|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:05PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
What gets me, is (presumably) how may people hold the OP's opinion. Its fascinating, really.
I think a lot of people just are not used to seeing a product that is actually in development. A lot of the time when a game company makes a public beta available, it is actually just a partial nearly release ready version and they are just fishing for free publicity.
Next has the additional problem that there are many deep fissures between what people are looking for in the game. There are a lot of people who think the 4e changes are vast improvements to the game and don't want to go back, and there are a lot of people who think the 4e changes made the game worse and want to go back to older style of gaming and mechanics. Coming up with a compromise between the two is a huge challenge.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:17PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
Next has the additional problem that there are many deep fissures between what people are looking for in the game. There are a lot of people who think the 4e changes are vast improvements to the game and don't want to go back, and there are a lot of people who think the 4e changes made the game worse and want to go back to older style of gaming and mechanics. Coming up with a compromise between the two is a huge challenge.
This is probably the biggest hurdle IMO. With to extreamly different ideologies on how the game should be played and how much power goes to both DMs and Players, it's hard for me to see the connection we're supposed to share as "D&D gamers". And while I can appreciate their desire to have a core system for things to be bolted onto, I'm just not sure how this is all supposed to come together.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:21PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
Next is not a re-balancing of 3e. I played 3e for 12 years. Yes, there are some elements of 3e in there, but it is not even close to the same thing.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:23PM
#14
|
|
|
Yes, as it is presented, Next is essentially a massive re-balancing of 3E. Is that such a bad thing, though? I guess it is, if you didn't like 3E, or if you think they're balancing it incorrectly, but you say that is not the major cause of your disappointment.
Yes, it's 3E with a sanity check, kind of.
To be honest I'd be moderately ok with this if 4E didn't happen in between. Now I just can't go back to that style of play anymore.
Pretty much this... except I also have Iron Kingdoms and several other games. I'd never have gone back to 3E after I burned out on the silliness of that system. Luckily I don't have to.
If you have questions about 4th Edition - don't hesitate to ask me via PMs. Join the Community Monster Manual Group and help to collect a mass of monsters which will make your life as DM easier, and your life as Player pure hell!  I am a cartographer. You can find some of my maps in my profile, free for non-commercial use. Also, if you happen to like maps or make them yourselves, join into the Cartographers Group!
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:24PM
#15
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I agree with Zaramon. It feels most like BECMI to me, but with a d20-high proression on attacks and some 4e flavoring sprinkled around.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:38PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Well, the folks on the paizo forums seem to be snarking it as a Pathfinder-lite. If this came out in '08 instead of 4th (as mentioned by Uskglass), then I'm sure this would have been a much more celebrated product, but that's just not the case. So, we have a big problem here. However, I'm sure more options to kitbash into a 4e style game with groovy new elements will come around soon. That or everyone jumps ship to 13th Age (and the Pathfinder problem starts again!)
Well, yes. It would have been praised like a sensible evolution of D&D back then.
And it 4E would have been a spin-off product alongside ,it would have been praised as being innovative and a clever re-imagination of the brand, without stepping on the toes of old fans and taking anything away from them. But hindsight is 20/20 and here we are.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:40PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 19, 2012
|
I agree with Zaramon. It feels most like BECMI to me, but with a d20-high proression on attacks and some 4e flavoring sprinkled around.
See, this is actually interesting to me because I didn't know what to compare it to until I read this, because I don't have much experience with the older editions. I just knew what it wasn't, not necesarily what it was.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:40PM
#18
|
|
|
Every edition of DnD has been somewhat different. DnD didn't begin with 3e and shouldn't be defined solely within a 3e context.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:46PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Every edition of DnD has been somewhat different. DnD didn't begin with 3e and shouldn't be defined solely within a 3e context.
I've been playing all editions of D&D. While I agree the first packet had a BECMI feel to it, I think it has steered more towards 3E in later ones - which, incidentally, makes sense if one of the goals is to re-engage players who have moved to Pathfinder. Unfortunately I have little confidence that can be achived without alienating 4E fans.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Dec 13, 2012 - 1:49PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 21, 2006
|
Well, the folks on the paizo forums seem to be snarking it as a Pathfinder-lite. If this came out in '08 instead of 4th (as mentioned by Uskglass), then I'm sure this would have been a much more celebrated product, but that's just not the case. So, we have a big problem here. However, I'm sure more options to kitbash into a 4e style game with groovy new elements will come around soon. That or everyone jumps ship to 13th Age (and the Pathfinder problem starts again!)
Well, yes. It would have been praised like a sensible evolution of D&D back then.
And it 4E would have been a spin-off product alongside ,it would have been praised as being innovative and a clever re-imagination of the brand, without stepping on the toes of old fans and taking anything away from them. But hindsight is 20/20 and here we are.
I totally agree with this.
I also think a lot of the doom and gloom from 4e fans stems from the impression the 4e direction is being cut off for good (at least from WotC side). If 4e had been a spin-off, as you suggest, then it could potentially have a new edition of it's own coming along, which improve it in line with 4e lovers' desires/expectations. We could have been happily split into two appreciative player-bases, each with a product line to pay money for.
|
|
|
