Otherwise, just stick to the 3.5e version of DL.
Saga has removed skill points, merged saves and armor class together, and created a whole new talent tree option so that even though you might be playing a certain class you can adjust it however you want. For instance the soldier class (kinda like the fighter in d&d), has the armor talent tree, and the commando talent tree and each has different abilities. As you go up in level you can choose from either tree (as long as you qualify the prereqs). There are alot of others things that changed with saga, too much to list here.
I make this know because star wars d20 (1e) and d&d 3e had alot in common and were both from WoTC so I would not be surprised if D&D 4e and star wars saga resemble each other.
Is there going to be any official DL products for 4th Edition?
WotC said they are going to convert one setting per year. FR gets to go first, then Eberon. After that, others will follow. I wouldnt be surprised if DL is fairly high up on the list of other existing settings to be updated.
Havard
WotC said they are going to convert one setting per year. FR gets to go first, then Eberon. After that, others will follow. I wouldnt be surprised if DL is fairly high up on the list of other existing settings to be updated.
Havard
Yeah, after FR and Eberron I would suspect that Greyhawk and Dragonlance would be the next two, in whatever order. But that's only a guess.
So it will be like 2010 before we see DL 4.0?
My divination spells aren't working properly (probably because magic isn't real), so I can't say for sure. But, given what I've read (unless I've read it wrong), that's what it sounds like to me.
Sounds more like WOW than D and D.
Don't know much about WoW pen-n-paper RPG, but since the Saga Edition owes its existence due to d20 Modern roleplaying game model (i.e., talent trees & bonus feats classes), I see this to be a next logical step in the evolution of the system.
I've had quite a bit of time to reflect on things, so I wanted to share my thoughts. I've spoken with Cam, Clark, Shugi, Tal, Weldon, and various others about what to do with Dragonlance in 4th edition and the best way to approach it.
There is, of course, every possibility that WotC may put out a Dragonlance sourcebook of their own, most likely in 2009 with the 25th anniversary of DL. Tal suggested that WotC might do a 4e translation of the original modules.
The question arises as to whether the Nexus would support such a sourcebook and whether or not we should do our own conversion document. Here's what I've come up with, and here's where I would like to see input from you guys.
1. The Nexus and MWP have been tied very closely together, and many of our number (if not all!) have worked on MWP's Dragonlance sourcebooks. I believe that we have just experienced the golden age of Dragonlance gaming. I feel that what we have built has been something truly special and good, so the Nexus' primary goal gaming-wise will be to build and expand on that foundation.
2. A 4e conversion document would be just that - a way to convert the MWP sourcebooks for use in the new edition. This would be unofficial, of course, but would be worked on by some familiar faces.
3. If WotC puts out a sourcebook for Dragonlance, the Nexus would support it, just as we support all official Dragonlance products WotC puts out. If such a sourcebook works well with continuing on the MWP legacy, then that's great! If not, then it will be something we support, but may not be our focus. So we could take submissions that would tie into a WotC sourcebook, but the material we create will work best with the MWP products. In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Point is, we want to continue the legacy of MWP while still supporting the official brand. We also want to provide you with the tools you need to play Dragonlance, no matter the edition or game system.
Anyway, those are the basics as far as I see them now. All of this will depend upon the 4e rules and what, if any, plans WotC have made.
Thoughts?
Saga (4E, star wars) changed alot of stuff.
There is, of course, every possibility that WotC may put out a Dragonlance sourcebook of their own, most likely in 2009 with the 25th anniversary of DL. Tal suggested that WotC might do a 4e translation of the original modules.
Only if WotC hire you guys to do freelanced work for them on the Dragonlance 4e product. I don't see anyone else in WotC's HQ Building to do it justice.
Trey, are you nuts?
Saga (4E, star wars) changed alot of stuff.[/QUOT
Not so much with character creation though.
Not so much with character creation though.
That's not true. We're probably looking at talents and possibly feats replacing the class abilities, skills being more well-rounded, hit points and/or saving throws being different, a new way to handle AC, and many other things. The two games are superficially alike but chargen is one place where the games are markedly different from each other.
Cheers,
Cam
In some things it seems like (IMO) they have actually reverted back to 2E AD&D.
Saves - In Saga you have static defense numbers that the attacker must beat - In 2e the type of attack had a static number based on class that you had to beat
Skills - In Saga you get a certain number of trained skills - In 2e you got a certain number of non-weapon proficiencies
Multiple attacks - In saga you only get multiple attacks if certain feats are taken - In 2e you only got multiple attacks if you were specialized in the weapon
Now I am not saying that any of this is bad, because it does look like it simplifies combat and character generation, but I am experiencing a case of deja vu.
In some things it seems like (IMO) they have actually reverted back to 2E AD&D.
At least the Saga skills are not attribute-dependent, the one thing I hated about 2e.
