| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 02 Jun 2008 : 10:35:25
The 4th Ed. Core books will be realesed this very month. The upcoming new setting has been debated hotly on these very boards. Out of curiosity I would like to know:
Will you buy the 4th Ed.?
I kept the answers to a simple yes/no vote to be able to get a better overview on the general mood here at Candlekeep. I encourrage all of you to explain your answers with a post.
Thanks for your participation! |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 15:28:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
That *IS* the spirit of D&D Diffan.
And, it isn't, as well.
Each person has their own feelings about what D&D should 'feel' like. Some, want the rules to be the least concern in the game, others believe that if there isn't a rule specifically for the situation chaos will ensue.
Think of it this way. Every December, the holidays come around. Now, some might celebrate Christmas, some Hanukkah, some Kwanzaa, or something else entirely. But the basic idea of most holidays is a celebration. How you celebrate is an individual preference, but like-minded people gather to celebrate together.
That was an extreamly well-thought and articulated point that I totally agree with you on. And that's pretty much my point as well. LIke Brimstone said: "Play what ever you like. If you like both then have fun. " But spouting that this edition or that edition doesn't have the flavor, spirit, or likeness of what D&D truly is can have negative feedback.
For example I despise 2e. I can't stand THAC0, I hate level-caps, the fact that certain races are restricted from certain classes is moronic, and weapon speeds are a useless rule. Knowing this, I still understand that many people still play 2e and have a great time doing so. I say, play what makes you happy yet keep in mind others like other things and putting down or belittleing other forms of D&D can stirr arguments.
quote:
Originally posted by Brimstone
Please not more of the Edition War crap...
Sorry. I had a really bad night last night (2 1/2 hours at the ER and I lot my debt card) and posted in a bit of a drunken anger. I'll do my part to not delve into that sorta stuff. I hope others follow can suit. |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 08:33:09
Please not more of the Edition War crap...Play what ever you like. If you like both then have fun. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 04:50:34
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
That is because PAthfinder still ahs the spirit of D&D. 4e is more of an Usurper to the throne. The true heir finally recieved a good kingdom. Thank the gods for Paizo.
Would someone explain to me what the "spirit" of D&D is? And if so, how that is personified explicidly within the rule-set of 3e? Because, I have to tell you (collective you) that I really believed that the true "spirit" of D&D was gaming with a group of people who shared mutual interestes, role-play and roll-play a game involving the slaying of monsters, aquiring hoards of treasure, gaining power or might or mystical strengths, and aspiring to evolve a character into a legend? Am I wrong here? If not then how again does 4e hamper me or my group to accomplish this?
That *IS* the spirit of D&D Diffan.
And, it isn't, as well.
Each person has their own feelings about what D&D should 'feel' like. Some, want the rules to be the least concern in the game, others believe that if there isn't a rule specifically for the situation chaos will ensue.
Think of it this way. Every December, the holidays come around. Now, some might celebrate Christmas, some Hanukkah, some Kwanzaa, or something else entirely. But the basic idea of most holidays is a celebration. How you celebrate is an individual preference, but like-minded people gather to celebrate together. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 04:28:22
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
That is because PAthfinder still ahs the spirit of D&D. 4e is more of an Usurper to the throne. The true heir finally recieved a good kingdom. Thank the gods for Paizo.
Would someone explain to me what the "spirit" of D&D is? And if so, how that is personified explicidly within the rule-set of 3e? Because, I have to tell you (collective you) that I really believed that the true "spirit" of D&D was gaming with a group of people who shared mutual interestes, role-play and roll-play a game involving the slaying of monsters, aquiring hoards of treasure, gaining power or might or mystical strengths, and aspiring to evolve a character into a legend? Am I wrong here? If not then how again does 4e hamper me or my group to accomplish this?
|
| Patrakis |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 00:36:58
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I said YES to this scroll when it opened more than a year ago. I bought all the 4E books since it's release.
Now, after trying the beast ... well ... let's say that if there was a thread opening up and the question was: Who will sell his 4e books? I'd say YES again.
Sold the lot at my local hobby shop this week end. PATHFINDER will be our D&D from now on.
Pat
Got any of the adventure-modules left around? All I have is Keep on the Shadowfell one and I'm looking for others.
