Open Letter to WOTC

[DangerDwarf]

Omote wrote:
This is absolutely the truth in what happened from about 2002-2007. I'm just glad that things are starting to come back around, but due to The Syndrome, many others games were killed off.

-O

Yeah, thats why I'm a huge fan of the more restrictive and less appealing GSL.

The OGL era was not some golden age of gaming. I think it did more overall damage than good. A lot of good systems got ignored or went away.

[DangerDwarf]

Oh, and I almost forgot one of my #1 reasons for being Anti-3e.

Poking 3e grognards with sticks is a jolly good time:

[Lord Dynel]

Interesting letter, Name Level.

Part of me wishes that they would have named 4e something other than "Dungeons & Dragons" too. It is absolutely nothing like what D&D should be, or was in its heyday. It's almost insulting that it's called D&D, IMHO. I'm firmly convinced that the only reason WotC called 4e D&D was because they knew they'd have one hell of a tough sell on their hands otherwise. And of course they own the "D&D" IP, so why not use it, right? The great thing - what I think is freakin' hillarious - is that people I've talked to in my area that actually like 4e agree that it doesn't have the "feel" of D&D. They agree, "for the fan's sake," (as one of them said) should have never called it 4e.

After years of playing 3.x, I started getting tired of it. Constantly looking up rules - rules for every single action grew to become quite a pain in the rear.. It got to feel less and less like the D&D I knew and more akin to a mechanical process. But looking at 4e, I would play 3.x until the end of my days than play that atrocity of gaming. Honestly, one of my "dream theories" would be to go back in time and slapping the 4e label on The World of Synnibarr and see the reaction. I'd be willing to bet the fan reaction would be nearly the same. In my heliocentric view of D&D editions, 3.x might be Saturn, but 4e's Neptune...at best.
It would be awesome to see a release of older rules, even if it was a one-shot deal, but it will never happen. They don't want to "compete with themselves." Every Red Box or 1st edition PHB sold is one less 4e PHB or Adventurer's Vault sold...or at least that's what WotC thinks. I think they're too shortsighted to realize that in some cases, Joe Gamer might not want 4e shoved down his throat but would happily buy a Red Box or a 2nd Edition Tome of Magic.

Sorry to all the people who enjoy 4e. I'm not intending to incite a riot. It may look like I'm bitter about it, but I'm really not. I like to think I've said all this without any vitriol. 4e doesn't mean that much to me to make me angry. But no offense to those who enjoy it.

[Name Level]

As I have said before, I actually like 4e's rules system. It's just that I had a moment of bewilderment after looking through the PHB, when I had to ask myself, "Wait... did I really just read a D&D rulebook?" And that moment is what inspired the letter.

And I totally agree with the previous poster about the use of software terminology. "3rd edition" made sense to me; but when they announced 3.5, I nearly puked.

[Joe]

Critisizing and disliking a game system is not the same as insulting fans of said game.

Calling them liver lillied sheep suckling at the teet of corporate slime probably would, but I don't think he ever got close to that.
I think some take the games they choose to play, and themselves a little too seriously.

The very elements that attract some to TLG are contrasted by what distances them from the likes of wotc. The simple difference of price is enough to persuade me. W/o OGL C&C would not be what it was.

3e kept the archetypes, and the races the same. 4e cannot say the same.

Everyone is free to support whatever games they wish and boycott others if they so choose. If one business succeeds while another goes under it is simply the nature of capitalism and free market. Adaptation is one major law in nature which is crucial for survival.

Personally I was glad to not have to learn completely new rules systems for every genre I wanted to play. The death of many companies was written on the wall well before OGL. One example was ICE. They did it to themselves with the Standard System. Another example of a good company surviving is GURPS.

The bottom line is folks buy what they want to. My bottom line no longer accounts for 45 bucks a book for shiny art and 19.95 worth of material regardless of the company. One company chooses one direction, while another chooses a different direction, and free market allows us to buy what we wish. The blame of success or failure ultimately lies at home.

The truth is many were insulted when they and their buying dollars were cast aside for the hypothetical market of video gamers suddenly feeling compelled to buy pen & paper rpgs.

I think any time an original is revamped to imitate an imitation, i.e. D&D imitating WOW, it is a step in the wrong direction. I like cheese. I can tolerate cheese food substitute. I am not at all interested in an artificial imitation cheese food subsitute made to simulate an imitation of imitation cheese. But my voicing of such an opinion does not by default insult those that just love and swear by the artificial cheese food substitute. It simply means I don't like the stuff.

The OGL was a wonderful shot in the arm to the rpg industry. It breathed new life into a over flooded market and helped bolster a struggling industry. The little guy could profit w/o having to compete.

This new licencing is a shot to the face, at close range, with a 45 caliber, and the reactions of game studios is a testament to this.

Folks are free to have whatever conflicting opinions they wish, and it is not an insult to those that have differing views, nor is it even about them. Rather it is a celebration of diversity in all it's forms.

That being said...

The benefit that OGL and D20 licencing gave to the gaming world will be equally matched with an equally negative reaction by the new licencing put forth by wotc.

