|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 12:23PM
#31
|
|
|
Agreed, Salla
I am currently making up my own fluff for Tiamat and Bahamut, for example. I don't need WoTC or other people to use that fluff in order for me to use it.
@Jim11735
People have already suggested thinking of 5e as an "anniversary" edition. I think calling it DnD Classic also works well.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 12:35PM
#32
|
|
|
I'm getting the impression that a lot of people's concerns with 4e were not based on mechanics, but on fluff text.
Which makes no sense to me, since the fluff text in any edition can be easily and completely ignored and changed if you don't like it.
Makes a lot of sense to me, because I think that most people don't bother with their own fluff. They buy the whole package.
What's the difference between D&D, Midgard, 7th Sea, ...? The fluff Sure, I could use a D&D setting with the Midgard rule, or the D&D rules in the 7 Seas setting (which leads of to 7th Sea D20), but I propably buy a setting for it's fluff and use whatever rules come with the fluff (just look at all the D20 version of various settings, people didn't care about a completly changed rule set as long as the setting fluff was left the same)
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 1:45PM
#33
|
|
|
But fluff has changed in every edition and is very dependent on specific game setting (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Forgotten Realms...). Do you really see the fluff from 1e to 3.5e as this consistent blend, which was "destroyed" by 4e?
Likewise fantasy art needs to change with the times. A lot of fantasy art that was created in the 1970's (or even 80's) is no longer appropriate. There needs to be a fresh look.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 2:41PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2008
|
For me the legacy is 4e is the version I taught and played with my kids. They will have access to it until my books lockup due to the release of another version.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 4:24PM
#35
|
|
|
But fluff has changed in every edition and is very dependent on specific game setting (Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Forgotten Realms...). Do you really see the fluff from 1e to 3.5e as this consistent blend, which was "destroyed" by 4e?
Yes. For decades D&D hat it's metasetting with the great wheel and all the "nonsense" that was attached to it. Sure, each campaign setting had a different tone, but at the end of the day they all were linked through the planes.
While there were some cataclysms shaking a setting here and there, through all of it the meta setting remained pretty constant That was the "D&Dnes" and 4e disregarded it all. How many spells a cleric can cast or how much a fighter could contribute compared to a wizard, these all are trivialities, D&D had a specific setting that set it apart from other RPGs with their own specific settings, no matter how their respective rules changed over their edtions. One of the biggest misstakes in 4e FR was the 100 year jump. So far all cataclysms hitting FR have been "event X happened just yesterday, we now have today" and then 4e was suddenly "event X happened and now we are 100 years later". Really, even without any spellplague the 100 year jump alone would have driven away a lot of fans.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 4:29PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
I'm getting the impression that a lot of people's concerns with 4e were not based on mechanics, but on fluff text. Fluff text is the easiest thing to change in an edition and I'm sure 5e will be able to make fluff text based on user input.
It looks like that here, but that is because this is the story, flavor and art forum, where a lot of the discussion is just fluff.
At at more subtle level, mechanics and fluff are linked. To a certain extent the mechanics are an expression of the fluff and the fluff is a description of the mechanics. If the game mechanics don't support something, then no amount of fluff can add it to the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 4:40PM
#37
|
|
|
read underdark or the demonomicon and then tell me with a straight face that 4e has a fluff problem
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 4:56PM
#38
|
- VCL Emeritus
- The Inquisitor
|
Personal opinion... I think the fundamental issue at the core of the "edition wars" is that 4E would have made an excellent, oh, let's say 7th edition. The game evolves, it always has. For most editions, it did so incrementally, not radically. 4th edition was a radical change. It shook up the cosmology, the classes, the alignment system...in short, it wasn't an evolution, but a revolution of D&D. For a lot of fans, it proved to be too much. It was a shock to the system. A better analogy than the "New Coke" thing would be, I think, going from the 1960s Batman TV series to Chris Nolan's Dark Knight. They are both Batman, but a lot changed and evolved in the interim. Going from "nanananana, bam! pow!" to "Some men just want to watch the world burn" would be a bit jarring, don't you think?  Now, from the other end of the spectrum, a lot of folks enjoy 4E, whether they are new to D&D or older fans who just clicked with 4E and enjoy the changes. Regarding the "make your own fluff" arguments, I'd like to caution folks to remember that some D&D players enjoy D&D lore as it is. They are fans of the story D&D has told throughout its history. The Tarrasque, Mordenkainen, Drizzt, Sturm Brightblade, Lady Vol, all these names resonate as part of D&D's shared history and that is important for a lot of D&D fans. Thus, when 4E changed the meaning of some of those things, the change was too jarring for some.
Quentin Small
WotC Online Community Coordinator
All around helpful simian
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 7:13PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2008
|
"I think, going from the 1960s Batman TV series to Chris Nolan's Dark Knight. They are both Batman, but a lot changed and evolved in the interim. Going from "nanananana, bam! pow!" to "Some men just want to watch the world burn" would be a bit jarring, don't you think? " I think that is the best analogy I've heard
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 07, 2012 - 7:44PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
For a lot of fans, it proved to be too much. It was a shock to the system. A better analogy than the "New Coke" thing would be, I think, going from the 1960s Batman TV series to Chris Nolan's Dark Knight. They are both Batman, but a lot changed and evolved in the interim. Going from "nanananana, bam! pow!" to "Some men just want to watch the world burn" would be a bit jarring, don't you think?
Other way around. Moving from 3e to 4e is more like going from Dark Knight to the 1960's Batman. 4e sacrifices any sense of realism or grit for a highly stylistic and camp system after all. 50% joke/50% true
You actually have a good point about the jump to 4e being to jarring for many. There are quite a few players that I have run into that where initially highly resistant to 4e because of it's fundamental changes to the system. Most came around to thinking that the game is at least OK after actually playing it for a while. I did not see the same sort of total rejection when the game went from 2e to 3e. There where arguments over how good particular changes where but the only people I know who didn't switch fairly quickly where deep in the middle of a campaign they didn't want to mess with or revise half way through.
I still think though that 4e isn't actually an improvement over 3e. Around here there are still more people playing Pathfinder then 4e. Why is debatable, but I think the inability of the game to come close to dominating the market even after 4 years says there is something wrong at the core. If the only problem was conversion shock, people would have gotten over it by now and new people learning the game would have moved the market.
|
|
|