Saves - In Saga you have static defense numbers that the attacker must beat - In 2e the type of attack had a static number based on class that you had to beat
Only the attacker must meet or beat your defenses, same way you would resolve a melee or ranged weapon/natural/unarmed attacks.
Skills - In Saga you get a certain number of trained skills - In 2e you got a certain number of non-weapon proficiencies.
But they're attribute-dependent in 2e. Only the most dextrous would spend the few precious NWP slot in Ride skill, and they don't improve. You'll have to wait x number of levels to get a new vacant NWP to improve your Ride skill by one point. Sucks to play 2e.
All skills in Saga Edition improves at +1 for every 2 character levels you advance. Trained skills gain a +5, and Skill Focus feat would give any skill a +5, and that's not counting your attribute modifier.
Multiple attacks - In saga you only get multiple attacks if certain feats are taken - In 2e you only got multiple attacks if you were specialized in the weapon
It's compensated with a damage bonus as you advance in level.
With the talent tree, it's almost like having 2e character kit, but at least you don't have the burden of an unbalancing Special Benefits and Special Hindrance features that the 2e kit offers.
2e feel? NOT!
Trey, are you nuts?
Saga (4E, star wars) changed alot of stuff.
Not so much with character creation though.
If all your basing whether a revision of a game is different than another is the character creation process, then 4e is really no different than D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2ed, and D&D 3.x. You still roll your dice for stats and pick some things. The character creation process for D&D is very different from AD&D and AD&D 2ed, which is vastly different than D&D 3.x, which again is very different than 4e (at least as seen in the SW Saga). From D&D to AD&D we got weapon and non-weapon proficiencies. From AD&D to D&D 3.x we elminated proficiencies and got feats and skills and a new way to do saving throws. From D&D 3.x to D&D 4e AC and saves get completly overhauled and revamped. No more feats but class tress We keep our skills, but they are very different.
That being said, unless DL material is produced for the new edition, I'm not going to bother with it. I like my 3.x, SAGA, and 2e.
At least the Saga skills are not attribute-dependent, the one thing I hated about 2e.
Actually Ranger your Ability scores still have a say in the final number for your skills:
"The formula for determining a character's skill bonus is as follows:
1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
Originally posted by Ranger Reg
Only the attacker must meet or beat your defenses, same way you would resolve a melee or ranged weapon/natural/unarmed attacks.
Isn't that what I said "Saves - In Saga you have static defense numbers that the attacker must beat - In 2e the type of attack had a static number based on class that you had to beat"
Originally posted by Ranger Reg
But they're attribute-dependent in 2e. Only the most dextrous would spend the few precious NWP slot in Ride skill, and they don't improve. You'll have to wait x number of levels to get a new vacant NWP to improve your Ride skill by one point. Sucks to play 2e.
See note above about attribute dependency. Yes the NWP did not improve as you gain levels (unless you improved your attribute score), but the system used usually granted a higher number in which you had to roll under and there were very few modifiers to NWP based on situation and conditions. For instance (and I will use your Ride skill-land based) if your Wisdom was 17 your NWp would be 20 and you would have to roll 20 or less on a d20. Not that hard a task.
Originally posted by Ranger Reg
All skills in Saga Edition improves at +1 for every 2 character levels you advance. Trained skills gain a +5, and Skill Focus feat would give any skill a +5, and that's not counting your attribute modifier.
Granted yes skills did not improve all that easily in 2e.
Originally posted by Ranger Reg
It's compensated with a damage bonus as you advance in level.
Provided of course that you hit. I don't know, more opportunity to hit or a bigger hit when you do? I like to have more opportunities to hit. And of course we are back to where the higher level character is almost always assured of defeating the lower level character. Especially as the higher level character will be doing more damage to the lower-level character with less hit points, and the lower-level character will be doing less damage to the higher level character with more hit points. Using this system Vader should have taken off more than just Luke's hand. One of the things I liked (in Star Wars d20) was the fact that a lower level character could get lucky and take out that higher level character (kinda like a 20-ton Locust taking out a 100-ton Atlas with a lucky machine gun hit to the center torso, oops sorry wrong game system). I think they have tried to retain some of that with the wound threshold system but I am not sure if it has the same feel (as I have not had a chance to play it yet), time will tell.
With the talent tree, it's almost like having 2e character kit, but at least you don't have the burden of an unbalancing Special Benefits and Special Hindrance features that the 2e kit offers.
2e feel? NOT!
If that is how you feel. But it does remind me of how things were done in 2e. Remember I did not say that it had the feel of 2e (because it does not), but it does remind me of how some things were done in 2e.
Actually Ranger your Ability scores still have a say in the final number for your skills:
"The formula for determining a character's skill bonus is as follows:
1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus)"
Yeah, but the attibute is not heavily dependent. It's more level-based. The more level you acquire, the better your skill bonus improve.
