|
5 years ago ::
Jan 25, 2008 - 10:01PM
#2271
|
|
|
I don't think Jancoran knows what a Logic Puzzle is.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 25, 2008 - 11:24PM
#2272
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2005
|
You're right, they ARE selling pre-books. I happen to have recently picked one up and I'll tell you that it in many ways solidified my decision to switch to 4e. Selling these pre-books is NO different from running 14 MONTHS worth of 3e preview articles in Dragon magazine except that it cost me $6/month to keep current with what they were thinking of changing (one class, feat or race at a time I might add). Even then, I knew less about 3e when the books launched than I ALREADY know about 4e thanks to 90 pages of design notes. $84 worth of magazines (which admittedly I was buying anyways) is more than twice what I would be paying for the 2 released preview books. Is there money involved? Of course there is. WotC is a division of a multi-billion dollar empire.
Does that make it WRONG to develop a new system and release it? Not at all. If they only wanted your money, they could keep churning out mediocre 3.5 supplements for another 2 years and THEN launch 4e. They'd squeeze another couple hundred dollars from you, and you'd thank them for finally updating a new system after 3/3.5 had lived a healthy 10 years. Instead, they had an idea that they feel is good enough to run with, and they're doing just that. Are they right? Who knows. If it's good, I'll have my new system to play with and enjoy. If I hate it, I've got a library of 3.5 books to fall back on. Same thing I said about 3e when it came out. If it's good, I'll play it, if not, I've still got my 2e stuff to use.
I agree that there is a definate "video game" feel coming from 4e all over the place. I can't decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing yet, and I think that only time and experience will really make up my mind on that subject. BUT, video games are NOT a bad thing. WoW is NOT the anti-D&D. I play both, and I enjoy both for both what they share and where they differ. Sometimes I want something mindless, sometimes I want interaction with people. Sometimes I want to tell a story in a world I have labored over, sometimes I just want to be another player in somebody else's well developed world. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't. Both have their places, and sometimes, it's NOT a bad thing for them to overlap.
Play or don't. I'm not here to advocate one over the other. I will say that both systems have merit, and for me, the CONCEPTUAL mechanics of 4e sit better with me than the 3e ones do. I like that my 4e fighters can do more than the same thing every round. I like that my 4e wizards don't need reloading. I like that my 4e clerics won't spend their lives applying band-aids to the party. Most importantly, I LIKE the fact that if I DON'T LIKE how it all comes together, I can stay where I am. Safe and comfortable with my 3.5 books for years to come. You're right, there is PLENTY of 3.5 material I have yet to use. I could play 3.5 games for another decade before working my way through all of the source material published to date. But, I'm not sure I WANT to do that, so for THAT reason, I am looking forward to a change of feel and a complete refresh with 4e. 3e didn't break any boundaries. It was a quiet, comfortable transition. I think maybe a big shake up is exactly what my campaign world needs and what my players need to bring back our interest in the game. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that way. Maybe you're not there yet. Maybe YOU do have another decade of 3.5 left in your books. Call me in 10 years and I'll dust off my old 4e books and we'll see how you like the "new" face of D&D then.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 26, 2008 - 1:27PM
#2273
|
Date Joined:
Oct 13, 2005
|
The 4E monster block layouts actually look similar to some of the 2E monster stat blocks.
Compare the new Pit Fiend in the Ampersand article to the 2E Monster Manual.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:45PM
#2274
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2006
|
Sorry Jancoran. I tried to convince you, but I have to tell you that you are wrong. I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince you again, as you've demonstrated a magnificent lack of interest in listening to alternate opinions.
For everyone else:
- WoW is not the same as EverQuest. WoW is a greatly improved version of EverQuest. My point is that DnD 4e : 3.5 :: WOW : EQ. It's an analogy. I'm not saying that DnD 4e needs to be WoW. But bear in mind that WoW is NOT the same game as EQ. Plain and simple, it is the same genre but a vastly improved system for doing the same things.
