4e I Has It, Is Garbage!

I wonder. I figured "fantasy" became a part of sub-pop culture these days. Especially "normal (modern) fantasy". Movies, video games, stuff that is orientated towards the casual consumer. Feeling familiar with actual mythology strikes me as somewhat nerdier. C'mon, anyone has a say about "trolls" and "angels" and what not from a rather typical fantasyish angle and recalls iconic characters and stories, but how many normal consumers will actually tell you something sophisticated about the roots of those thingies in real mythology?

Ah well, I guess it is true that you can impress people easily if you say "Hey, it's based on like, REAL stuff!" M'eh.
Probably you're right.

... though I stand by my remark that picking up the actual myth clears you of the hassle of dealing with adapted/"inspired" material (that is, a previous interpretation of actual myth by someone else).

I somehow doubt that will have an impact. People who dislike certain things because of "publicity values" and the prestige of some products and genres will not very likely change their not-really-existant opinion of D&D just because Wiz is basing 4e backgrounds more on real world mythology. Maybe they could not even tell the difference. Ahem.

Then again, I don't really know about the US or any place else than europe. Maybe it's a culture/society thing.

Religious discussion is very politically incorrect and should never happen.

Charlie can actually be a nice example of what can happen to fresh clueless in the wrong parts of Sigil!

So 4E is going the sell them as little as possible in as many separate packages as possible route ala micro payments? Except that you're paying full price for each patch?

I'm not until I get a good reason to actually want to own it. So far I haven't and it doesn't look like I will.

Why not donate your money to a charity? Or if you can't bear that buy a video game. I hear GTA4 is great.

Or you could donate it to Tarn Adams. http://www.bay12games.com/support.html

I really do find it hard to understand the negative reactions to 4e (almost as hard as I've found it hard to understand the negative reactions some D&D gamers have to Planescape and its supposedly "arrogant" fanbase)

I've played D&D way back since the time of the Basic and Expert sets. Back then, I relied almost solely on my own scenarios, set in my own world. As (A)D&D moved on I flirted with Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, FR, Al Qadim and even Spelljammer before finally falling head-over-heels in love with Planescape. All these settings had their own takes on the rules as presented in the Core books - some changed the cosmology, some the character classes/races (anyone remember how FR elves used to be so much taller than standard, and weren't there some odd rules on multi-classing too?), some the fluff, some the mechanics of the game. Despite this, no-one was leaping up and down and saying "this doesn't fit" and then blaming the alleged problem on the core rules.

Planescape was not the same game as standard 1st/2nd Edition AD&D - it introduced new mechanics, classes, races and vastly expanded the early hints as to the roles of Daemons/loths, Devils and Demons. That wasn't a problem. Planescape is not the same game as standard 4th edition, that's not a problem, either - in my game, the cosmology, the history, the classes and races are what I say they are, whatever edition and setting I'm playing.

4th edition shouldn't be judged on how it fits with Planescape, or any other setting. It should be judged by how it works as a game. For what it's worth, I think it works excellently and IMHO much better than 3/3.5e (I'll remind everyone of how we howled when we saw what that game did to our beloved 'loths). Wizards have abandoned spurious "realism" and produced a system that (while certainly not perfect - but when was any edition of D&D perfect?) is easy to learn, easy to play and yet has real depth hidden beneath the surface. The new rulebooks are clearly set out, clearly written and will, I hope, help to bring in new players to the hobby.

4e has got me interested in gaming again. I'm already getting ready to tweak the wonderful work of Planewalker into the 4th edition and I hope others will too. Like it or don't like it as you see fit but is there really any reason to loathe it?

Good thing I can simply not purchase their product. :mrgreen:

If 4e were to become tremendously popular among long-time D&D fans, I might buy... but not now.

If I had to have the 4e rules to join some game that I really want to join, I might buy it. It might also suggest that 4e had achieved enough market penetration by that point that (maybe) it's an OK product.

I think that's true of many people who play RPGs.

So true.

Simply put. The type of gamer it'll bring in is most likely the type that thinks that roleplaying is for 'fags' and will continue to hold that believe with every 'mob' that they kill. I'm talking about MMORPGers. I'm sure you think that it's some myth or something but as someone who's played MMORPGs I can tell you that it most certainly is not. The MMORPGamer is a vicious creature with an insatiable apatite for 'phat lootz', 'lulz' and 'lulz hax omfg stfu nub' Yes, that doesn't even make sense when translated to any accepted language in the multiverse. The majority of MMORPGamers play specifically to 'pwn bichez' and then tell them they are 'teh sux' they're quite happy to pay the monthly fee as that's exactly the type of thing they need to do with their chosen stomping grounds anyway though it's usually their parents that are paying. If you have yet to experience the sheer unadulterated horror of the MMORPGamer then I envy you, and that is why 4E must not succeed in it's evil plot for world domination. For the sake of innocence, it must be stopped.

Hm... maybe I shouldn't post at 6:30 am after staying up all night with insomnia. Stupid insomnia. Makes me barmy. Seriously though. It's going to be hell if we get allot of people like that playing D&D. Personally though I don't think they'll stay around long. I think they'll all tire of the creativity requirement inherent in PnP games like D&D and return to their lairs, and then 4E will flop and Wizards will kill D&D off for good, leaving only their miniatures line which is allot more profitable anyway.

If you can truly enjoy a mainstream product over a niche product that suits your specific likes well, I envy you.

Even supposing that this will lure in the HaXor Pkers (which I dont think is necessarily correct), this neglects to address two things. a) Most of us did exactly that when we first played D&D (I know I did, and really every edition of D&D lent itself to that mode of play, lets not kid ourselves), but yet matured over time and ventured into richer ideas and richer systems (I dumped D&D eventually because I found it to be, basically, geared towards hack and slash) and b) we don't have to acually play with anyone we don't want to, unlike an MMORPG. So really, for all intents and purposes, the hypothetical existence of such RPers has little to no impact on us at all. However, what you neglect to acknowledge is the possibility that, in drawing in this new cadre of players, some of them may actually be *gasp* perfectly reasonable human beings that were turned off by the initial complexity of roleplaying systems. I will happily accept 20 idiot gamers if it means 1 more legitimate gamer, because I dont ever have to play with those 20 people, but now have 1 more person I might well invite to play in a game.

And hell, my personal experience, anecdotal though it is, has more or less reflected this trend. People are turned off by the complexity of most roleplaying in my experience. But, in almost every case where I have introduced roleplaying with simple mechanics and a laid back concept, I've won a convert. Three of those people eventually became badass roleplayers. These are people with no prior exposure, and no prior interest, who were all adults. And guess what they were mostly fascinated with at first? Power accumulation and hack and slash. Because, really, that's pretty natural thing to be interested in at first. As with all things in life, true appreciation of nuance and subtelty only come with experience. No one reads Brothers Karamazov out of the gate. And if they did, they probably wouldn't get much of it anyway.

Gaming elitism is really just like any other form of elitism. Once you've achieved a certain level of understanding, many people forget how they got there in the first place, and they disdain beginners because they aren't in the know. 4e is, in many respects, like basic D&D was. It's going back to basics. I think they may have something there. Roleplaying has become so codified by its own conventions that it sometimes isolates new gamers. I think 3e was actually a step in this same direction, which you may not recognize (hello modern sleek artwork and simplified rules). 4e is just a further step. It says "Beginners welcome" all over it, and frankly I welcome that populist sentiment.

Personally, I get tired of all the crumdgeonly gamers who would just as soon the world keep out of their special little universe. It is exactly that kind of attitude that results in roleplayers retaining this anti-social stigma. This isn't highschool anymore. We aren't privvy to secret knowledge. None of these people are going to steal our lunch money. Some of them may even become our friends and fellow gamers. You can immediately reject them for being "unsophisticated gamers" but I would rather welcome them into the fold openly and give them a chance. Rationalizing the rejection doesn't change the fact that you are rejecting these people without giving them a chance. Hmm, what highschool steretype does that sound like?

Elitism this elitism that. Elitist has basically become a word to put down people who are willing to try their best rather than just wait for other people to do it for them like everyone else. It's just used to make people feel better about their own lack of will to improve themselves.

Maybe my opinions are simly biased by my own experiences. Every tabletop game I've been in has been a hack fest. I really don't want to see the internet become the same. In the end it is a matter of taste though. Some people are perfectly happy with the dumbed down version. I like a little complexity and options. Maybe a few more good gamers will join that aren't 'tards' but I don't think that the sacrifice is worth it considering that 'tards' are definitely what they're trying to lure in. Like I said though. I don't see it working, and I see Wizards killing off D&D for good after 4E.

FWIW I've just finished the DMG. Readers of these boards may be surprised to know it spends, if anything, more time on the question of different styles of play, the need to satisfy everyone - including those keen on acting, storytelling &c and not just the "let's nuke these guys" crowd - than previous DMGs. Add in the emphasis on encounters involving large areas, multiple creatures, the environment and skill challenges, the encouragement for DM creativity and this reminder of the needs of all the DM's players and I actually think this is a big improvement over 3e.

Then again, as I said before, I'm an old gamer. For me 3e fell by the wayside in trying to come up with a rule (and often a complicated rule) to cover everything. 4e encourages greater use of rules of thumb, extrapolations from similar systems and general "it's not in here but this makes sense" ruling and thus, IMO, gives more time to roleplaying and less to flipping through books while some berk (I use the word in the UK English sense) shows off his deep knowledge of all 12,000 rules supplements.

The fact I never got to grips with 3e/3.5e is just down to the way I play. I didn't hate either edition, I just preferred 2e (even though it was a horribly inconsistent system patched up with house rules). I can see why people may not be wild about 4e but really, why the hate? If you want to hate WotC, hate them for the fact they abandoned Planescape a decade ago, not because they've changed the core rules. As I said before - for me it's the world I play in that's important - the rules are just an aid to help me and my players enjoy that world.

'If you don't like it just lower your standards.' I've seen that so much recently. That is not self improvement. They aren't doing me any favors by not ripping me off. They're just being decent. The main difference between my so called 'narrow definition' and their supposedly wider one is that theirs is more profitable. My definition wasn't so narrow when it matched their's.

As a poor gamer, I don't have allot of money to throw around at systems I probably won't be able to find anyone to play with me. I also happen to like D&D's settings and concepts. D&D is fairly popular. I know I like it, and there's an decent chance of finding someone to play it with me even if only on the internet. Making D&D more popular at the expense of apparently everything else I like about it isn't worth it to me.

It doesn't make a very strong argument to say 'you're wrong and there are multiple reasons why' and then not supply any of those reasons as evidence.

What's retarded is faithfully defending a company for taking a course of action that's only goal is to furthur increase their profitse by whatever means necessary even if it means completely ripping off the consumer in every way possible. This is not a matter of survival. It's a matter of greed. All a corporation cares about is getting higher profits, more wealth at the expense of those who don't have as much as them. Wizards has a successful product, they're much more likely to stop being successful by overstepping their bounds and alienating their customers with a product that snubs them and is still just as flawed by releasing a new improved edition of their previous product.

Working is important, but anyone can work. Working isn't anything special. What's special is thinking and creativity. That's what causes the creation things, like civilization, and a truly great game.

Everything these days is going towards this 'populist' attitude of treating people like idiots while telling them they're smart, then screwing them over.

-420

Im not asking you to lower your standards. That is a pretty bizarre interpretation of what I wrote. What I am saying is that your standards are arbitrary and inconsistent. You say people should, in essence, work at roleplaying, but dont hold yourself to that same standard.

On a related note, you assert that, basically, WotC shouldn't aim to be profitable. Yet you expect them to make a game, for you. That is absurd on its face. If WotC is not profitable, they won't make any game of any kind, which doesn't benefit anyone. TSR folded precisely because they mismanaged their company and aimed more at pleasing themselves than at providing a marketable game. It is a distinct possibility we wouldn'thave any D&D if WotC hadn't swooped in, bought up the rights to D&D, and reworked it into a more populist, easy to understand format, in the form of 3e (which, paradoxically, you seem to like).

That's great. All those concepts are still around. No one plans on burning your books because of 4th edition I imagine. So, everything is still there, as it was the day before. What you are complaining about is that WotC would have the audacity not to release new materials that you approve of. And what I am saying is, is that this is a pretty spoiled attitude to take. WotC exists to make money. They can't provide games unless they make money. It is truly ridiculous that you think it reasonable that they should opt to support you and those like you to the exclusion of their profits. Again, that sort of contradicts your ubermensch stance. What, are we on roleplaying welfare now? They're a business. They have to make business decisions, otherwise in very short order, there will be no game of any kind. If that means popularizing D&D further, I maintain that this is superior to no D&D at all.

You can get anyone to play just about any system if you play on the internet. D&D is far from exclusive in that respect. And usually, most roleplayers, if they are creative or are well read, will be more than happy to play in just about any setting you throw at them. If they aren't, then they probably aren't exactly shining beacons of roleplaying excellence.

You are, conversely, asking D&D to be unpopular, at the expense of its existence.

Im not really sure what you mean there, but I gave plenty of lines of argument relating to my assertions. Whether you think they are valid or not doesn't negate them.

Who is getting ripped off exactly? Did you buy fourth edition wth no insight into what it was about? If not, how exactly were you cheated? They are offering a full game that, amazingly enough, we don't have to buy, and which we have the full ability to review prior to purchase. No one tricked you. No one stole anything from you. It's just false to say anyone is being ripped off unless you can site a reason for this claim.