Sorry Diffan, everything is gone :(
Pat |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 24 Oct 2009 : 00:35:34
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I said YES to this scroll when it opened more than a year ago. I bought all the 4E books since it's release.
Now, after trying the beast ... well ... let's say that if there was a thread opening up and the question was: Who will sell his 4e books? I'd say YES again.
Sold the lot at my local hobby shop this week end. PATHFINDER will be our D&D from now on.
Pat
That is because PAthfinder still ahs the spirit of D&D. 4e is more of an Usurper to the throne. The true heir finally recieved a good kingdom. Thank the gods for Paizo.
Halleiluia :) |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 20:42:05
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I said YES to this scroll when it opened more than a year ago. I bought all the 4E books since it's release.
Now, after trying the beast ... well ... let's say that if there was a thread opening up and the question was: Who will sell his 4e books? I'd say YES again.
Sold the lot at my local hobby shop this week end. PATHFINDER will be our D&D from now on.
Pat
That is because PAthfinder still ahs the spirit of D&D. 4e is more of an Usurper to the throne. The true heir finally recieved a good kingdom. Thank the gods for Paizo.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 19:05:47
quote:
Originally posted by Patrakis
I said YES to this scroll when it opened more than a year ago. I bought all the 4E books since it's release.
Now, after trying the beast ... well ... let's say that if there was a thread opening up and the question was: Who will sell his 4e books? I'd say YES again.
Sold the lot at my local hobby shop this week end. PATHFINDER will be our D&D from now on.
Pat
Got any of the adventure-modules left around? All I have is Keep on the Shadowfell one and I'm looking for others. |
| Patrakis |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 18:43:48
I said YES to this scroll when it opened more than a year ago. I bought all the 4E books since it's release.
Now, after trying the beast ... well ... let's say that if there was a thread opening up and the question was: Who will sell his 4e books? I'd say YES again.
Sold the lot at my local hobby shop this week end. PATHFINDER will be our D&D from now on.
Pat |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Oct 2009 : 18:20:11
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
The 4th Ed. Core books will be realesed this very month. The upcoming new setting has been debated hotly on these very boards. Out of curiosity I would like to know:
I finally had the chance to browse through the $ Edn Players Handbook at the end of July, on a visit home to England. I wasn't that impressed. To be fair, I wasn't a neutral observer. I've already read quite a few opinions on the latest editions but I was prepared to give the book a long browse and see if it could persuade me. It didn't.
Instead I got the impression that there were even more rule than before, something I thought they were trying to reduce. The artwork really looks like World of Warcraft.
See, I found the rules on grappling, bull-rushing, and other combat-oriented situations more simple and thus (for me) easier to use in my games. I'm not really sure what additional rules there are in 4e that you referring to when compared to 3e but it seemed more "stream-lined" than previous editions. I mean, the complex rules for fighting in water, rules on moving through the air, hells even the rules for overland transportation and sleeping in your armor were very prevalent in 3e. This is something I extreamly disliked about that edition.
And about the artwork, I'll admit that it does seem more "cartoony" but I wasn't that impressed with the artwork for alot of 3e stuff either. For example, most of the artwork in the Tome of Battle I really didn't care for. Now, I have my fav. artists such as Lockwood and Parillo and they still do stuff with 4e and that makes me happy.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiaransalyn
One of the things I was interested in, before I got to see the book, was the statement from WotC that there would be real differences between the races. I didn't, from my admittedly limited perusal, see a difference between a tenth level elf, eldar (eladrin, yes, I know), human or dwarf.
Well, it depends on the class of a 10th level elf/eladrin/dwarf. If we're talking about the contrast between a 10th level eladrin fighter and a 10th level dwarf fighter, you'll see some large differences. Such differences are weapons wielded and armor used, as well as the many feats designed to help each race go a certain route that's unique to their heritage. Eladrin tend to use heavy blades (such as longswords) and polearms (such as spears) in their arsenal because these weapons benefit from their high Dexterity. Dwarves otoh are more likely to wield axes and hammers because of their higher Constitution. These benefits are also expressed in the various Fighter's powers that lend greater benefits to specific weapon types.
That is just one instance and reason why I've turned to 4e. With this edition, I feel like my dwarf fighter is more "defined" by what he does and how he does it when compared to my eladrin ally. |
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 13 Aug 2009 : 13:16:39
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Because I've established some new guidelines for posting about the 4e Realms, I'd actually like to see us make an effort to tone down use of terms like "$ Edn."
