Treebore wrote:
When i see overpriced games, I see them as something I would not have been able to afford with my paper route.
It was nothing that would have been a part of my life as a kid because it would not have been available to me.
It is nothing close to what D&D was for me as a kid.
Do people with excess REALLY need another form of entertainment?
Or does the kid on the street with a single mother and hand me down clothes needs an affordable tool by which to open their mind and activate their imagination? Do they need a game that will give them everything they don't have in real life (treasure, power, fame, glory, etc)...even if it is in the imagination?
D&D Essentials! Or more precisely, the new D&D basic set coming out, which can then be supplemented by the Essentials line.
The basic set should have all one needs to play, and be VERY affordable.
I for one like 4e some of the time. For those who claim that it killed D&D or isn't D&D, they lost their chance when they supported 3e, which was the entire change in the approach of how to redesign D&D in the first place. If they didn't fuss then...they have NO right to really fuss over 4e...in my mind.
4e however did something so dynamically different then 3e, that for many it was a breath of fresh air. 3e was Rolemaster lite, it was designed in part by former Rolemaster writers, and made all classes more into a group of skill groupings to be picked up as needed. It was made worse in 3.5 as the barriers to randomly multiclassing were diminished.
For any who preferred STRONG class based roleplaying, where you get a class at the beginning, and are stuck with it unless you make major sacrifices...which is something AD&D, OD&D, as well as many other systems such as Paladium, had...3ed got rid of those gamers unless they heavily houseruled the game.
4e was a return to that style, and...though many may go against this, a return to old school gaming. The skill system in particular, was taken from the Star Wars Saga system experiment (which worked) which in turn was itself rogued almost directly from...you got it...C&C! It makes the entire skill system much easier to handle and MUCH more flexible.
Furthermore it made classes...just that...classes. They were defined more by the bonuses they recieved to skills, and those skills were set at the start.
The biggest gripe many had were the new powers, most of which were applicable to combat. I can't argue that the "everyone has powers" is more like an MMO type idea, as it probably is. It's not a bad thing, but for many that's the point they try to drive home which makes 4e not D&D to them. It's a simple fix, just don't have the characters have the special powers, nor the monsters overall...and there you go. Rule 0. Or you can play with the combat powers, but also remember there is roleplaying involved.
With the mass exodus of many 3e players, I see the new D&D players as a smaller group, but providing WotC with more money (via DDM), and due to the gripes of 3e players and how many of them are pretty aggressive against the new group, and I can also see many 4e players pushing back. Many of the 4e players were actually old school players that also have a grudge against the 3e guys...those guys picked on every other game for a decade...payback is a major (word that probably shouldn't be expressed in the forums). So 4e is also a way for those guys to strike back.
In my opinion, 4e is MORE like the old school RPG's then 3e ever was...which is one reason it drove a LOT of 3e players out of the D&D gaming scene, or at least the modern, current 4e gaming scene. 4e also has a lot of newer younger players...like high school age as well. They tend to concentrate more on combat, which further brings out this argument that 4e is all about the combat. Think about when you were in high school, how many of those playing the game also concentrated more on combat than the diplomacy of foreign winesellers...etc...
These younger players are ALSO much like many older gamers, beleive it or not. They just learned 4e...they aren't really interested in learning something completely and totally new...yet. Some of course are jumping into anything and everything in branching out, and trying new things, but a majority seem more than happy just to play 4e.
Yes, I'm defending 4e as I think it's a good system, and overall more true to the roots of D&D as far as class stratification, simplicity for the DM in setting up a session (though remembering combat abilities can be a major...words that shouldn't be used in the forums), and perhaps combat can be seen as a way to try to persuade the DM to utilize other methods for the gaming than putting players through combat after combat.
I moved recently, and in the new area I've only been able to find 4e groups and 3e groups really. I'm currently in a 4e campaign that has NO miniatures and NO grids used...so I'm pretty certain it can be played without either. I also found an AD&D campaign interestingly enough (just made 2nd level ranger! woo hoo!), and that's it. The AD&D players have NO interest in anything other than AD&D currently...but ironically after mentioning how the skill system in 4e has many similarities to C&C it seems I have a chance to introduce C&C sometime soon (I've collected a few 4th campaign rulebooks, and am trying to set up for whenever they want to run a session)...which I suppose is an interesting twist of fate. Of course it seems I would be the one CKing C&C while I don't have to DM 4e...
In conclusion to my OVERLY LONG post...
First, I think 4e is a great game, and opposite of what many may think, due to the simplicity of the skills and how to do things out of combat...it actually is MORE old school then even 2.5 D&D, though because of combat options, definately not moreso then the original 2e and older editions.
I think many have various reasons set for why they don't want to try other sets, much of it is mindset as previously mentioned, some of it however is cost, and some of it is simply playing what you are introduced with originally (such as the new players which are younger and playing 4e).
Sorry of the long post...got carried away in my defense of 4e. I also like 3e....but normally with houserules so you don't end up with characters with ten abnormal monster races with 20 different classes...I prefer 3e run with stricter restrictions and more old school. In the end though, I think I prefer C&C to either of them.
