D&D 4E DnD 4E DOA?

[Kanegrundar]

Beyond a few tweaks here or there - and nothing that can't be done by some simple house rules - I agree.

I've added in all sorts of 3rd party rules and such that bridge the few "gaps" the core rules. It's not technically a house rule, but it works the same and overall, I have one page of tweaks for 3.5 versus the small sourcebook of house rules I had for 2E. That's the measure of a game system: how many house rules do I have to use to get it right for me and my group?

Kane

 

[drothgery]

I never thought I'd become an edition grognard, but I like the D20 system so much that I can't see myself using anything else for any style of gaming that I enjoy (fantasy, modern, sci-fi, post apocalyptic, and supers). That doesn't mean that I wouldn't give a new edition a try, but with less money to spend on gaming products and less time to play, I don't know that I even want to change over. 4E is going to have to be a MAJOR improvement for me to WANT it. I don't see how they can improve upon D&D any more than 3.0/3.5.

I don't want a new edition of D&D any time soon, but there's a lot of things they can do improve 3.0/3.5, and further revising and extending the d20 system.

"4.0" changes (assuming a d20-esque 4.0)
- Find some way of getting multiclass spellcasters to work reasonably well without resorting to wonky PrCs
- Consolidate the skill list and/or give classes no less than 4 skill points/level
- Get rid of d4 hit dice
- Find a better Turn Undead mechanic
- Try and simplify combat a bit
- Get rid of redundant mechanics (why have both SR and saves, or DR and AC, given an abstract damage system)
...

"3.75" changes
- Find some happy medium between overly nerfed 3.5 spells (mostly the buff spells) and their 3.0 counterparts
- Do something to make Sorcerers interesting
- Make elves, half-elves, and half-orcs a little better

 

[Kanegrundar]

I agree on the Turn Undead item. There needs to be a better system to do that.

As for the other points...I'm pretty ambivilent to them. I have players play sorcerers, half-elves and half-orcs fairly frequently (especially considering the vast array of classes and races that I offer IMC). Combat could be sped up a bit, but I don't notice it that much at all anymore. Now that we have the system down, we don't have that much trouble running battles.

Kane

 

[wingsandsword]

Why should there be a 4th Edition, besides the presumed inevitability of it?

2nd Edition was a money-grab to print Players Handbooks that EGG wouldn't recieve royalties for, while purging all the things that the Religious Right objected to and introducing a few ideas from 1e suppliments that were working well (THAC0 and NWP's) and a few design ideas that didn't stand the test of time (only 4 core classes, with all other classes being a variant on the base 4).

3rd Edition was needed because the AD&D framework was showing it's age. Game design had progressed a long way, and the holes in 2e were legendary and gaping. Every group I knew played D&D as a heavily house ruled, heavily customized game that was only barely recognizable as D&D, and you had to re-learn it to play with a different group, because 1e/2e wasn't doing the job. 3e made D&D flexible, fast, easy, and consistent, and did it in style.

3.5 at least filled in a lot of gaps that 3.0 showed. The front-loaded ranger and Harm/Heal being famous ones, but it really wasn't halfway to a new edition, it wasn't anywhere near as huge as the 1e/2e or 2e/3e schism.

However, what huge gaping holes in design does 3.5 have? I don't like some 3.5 spells and their PokeMount, but that's certainly not enough to warrant a new Edition. 3.5 is overall the best designed, most flexible, easiest to play version of D&D I've ever seen, and I wouldn't trade it for any other game (although I would and do hybridize in rules from UA and AE liberally). If 4e comes out anytime in the forseeable future, I won't even pay attention, I've got the rules set I want and need right now. In fact, 4e would just mean that I could finally stop buying 3e books and complete my set and stop having to learn the rules and options from the new book-of-the-month.

As some of the gamers in my group have put it: "I don't like the idea of planned obsolescense in roleplaying games." I agree with that, any artificial target date for 4th edition, whether as a book-sales stunt to placate their Corporate Masters or just to fulfill the 10 year pattern risks being a failure. In time, enough new design ideas will trickle in, the gaming public will drift in it's desires and wants and styles of play, and between new ideas and new needs there may one day be a real need for a change big enough to warrant a new edition.

But that day is not today, and not in the forseeable future.

 

[Nisarg]

Personally I think that 4E threads here will hasten the arrival of a new addition. Why? Because we all know that WOTC people visit the site. There have been so many 4E threads already it makes designers think "do they really want a new addition?" Hasbro management hears rumblings and bam "Customers have shown interest for sometime now about a new addition to our popular Dungeons and Dragons line of products. So where unveiling our long anticipated 4th Edition line." The only thing that threads about 4e will do is hasten the demise of 3e. These boards can be used for WOTC marketing research.

If Wizards is really using this website, which is in no way truly representative of their market (target or actual) for gathering information on how to do their job, may the Great Sky Pixie save them.

Nisarg

 

[Turjan]

I agree that the more people talk about 4E, the earlier it will come. It's simply a sign that people are ready for a new edition. In this case, it does not even matter whether people want to have it or don't want to have it. This kind of talk gets people used to the thought - and that's usually sufficient to make such a decision. Most people will buy it if it comes, anyway, even most of those that have declared they won't.

Personally, I'm not in need for 4th edition. I'm aware of the problems of 3.x, like multiclassing of spellcasters, but as many others have already mentioned, there are many alternative systems out there at the moment. AU/AE takes care of the point I mentioned, and Grim Tales, Blue Rose or C&C are other examples. These systems already satisfy my need for change at this very moment .

I suppose that the amount of success that these alternative systems have will in turn have an influence on how fast we see a new edition of D&D. If it's only the people of EN World who try this alternative systems out, because they are used to theorizing about game systems, this won't cause a ripple in WotC's sales and is, therefore, irrelevant. I agree with others here that the EN World members are not the typical D&D customers. It may be unfortunate for those people putting out those alternative systems, but I suppose that this notion is true .

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

If Wizards is really using this website, which is in no way truly representative of their market (target or actual) for gathering information on how to do their job, may the Great Sky Pixie save them.

Nisarg

EnWorld doesn't represent their market? Wow that's crazy. I thought that this was a message board almost excluivly DEDICATED to the game which they produce. If that's doesn't represent core market I'm not sure what does then. There have been many polls here also. How old are you? How much do you spend on gaming? etc. All of those are pointing out "who" is the traget audience for D&D. The fact is that they DO listen to these boards. Almost every game designer does in fact have a screen name for these boards and posts from time to time. Look how quickly Paizo posted in the thread about crappy deliver service.

 

[Crothian]

THey probably use message boards as part of their Market Research, but it is not their only source. The realquestion though would be how much of that research does EN World and other message boards provide? I'm sure most game desingers also go to the boards of other companies, RPGNety, and other RPG oriented sites not just EN World.

 

[Maggan]

EnWorld doesn't represent their market? Wow that's crazy. I thought that this was a message board almost excluivly DEDICATED to the game which they produce. If that's doesn't represent core market I'm not sure what does then.

The 90% or so that doesn't visit EN World and who only buys official stuff, would be my guess.

EN World represents one small part of the market, that's all. Just because we talk endlessly about D&D doesn't mean we represent the market, thank goodness.

Otherwise, one person yabbing on about D&D 24/7 would be the perfect representative of the market. Yikes!

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Dareoon Dalandrove]

I never said that Enworld was the only people who buy their products, or that we were the only source of information. Just that we are infact a vocal target audience.