Thank you.
I didn't see that scroll, sorry. Last night's post was my first after a three month break and I didn't wade through all the new posts. I just wanted to give my own impressions of the latest saucebook, having finally got a chance to see it. After seeing the new setting, I think it may well be three months or longer before my next posts. TTFN. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Aug 2009 : 01:02:13
Because I've established some new guidelines for posting about the 4e Realms, I'd actually like to see us make an effort to tone down use of terms like "$ Edn."
Thank you.
|
| Kiaransalyn |
Posted - 12 Aug 2009 : 17:34:51
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
The 4th Ed. Core books will be realesed this very month. The upcoming new setting has been debated hotly on these very boards. Out of curiosity I would like to know:
I finally had the chance to browse through the $ Edn Players Handbook at the end of July, on a visit home to England. I wasn't that impressed. To be fair, I wasn't a neutral observer. I've already read quite a few opinions on the latest editions but I was prepared to give the book a long browse and see if it could persuade me. It didn't.
Instead I got the impression that there were even more rule than before, something I thought they were trying to reduce. The artwork really looks like World of Warcraft.
One of the things I was interested in, before I got to see the book, was the statement from WotC that there would be real differences between the races. I didn't, from my admittedly limited perusal, see a difference between a tenth level elf, eldar (eladrin, yes, I know), human or dwarf.
On the plus side, it did give me a way to pass a rainy afternoon in Manchester. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 08 Aug 2009 : 09:14:31
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
Interesting questions, Jorkens. I'm by no means MM, but here's my ideas on the difference in editions.
2nd Edition (I'm starting here because it's where my games started. I wasn't gaming when 1st edition was out and my first intro was Basic, but I came to the Realms in 2E) 2nd Edition rules always felt restraining to me. This race has to be this class, you have to have these Ability Scores for this class (and you had to roll 3d6 and assign them in order). There were house rules that around that, but as some point the house rules outweigh the regular rules and you're playing a new system anyway. Realms campaigns for me at that time were very open. You'd never see any famous characters. The adventures my DMs ran usually were very canon (more because of the DMs), so if it got updated in a book, it got updated in the campaign.
3rd Edition I remember when they first started releasing bits of how the game was going to be updated. Almost all of my gaming group was excited about the changes because they felt more 'relaxed' and made it so that we could build what we wanted in our characters. My first character was a rogue/sorcerer. And I still remember the moment when I realized that ranged touch attacks could be sneak attacks. It really wasn't anything major, but all of a sudden the group looked at me as I sniped an NPC with sonic orbs and did a one-shot kill. *ahem* Anyway, 3rd Edition allowed us to come up with PCs based on how we viewed them. A fast fighter was no longer penalized for a mediocre strength score. Thieves could have a high intelligence and become the skills monkey. Realms campaigns seemed to inherit this in our group. All of a sudden we didn't care as much about canon and meeting famous NPCs was cool, but not necessary and not game-ending. We really started building on the base of Ed's creation instead of just running around in it.
Did your group use another DM when they moved to 3ed. or did his attitude change as well?
The example you use is a good example on what I mean. The character has greater freedom, but it also changes the way the different classes interacts with the world around them. I am not saying this as a bad thing, but I would guess that it will have a great effect on the "feel" of the whole setting? How would it be if you were to go back to a 2ed. campaign now, how would that effect the Realms in general as you use them now?
And as for the Unther thing. As long as it is not a representation of the area along the lines of Ed's original ideas I dont care much. Any changes that need to be done I might just as well do myself. |
| Ikki |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 20:32:21
well, ive moved into call of cthulhu... atleast chaosium is still making nice stuff.
Downside being the equality, diversity and tolerance rant.. asians all having mafic powers of healig and african cannibals are really nice people, actually.. But i guess that cannot be escaped in any published books these days :( |
| The Sage |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 03:04:40
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Consider Unther. A crass way to describe it would be "Egypt Lite". I don't personally know if Unther was part of Ed's original Realms vision or not. Either way, other great people came along and worked really hard to integrate a history of the place into the Realms.
