My thoughts after 1st look at 4E

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:31 am

I'm sorry is that game still being called D&D?

I must say that I am one of those that have bought almost everything they published for 3.5. I am not even a big fan of 3.5 but it was the game I could get a group playing.

Now that WOTC turned away from myself and others in their customer base, all I can do is wish them the best...or wish them something.

I am no longer interested in wasting my money on a product or company that is not interested in keeping my busuness.

Good luck with that table top WOW thing you guys got going.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:27 pm

Joe wrote:
I must say that I am one of those that have bought almost everything they published for 3.5.

Isn't that the d20 game that they tried calling D&D too?

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:45 pm

You're right. Warcraft was published for d20 along with Everquest and Diablo.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:59 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
You're right. Warcraft was published for d20 along with Everquest and Diablo.

At least they codified them to be used with the d20 rules. It seems like this time around they wanted to save themselves some licensing fees decided to emulate the whole game after an MMO.
Seriously, though, to me 3.5 is a heck of a lot more like older versions than 4e. It's not perfect, granted and 3.x did take the game further away from its base than it had ever been before. But 4e dropping things that have been - Vancian magic, saving throws (as opposed to defenses), class abilities, gnomes...well, you all know the list - makes it less and less D&D (again, to me).

Yeah, I know that Hasbro owns the IP and all, and I guess they could slap the D&D brand on a game of Scrabble, too, if they wanted. That doesn't make it D&D...not in spirit. But losing all the aforementioned things, sacred cows and all, are part of D&D. To me, removing those turns it into something else, and when it becomes something else, it's not D&D.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:06 pm

I thinks that's where I differ from some others. I never considered 3e to be D&D so I've grown accustomed to having an "impostor" edition around that isn't very D&D like but still has the name.

So, for me to get offended that 4e "isn't very D&D-like" is not going to happen. It didn't seem to offend a bunch of other folks when 3e did the same thing.

I prolly view 4e to be less D&D and more of a d20 2nd Edition. For me, its an edition of d20 that doesn't suck!

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:14 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
I thinks that's where I differ from some others. I never considered 3e to be D&D so I've grown accustomed to having an "impostor" edition around that isn't very D&D like but still has the name.

So, for me to get offended that 4e "isn't very D&D-like" is not going to happen. It didn't seem to offend a bunch of other folks when 3e did the same thing.

I prolly view 4e to be less D&D and more of a d20 2nd Edition. For me, its an edition of d20 that doesn't suck!

Interesting viewpoint, sir.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:45 pm

I've always saw AD&D 2e as the last AD&D edition. 3.X was the first D20 D&D edition and 4e as the second D20 D&D edition. It is still D&D to be but with differing mechanics which is why 3e never worked for me as a name. It really should have been called Dungeons and Dragons D20 Edition instead of 3e.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:52 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
I've always saw AD&D 2e as the last AD&D edition. 3.X was the first D20 D&D edition and 4e as the second D20 D&D edition. It is still D&D to be but with differing mechanics which is why 3e never worked for me as a name. It really should have been called Dungeons and Dragons D20 Edition instead of 3e.

That works for me JG.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:44 pm

Well granted, 3E is not old school either, but it came at a time when 2nd edition had just about cheesed out every aspect of the game and squeezed out every available dollar.

I had given up on TSR once they shut out Gygax and had moved on to Rolemaster and others systems, so your point is well made, but at least 3E was a shot in the arm which broughtn be back to D&D.

$E was just a slap in the face that closed a very expensive relationship i had with wotc and their less than useful product line.

Now I am left playing C&C...good system overall but i think they failed to follow thru.

I am also designing my own system from scratch.

I am left either being a consumer of efforts not exactly to my liking, or left doing it myself.

Some have asked me why bother? It's so much hard work.

I am left asking why bother fixing other peoples systems instead of making one for yourself?

Anyone interested in contributing support material or playtesting please send an IM.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:45 pm

Joe wrote:
Now I am left playing C&C...good system overall but i think they failed to follow thru. Sure they got a good hit at the ball with old school feel, Gygax supporting them, and a customer list, but they seemed to lose track somewhere around second base.

Interesting takes. Would you mind expanding on the above statements? I am terribly curious what your thoughts are on the shortcomings of C&C.

Kudos to you designing your own system, sir! I'd do mine, but it'd be a rip-off of BD&D, AD&D, 3.x D&D, and C&C.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:52 pm

I'm confused by the 'Loose track by second base' comment. The CKG is not needed for the system. CZ has had it's own problems but not related to TLG but more on the side of Deadwieght dropping off the project and slowdowns from the reimaging of it.

