4E and Campaign Building

SilvercatMoonpaw · December 01, 2007, 09:04:29 AM

I, too, will not buy 4e, but not for any specific exasperation of having to change an edition to keep up. Rather I found 3e to have way too much complexity and not enough modularity and customizability, turning me completely off of D&D. I have found other systems that let me do all the funky stuff I want without the insane amount of rules and time D&D would require of me. I find that these other systems are much better for world design because I don't have to restrict myself based on what will be possible with the rules.

Originally I was thinking that 4e would bring me back as it was touted as "simpler", but the crunch previews just do not show that. It's still too wrapped up in tactical wargames.

Plus I won't buy 4e because there will be a free SRD.

Hibou · December 01, 2007, 11:18:16 AM

4e won't affect me directly - at least not for a while - as I'm currently experimenting with using the WoD system (but not the setting) with some self-made add-ons to fit my setting (and it's not like I DM anyway :P). That being said, there's not much I feel I will hate too much about the system, since my experience with the vaguely-similar Star Wars Saga Edition rules has been rather good (they're great!). The game should be easier to play if they follow the same set-up, where the core classes alone can help deal with a lot of problems 3.0/3.5 had (such as creating a new PrC that could just do this one special new thing or have this ability).

the_taken · December 06, 2007, 04:15:55 PM

There are two aspects of 4e that affect me in different ways.

The first aspect is the base line fluff of the game. I don't care about this aspect. I can write my own, and messing with the "CORE cosmology" does nothing. It's like writing science fiction; it only needs to sound like it works, and even then most people won't pay too much attention. That's what this forumn is for anyway.

The second part of 4e is the one that can actually cause damage to people, and that's the game mechanics. While most of the previews seem like unintelligible gibberish without the context of companion rules, I'm holding out 'till the game is complete before forming an official opinion. But so far, I'm not impressed. The design staff does have some good ideas, but occasionally they implement bad ones (see the 4e Rust Monster solution), and some of them are down right stupid (most fights are PC vs equal level enemies, but the enemies are weaker?).
So far, I have the impression that WotC has hired a bunch of monkeys and given them type writers.

Numinous · December 06, 2007, 05:09:39 PM

It looks to me like 4E has chosen a direction and run with it, rather than spreading itself too far and trying to make everyone happy. Keeping up with the 4E previews, most of the ideas I have seen are hit or miss. D&D is moving towards a video-game and settling into it's FR/high-magic image, and I just disagree with that. I'll buy 4E, and run games in it, but the world I build for it will almost certainly contain elements of the "official" world, as the new edition is built to support itself, making a new world a puzzle piece that doesn't fit.

~ Just my thoughts.

Epic Meepo · December 06, 2007, 10:38:20 PM

Quote from: Rose Of MontagueKeeping up with the 4E previews, most of the ideas I have seen are hit or miss. D&D is moving towards a video-game and settling into it's FR/high-magic image, and I just disagree with that. I'll buy 4E, and run games in it, but the world I build for it will almost certainly contain elements of the "official" world, as the new edition is built to support itself, making a new world a puzzle piece that doesn't fit.

I agree with you to an extent, but I'm also reading something else into the 4e previews. What I'm seeing isn't so much a complete fixation on the shiny new world. What I'm seeing is WotC front-loading a bunch of shiny new material into the initial release. Traditional stuff we're used to seeing the the PHB (bards, druids, gnomes, illusionists, monks, necromancers) is being relocated into future products.

Which, incidentally, is going to make it more difficult for me to run homebrew campaigns using 4e rules. I like having bards, druids, and the rest in my settings. So I may hold off on building a 4e compatible homebrew until years down the line. By then, the 4e rules may have finally caught up with the traditional character options that have existed in D&D since the early 1970's.

Elemental_Elf · December 08, 2007, 12:05:56 AM

Quote from: Epic MeepoI agree with you to an extent, but I'm also reading something else into the 4e previews. What I'm seeing isn't so much a complete fixation on the shiny new world. What I'm seeing is WotC front-loading a bunch of shiny new material into the initial release. Traditional stuff we're used to seeing the the PHB (bards, druids, gnomes, illusionists, monks, necromancers) is being relocated into future products.

You know, technically speaking, Bards can just be Rogues with loads of Knowledge Skills, Druids are just Clerics of Nature Deities, Illusionists & Necromancers are just Wizards and Monks, well they're the hardest but I could see A Cleric/Fighter fulfilling that role, though a lot of its Asian Mechanical flavor will be lost.

Also, Gnomes will be in the MM, so its not really a huge loss.

But you're right, WotC is trying something new here with 4E. They're breaking with tradition to make D&D a WotC product and not a TSR one. This could fail majorly, especially with the loss of Frost Giants in the first MM (sorry I like them) and all of the other changes but it could be a major win. Either way they risk a portion of the Market.

Epic Meepo · December 08, 2007, 01:15:50 AM

Quote from: Elemental_ElfYou know, technically speaking, Bards can just be Rogues with loads of Knowledge Skills, Druids are just Clerics of Nature Deities, Illusionists & Necromancers are just Wizards and Monks, well they're the hardest but I could see A Cleric/Fighter fulfilling that role, though a lot of its Asian Mechanical flavor will be lost.

Also, Gnomes will be in the MM, so its not really a huge loss.[/quote]WotC is trying something new here with 4E. They're breaking with tradition to make D&D a WotC product and not a TSR one.[/quote]Interesting observation. I hadn't thought of it in those particular terms before.

Elemental_Elf · December 08, 2007, 02:47:37 AM

Quote from: Epic MeepoThe problem isn't the loss of class identity, it's the loss of essential class features needed to recreate the classes in the first place: nothing to replace bardic music, nothing to replace wild shape, stuff like that. Hopefully, the rumors about that stuff being gone are incorrect.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand your point. I love Bards and one of my friends loves Monks and their absence will most assuredly be felt. I was just pointing out that though the real classes are gone, it isn't that hard to play a make-shift version of it. Its not a replacement but it'll have to do. ;_;

Quote from: Epic MeepoInteresting observation. I hadn't thought of it in those particular terms before.

Its really the only conclusion I can come to. TSR's fingers are in every element of D&D, from the fluff to the mechanics to the monsters, races and classes we consider Iconic. By changing the heart of the game WotC is fundamentally changing our perception of D&D. They are crafting something wholly their own. What exactly WotC is crafting is unknown, all we know is that it will be different... Which is both fascinating and frightening at the same time.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

4E and Campaign Building

SilvercatMoonpaw

Hibou

the_taken

Numinous

Epic Meepo

Elemental_Elf

Epic Meepo

Elemental_Elf