Here's Ed, on Unther:-
"I wanted to “echo” or “suggest” the concept of god-kings from the real-world Sumerian myths of Gilgamesh, and create a place where nagas (the game monster, drawn of course from real-world mythology) could rule or at least be venerated in cults - - and go no closer to real-world beliefs and matters than that.
Again, the Unther that was published wasn’t designed by me, and it’s not how I would have handled it.
Several senior TSR designers were former history teachers, and the Realms was seen by TSR as a vast tapestry that was to be the “home” for all sorts of D&D roleplaying, from Hollywood pirate movies through Viking raids and sword-and-sandal movie epics, so TSR added many real-world elements to the Realms - - such as Mongol hordes, an overt version of the Orient, and in one real blunder, the Dalai Lama. (No kidding.)
Again, this is NOT what I intended for the Realms." |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 07 Aug 2009 : 02:26:18
I agree with Wooly only in the sense that I think Wizards of the Coats saw that parts of the Realms needed to be changed wholesale.
I don't think 4E was any sort of an excuse to make those changes. Every rules change has involved some sort of Realms restructuring. In a way it makes sense that if parts of the Realms don't comport themselves well (that is, they don't sell very well, don't seem relevant or interesting to readers and gamers or don't work within the structure of what the Realms ought to be) then those parts should get changed with each new rules set.
Consider Unther. A crass way to describe it would be "Egypt Lite". I don't personally know if Unther was part of Ed's original Realms vision or not. Either way, other great people came along and worked really hard to integrate a history of the place into the Realms.
But, for all that deep interconnectedness, was it ever in the top ten places a DM would choose to set his or her campaign or a prime place for the editing team at WotC to set lots of novels in? And didn't its bedrock in 2E (i.e. earth-like pantheon) really set it outside the Realms from the beginning?
I've never liked the place and had a hard time envisioning it as part of the Realms. A hard way to say it would be that it was wasted space on the map. I always took pains to only describe it to my players as a place from which the Red Wizards freed themselves millennia ago. No mention of anything remotely similar to earth.
So, now we have in its place Tymanther. A place that's new and mysterious. Unfortunately Tymanther's capitol has a pyramid-like structure in it (bad form WotC) but that's it. Instead we have a new race and a new nation that's more fantasy than re-envisioned Earth.
In my opinion that's better for the Realms because it grounds a core race right into the setting and it widens a DM's and a player's view of the setting.
@ HawkinstheDM I was never anti-4E or anti-4E Realms. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 18:17:47
Interesting questions, Jorkens. I'm by no means MM, but here's my ideas on the difference in editions.
2nd Edition (I'm starting here because it's where my games started. I wasn't gaming when 1st edition was out and my first intro was Basic, but I came to the Realms in 2E) 2nd Edition rules always felt restraining to me. This race has to be this class, you have to have these Ability Scores for this class (and you had to roll 3d6 and assign them in order). There were house rules that around that, but as some point the house rules outweigh the regular rules and you're playing a new system anyway. Realms campaigns for me at that time were very open. You'd never see any famous characters. The adventures my DMs ran usually were very canon (more because of the DMs), so if it got updated in a book, it got updated in the campaign.
3rd Edition I remember when they first started releasing bits of how the game was going to be updated. Almost all of my gaming group was excited about the changes because they felt more 'relaxed' and made it so that we could build what we wanted in our characters. My first character was a rogue/sorcerer. And I still remember the moment when I realized that ranged touch attacks could be sneak attacks. It really wasn't anything major, but all of a sudden the group looked at me as I sniped an NPC with sonic orbs and did a one-shot kill. *ahem* Anyway, 3rd Edition allowed us to come up with PCs based on how we viewed them. A fast fighter was no longer penalized for a mediocre strength score. Thieves could have a high intelligence and become the skills monkey. Realms campaigns seemed to inherit this in our group. All of a sudden we didn't care as much about canon and meeting famous NPCs was cool, but not necessary and not game-ending. We really started building on the base of Ed's creation instead of just running around in it.