If it's the lack of splatbooks, don't hold your breath, TLG isn't in the business of splatbooks. In fact TLG could quit producing C&C material now and still have a full system and complete game.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:12 pm

Please don't take my comments the wrong way. I am a fan of C&C and find it the best current system out there.

But game style and game preference is left to opinions and your comment about "splatbooks" reveals some of yours.

But the game just does not feel complete to MANY players, nor was it playtested by enough for a long enough time. Typos are hard to overlook also.

It's just in today's rpg world, a certain level of proofreading, playability, and details are almost required.

Just as 3.5 was a victim of it's own micro detailed "perfection" making it into a feel much like chess, so C&C is a bit loosy goosy for many players today.

When a new player recruited from a rules heavy system has a question...sometimes, "Just make something up!" is not a good answer.

They were geniuses for getting back to old school basics, but with that approach they needed to present a product with as few typos as possible.

Many of us can see the beauty in basic.

Others only find it quaint.

I don't wish to get into a discussion of what is wrong with C&C.

IT IS FINE!

It is still the only game I prefer to play in, for now.
Once again, game preference and styles much like art is for the eye of the dreaded beholder.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

Joe · Post by **Joe** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:25 pm

Lord Dynel,

Which one is not a rip off of the former?

That is the beauty of OGL.

We no longer need to reinvent the polyhedron in order to make a game of our preference.

We all pale in the shadow of Gygax.

Yet just like us, he was only a man.

The same cannot be said for some corporate monsters out there though.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

qstor · Post by **qstor** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:13 am

For me 4e doesn't have any old school elements at all. It got rid of the Vancian magic system which is the heart to me of any edition of D&D.

Mike
_________________
"I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. We live for the One we die for the One"

Marcus B5

Heavy_Crossbow · Post by **Heavy_Crossbow** » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:02 pm

I bought the books, and immediately regretted it upon playing my first game.

The game is not bad. But, in the same way that the new star wars movies sucked, it sucks. It has a legacy to uphold, a legacy that it has consistently tried to destroy since 3.5 (although I like 3.5 and played it for years).

I've played four games of 4.0, two with a battle-mat, two without. I wanted to like the game. But I couldn't like it as a DnD game. I think that it is safe to say that this is more of a campaign-skirmish rules set, much like Confrontation's Cadwallon. However, to call it a role-playing-game is a stretch. This game is based around tactical mechanics and so-called "grinding", not intricate role-playing. And it is good at what it does. But what it does isn't good.

I did like a few things about it, however. I liked that the "monster" races are more easily used (no "level adjustments", thank Crom). I like the art. And the book is attractive. But the bad things outweigh the good. In conclusion, 4e is not for everyone. If you want role-playing goodness, with classic DnD elements and a touch of new stuff, then these are not the droids you're looking for.

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:07 am

Joe wrote:
But the game just does not feel complete to MANY players, nor was it playtested by enough for a long enough time. Typos are hard to overlook also. It's just in today's rpg world, a certain level of proofreading, playability, and details are almost required.

Ahh, like the proofreading that d20 Fantasy got? You do realize that system was not perfect out of the box either, right? In fact, the two reasons 3.5 was released were to fix perceived problems in 3.0, and because WotC were transformed into a group of money-grubbing whores. d20 Vista continues the cycle, both in the money-grubbing aspect, and shoddy proofreading.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

danbuter · Post by **danbuter** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:24 am

That doesn't make his point invalid, but way to jump on one comment in a large paragraph.

TLG really does need to put out something other than adventures. I bet that's why Engineering Dungeons has sold so well, it's what people really want. I only need 1 adventure for any given level slot, not the 20 or so that TLG produces for levels 1 - 6 (just guessing on this number, but feel free to jump all over it).
_________________
-------

Dan
http://home.comcast.net/~danbuter/candc.html - my Castles and Crusades webpage

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:56 am

Actually, it makes that view totally invalid, because it assumes (once again) that improvements in the technology of making books automatically mean that books must be perfect, when it can be clearly shown that they are not.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:08 pm

danbuter wrote:
TLG really does need to put out something other than adventures. I bet that's why Engineering Dungeons has sold so well, it's what people really want. I only need 1 adventure for any given level slot, not the 20 or so that TLG produces for levels 1 - 6 (just guessing on this number, but feel free to jump all over it).

I for one really like the adventures and have run though many of them. I personally rather not see too many accessories. It's one of the things that annoys me about WOTC ... it's also the thing that had me fed up with TSR in the early 90's. Too many bloody sourcebooks and accessories.

I think the pace TLG is doing right now seems about right. A scattering of adventure modules with a couple accessories here and there which supplement the core books.

