practical ones. Eventually the money runs out. I would imagine that WotC knows this as well. So releasing a bunch of splatbooks alongside the core books virtually guarantees that some of them will be commercial flops.

I agree that releasing a big launch library would be good as far as gameplay goes, but it would be bad from a business standpoint. And WotC is, first and foremost, a business.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
I think a lot of people who play 3.5 don't like incarnum because as it is it's TOO balanced for 3.5 It's probably, from a mechanical standpoint, one of the better written books in 3.5 and because of that it doesn't really shine in the way other books do that have way over the top prestige classes or races or even a feat that does something rediculously good. I quite like incarnum, the flavor leaves a bit to be desired, but it actually plays quite nicely and it was a good deviation from the standard path of 3.5. I wish it had done a little better and had some more support personally, I thought the mechanics of it were quite cool and very new for D&D.
^What he said^
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
I actually may end up playing it soon (though I refuse to she'll out more hundreds of dollars!). That's why I'm looking for a way to convert some of my later, in played, 3.5 concepts to 4e (if it can be done).

It would be hard but I suppose it could be. I've seen a few equations on the net that can turn 3e math into 4e math and vice versa. But I can't rermeber where. I think it had to do with removing the whole +1/2 level to all the numbers. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

4e is the absolute right balance between tabletop and roleplaying !


If you need a game to do that for you, you're doing it wrong.


Oh no... Here comes the your doing it wrong argument again... *sighs*

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

4th edition had its moments but I think part of the reason why it didn't catch on is that what it does really well "balance" and "tactical combat" are not what the fan base at large prioritizes when it comes to D&D.  

Personally however I think this only explains part of the problem 4e had as a game.  I think a big part of why its been rejected by a large enough portion of the fanbase to warrent its elimination in NEXT is that "classic" D&D role-playing or the "Old School" movement as some call it is a far bigger phenomenon than I think anyone realizes, its not a fad as some claim, but an entire market share that may just be bigger than what modern D&D fans represent.

Wizards was originally planning on reprinting a limited 1st edition AD&D (3 book set) reprint as tribute to Gygax and they went on record to say they had no plans to do anything else.  Clearly it did far better then they thought it would because at this point AD&D 1st and 2nd edition is back in print and I expect they will be printing these books for a very long time to come.  Pathfinder represents the same thing, a 3.5 reprint and continuation, which is what a huge portion of the market share wants as well, a market share that is equal to if not larger than the entire current Wizards of the Coast D&D fan base.

This information Wizards of the Coast would be foolish to ignore but I do agree however that NEXT is an attempt to "re-invent" these other classic game systems which is a recognition that this market share exists but its a poor conclusion to think that D&D fans want this re-invention.  What these old school gamers want is a continuation of these systems.  The reprint was a good start, what they should be doing now turning on the creativity machine for their games and start writing new material for the old systems.  There was no reason to discontinue 4e, nor is there any place in the market for yet another edition of the game.  It will breed resentment from 4e players and has no hope of capturing the attention of players who are happily playing 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition not to mention Pathfinder.  NEXT is a mistake as is abandoning 4e.  The fans where thrilled to see the reprints and they would be far happier to see their classic edition make a come back in its classic form rather than see it butchered in yet another edition of the game.  

Wizards has learned a lot of lessons in recent years but they still don't understand their customer base. 

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

Xguild I think your observations are correct, not sure about your conclusions though. I've played every edition of D&D at some point and I still play 2nd as well as 4th semi regularly. I am excited for next though, because I like new editions, as long as they give enough time for the previous edition to have a good run. I think 4th got a little short changed on its life cycle but I don't see that as a reason not to play next, but maybe I'm an outlier because I embrace change in an industry notable for its general fear of change. I'd hope that people can grow out of that fear of new things and the "it's not my D&D mentality." I still meet too many people who won't play 4th because "it's not D&D," or "it's just an MMO," even though they've never actually PLAYED it they have an opinion about it.

I think one of the reason 4th didn't do so well isn't just that there is a considerable portion of the market share that still prefers older editions but also because wizards is no longer a big fish in a little pond. The RPG industry has grown considerably since 3rd's release in the early 00's, and wizards has competition from a lot more companies than it did back then, which was basically just White Wolf.
Xguild I think your observations are correct, not sure about your conclusions though. I've played every edition of D&D at some point and I still play 2nd as well as 4th semi regularly. I am excited for next though, because I like new editions, as long as they give enough time for the previous edition to have a good run. I think 4th got a little short changed on its life cycle but I don't see that as a reason not to play next, but maybe I'm an outlier because I embrace change in an industry notable for its general fear of change. I'd hope that people can grow out of that fear of new things and the "it's not my D&D mentality." I still meet too many people who won't play 4th because "it's not D&D," or "it's just an MMO," even though they've never actually PLAYED it they have an opinion about it.

I think one of the reason 4th didn't do so well isn't just that there is a considerable portion of the market share that still prefers older editions but also because wizards is no longer a big fish in a little pond. The RPG industry has grown considerably since 3rd's release in the early 00's, and wizards has competition from a lot more companies than it did back then, which was basically just White Wolf.

I think your right. I too play 4e and 2e regularly and can definitely say many people drew conclusions even though they had never actually played it. I play in a game with a big group of old school gamers. None of the old school gamers had tried 4e yet they have already said they don't like it because its too video gamey and every class can do everything. Then there was the one 3e era guy who pretty much hates it because its 4e. What I'm getting at though is that many people relied on the word of 4e haters to dictate the way they thought. The most commonly exclaimed thing (yet the most false) is that 4e is WoW on paper. Yet so many people believe just because a minority of players had said so. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

How many times does somebody have to play it before they're allowed to complain about it? I mean, I get accused of trolling every time I say I don't like it, even though I've played it, so either there seems to be a magical cut-off number, or people are overly sensitive about "their" game.

Now then, back on topic: I hope DDN doesn't come out feeling like a hodgepodge of the different editions glued together, but more of a balanced (which most non-3.x editions did well) "best of" type of game. One that pulls the best things from ALL the editions, and puts them together in a way that feels natural. The one thing that I think 4e did better than any other edition is to make pretty much any race playable right out of the box; I'd love to see that, as well as a moderate AEDU system in place (more ToB-flavored than 4e). I'd also like Vancian (or at least the option) casting brought back, and the staggered leveling system of AD&D.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
If you've played the game and you don't like it, that's fine. If you've never played the game and you bash it, that's not fine. Really that's what it comes down to. Most of the people who actively bash 4th have either never played it, or they only tried it with like minded individuals, so they went into the experience ready to not have fun, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'd like to see D&D next less concerned with balance, frankly. Balance is fine, but when you focus on it too much it can be in compeition with fun. That isn't to say I want balance thrown out the window, but it should be a secondary, or even tertiary priority.
Agreed. That's why I included the part about staggered leveling in previous editions. I thought that was a very effective balancing mechanism, without making it feel like "balance" was the entire goal of game design.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
I didn't really elaborate much on NEXT but given the context of my post I probobly should have because I think their is justification for the presumption that their is no room for NEXT in the market share.  

Part of the reasoning is that NEXT no matter how you design it, be it closer to AD&D, 3rd or 4th, it will create resenment towards the franchise by those to which NEXT is furthest from and I think some of you already touched on the fact that there was a tremendous amount of resistance to even try 4th edition by a very large part of the customer base with the same reasoning.  A sort of resenment in the discontinuation of 3rd edition was at the heart of the 4e hate, it was too far away in play style from 3rd edition.  More to the point however people didn't just reject 4th edition but they rejected Wizards of the Coast and the entire D&D franchise.  From which spawned Pathfinder.  NEXT will create that same resenment and likely the same level of competition, its only a matter of time before a "better" 4h edition is released and more core fans give Wizards of the Coast the finger for their treatment of the franchise. 

While many praise NEXT's approach of blending playstyles, this I predict will be its greatest problem.  NEXT will not be seen as "a new edition", it will be seen as a re-invention of existing editions, but from what I have seen of it so far it is a lesser version of AD&D and 3rd edition, and in particular Pathfinder.  As such if you love 3rd edition you'll play 3rd edition instead of NEXT because NEXT will be a sub-par version of that playstyle. The same will be true for AD&D players and as far as 4th edition fans, their is so little of it in NEXT I would argue they have been excluded all together.  NEXT then becomes an edition for no one really, which is a problem because D&D is not a game you can promote and sell, its a game that MUST be adopted by the existing player base that is there right now.  Its practically unheard of for people to get into the hobby of role-playing without someone inviting them and introducing them into it, its a hobby spread by word of mouth. 