Both 3e Skill System and Saga Skill System shy away from the thing I hate most in 2e.
Discounting 2e Revised Player's Option: Skills and Powers, you can't improve your NWP until you get a vacant slot, and vacant slot don't come around every level as skills points. So your NWP will remain static.
Isn't that what I said "Saves - In Saga you have static defense numbers that the attacker must beat - In 2e the type of attack had a static number based on class that you had to beat"
Yeah, but the difference is WHO rolls against the number. In 2e and 3e, it's the target character that must roll to save. In Saga Edition, it's the attacker or aggressor, just like an attack roll.
See note above about attribute dependency. Yes the NWP did not improve as you gain levels (unless you improved your attribute score), but the system used usually granted a higher number in which you had to roll under and there were very few modifiers to NWP based on situation and conditions. For instance (and I will use your Ride skill-land based) if your Wisdom was 17 your NWp would be 20 and you would have to roll 20 or less on a d20. Not that hard a task.
Not a high enough number, IMHO. Sorry, but I don't miss 2e that much.
Provided of course that you hit. I don't know, more opportunity to hit or a bigger hit when you do? I like to have more opportunities to hit.
I'd like to have more opportunities to hit, too, which is why I favor extra attacks (plural) benefits for two-weapon fighting (though many vocally complained they prefer bonuses to compensate for the penalties).
But I'm getting tired of the iterative attack bonuses. Why not just use one attack bonuses and offer extra attack instead of +11/+6/+1. Give me three attacks with +11 bonus each.
If that is how you feel. But it does remind me of how things were done in 2e. Remember I did not say that it had the feel of 2e (because it does not), but it does remind me of how some things were done in 2e.
Almost how things were done. Chances are you must decided to choose the "standard iconic" class feature or go one that appeals to your character concept, when a talent slot is opened up for you. Unlike 2e kit, which is slapped on to the character's classes while still receiving cookie-cutter abilities.
My question, and I think it is a valid one, is whether or nota 4th edition is even necessary at this point in time.
My personal feeling is that it should come out later, 2010 or later.
But we live in a fast-paced real-time world. The RPG market have been taking a beating for the past few years. In the past 2 years, I only bought 4 WotC books (pretty much an indication of how I'm impressed with their products ... not), and I'm still waiting for the $30 DMG that was supposed to come out AFTER the leatherbound edition (complete with the latest errata).
A year ago, I would have vocally protested the release of 4e before 2010, but now I offer them no resistance. Maybe I'll do what I did when 3.5e came out ... buy it later.
My question, and I think it is a valid one, is whether or nota 4th edition is even necessary at this point in time.
I personally don't believe that it is necessary. There's nothing so bad with 3.x that makes it unplayable. The same could be said for D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e, and D&D 3e. Most people were fine with what we had. You used what you wanted from whatever system you were using and made House Rules to accomdate for things that it didn't support.
From WotC/Hasbro POV though, they've put out all the quality material they think they could have (read milked 3.x and us dry). Really 90% of the material for the past two years has been fluff, of questionable quality, and done nothing be engorge the current ruleset. So to continue with their obscene profit making model it's time to release a new edition. I'm all for a company making money, don't get me wrong. I don't even fault the oil companies...OPEC on the other hand.... The biggest problem that I've heard about 4e is that even if you purchase the deadtree version of the system, you will not have full access to everything. You need to pay for a subscription to get the full system. That's just whack and I refuse to do it!
I think the wisest decision with this changeover is that they've, at least for not, said they will continue to "support" the older systems. Whatever they mean by "support" remains to be seen, but it most likely will not include releasing of new material. A drastic change from their past business model, where old systems get dumped. I think we as the fanbase have made our angst known and this is their way to assuage it. After all release a wholly new edition only 4 years after a major overall of the existing system is bound to really hack off those of us that have dumped hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars into the existing ruleset. I just hope that they keep their promise to support 3.5 well into the future I, and thousands of others, will be placated.
Maybe 4 years from now, I made the decsion to not change systems until it's seen a minimum of 8 years, I look into buying some 4e material, unless of course DL gets some love. If that's the case I'll only purchase, in dead tree version, what's necessary to use that material.
Cheers,
Cam
The biggest problem that I've heard about 4e is that even if you purchase the deadtree version of the system, you will not have full access to everything. You need to pay for a subscription to get the full system. That's just whack and I refuse to do it!
That's not true. You get the complete system when you buy the 3 core books and you don't need anything else to play.
As an added feature (like power windows in a car) you can get the subscription for $10 a month and get access to the online magazines, character creation tools, DM tools, and online playing tools. None of these things are needed to play at home with your friends if none of you are interested in that aspect.
Also, Gamer Zero said somewhere that Errata will definitely be free so we won't have to pay for that either.
Yeah, but the attibute is not heavily dependent. It's more level-based. The more level you acquire, the better your skill bonus improve.