In terms of adventures, you also have to consider someone may not be interesting in certain groupings of adventures. Some people may not be interested in the Haunted Highlands (4 modules), Inzae (3 modules), or Aihrde (6 modules). There are modules that don't fit any of those categories being generic enough but usually porting the stuff to whatever setting interests you isn't an issue. All I'm saying is some gamers may be more select at what they collect. (Oh... I didn't bother counting the freebies or small PDF releases)

In terms of support material, not counting anything to do with Castle Zagyg or Yggsburgh, we have the Miasmal Wyrms accessory, Engineering Dungeons, Towers of Adventure, the Aihrde folio, and the immanent release of the Arms and Armor guide. I'm not gong to bother counting the Player Record Sheets accessory or the Screen since I think they're a different category.

In between the release of Engineering Dungeons and Towers of Adventure, there was only modules released during that time were the Shades of Mist and the Dro Mandras. Chimera's Roost came out shortly before Engineering Dungeons based on the release dates provided by the Print Release thread.

During this past year, there were 8 things released which were Trigee properties but only two of which were strictly adventure modules. But considering the recently announced lineup of products... I think we will see an interesting 2009.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:18 pm

I'll take the middle road and say that I think adventures and accessories are both important. They all have their different audiences. One reason Engineering Dungeons probably did well (as danbuter stated) was that it wasn't an adventure, which is usually only of interest to CK's. Wizards of the Coast went with this philosophy during the 3.x era and I'm sure they made a killing - hardly any adventures were printed. They had the initial series (with The Sunless Citadel, et al.), and a few setting-specific modules, but other than that they stuck to accessories, which was something that both sides of the screen would be interested in. I had heard (don't know if it's true or not), that this decision was done based on WotCs research of TSRs books. Apparently, module sales werent that spectacular in WotCs eyes, so the went a different route. And it seemed to pay off.

That being said, I'm glad TLG is putting out modules. I think that modules are good for the reason that it gets people playing the game quicker and easier. Maybe that was also part of the WotC philosophy - they figured D&D had a big enough following and all they needed to do was maximize profit by putting out scores of hardback accessories. Anyway, I feel that once you have a good number of people playing the game, or after a certain amount of time after the games release, things like accessories need to also see print to keep the offering interesting and varied.

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:47 pm

Well, if module's typically appeals more to CK's than players, I'd have to argue the Engineering Dungeons would as well. The difference is that one is a kit that an enterprising CK will use to make his own adventures. This has infinitely more 'play' value. Sure, WOTC made a bunch of money from their endless array of Complete 'Archetype' line since it was DM's and Player's alike which bought it. However, I suspect that they made more money on the hardbacks in general compared to the perfect bound softcovers which they shifted away from around the same time they stopped producing adventures. Besides they also had tons of companies producing modules to support their rule set and accessories.

The interesting thing about the TSR modules is you also have to consider the 'era' of gaming you are looking at. It doesn't look like 2nd Edition modules did anywhere as good as some of the 1st Edition ones .. and a lot of those continue to be sought after. Much more so than some of the rulebooks it seems. However if WOTC looked at TSR in the early 90's, I can't help but agree with that assessment.

Regardless... a middle road approach, at least for now, would make me happy enough. I'm not sure where my purchasing priorities will be like as time goes on. As of right now, I buy everything that TLG puts out. The only product which still isn't in my possession is the Upper Works but that should be settled soon enough. However, once the A-Series is completed, and more of the d20 Erde material is converted, I'm not sure if I will be spending as much on adventures beyond that.

As long as the releases remain solid... I'll remain a happy customer. I'd *REALLY* like to see M&T II join the line up sooner than later though.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Go0gleplex · Post by **Go0gleplex** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:57 pm

Modules are very useful...especially when the CK simply doesn't have time to do everything needed for the campaign. Some of the modules now are perfect for side adventure type use or even as something that comes up in the middle of things as the players build their reputations amongst the locals.

It was one of the things that was very disappointing with 2nd ed...the module quality died off and a good portion of the adventures in Dungeon simply didn't fit or seemed to be chosen for esoteric / oringinality purposes rather than getting some good solid fodder pieces....and as Moriarty said, the very lack of modules period for 3+ left a lot of folks simply without the support they needed, even if the quality of the modules that were produced came back up a notch or two.

I'm quite satisfied with the ratio of modules to rule books the Troll Lords are putting out. It gives one a sense that they care enough to support their game...not just take us for what we're worth like the Evil Empire and Evil Empire Jr.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:43 pm

After seeing the errata list for 4E, and once again seeing that even the biggest company on the block can't get a book even close to perfect, I don't listen to such complaints anymore. Its a part of the game, just like it always has been. They didn't get it right under TSR, and they still don't get it right under WOTC, as far as typoes/errors go.

As for 4E, my opinion still hasn't changed. It isn't for me. IT didn't excite me. I have stolen the one rules idea I really liked, and that is that for me and 4E.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames