The End of 4th edition?
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4
Author

User avatar

** Banned **

Posts: 1213
Joined: Aug 04, 2009
Last Visit: Nov 02, 2013

Post Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:21 pm 
 

Badmike wrote:
I just look at it as more cushin' for the pushin', Frank!

Mike B.


Why look at the mantelpiece when you're pokin' in the fire?


Ithaca Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-

  


Sage Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 2884
Joined: Nov 04, 2004
Last Visit: May 09, 2020

Post Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:42 am 
 

Monday's Penny Arcade ... so dead-on, it's scary.

Image

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 11:53 am 
 

Sting looks like he's reading the comic with sci-fi gay approval!


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 527
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 06, 2022

Post Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:59 pm 
 

Chiming in late on this, but my group still plays 3.5
We tried 4.0 when that came out and really disliked it.  

Went back to 3.5 and stuck with it, but we began to get a little dismayed about our edition not being supported any more.

Then we discovered Pathfinder, and the happy is back!!   :D
I've heard the same thing from other gamers I've  spoken to at the FLGS and the local con.  

I don't pay nearly as much attention to Ebay as alot of you guys do, but even I notice how well 3.5 books are holding value compared to 4.0, since I still pick up a 3.5 book here and there to use in my game.  And geez, you'd think an OOP edition would be cheaper, it's not like any of this stuff is rare.  WOTC printed a gazillion copies of everything.

This leads me to believe more than a few gamers are still hanging in with 3.5.


The owls are not what they seem...

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 168
Joined: Aug 11, 2010
Last Visit: May 31, 2021

Post Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:07 pm 
 

I made this observation elseboard:  frequently, when people discover that I don't care for 4e, they accuse me of just "being afraid of change/progress."

The thing is, I started with the Holmes blue boxed basic set.  I then switched to first edition, and liked it.  When second edition came along, I tried that and liked it.  When third edition came along, I tried THAT and liked it.  It was different, but I was ready to try something new.  When 3.5 came along, I wasn't exactly thrilled at buying slightly-modified versions of the same rulebooks, but I tried it and liked it.

Then 4e came along.  I playtested it.  I didn't like it.  I hoped they would make some changes based on playtester recommendations.  When it was released, I tried it again.  Again, I didn't like it.

So I question the whole "You just don't like change" mantra.  I liked change just fine for three and a half editions; I just don't like THIS change.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 30, 2022

Post Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:07 pm 
 

It might have been a good idea (and I didn't think of it either) if WOTC had started 4th Edition with the red box basic set.

It would have created an entry-level game, easy to pay for, easy to try.  It would have been attractive to established gamers.  It would have made the game easier for young gamers to acquire.

How many here started with the Holmes Basic Set or earlier?  Remember the anticipation as each of the AD&D hardbacks appeared, one by one?

The three-volume hardback probably gave WOTC a huge money hit, but it is kind of inaccessible for an entire gaming group to buy.

And then...discovering that core elements of the rules had been deliberately omitted so they could appear in future hardbacks..... :evil: .....that was not the way to win my loyalty.


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 527
Joined: Oct 26, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 06, 2022

Post Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 8:46 am 
 

Phentari wrote:I made this observation elseboard:  frequently, when people discover that I don't care for 4e, they accuse me of just "being afraid of change/progress."

The thing is, I started with the Holmes blue boxed basic set.  I then switched to first edition, and liked it.  When second edition came along, I tried that and liked it.  When third edition came along, I tried THAT and liked it.  It was different, but I was ready to try something new.  When 3.5 came along, I wasn't exactly thrilled at buying slightly-modified versions of the same rulebooks, but I tried it and liked it.

Then 4e came along.  I playtested it.  I didn't like it.  I hoped they would make some changes based on playtester recommendations.  When it was released, I tried it again.  Again, I didn't like it.

So I question the whole "You just don't like change" mantra.  I liked change just fine for three and a half editions; I just don't like THIS change.



I have to agree with this.  I too started playing years ago with the Basic Set.  Then Advanced, and then 2nd Ed.  They all have their idiosyncracies, but I liked them all and never really had a problem going from one to the other.  I think this is because they all still had that intangible D&D "Feel."

Then 3rd Edition came along and yes, that was a more extensive rules change but I tried it out and found that I liked that too.   Definitely a different approach, but to me it still FELT like D&D.  