Never said it was.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Yeah, but the difference is WHO rolls against the number. In 2e and 3e, it's the target character that must roll to save. In Saga Edition, it's the attacker or aggressor, just like an attack roll.
Again that is what I said - the attacker must roll against the static defense bonus.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Not a high enough number, IMHO. Sorry, but I don't miss 2e that much.
Couldn't get any better in 2e.
Originally posted b Ranger REG
I'd like to have more opportunities to hit, too, which is why I favor extra attacks (plural) benefits for two-weapon fighting (though many vocally complained they prefer bonuses to compensate for the penalties).
So we are in agreement then
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Almost how things were done. Chances are you must decided to choose the "standard iconic" class feature or go one that appeals to your character concept, when a talent slot is opened up for you. Unlike 2e kit, which is slapped on to the character's classes while still receiving cookie-cutter abilities.
You might not be reminded of how things were done, but I am reminded. If you disagree, then that is fine. But I would not presume to tell you that it does not remind you of how things were done.
So we are in agreement then
Oh, we agree in favor of extra attacks. I'm just no longer fond of the existing (3e/OCR/RCR/d20 Modern) iterative attack model.
That's not true. You get the complete system when you buy the 3 core books and you don't need anything else to play.
As an added feature (like power windows in a car) you can get the subscription for $10 a month and get access to the online magazines, character creation tools, DM tools, and online playing tools. None of these things are needed to play at home with your friends if none of you are interested in that aspect.
Thank God for that! Thank-you for clearing that up. The folks at the WotC booth apparently didn't have a dang clue what they were talking about then. I'd ask a pointed and direct question and always received a convoluted and obscure answer.
I think that they are doing their best to promote 4.0 even though it might be the death of D and D.
It's 4th edition, not 4.0. The designers specifically said they're getting away from that sort of labeling (thank the gods!). And yes, they are promoting their new product.
Personally, I don't subcribe to the doom-and-gloom viewpoint. D&D will live for many years to come.
Most people are not happy about it.
Who are "most people"? Wait, I think I found them.
:invasion:
Look, they are happy! :heehee
D&D (and RPGs in general) will always be there for those who want to play and they are not going anywhere.
That's not true. You get the complete system when you buy the 3 core books and you don't need anything else to play.
Perhaps, but they are considering reducing PC race options, and some core classes that have been a part of the 3e core product.
Check www.ENWorld.org for more scoops on 4e.
I'm going to wait on 4e for a few years. Just to make sure they don't pull a 4.5 on us like they did with 3e.
While at a Q&A at GenCon about 4e, the designers said that this will be 4th edition and that there will be no 4.0 or 4.5. Of course, opinions can change, but I think they might have learned their lesson on that one.
Perhaps, but they are considering reducing PC race options, and some core classes that have been a part of the 3e core product.
Check www.ENWorld.org for more scoops on 4e.
Another place would be D&D insider. :D
http://www.dndinsider.com
It's currently in the free trial mode.
:evillaugh (for the moment at least
) as a core race in 4e. I'm thinking that it will be a part of a Planetouched racial tree that will also include Aasimar.The point of this post is to ask what the DL luminiaries, I'm talking to you Cam and Trampas, think this development will mean for our beloved campaign world?
Planetouched have never been excluded like drow, lycans, humanoid half dragons etc. but they have never been mentioned either, at least to my limited knowledge. Half fiends rarely, but as for tieflings and aasimar, no.
And yes, I am a fan of the planetouched.
:evillaugh The point of this post is to ask what the DL luminiaries, I'm talking to you Cam and Trampas, think this development will mean for our beloved campaign world?
It won't really affect Dragonlance. The standard races in DL will remain. Tieflings would be considered an optional race. If you want to use them, great, but if not, no worries.
It won't really affect Dragonlance. The standard races in DL will remain. Tieflings would be considered an optional race. If you want to use them, great, but if not, no worries.
I'm planning to provide some unofficial conversions for Dragonlance next year once the 4th edition books are out. It's very unlikely that any "new" races will appear in those. Specifically, I will aim to provide 4th edition rules for playing all of the Races of Ansalon and Dragons of Krynn races, which in itself should be more than enough without adding tieflings into the mix.
I included tieflings in Price of Courage, but they weren't "normal" creatures. That's the only instance of such a creature that I know of, and I don't believe they'd make a very good Dragonlance race. Any planetouched creature in Dragonlance would be a special case and likely unique.
Cheers,
Cam
It's 4th edition, not 4.0. The designers specifically said they're getting away from that sort of labeling (thank the gods!). And yes, they are promoting their new product.
So, it'll be like 2nd Edition, which was followed up by 2nd Edition Revised.
I still don't see the difference.
So, it'll be like 2nd Edition, which was followed up by 2nd Edition Revised.
I still don't see the difference.