It pretty much is a matter of survival. Big gaming corporations have gone bankrupt many times when they didn't manage their product. TSR died because they didn't do what WotC is willing to do. Same goes for FASA. WotC itself almost folded, and was barely managing to float by for three years. If you do not offer people something new and different, it is the trend of consumers to stop buying the product. New mild tweaks simply do not generate sales for more than a few years. Eventually you need to offer consumers something different enough that they feel like they are not just getting the same thing all over again. That is a pretty basic business concept. WotC is making a tough decision but is trying to keep their core game relevant in three ways. First they are making it more accessible, which helps bring in new gamers in a very competitive niche market. Second, they are offering old gamers something new enough that previous material does not make largely redundant. Third it keeps them competitive within their market. MMORPGs are drawing people away from traditional roleplaying. Other fantasy hack and slash systems are on the market and are succesful enough that they've cut into WotC's sales. WotC does not operate in a vacuum. They have to compete for their business. It's just a simple reality.

For most established gamers, a saturation point is reached with a product line where additonal investment seems unnecessary. I reached that point extremely quickly wth 3e. Other people take longer. Some people, such as yourself, will gladly buy new products for an old system as long as they are released. However, if past history is any indicator (and it is the only non-anecdotal indicator we really have), most people are not like you.

That's a very strong view, and I can appreciate that corporations aren't exactly benevolent, but it's only fair to consider that the existence of D&D is possible only because of corporations.

Possibly. It may end up that they made the wrong decision. But I think they are in a far better position to judge that then you or I.

Right. And what I am saying is, since you are presumably a creative person, is that you should be able to resolve these problems through the application of creativity and intelligence. Does that require some work? Yeah, certainly, but so does any creative act. I wasn't promoting the virtue of work so much as the virtue of producing your own value in the face of an unsatisfying alternative.

That's really not a new trend. And I am not promoting populism in the strictest sense. My argument in that regard is that, in this case, the existence of a populist game in a gaming market is not inherently bad, and has a set of benefits. If the only gaming option available to me were 4e, I would be upset. But that really isn't remotely reflective of the reality. I think 4e makes a decent intro game for new gamers that lays the groundwork for other richer, more detailed games. That does me no harm, can benefit new gamers, and can potentially benefit me by creating a larger pool of potential gamers, some of whom will undoubtedly be perfectly intelligent and capable roleplayers.

Personally I don't hate them.

It lets us move on with the conversion unhindered for the moment. We don't have to make sure we've matched our work to everything they're releasing anymore. We don't have to keep in synch with their canon now.

So: It's not a problem.

On the other hand, everyone remember we're friends here. (Or at least like-minded fans) 3.x or even 1st and 2nd didn't work for everyone, 4th isn't going to be the silver bullet of gaming either. I think that everyone agrees on that. Keep cool heads and warm hearts - preferably still beating though I'm sure the 'loths amongst you would like them on silver platters.

When I read over what little of 4.0 I did, I remembered the powers system from Warcraft. I, myself, haven't seen much of WotC bashing on the older versions of DnD but the fact that they would consider the fluff to be broken is a weird thing.

Also, as someone who came into DnD a little late, I love looking back at my friends collection of Dragon magazines and some of the amazing articles. DDI is horrible...and that's putting it lightly. While DDI has some good features like the art galleries of books which I find useful for my players (which lack any sort of an imagination). Besides that they ony useful thing is the "Ask Sage" section of the site is also somewhat helpful for the random situations. Besides those two things though the site is filled with a lot of garbage. Also, call me sentimental or what you will, but I think that the main site to dungeons and dragons should have more of a tribute to the game's creators passing then a simple page that was up for probably three weeks.

About their advertising, from what I've seen, It did seem like they were coming off a little over confident, almost to the level of being cocky about 4.0. I do recall one instance when they attacked their one grapple rules from 3.5, calling them "too complicated" as well as things like sunder saying it was "never used". I don't want to pass a judgment without having more knowledge about that particular endeavor.

I will say though that WotC is going down the same route with DnD that they did with the Magic: The Gathering TCG, which I have also stopped purchasing due to the horrid card design and the addition of far too many new rules.

Alright. I'm done with this conversation. I say "Wizards shouldn't only care about profits." You read "Wizards shouldn't care about profits." I say "They're removing options and features, and that's dumbing it down." and you read, "They're making it easier to learn and that's dumbing it down." I'm leaving before I start flaming people.

Sorry, Dire Lemon, if I ticked you off... :cry: I'm not trying to make hard feelings or anything, I'm just saying don't you remember when 3E first came out, everyone said they hated it, it was not true D&D, WOTC had created a dud and it was going to be a collosal failure, etc, etc...? Now some of those people are hardcore 3E/3.5 supporters, praising the virtures of 3E/3.5 wheras before, they said they'd never play it! And 3E did change some of the monsters and deities; Gruumush became Chaotic Evil (he was LE before), Maruts became Inevitables, and so on. In the immortal words of Dr. Seus... "I am Sam. Sam I am. Won't you try Green Eggs and Ham?"