4th Ed just doesn't FEEL like D&D to me.  I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel that way.  And by saying this I certainly don't mean to trash the game, I know alot of people play it and enjoy and that's a good thing but it just isn't for me.  (And I know alot of folks here would say the same thing about 3.5)

So when I say I don't like 4th Ed it isn't like I'm just being an edition nazi, or that I haven't tried it.  I have, and I feel like it's just missing something.

I believe somebody here posted once that 4th Edition is a fine game system, it just should have been given a different name.  I'm paraphrasing here but I think that statement really covers it for me.


The owls are not what they seem...

  


Prolific Collector

Posts: 203
Joined: Oct 25, 2006
Last Visit: Dec 01, 2022

Post Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:57 am 
 

Agent Cooper wrote:4th Ed just doesn't FEEL like D&D to me.  I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel that way.  And by saying this I certainly don't mean to trash the game, I know alot of people play it and enjoy and that's a good thing but it just isn't for me.  (And I know alot of folks here would say the same thing about 3.5)


You are not along in that regard. The 3.X series to me is feels like a heavily house-ruled D&D game. When I first starting reading 3.0 in 2000 I found myself going "Oh I wish I thought of that and used it in my AD&D campaign back in the day." It certainly fixed the customization complaint that D&D players had over the years.

Agent Cooper wrote:I believe somebody here posted once that 4th Edition is a fine game system, it just should have been given a different name.  I'm paraphrasing here but I think that statement really covers it for me.


I know I said that several times. It is a good game that does somethings very well. Complex combats are easier with D&D 4e than most other RPGs with similar complexity in the number of tactical options. In this case the Magic the Gathering inspired design works well.

And I also feel that much of 4e problem is one of presentation where various Wizard adventures emphasized the game over the roleplaying. 4e has some great DMing advice and stuff that helps a DM in any edition. But... the greatest volume and care in various adventure are devoted to combat.

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 7975
Joined: Jun 23, 2003
Last Visit: Nov 28, 2022
Location: DFW TX

Post Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:54 am 
 

Agent Cooper wrote:

I have to agree with this.  I too started playing years ago with the Basic Set.  Then Advanced, and then 2nd Ed.  They all have their idiosyncracies, but I liked them all and never really had a problem going from one to the other.  I think this is because they all still had that intangible D&D "Feel."

Then 3rd Edition came along and yes, that was a more extensive rules change but I tried it out and found that I liked that too.   Definitely a different approach, but to me it still FELT like D&D.  

4th Ed just doesn't FEEL like D&D to me.  I can't put my finger on what exactly it is that makes me feel that way.  And by saying this I certainly don't mean to trash the game, I know alot of people play it and enjoy and that's a good thing but it just isn't for me.  (And I know alot of folks here would say the same thing about 3.5)

So when I say I don't like 4th Ed it isn't like I'm just being an edition nazi, or that I haven't tried it.  I have, and I feel like it's just missing something.

I believe somebody here posted once that 4th Edition is a fine game system, it just should have been given a different name.  I'm paraphrasing here but I think that statement really covers it for me.


The perfect solution:

Offer three D&D gaming experiences.  First would be "Classic" D&D, hearkening back to the days of yore.  It would resemble Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord or even OSRIC without actually being a page for page, word for word, reprint of the old rulebooks. Honestly, the Hackmaster rulebook (cleaned up to get rid of the giggles) would have fit the bill here.

"Modern" or "New" D&D would have been a continuation of the 3rd edition engine that was so popular, and looked a lot like the Pathfinder system.  For all the people who have joined the game since 2000 and are making the Pathfinder system so popular.

Lastly, we would have "D&D Miniature Wars" which is basically a take on 4E with maybe even more emphasis on large scale combat (ala Warhammer or Battletech).  Would have brought in lots of bucks as the kiddies would have to assemble armies in much the same fashion at they do with Warhammer or Battletech.  No I don't count the "Chainmail" crap of a few years ago as this type of game because like WH and BT there would have been roleplaying aspects, yet it would also be a tactical game.

Then again I don't know crap about marketing or whatever so maybe they  thought about it and didn't think it would work.  

Mike B.


"THE MORE YOU THINK ABOUT WHY i DONE WHAT i DONE THE MORE i LAUGH" Cougar
"The Acaeum hates fun" Sir Allen
"I had a collecting emergency" Nogrod
Co-founder of the North Texas RPG Con
http://www.ntrpgcon.com

 WWW  
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 41, 2, 3, 4