4th Edition I admit, I don't have much experience with the newest edition. I've tried it a few times, but it doesn't agree with me. I feel like the characters are basically the same with different descriptions on their powers. That's not to say the system isn't good. It is easier to plan for, but it just feels 'colorless' to me. Whereas in previous editions I wanted to try this or that race or class, in 4th it doesn't seem to matter as much to me. And when I feel that way, I don't invest as much into the character (no backstory, etc.). The Realms of 4th Edition, I just don't recognize. When 3rd Edition was ending, I was looking forward to seeing Azoun V grow into his throne, how Khelben's sacrifice was going to change the face of Waterdeep and what the retaking of Myth Drannor would mean to the dalelands and elves of the Realms. Then, when they released what they had done, I felt heartbroken. Before I could get to know Azoun V, he's dead and buried. Khelben's sacrifice doesn't seem to have changed much in Waterdeep (not that his successors aren't terrific, but he feels like just a footnote now). And Myth Drannor has affected much. Meanwhile, the changes that did happen just feel wrong to me. |
| Jorkens |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 17:21:57
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
Hello Jorkens,
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Maybe a bit of topic, but I am just curious, as you have said that you enjoy all editions of the game, do you stick to one edition at a time or do you at times run games with the older editions just for fun? If so, do you see much difference in how the different rules influence and adjust the Realms in the game?
Since Fourth Edition came out, my group opted to alternate weekly games. So we play Third Edition in the Realms one week and Fourth Edition in the Realms the next week. The campaigns are linked, with some of the characters being direct descendents of the older (edition) characters.
Your question is a great one. I mean the Realms have always been directly influenced by the D&D rules (IMNSHO this is a fact that even the veteran scribes at Candlekeep tend to forget, especially when levying criticism at the latest incarnation of the setting), but have we ever seen such influence taken to the nth degree as the Spellplague did?
During play, things seem the same on the surface. You have characters, NPCs, treasure, encounters, monsters, attack rolls, damage, etc.
But if you go even one step deeper, then big differences are obvious. Consider the new races. A playable character race isn't a rule per se, but the options are different then before and each of those races (Drabonborn and Genasi come to mind) has a big new footprint in the Realms. During play I feel the need to take pains to account for how Dragonborn, Genasi and Eladrin are different. --note this doesn't bother me, I'm just 100% aware that I can't present the 4E Realms the same during play.
Another difference I see is in the mechanics. Third Edition D&D was about options. It was about being able to express characters and NPCs, magic items, monsters and traps through the rules. It was a commitment to using the same mechanics for player and DM alike. What I liked about this was how I could take the most wild and fantastic parts of the Realms and put them front and center during play. Also I could draw on superlative third party sources for new monsters, magic items, inspiration and adventures, knowing it would all fit together nicely in my Third Edition Realms Campaign (and it did, let me tell you).
How would it be if you were now to go back and run a Realms campaign with a TSR edition of the game? To me the differences have always seemed enormous, with the extreme variations of 3ed. Would it still be recognisable as the Realms you use in your standard 3ed. campaign or would you have to more or less start from fresh? I am wondering as my general scepticism to change always makes me negative to the elements that don't fit with my version of the game and I am curious as to what effect the different rulesystems have on one persons version. The 4ed. has an advantage with the time jump, but how do you handle the changes when taking place within a contained period?
I have used the Realms with 2ed.,Metzer, and with non-D&D games and was actually surprised at how much the setting itself changed with the different rules. The feel of the setting that is. In many ways D&D becomes a sort of cartoon game in my mind, I have found out that I have huge problems visualizing anything connected to the game in any other way.
Now when I used the Swedish Drakar och Demoner(a Basic Roleplaying variation)or tried to use GURPS, I noticed that it felt like a totally different world. Not in a bad way (it became far more realistic and in a way slower), but it lost the "pillars" of the archtype system of Ad&d. The players felt the same way. Now the two, Ad&d Realms and non-D&D Realms have become so different in my mind that it would be impossible for me to run a game with one system in the other.
OK, I am starting to ramble and loose my own thread here so I will stop. |
| Hawkins |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 16:32:18
I am not trying to be inflammatory here, but weren't you (Mr_Miscellany) one of the anti-4e Realms dissidents on the WotC forums way back before it was released? If I am remembering correctly, what swayed you to the other side? |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 14:34:36
For all that I said earlier, I want to stress that I *like* being a 4E Realms DM. If I can link this to what you/Ashe mention about fluff dislikes, I view the overall story changes as where I get to shine as a DM.
For all its faults, 4E is simple enough and similar enough to 3E that I don't need to spend much time at all thinking about rules. I also use published adventures which -for all their wonky layouts- are pretty self-contained and complete.