The problem is made further in that their is no mystery for the existing players as far as NEXT is concerned.  We are playtesting the game and will be playtesting it until release, so most fans will have an opinion about NEXT long before it goes to print.  Hence that word of mouth will begin long before the game is released and right now I think the reception of NEXT can be accuratly described as luke warm at absolute best.

I'm sure their will be a NEXT player base but just like 4th editions player base is smaller then 3rd editions, so will NEXT's playerbase be smaller than 4th edition.  NEXT I predict will do little but create yet another split in the endless cycle of re-invention of the franchise and further create oppertunities for competitors to step in and give fans what they want as Pathfinder did.   

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

I think you may be overestimating peoples resistance to change Xguild. While I do agree many people who played 3rd didn't migrate to 4th it's also true many people who played 2nd never adopted 3rd. Some people will always refuse to join the crowd, and for gamers this is a special problem because we are one of the only excluded groups that is also exclusive and a side effect of that is an almost hipsterish hate for the popular. There was always be contrarians who hate the current edition of D&D simply BECAUSE it is the current supported edition. They'll cry "it isn't D&D," with no reason other than the fact that it is new, and it is popular and they don't want to be with the popular crowd. This, however I think, is not a majority but is instead a very vocal minority. These people however aren't solely responsible for 4ths smaller fanbase than 3rd, there are so many reasons for that it would be difficult to begin to list them, but these are the very vocal people you meet who when you even bring up 4th edition immediately attack you.

Also consider that the population of these forums, and even of next playtesters, is probably only a small percentage of actual D&D players at large and I think you might find that the prognosis for next isn't as dire as it would seem. To be sure I agree with you that in its current state next looks like an anemic 3.5, but I think it has the potential to be great, and I still hold out hope for it. I think if they can really acomplish their goals of making an edition that can be agreeable to everyone using modular rules they stand to gain more than they lose because there is a large community of old school gamers who really want a new edition of D&D that reminds them more of AD&D than of anything wizards has produced so far. I know because I'm actually friends with quite a few, and for the most part they don't play 3.5 or 4 but they're active in the playtest for next and are hopeful for a new edition.

In either case we very much have to accept the reality that next is coming, and when it arrives 4th will no longer be supported by wotc. I think actually the fact that next was announced so early might be good for that. Part of the backlash against 4th was it's rather sudden anoucnement and the news that in only a few short months 3.5 would be dropped. Many people just weren't ready to stop playing 3.5 and that sudden shock saw them retreat away from 4th. I remember so many of my friends saying when 4th was announced "I spent so much money on 3.5, I don't want to update." But when pathfinder came around they were still willing to shell out $60 for essentially what they already had. I still don't understand the logic of that, but it is what happened.

(also you want there, not their. Their is the possesive form of they, sorry but it's a pet peeve.)
I think you may be overestimating peoples resistance to change Xguild. While I do agree many people who played 3rd didn't migrate to 4th it's also true many people who played 2nd never adopted 3rd. Some people will always refuse to join the crowd, and for gamers this is a special problem because we are one of the only excluded groups that is also exclusive and a side effect of that is an almost hipsterish hate for the popular.



I honestly don't think so and I'm not basing my understanding of the player base on forum interaction, I'm basing it on tangible factors.  4th edition couldn't compete in a market against its predescesor and 3rd party versions of that predecesor.  It couldn't stay valid for even half the time of its predecesor.  When Paizo put out Pathfinder the intial reaction wasn't just an overwhelming acceptance of the system, but a long term commitment by a player base that is now at least as big if not bigger than that being supported by Wizards of the Coasts Dungeons and Dragons franchise.  That should give you some idea how comitted people are to fighting change.  So I don't think I'm overestimating it at all, people are very resitant to change and very comitted to fighting it and noteably if you look at NEXT as a design they are firmly winning in that popularity contest because they are in fact voting Wizards of the Coast out of business with their wallets.