-My point with Jancorian was that he is against this step in the game's evolution. I wasn't trying to say that he is against progress entirely. But the fact that some people liked 3e and 3.5 doesn't change the fact that they are against 4e. That is the "progress" that the naysayers are against.
-As for the whole perfect edition thing, I'm not saying 4e will be perfect any more than WoW is perfect. But 4e will be much closer to perfect than 3.5. 3.5 has glaring huge gaping holes that make me cringe to have to use the rules as is. I think 4e will have problems but will be much easier to overlook or house-rule.
-When I say that money is a concern, but its not all about money I am not contradicting myself. My point is that 3.5 is alienating a large portion of the potential audience by being sub-par. By improving it to modern standards of fantasy gaming with 4e, they open up the possibility of attracting a large audience of people who would love DnD if it wasn't so antiquated.
One final note to Jancorian. Your final paragraph only goes to show me that you are already on my side. If you agree with me enough to say that 4e from what we currently know, looks like it will trounce 3.5, why do you feel the need to flame me? If you are on my side, why argue with me and nitpick my statements?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 27, 2008 - 3:11PM
#2275
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2005
|
I totally agree with Jancoran, and here's why: 4e isn't progress, it's egress. Progress is moving on from one point or position to next point or position. 3.0 to 3.5 is Progress. This is egress; moving into someplace different. That's what we long-time vets of D&D are really concerned about, and we seem to get the dirty end of the stick here in the forums trying to let everyone know how much we feel the new games seems to be flawed.
It's the old addage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 3.5 wasn't broken, although it could be broken by players intent on "optimizing", the new term for Munchkin/Twink play in our current politically correct, no name calling day and age. You want to stay up all night and get a +38 to hit by figuring out all the right feats to take? No new edition is going to stop those kinds of players from doing it, but it DOES NOT mean that the edition you're playing is broken.
I'm just so displeased with the totally divergent take on the rules, and, in many of the previews, the weak way that rules seem to hold together. They're leaving so much out of the explanations for why changes were made that the changes don't seem to function fairly or nominally like D&D we contrary folks were hoping they would.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 27, 2008 - 3:41PM
#2276
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2006
|
I totally agree with Jancoran, and here's why: 4e isn't progress, it's egress. Progress is moving on from one point or position to next point or position. 3.0 to 3.5 is Progress. This is egress; moving into someplace different. That's what we long-time vets of D&D are really concerned about, and we seem to get the dirty end of the stick here in the forums trying to let everyone know how much we feel the new games seems to be flawed.
It's the old addage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 3.5 wasn't broken, although it could be broken by players intent on "optimizing", the new term for Munchkin/Twink play in our current politically correct, no name calling day and age. You want to stay up all night and get a +38 to hit by figuring out all the right feats to take? No new edition is going to stop those kinds of players from doing it, but it DOES NOT mean that the edition you're playing is broken.
I'm just so displeased with the totally divergent take on the rules, and, in many of the previews, the weak way that rules seem to hold together. They're leaving so much out of the explanations for why changes were made that the changes don't seem to function fairly or nominally like D&D we contrary folks were hoping they would.
On the contrary somethings were broken. However, not everything was broken. The fluff was good. I think PrC's were fine. Plus, a few other things were beginning to pan out.
Really for 4e all they needed to do was make a few minor changes and the game would of been awesome. I think they are going a bit over-bored. Oh well I will have my 2e books for fluff to guide me.
I just really hope I won't have to sit and wait for 4.5. To play this edition. 3.0 was just so buggy and full of horrible typos and other errors.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 27, 2008 - 3:52PM
#2277
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2005
|
3.0 was poorly written, not just buggy. 3.5 was 90%, and all we really needed was more refinement, like you said,to get us to 4.0. Don't expect a 4.0. The plan to update annually precludes that n favor of a volume a year full of fixes and "better ideas".
Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait for 4.0 to crash and burn, let ten to fifteen years pass by, and then get a 5th edition before we get any new D&D after this.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 27, 2008 - 10:01PM
#2278
|
Date Joined:
Aug 16, 2007
|
I totally agree with Jancoran, and here's why: 4e isn't progress, it's egress. Progress is moving on from one point or position to next point or position. 3.0 to 3.5 is Progress. This is egress; moving into someplace different. That's what we long-time vets of D&D are really concerned about, and we seem to get the dirty end of the stick here in the forums trying to let everyone know how much we feel the new games seems to be flawed.
It's the old addage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 3.5 wasn't broken, although it could be broken by players intent on "optimizing", the new term for Munchkin/Twink play in our current politically correct, no name calling day and age. You want to stay up all night and get a +38 to hit by figuring out all the right feats to take? No new edition is going to stop those kinds of players from doing it, but it DOES NOT mean that the edition you're playing is broken.
I'm just so displeased with the totally divergent take on the rules, and, in many of the previews, the weak way that rules seem to hold together. They're leaving so much out of the explanations for why changes were made that the changes don't seem to function fairly or nominally like D&D we contrary folks were hoping they would.
Of course 4e is "progress". With 3.x, they made some great improvements, but they totally went in the wrong direction. WotC has themselves said that they designed 3.x with "system mastery" in mind, such that a player who studied the game could have an edge over a player that didn't, much like with their trading card games. They intentionally included suboptimal things like the Toughness feat, knowing that only newbs or somebody with a wierd concept build would ever take it. And that's fine in a game where players are competing against each other, but in a game where the players are all supposed to be cooperating, there's no place for that kind of "my character is mechanically better than yours" play. It just leaves the less skilled players feeling bored and useless and trapped in their "bad" choices until they can find a chance to get their characters killed. Doesn't sound like fun to me.
That's not just something you can patch-out, either. It was a core design tennet that permeated the entire game. If you removed it, you'd just have to rebuild the game anyway, so they did. Essentially, building characters in 3.x was more fun than actually playing them, to some extent.
Obviously, if 3.x works for you, then it's not a problem for you, but there were serious issues that kept cropping up across the board that were too frequent and too consistent to be mere cooincidence.
EDIT: So anyway, they took what they learned from 3.x, backed up a step, realigned themselves in the right direction and then "progressed" to 4e from there.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 29, 2008 - 9:24AM
#2279
|
|
|
The group you identify with the word "we" doesn't care about making the game better.
In one way I fit that remark. I DO NOT care about making the game batter.
I would much rather make the CONSUMER better; in terms of better informed and more apt to weigh their decision carefully before committing to 4E.
The problem with WotC/Hasbro running D&D lies in their emphasis on marketing instead of well written product. They learned with 3.0/3.5 that the HYPE of the game was more important than the content, and they now exploit that mercilessly.
I can envision a conversation in WotC
Marketing guy - Woot! I just got a confirmation that my AD-slogan boosted sales by 8% in on month.
Manager - Good work keep it up. Hey you the funny guy over there, how is that rules re-write going?
Design guy - I'm trying to get the balance right on these new spells, I think several are severely overpowered.
Manager - Overpowered Schmoverpowered, I don't pay you to think, I pay you for page count. Take a lesson from Marketing and just do the job I want - MORE SALES means MORE MONEY. Remember we're targeting 13 year olds, by the time they realize the game sucks, they'll have left our target audience.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jan 29, 2008 - 12:29PM
#2280
|
|
|
hey, if you guys want to see the rules and mechanics of 4e just look at star wars saga edition. now the skill names might be different, but i bet the mechanics will be the same. yes, they added 10 more class levels, but the saga edition has talent trees, just like 4e will have. so really its not a brand new edition to the gaming community, just a d&d conversion from SWSE.
|
|
|