This means I get to spend more DM-time away from play thinking about the adventure story, the characters and how it all fits into the strange new Realms we play in. Since the two campaigns I run are linked, that's another layer of story I get to think about and a means to keep my players hooked on the game. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 14:29:39
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
It's posts like that, Mr. Misc, that remind me why I like you.
Seriously though, I personally don't lump 4th Edition and the 4th Edition Realms together and dislike it. I have the same 'rules disconnect' that you discuss regarding the 4th Edition rules. If invited to a game, I might play it, but it doesn't feel right for my idea of D&D (much like how I don't like playing World of Darkness games). The dislike I have for the changes wrought on the new Realms has nothing to do with the 'crunch' and entirely to do with the 'fluff'. I just don't like the story direction. Some elements are interesting, but even those I'd rather have gone another way.
I want to echo this statement. I fully dislike both 4E and what's been done to the Realms -- but I don't consider them to be one and the same. 4E is not my game system, and though I will complain about it if given the opportunity, I don't complain about it that much.
I hate what's been done to the Realms because I find it entirely illogical and unnecessary. I hate that changes were made to cater to those who will never be happy. I hate that changes were made to rectify mistaken impressions that were created inhouse, and which I fully expect them to repeat. And quite honestly, I think that these changes were going to be made anyway, and that a new ruleset was just a convenient excuse. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 13:58:51
It's posts like that, Mr. Misc, that remind me why I like you.
Seriously though, I personally don't lump 4th Edition and the 4th Edition Realms together and dislike it. I have the same 'rules disconnect' that you discuss regarding the 4th Edition rules. If invited to a game, I might play it, but it doesn't feel right for my idea of D&D (much like how I don't like playing World of Darkness games). The dislike I have for the changes wrought on the new Realms has nothing to do with the 'crunch' and entirely to do with the 'fluff'. I just don't like the story direction. Some elements are interesting, but even those I'd rather have gone another way. |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 06 Aug 2009 : 12:28:04
Hello Jorkens,
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
Maybe a bit of topic, but I am just curious, as you have said that you enjoy all editions of the game, do you stick to one edition at a time or do you at times run games with the older editions just for fun? If so, do you see much difference in how the different rules influence and adjust the Realms in the game?
Since Fourth Edition came out, my group opted to alternate weekly games. So we play Third Edition in the Realms one week and Fourth Edition in the Realms the next week. The campaigns are linked, with some of the characters being direct descendents of the older (edition) characters.
Your question is a great one. I mean the Realms have always been directly influenced by the D&D rules (IMNSHO this is a fact that even the veteran scribes at Candlekeep tend to forget, especially when levying criticism at the latest incarnation of the setting), but have we ever seen such influence taken to the nth degree as the Spellplague did?
During play, things seem the same on the surface. You have characters, NPCs, treasure, encounters, monsters, attack rolls, damage, etc.
But if you go even one step deeper, then big differences are obvious. Consider the new races. A playable character race isn't a rule per se, but the options are different then before and each of those races (Drabonborn and Genasi come to mind) has a big new footprint in the Realms. During play I feel the need to take pains to account for how Dragonborn, Genasi and Eladrin are different. --note this doesn't bother me, I'm just 100% aware that I can't present the 4E Realms the same during play.
Another difference I see is in the mechanics. Third Edition D&D was about options. It was about being able to express characters and NPCs, magic items, monsters and traps through the rules. It was a commitment to using the same mechanics for player and DM alike. What I liked about this was how I could take the most wild and fantastic parts of the Realms and put them front and center during play. Also I could draw on superlative third party sources for new monsters, magic items, inspiration and adventures, knowing it would all fit together nicely in my Third Edition Realms Campaign (and it did, let me tell you).
As a 4E DM (and not a 4E player) I don't get the same good vibe with 4E. While my players have tons of options for character creation including several Realms-themed options thanks to the Player's Guide, they can't multi-class quite the same as before and many of the options are limited to their powers and to making decisions about what Paragon Path to follow. But unlike them I don't get to use quite the same rules to make my Realms NPCs. That's a disconnect for me, even though I know WotC was just trying to make things easier on the DM.