In either case we very much have to accept the reality that next is coming, and when it arrives 4th will no longer be supported by wotc.


I agree but I think we will have another "Pathfinder" for 4th edition and it will be yet another withdrawl on the D&D franchise.  Each time Wizards of the Coasts re-writes D&D they lose more of their audiance to people who cater to those people who want their favorite systems continued.  I think abandoning 4th edition is going to be an even bigger mistake then abandoning 3rd edition was and that was a HUGE mistake for Wizards of the Coast, one that cost them dearly and one they continue to pay for still today.

Many people just weren't ready to stop playing 3.5 and that sudden shock saw them retreat away from 4th. I remember so many of my friends saying when 4th was announced "I spent so much money on 3.5, I don't want to update." But when pathfinder came around they were still willing to shell out $60 for essentially what they already had. I still don't understand the logic of that, but it is what happened.



I think your right but I completetly understand why people shelled out the cash for Pathfinder.  It was a continuation.  A sequal.  It was familiar enough that it did not obselete 3.5, it only required a player and DM to sit down and work out a bit of conversion.  

I agree with you that people desire "new D&D" but new in this sentence refrences a continuation and improvement of a system they already love and play.  Not a re-write.  This was the problem with 4th edition and why it was hated so much, it wasn't that it was bad, but it was a complete re-write of the game people had gotten acustomed to and that was not the case between AD&D and 3rd edition.  So much of the system was preserved that it was all familiar and the hold outs to AD&D compared to those that held out for 3rd edition had a considerable difference.  AD&D players had very few alternatives, they simply had to deal with playing an unsupported system.  3rd edition players continue to get content in the way of Pathfinder to this very day.  This will happen again with 4th edition.  Someone will put out a better 4th edition eventually.


 

"Edition wars like all debates exist because people like debates"

http://www.gamersdungeon.net/

I think a lot of people who play 3.5 don't like incarnum because as it is it's TOO balanced for 3.5 It's probably, from a mechanical standpoint, one of the better written books in 3.5 and because of that it doesn't really shine in the way other books do that have way over the top prestige classes or races or even a feat that does something rediculously good. I quite like incarnum, the flavor leaves a bit to be desired, but it actually plays quite nicely and it was a good deviation from the standard path of 3.5. I wish it had done a little better and had some more support personally, I thought the mechanics of it were quite cool and very new for D&D.


The mechanics are admitedly very good. But I couldn't get past the flavor, and even when I tried to reflavor the mechanics (into a Hindu-mystic warrior type with the whole chakra thing) it never really caught me.
I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.
I think the problem with the flavor is the problem of adding new power sources: how does it fit into the world? Psionics often has this problem because its often just tacked on as psionic books come out, this problem was really evident in the old FR psionics flavor (the inner weave? so it's just magic... but it's not magic, mm okay). It also brings up the question just how much magic is enough magic? When you have nethermancers, and binders, and wizards, and true namers, and sorcerers, and clerics, and druids, and psions, and totemists, and shamans, and on and on and on when do you put your foot down and say "okay that's enough magic!" I know personally I like a low magic setting so I usually try to cut it at wizard and cleric, maybe druid, but when you want to option to use all the books you've bought it can become incredibly tedious to try and fit it and explain all these different kinds of magic and still have room for mundane characters or a world where there is any mystery at all. So it's less incarnums fault directly that the flavor is bleh, and it's more that you can only make a setting so busy before it becomes overloaded with so much stuff no one really cares anymore.
I wouldn't mind seeing different XP charts for classes again too... The one big chart is okay, but it feels too samey. Plus like Draco said it can give a sense of balance even if there isn't any. In AD&D you get the sense that your stronger than the wizard because he has one of the slowest leveling progressions, but at the end of the road he is more powerful because he had to work harder to get there. It created that false, I'm leveling faster therefore I'm stronger than you, feeling even though it was only a matter of time before the wizard could blow you off the planet side. But in the end it did feel more balanced and realistic. 

Come to 4ENCLAVE for a fan based 4th Edition Community.

 

If WotC make a Dark Sun with D&DN and they give me the feel of AD&D 2nd edition I'll try it out