Only time will tell for sure if 4e was genius or folly.
Some thought big hair afro perms would be here to stay.

Others thought the microwave was just a fad.
No matter how much we may wish or long for those days of yesteryear, all we truly have is today, and all we can hope for is tomorrow.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[GameOgre]

3.0 lost me as a D&D fan but 4E won me back for a short time. It is D&D to me.....just a strange D&D minatures game that im now to old and uncool and dim wited to play
Now I like my games more simple and fun C&C,LA and T&T are more my bent now.

Although my C&C game looks a little like 2E/3.0 and that scares me.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[DangerDwarf]

I think JG put it best in another thread when he said that 3e started a different line of D&D.

In the past, we had OD&D and AD&D. Two different games, with similarities and similar names. But, they were developed as 2 separate games.

3e came along and changed that.

It wasn't a 3rd edition of AD&D, it was a separate yet similar version of the game. It is in no way a 3rd edition of AD&D, it was the 1st edition of the new d20 D&D. With l33t new terminology, dungeon punk images and a new, "hip" paint job.

It wasn't the natural progression of AD&D, with it WotC shoved AD&D in a closet called their new game the 3rd edition of the old and hoped we wouldn't notice. Killed two D&D lines and replaced them with 1 that wasn't the natural progression of either, they simply rebuilt it. Not a 3rd edition, but a new d20 incarnation.

4e is just as much D&D as 3e is, just it is not the 4th edition of AD&D, it is the 2nd Edition of the new d20 D&D.

[Lord Dynel]

I don't disagree that 3e was a different beast than 2e, or earlier editions of D&D. WotC took AD&D behind the woodshed, and it never came back.

No disrespect, DD, but I just can't prescribe to your notion that "4e is just as much D&D as 3e is." With the absence of all the things gone from 4e that were present in 3e (vancian magic, "saving throws," races, classes, magic items in DMG, missing iconic creatures from the MM, just to name a few), there's just no conceivable way 4e is just as much D&D is 3e. If you believe that then that's fine, hoss, as perception is reality. But I just can't follow you on that train of thought.

[concobar]

4e is absolutely as much D&D as any other version.

Quote:
vancian magic

Needed to be changed. As is in 4e the flavor of magic is not that dissimilar and I find that magic users are much more balanced and enjoyable to play. wizards still have the option to memorize spells per day and rituals really help capture more of a call of cthuhlu/conan kind of magical system. rituals are probably on of my favorite parts of 4th. adventure to prevent the evil necromancer from gather the ritual components required to raise all the dead in the county or some such. that works in 4th.

Quote:
saving throws

Are better as defensive values. old saves didnt always make since and were arbitrary.

Quote:
races

same as before less the half orc and added a few that are much more interesting such as the eladrin.

Quote:
classes

make more sense and all of them are fun to play.

Quote:
magic items in DMG

should have been in the PH from the start, makes more sense to me.

Quote:
missing iconic creatures from the MM

every version adds and drops monsters. one of my favorite from OD&D was the devil swine which im not sure appeared in AD&D. Also there are going to be more MMs released so I would wager that those iconic monsters will make an appearance.

edit to add

when I do run C&C i use the 4th save rule. it is a better system than any other out there IMO

[Lord Dynel]

concobar wrote:
snip

I have a particular opinion of 4e.

That's not going to change.

Dissecting my opinion and attempting to invalidate it isn't going to change it, either.

My post is just that - my opinion. Feel free to argue aginst my opinion if you'd like, but doing so does not lessen its validity, or at least its worth, to me.

But, I love it when the 4e fans have to give exceptions to every case that is brought up.

"But gnomes are there...in the MM....and the half-orc was just...um...stupid!"

"But magic items should have always been in the PHB!"

"But the missing classes are boring and the new ones are fun!"

"So what if monsters that were always in the first release MM, they'll be back! Maybe."

"3e was collapsing under it's own weight and 4e only has 3 rulebooks!"

No offense, concobar, but you telling me that things "should have always been that way" is not properly addressing, or even arguing, the point (again assuming that it's possible to "agrue" an opinion). The fact is they weren't always that way...period.

As an example, saves are now a defense (wtf?) and I, as a player, feel kind of emasculated and no longer have control over my fate since the DM now rolls and my fate is in his hands. It wasn't like that in 3e, 2nd Edition, 1st Edition, Basic, and so on. But it's like that now. It's not the way I (or you or anyone who has started before 4e) has learned and changing it make it less like the way was...period.

Whether you think it should have been that way is kind of beside the point (again, no offense) in this arguement. If anything, it solidifies my point that it's less like older editions of D&D.
The last thing I want to do, is start an edition war. I'm a veteran of too many of those, to be perfectly honest.

[Name Level]

Joe gets the award for best analogy of the day. I like cheese.

[Joe]

Cheese rocks!
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[concobar]

Lord Dynel wrote:
No offense, concobar, but you telling me that things "should have always been that way" is not properly addressing, or even arguing, the point (again assuming that it's possible to "agrue" an opinion).

Not offended at all buddy, to be honest I was not trying to call you out or convince you that you were wrong or anything. I just find it easier to state my opinions when I am responding in bullet points. your post had some good points in it and I was using those points as a format to convey my own opinions.

I like 4e and there is no secret there but I like C&C very much also. I do not like 3e for more reasons than I can even think of at the moment. If you were to post all the reasons you like what ever edition I would use that as a format to either agree or disagree or just post my take on the points made. It is just how my mind works.

[Lord Dynel]

concobar wrote:
Not offended at all buddy, to be honest I was not trying to call you out or convince you that you were wrong or anything. I just find it easier to state my opinions when I am responding in bullet points. your post had some good points in it and I was using those points as a format to convey my own opinions.

I like 4e and there is no secret there but I like C&C very much also. I do not like 3e for more reasons than I can even think of at the moment. If you were to post all the reasons you like what ever edition I would use that as a format to either agree or disagree or just post my take on the points made. It is just how my mind works.

Alrighty, sir. Good to hear that you didn't take offense. I come off the wrong way, sometimes.

[DangerDwarf]

Lord Dynel wrote:
No disrespect, DD, but I just can't prescribe to your notion that "4e is just as much D&D as 3e is."

I know ya can't and I'm cool with that, much like I cannot prescribe to the notion that 3e is D&D. The dude who mugs me and steals my wallet may have my stuff, but he still aint me.

I have no problem referring to the game as 4e, or 3e as 3e. But You never see me refer to them myself as D&D, it is always 3e or d20. I also always take pains to not "e" the 1st or 2nd Editions. There will always be a difference between the eras to me.

But, with the sloppy modern definition of D&D I think that if you consider 3e D&D then 4e holds just as much claim to it. Now, I may not necessarily agree with the claim, but they are both in the same boat.

[DangerDwarf]

Lord Dynel wrote:
as a player, feel kind of emasculated and no longer have control over my fate since the DM now rolls and my fate is in his hands.

One thing of interest, in C&C, if you are in a party with lets say a thief who wants your lewt, by virtue of the SIEGE engine you are at his mercy there as well, BtB.

He moves silent, CL of your level. Success is the win.

He picks pocket, CL of your level. Success is the win.

Not arguing your point, just pointing something out some folks don't always realize with C&C. I think there were several argument threads on that a year or two ago.

My soggy mind can't remember.

[Lord Dynel]

DangerDwarf wrote:
One thing of interest, in C&C, if you are in a party with lets say a thief who wants your lewt, by virtue of the SIEGE engine you are at his mercy there as well, BtB.

He moves silent, CL of your level. Success is the win.

He picks pocket, CL of your level. Success is the win.

Not arguing your point, just pointing something out some folks don't always realize with C&C. I think there were several argument threads on that a year or two ago.

My soggy mind can't remember.

Of course, that's true. It was the same with 1st Edition, except you were using percentille dice. Worked the same in 3.x, too, but there was an opposed roll. But we're comparing skill checks with saves. My quote above was in reference to saving throws, now no longer rolled by the player, thus taking that "fate in your own hands" feeling away.

Skills and class abilities have always been rolled by the "action taker," ans still are in 4e if my knowledge is solid (and in 3.x and 4e we got the courtesy of an opposed roll...sometimes).

[DangerDwarf]

I know, but to me it seems like an arbitrary feeling of emasculation. Sometimes its fine, sometimes its not.

[skathros]

Lord Dynel wrote:
It would be awesome to see a release of older rules, even if it was a one-shot deal, but it will never happen.

And now, I couldnt care less if it does or not. WotC decided not to cater to the old school fans, so old school fans picked up the slack and we now have LL, S&W, and soon to be released OSRIC. All with top-notch products available. It echoes back to the old days where hobiests were producing stuff for hobbiests.

I no longer have to send new players trolling ebay for old books. I no longer have to tolerate half-ass attempts at old-schoolness (DCC, 3E classic setting articles, HM's over the top injected humour).

WotC wouldn't cater to me? Well too bad! I've got CZ and OSRIC or S&W to run it with, so there's really nothing left for WotC to give me.

[Lord Dynel]

DangerDwarf wrote:
I know, but to me it seems like an arbitrary feeling of emasculation. Sometimes its fine, sometimes its not.

Okay. I know, too, that sometimes we're at the mercy of some rolls (like your example of getting pickpocketed), but to me that's not that bad, because it has always been that way. The basic premise of the rules haven't changed in all these years. And, sure, we are at the mercy of the DM in that situation, but it's something I've been used to since my early days of roleplaying back with 1st edition. Saves, to me, are a different beast though. Once we had the ability to decide our fate, but no more. Now you may see that as no big deal and something minor. I see it as one more thing that takes 4e further away from what I considered one of the staples of D&D...something that 3e had.

[DangerDwarf]

I understand what you are saying there. Much like I regard THAC0, descending AC, percentile dice thieves, fat hobbity halflings, separate XP tables, and a slew of other things as staples of D&D; yet 3e did away with them.

As far a the saves for 4e goes, I think it's a give and take thing. You lose the save (not completely, they still have saving throws that you roll it just works different) but now, when your wizard blasts a bad guy it is your roll that determines the outcome, not the DM's. So, you lose power in one regard but gain it in another.