:heehee I hate to say it, but since Hasbro/WotC has taken over the DnD franchise from T$R, their credibility has dropped even further. At least in my eyes. The 2e black books that they decided to do almost immedaitely after acquring the DnD line were nothing but reprints, without errata and the exact same spelling and gramatical errors from the T$R version. Purely a money making venture. One, that sadly enough, even I fell victim to. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. About the only thing WotC has improved upon from T$R, is delivering their product in a timely manner. Although, I'd settle for quality over timeliness and quantity any day of the week.
I miss 2E.
:heehee I hate to say it, but since Hasbro/WotC has taken over the DnD franchise from T$R, their credibility has dropped even further. At least in my eyes.
The 2e black books that they decided to do almost immedaitely after acquring the DnD line were nothing but reprints, without errata and the exact same spelling and gramatical errors from the T$R version.
Actually, there were errata. I downloaded them.
Personally, when WotC acquired TSR, they didn't want to disrupt the operation and allowed them to presume. Back in 1995, they didn't want to suddenly develop 3e, so they let 2e run its course until the time is right.
Purely a money making venture.
You know for every half-penny anyone saying that they're in it for the money, I'd be bleepin rich.
:rolleye2:
Well, bleepin' DUH!!!
But anyone who wants to make money have better know that crappy products don't generate revenue, no matter how dumb and gullible your customer base is. And if you don't generate revenue, you can't pay for your business upkeep and keep whatever left.
To be brutally honest, that's a lame allegation, Korainth.
Honestly, except those rich spoiled "Paris Hilton" posers out there, where have you said to yourself, "I so enjoy the job I'm working, I don't need to get paid for it, even to pay for the bills to my cell phones, my broadband service, my electricity, etc."
:rolleye2:
What stood out was the technology and this did cause the grinding of teeth and the knee-jerk reaction of 'not at my table' and 'didn't need fancy tech in AD&D' but then I stopped reacting and starting actually listening to what was being said.
I have had concerns about D&D and the directions and material that are being produced, but the underlying principle is that we don't need to purchase everything that comes out or try to utilise everything. I noticed that the over-abundance of choice may be apparent to the Designers as they used the phrase "in our busy world" as justification for streamlining a great many things. Obviously they have come to the realisation that gaming shouldn't be a lot of hard work - it should be a relatively simply process of fun that doesn't need a Library degree to manage information.
I can see uses for most of the ideas shown in the presentation. Does this mean I'll use them? Probably not. They don't suit my style, they don't suit my players styles and the dynamic we have built up over ten years of gaming together. But therein lies the beauty - take what you like discard the rest. I am however, very glad that you don't need the electronic content to run the game.
I am trying to be optimistic about this direction as I do like the changes made for SW Saga, which have bled across to 4th ed. I have seen far too much pessimism (and been involved in some) when 1st ed changed to 2nd, when 2nd changed to 3rd and even when 3.5 entered the fray...
I'll reserve the rest of my judgement until I see somethign a little more solid.
Bottom line is though - we can keep playing D&D.
Game hard.
One of the things that I really did like was the fact that there was so much left up to the DM. If the DM spoke, it was the rule. Now there is almost always a rule for even the most extraordinary of circumstances. Or if there isn't just wait until the next supplement or ask on the boards. I know that the DM is still the deciding factor and is the ultimate arbriter of any ruling, but most players will cite a rule and if the DM throws the rule they will ask why.
I definately see your point and do think that 2nd ed had a lot of gray area that the imagination filled in (by necessity); though the issue of rules is very much a party issue.
In my gaming party we bend, break and throw out rules that get in the way of fun or slow down gameplay and we are all able to reach a consensus. If a player argues the point is 'but it's in the book!", I ask them to explain the principle of the rule or what the spirit is intending to mean. I have been proven wrong before (it's bound to happen again) but with a good group of players it can be a rewarding experience. I knwo that I'll brand myself as a heretic to the 3.0/3.5 crowd, but our game threw out Attacks of Opportunity after everyone agreed that they complicated things beyond what we wanted to play.
That being said Darth, I certainly sympathise with where you are coming from.
Actually, there were errata. I downloaded them.
Perhaps in the downloads available now there's errata for the black 2e books. The orginal 2e PHB(with horserider riding through chasm) and black 2e PHB books are identical, except for the layout and pictures. All it says is "This fresh, new format for the Player's Handbook is your complete and illustrated guide to the world of heroic adventure!". No errata. Basically WotC decided to capitalize on their acquiring TSR and the naiveté of the fanbase at the time and released the "Revised" 2e PHB. I don't fault them on it. I'm upset at myself at getting suckered by it. The artwork was much better in the original 2e PHB to boot!
Personally, when WotC acquired TSR, they didn't want to disrupt the operation and allowed them to presume. Back in 1995, they didn't want to suddenly develop 3e, so they let 2e run its course until the time is right.