And though I can see practical, rules based reasons for why magic items, magic item creation and spell casting were all changed (some spells are now rituals, others not, while magic items have multiple levels and variable based effects contingent on that level), to me it all feels a little too generic. Last but not least the third party support just isn't there.
I don't know that I've answered your question, but I hope you'll conclude I gave a good try at it. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 22:41:18
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I think Wooly's point was that if or when 5E comes, all you'll have left from DDI is the downloaded Dragon and Dungeon articles.
Like Christopher said, the utilities that enable exactly the cost saving I'm talking about are downloadable and will work (ignoring DRM issues beyond the scope of this) in perpetuity. And I'm getting all of this for under the cost of 2 supplements a year (say Arcane Power and Divine Power, for example.)
Edit: To make a comparison, I get the exact same utility for a 4e game (if not more) from a DDI subscription as I would on a dollars-for-dollars basis in Pathfinder subscriptions for Pathfinder. |
| Christopher_Rowe |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 22:35:02
We'll also have the use of the utilities and the utility of the online materials for all that time, too, though. We're not only buying discrete products (magazine issues), but also getting software and services while we're subscribed. I'm with Arivia--I mean, I still buy all the books and can't even use the character builder or the new (as of today) monster builder, but even only using the magazines and Compendium it's a pretty good entertainment bargain for me, anyway. |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 22:24:05
I think Wooly's point was that if or when 5E comes, all you'll have left from DDI is the downloaded Dragon and Dungeon articles. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 22:19:07
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
It's been about a year since I invested in five sets of the 4E rulebooks for myself and my friends.
Since then I think I've gotten the full return on my investment in terms of both what it cost me to set us up and more basic things like fun. (Why play, if not to have fun, right?)
One thing I've decided for 4th Edition D&D and the 4E Realms is that I'm not going to buy any of the new character books. Unlike 3E for which I bought everything under the sun, my purchases for this edition are going to be limited to a DDI subscription and DM-only books.
As an aside, I think that's one of the brilliant things about the DDI - the utilities allow a DM to stay up to date and on top of everything and anything a player might want to use, without shelling out $600 for all that themselves. I can't say I don't mind not having to go through 3e's arms race all over again.
Not to be negative, but I'm not sure that's such a huge bargain. To stay on top, you've got to stay subscribed. And the longer you're subscribed, the more you pay. Depending on how long it is before they hit us with 5E, you could conceivably pay the same amount for what is essentially the rental of content you could have otherwise purchased.
With subscriptions to Dragon, Dungeon, and a great suite of utilities included in there, I think I'm going to come out in the end. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 22:17:17
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
It's been about a year since I invested in five sets of the 4E rulebooks for myself and my friends.
Since then I think I've gotten the full return on my investment in terms of both what it cost me to set us up and more basic things like fun. (Why play, if not to have fun, right?)
One thing I've decided for 4th Edition D&D and the 4E Realms is that I'm not going to buy any of the new character books. Unlike 3E for which I bought everything under the sun, my purchases for this edition are going to be limited to a DDI subscription and DM-only books.
As an aside, I think that's one of the brilliant things about the DDI - the utilities allow a DM to stay up to date and on top of everything and anything a player might want to use, without shelling out $600 for all that themselves. I can't say I don't mind not having to go through 3e's arms race all over again.
Not to be negative, but I'm not sure that's such a huge bargain. To stay on top, you've got to stay subscribed. And the longer you're subscribed, the more you pay. Depending on how long it is before they hit us with 5E, you could conceivably pay the same amount for what is essentially the rental of content you could have otherwise purchased. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 30 Jul 2009 : 21:38:36
quote:
Originally posted by Mr_Miscellany
It's been about a year since I invested in five sets of the 4E rulebooks for myself and my friends.
Since then I think I've gotten the full return on my investment in terms of both what it cost me to set us up and more basic things like fun. (Why play, if not to have fun, right?)
One thing I've decided for 4th Edition D&D and the 4E Realms is that I'm not going to buy any of the new character books. Unlike 3E for which I bought everything under the sun, my purchases for this edition are going to be limited to a DDI subscription and DM-only books.
As an aside, I think that's one of the brilliant things about the DDI - the utilities allow a DM to stay up to date and on top of everything and anything a player might want to use, without shelling out $600 for all that themselves. I can't say I don't mind not having to go through 3e's arms race all over again. |
|
|