Again, I don't fault WotC for releasing 3e. The wanted to make money on one of their products. It's the capitalist way. The problem as I see it, is they stopped support on the still viable system of 2e. Not even Mocrosoft stops support and updates on old OSs when they release a new one. Heck, only 2 years ago did Microsoft officially stop support on Windows 95/98. It's the drop dead thing that WotC does when they decide to release a new edition. Rather than continuing to release a smaller number of products and running official events for the older system for x number of years, they try and force everyone to convert.
My beef with 3e is 4 years after releasing it they released 3.5. 3e was good. It had it's faults, but it greatly simplified DnD from 2e. 3.5 has actually re-encumbered 3e with all it's errata and follow-on rules. Now 4 years later another edition if being forced upon us. Those that want to play in official events must upgrade to the new edition as, once again, support stops for the older "outdated" edition.
You know for every half-penny anyone saying that they're in it for the money, I'd be bleepin rich.
That's because they are. Again, I don't fault them for trying to make money. I'm all for companies making money, in fact my retirement depends upon it as I invest heavily. If they weren't in it for the money then we wouldn't have a game. I understand supply and demand and the need to change and make improvements to a product. The world would be a much different place had people decided to never update or upgrade their products. We'd still have people saying no computer program should ever exceed 128 kbytes. It's they way they jerk the fanbase around in trying to do so that bothers me.
To be brutally honest, that's a lame allegation, Korainth.
What's lame? Saying their quality has gone down as their quantity has gone up? It's true. The latest set of "core" or "universal" material Complete Scoundrel, MM IV and V, etc. are nothing but fluff, and bad fluff at that. About the only decent to come out lately was the revised and easier to read stat block.
Back on topic. If WotC really liked it's consumers they would continue supporting the existing system for x number of years. Produce a limited number of quality products for it. Continue RPGA events until x number of years was complete. The whole while prompting their new edition. Phase out the old and in the new. It's a tried and true system.
Cheers,
Cam
I'll just note that I don't understand the "you're forcing a new edition on us" mentality. Either you will buy the new edition or you won't. I don't think it really gets any simpler than that.
*cue Mission Impossible theme*
Secret Draconian Corps agents of W.O.T.C. are standing by at this moment, ready to invade the homes of gamers everywhere. Their mission, should they choose to accept it - barge into the homes, destroy all 3rd edition books, and place a copy of the 4th edition Player's Handbook in their hands.
Draconian agents must then ensure that players everywhere are using the 4th edition rules. Through a clever hypnotic device created by G.N.O.M.E.S., the draconian agents are able to mind-wipe players' minds and insert in the joy that is 4th edition.
The Corps is mother, the Corps is father.
I'll just note that I don't understand the "you're forcing a new edition on us" mentality. Either you will buy the new edition or you won't. I don't think it really gets any simpler than that.
Looking at it from another POV, though, people who have invested a lot of money and emotion in their 3.5 collections are annoyed that their collections will be made obsolete when the more casual gamers that make up the bulk of their groups switch to 4e. As an analogy, it's awfully difficult to find a 2nd ed. game unless you live in a really big city.
As another (and perhaps less apt) analogy, MS doesn't force Vista on people either, but it doesn't mean users switch to it with enthusiasm and joy.
"Force?" No. There's no coercion here. But I understand the annoyance.
Looking at it from another POV, though, people who have invested a lot of money and emotion in their 3.5 collections are annoyed that their collections will be made obsolete when the more casual gamers that make up the bulk of their groups switch to 4e. As an analogy, it's awfully difficult to find a 2nd ed. game unless you live in a really big city.
I've got a whole collection of AD&D materials, SAGA Dragonlance materials, and WEG d6 Star Wars materials that are all out of date. And yes, it's a bit annoying. Yet I still use my out-of-date books. Conversion isn't too terribly difficult, though I know a lot of people don't have the time or desire to go through the effort.
It can also be annoying that you don't get continued support for out-of-date editions. At the same time, there will always be fans doing work to support out-of-date systems. With the way the OGL and SRD are set up, there may be more 3rd party support than ever for 3e.
So yes, it's annoying, and can be especially so for those who have updated to new editions multiple times. I've played one Star Wars character under 4 different sets of rules and will soon be on my 5th soon enough.
From an old dino such as me, trust me when I say that it will be okay. The point is to play and have fun. The rules are merely a tool through which the game is played. The key is to find the right one for you and run with it.
And that's a lot more than I intended on saying on the subject. :embarrass
As another (and perhaps less apt) analogy, MS doesn't force Vista on people either, but it doesn't mean users switch to it with enthusiasm and joy.
Less apt if you're buying a new computer, since almost everybody loads new PC's with Vista, and MS is going to stop selling XP at the end of this year.
So, no, probably not really a very good analogy since RPG game products aren't quite the same as a PC with a pre-loaded OS. ;)
Perhaps in the downloads available now there's errata for the black 2e books. The orginal 2e PHB(with horserider riding through chasm) and black 2e PHB books are identical, except for the layout and pictures. All it says is "This fresh, new format for the Player's Handbook is your complete and illustrated guide to the world of heroic adventure!".
Not exactly identical. 2e Revised nerfed the elf's allowed multiclass character combination list.
No errata. Basically WotC decided to capitalize on their acquiring TSR and the naiveté of the fanbase at the time and released the "Revised" 2e PHB. I don't fault them on it. I'm upset at myself at getting suckered by it. The artwork was much better in the original 2e PHB to boot!
No. There were errata for 2e Revised back in the 90's. I should know, when I first got my internet account, I immediately looked for TSR website (back then maintained by Sean K Reynolds).
Again, I don't fault WotC for releasing 3e. The wanted to make money on one of their products. It's the capitalist way. The problem as I see it, is they stopped support on the still viable system of 2e.
Meh. TSR stopped supporting 1e when 2e was released in '89. Have you seen other major RPG publishers supporting previous editions of their products when they release a new edition? Your accusation singles out WotC.
My beef with 3e is 4 years after releasing it they released 3.5.
My only gripe with 3.5e is the timing. It was too soon. 3.5e was supposed to come out in 2005.
Other than that, they made baby-step improvement, like allowing monk and ranger to customize their martial abilities.
That's because they are. Again, I don't fault them for trying to make money. I'm all for companies making money, in fact my retirement depends upon it as I invest heavily. If they weren't in it for the money then we wouldn't have a game. I understand supply and demand and the need to change and make improvements to a product. The world would be a much different place had people decided to never update or upgrade their products. We'd still have people saying no computer program should ever exceed 128 kbytes. It's they way they jerk the fanbase around in trying to do so that bothers me.
The fanbase is not complete one in your stance, in case you haven't noticed.
Back on topic. If WotC really liked it's consumers they would continue supporting the existing system for x number of years. Produce a limited number of quality products for it. Continue RPGA events until x number of years was complete. The whole while prompting their new edition. Phase out the old and in the new. It's a tried and true system.
By X = 10, then yeah, I can agree with that. But if you think they should support a system for 20 years without considering many houseruled improvements and favorite optional rules that should be considered standard, then they're digging their own financial grave.
*cue Mission Impossible theme*
Secret Draconian Corps agents of W.O.T.C. are standing by at this moment, ready to invade the homes of gamers everywhere. Their mission, should they choose to accept it - barge into the homes, destroy all 3rd edition books, and place a copy of the 4th edition Player's Handbook in their hands.
Oh, you had me worried for a moment. This should mean that the S.D.C. will leave all my 1st and 2nd ed stuff alone. All is still fine with the world. :D
Conversion between 3.5 and 4th, should the rules that were implemented in SW Saga be used as the base, won't be as difficult as 2nd to 3rd. Bearing in mind though that inventive DM's will find a way around anything (I convert fantasy RPGs across that aren't even D20 - a good idea is still a good idea).
Aside form that, the fluff material doesn't change. Only the rules. I still use portions of my 1st ed Dragonlance Adventures in my games; and rely on the grey box Forgotten Realms set for information. This only enhances my 3rd ed gaming experience as I am able to draw upon everything that has been developed before, compare it to current material and then choose the best fit. In all, a win/win situation.
Meh. TSR stopped supporting 1e when 2e was released in '89. Have you seen other major RPG publishers supporting previous editions of their products when they release a new edition? Your accusation singles out WotC.
I went thorugh exactly the same when White Wolf announced the 'reset' and made over one hundred of my sourcebooks completely incompatible with the new system. They changed the setting, feel, rules and characters of every setting. All the neat material developed until then was basically useless; save for some plot ideas, and you can come up with those by yourself. I didn't, and won't, upgrade as I have invested serious time/effort/dollars into my World of Darkness books and see no reason to change. There is no support for the old WoD and from a financial point of view, I can see why. Why would a company invest employee time and profits in continuing to release a product that competes with their newest product?
D&D moving to a new edition, in this case, isn't the same as that change. The feel is still there, the classes are still present and the rules-set is basically the same.
Whilst you can argue against the financial bottom line all you like, the harsh reality is that the purity of gaming is sullied by the need for coin. :D These companies should listen to their fan base, should have a committment to providing excellent products that are value for money and should be interested in providing a future for the hobby. Married to this is the fact that people's jobs rest on the successful running of the company. At times, it is an uneasy marriage, not everyone is happy, but in the end things move forward. That is what I see is happening here.
Role-playing has to compete against a market full of computer gaming to sell a social product to a generation that (broadly speaking) sees technology as the instant gratification fix for recreation and needs to be seriously convinced that 'interactive storytelling' is a viable hobby. I realise that I am speaking in gross stereotypes here, but it does serve to illustrate the point.
The new edition needs to speak to that generation, as well as trying to retain we players who have been with them since first ed (didn't need any stinking Electronic Tabletops then. Technology, heh! Fancy minis, heh! A gamer craves not these things)
I'm willing to sit back and give WotC a chance to see how things progress. There is a small part of me that gets excited whenever new things happen in the gaming industry, even if later I gripe in the corner with everyone else. I hope they succeed and hope that the hobby does move forward - because it needs to.
D&D moving to a new edition, in this case, isn't the same as that change. The feel is still there, the classes are still present and the rules-set is basically the same.
And I can argue that for when TSR released 2e, which was nothing more than a refinement of 1e.
As for change, have you considered that the Star Wars Saga Edition rules is a preview for 4e? There are some big honkin' changes that you may want to look at.
Whilst you can argue against the financial bottom line all you like, the harsh reality is that the purity of gaming is sullied by the need for coin. :D
And again, how they can get those coin, depends on how well they make 4e appeal to us customer to drop coins.
Remember, for every new book project they develop, they're investing their own money to make them, from getting the writers to write, artists to draw, and layout designers to design the pages look. Then they gotta pay the printers and truckers.
If 4e sales don't wipe out the expenses that goes into putting the final product, then they're sunk.
These companies should listen to their fan base, should have a committment to providing excellent products that are value for money and should be interested in providing a future for the hobby.
Which fanbase? The vocal minority here or the silent majority that don't post but found other ways to express their feedback to WotC?
Role-playing has to compete against a market full of computer gaming to sell a social product to a generation that (broadly speaking) sees technology as the instant gratification fix for recreation and needs to be seriously convinced that 'interactive storytelling' is a viable hobby. I realise that I am speaking in gross stereotypes here, but it does serve to illustrate the point.
The new edition needs to speak to that generation, as well as trying to retain we players who have been with them since first ed (didn't need any stinking Electronic Tabletops then. Technology, heh! Fancy minis, heh! A gamer craves not these things
Unfortunately, pen-n-paper RPG is going the way of vinyl records and cassette tapes (and to a certain extent, compact discs). You can't fight progress and technology.
Videogames makes it easier to resolve a situation (attack, pick lock, etc.) and do it in 3-D graphic fashion. Gamers don't want to deal with complicated stuff, only Mensa members and they're not enough of them to keep WotC running as an RPG company.
It's a truth that an oldtimer have to confront. At times, I'm so frustrated, that I wish Y2K really did happen.
And I can argue that for when TSR released 2e, which was nothing more than a refinement of 1e.
As for change, have you considered that the Star Wars Saga Edition rules is a preview for 4e? There are some big honkin' changes that you may want to look at.
I have seen the changes in Saga and was of the belief that WotC would use the trial of those rules to see what they could put into 4th ed. Apparently they did the same when they released the previous Star Wars Core rulebook and then released 3.5.
As for the changes, mechanically there are some big changes, but they don't necessarily invalidate the overall setting material in the same way that I was illustrating the point with World of Darkness.
I will certainly concede your point that the changes to game mechanics are going be be significant.
Also, I liked the comment about Y2K. I'm not someone who has an inherent love of videogames. I can't see the attraction (especially to online RPGs) as I revel in the social element of gaming. Sitting around a table with a unch of friends, eating food that isn't good for you, whilst you share a great story - that is what gaming is about, and you'll appreciate that the only tech required for the experience is lighting to read by and an oven to cook said bad food.
As for the changes, mechanically there are some big changes, but they don't necessarily invalidate the overall setting material in the same way that I was illustrating the point with World of Darkness.
I was wondering if you agreed with White Wolf's decision to reset the WoD.
I disagreed when then-TSR took my favorite AD&D setting ... Dragonlance ... and converted to the card-based SAGA system. I know it is a very popular brand, but to use it to promote a new rulesystem just irked the hell out of me. I understand why they did it, yet I still disagreed.
Imagine if Raistlin was changed from the fine upstanding character we all know and love to one who follows all the rules and is kind and gentle hearted, then change the knights of Solamnia to religious zealots who hunted down anyone who disagreed with them.
Imagine if Raistlin was changed from the fine upstanding character we all know and love to one who follows all the rules and is kind and gentle hearted, then change the knights of Solamnia to religious zealots who hunted down anyone who disagreed with them.
I thought he's concerned that the crunch would influence the fluff in the Dragonlance setting. I'd be concerned too.
But from what I see so far ... I repeat, so far ... the new 4e mechanics shouldn't change the outlook of Dragonlance so much. It could make playability in the epic world much better. Granted, they have to accomodate the 30-level classes, but it couldn't be that difficult.
As I'v said before on the Nexus. I have spent alot on my collection and only been into 3.5 for 2-3 years. i simply cant upgrade this soon.
Look its the congragation of DnD editions---> :invasion: