| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36798 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 14:07:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
Regarding the new FRCS.
To produce a new FRCS wotc kinda have to advance the timeline 100 years+. If they don't then all it would be is a players guide with classes & feats. To produce a new guide they have to have something new to write about. On his blog Rich Baker said they weren't going to do the "points of light" with the realms. And the FRCS is a year away, so I think there's still hope. I am looking forward to what they are going to do with racial levels for the realms races. And I am curious about what they do with classes. There are alot of bards, druids & monks in the realms. And none of those classes are likely to make the PHB1, and the PHB2 comes out after the FRCS.
I disagree. They've already produced 2 FRCS's that just advanced the timeline a few years from the previous one... The point of these books isn't to act as nothing more than an update, it's an intro to the setting, as viewed thru the lens of the current version of D&D. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
 |
|
|
Mace Hammerhand
Great Reader
Germany
2296 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 14:15:26
|
What bugs me the most about 4e is that they change things so much that old material cannot be properly used anymore. In 3e one could still use the 1st and 2nd edition modules and supplements with only a change to the monsters and traps. Now with the re-organization to mobs (erinyes = succubus = demon...err devil) and what have you they basically say "Oh, your old modules are worth nothing except the plot."
THAT is what bothers me the most. |
Mace's not so gentle gamer's journal My rants were harmless compared to this, beware! |
|
|
|
Alaundo
Head Moderator
United Kingdom
5695 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 15:09:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
What bugs me the most about 4e is that they change things so much that old material cannot be properly used anymore. In 3e one could still use the 1st and 2nd edition modules and supplements with only a change to the monsters and traps. Now with the re-organization to mobs (erinyes = succubus = demon...err devil) and what have you they basically say "Oh, your old modules are worth nothing except the plot."
THAT is what bothers me the most.
Well met
Aye, I must admit this is one thing which doesn't bode well with me. The lack of conversion from 3.5 to 4 is a little inconsiderate. Having to scrap long-standing characters who can't be converted will understandably upset a few players. |
Alaundo
Candlekeep Forums Head Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
An Introduction to Candlekeep - by Ed Greenwood
The Candlekeep Compendium - Tomes of Realmslore penned by Scribes of Candlekeep
|
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 15:35:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauglor
If the rules are to be taken literally, what I believe we do almost 100% of the time, I still think Vancian magic limits creativity.
Taking the rules literally would be to mistake their purpose and abuse them. (Who's 'we'?)quote:
Originally posted by Odysseus
To produce a new FRCS wotc kinda have to advance the timeline 100 years+.
You're exaggerating -- they didn't have to for 1993 or 2001 -- but it's an important point that it's much easier for us to theorize than to have to make decisions that will lead to Hasbro-scale profits.
But let's look at the 2E and 3E base products. The 1993 box was an expansion (with some material removed) of the first, not a complete redo. Little of the new material had to do with the (gratuitous and still unjustified) timeline jump. The 3E book is the team's summary and high-concept reconceptualization, which despite its extended length made severe and arguable decisions about what to cut, what to leave, and what to expand. I can think of several ways of doing the same thing for 2008 and making a substantially new-seeming project, but what I'd have liked to see was the Realms let, for the first time, to be itself, fulfilling and not shying from its own strengths -- an approach that I hoped for in 2000, and that has never been tried. Instead we've had, down the years, as well as some excellent works from the earliest to the latest days, an amazing, ingenious cavalcade of attempts to do anything but let the Realms be the Realms.quote:
If they don't then all it would be is a players guide with classes & feats.
What do classes and feats have to do with a player's guide? The Player's Guide to Faerűn only got that unfitting title because Rules Updates of Faerűn didn't sound good. |
Edited by - Faraer on 18 Sep 2007 18:13:13 |
|
|
|
Warrax
Learned Scribe
Canada
128 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 15:46:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Some of the arguments the design team use have merit tho. E.g. if a party starts at 8 a.m. and have three major encounters very early on in the day, the casters might well be out of spells and in the arcane casters' case useless for the rest of the day. Sure, there might be a couple of wands, but all in all the wizard and sorcerer can unpack their crossbows and wave them around.
I don't see your point; yes, the wizard might ABSOLUTELY be out of spells and that might be a rather significant reason to plan your spell usage, or *gasp* seek alternate resolution to the conflict, or use disposal magic items and so forth. All of the myriad and sundry ways you can complement your character's abilities.
Anyway, the phrase "**** happens," comes to mind. Things aren't supposed to be perfect or easy, they're supposed to be challenging.
I think my biggest beef here is that WotC isn't just trying to sell us the same edition with a bunch of alterations; I expect that of them, because I hate Hasbro and I've had little respect for WotC as a corporation since 3.5 was released. It stings and I'm extraordinarily displeased with it, but the thing that bothers me most is that WotC is publically telling us "Yeah, this is an entirely new edition and we're selling a whole new round of corebooks... but really, it's the same core system as what you've been playing with for the last 8 years, we're just trying to sell subscriptions to DnD Insider and stuff from gleemax.com!"
I mean, goto YouTube, start here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G_e5wAUwdmM
Watch all four parts of that.
And then, once you're done vomiting and swearing at WotC, let's talk more about the stuff that I presented in my post. This is the sort of thing that makes me never want to buy anything from WotC ever again (at least insofar as gaming products go).
I'm going to buy the Shadowdale adventure, I'm going to buy A Grand History of the Realms because I want to see what they've gone and done (and if it isn't quite as horrible as it seems right now, then I'll get the 4e FRCS) and then I'm largely done with newly released products.
There are an incredibly large number of supplements out for 1e and 2e available from Paizo.com; my Ravenloft, Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms collections grow regularly as I acquire more and more pieces therefrom.
And then, if Paizo.com starts selling 3e and 3.5e stuff as PDFs once 4e is released, I'll investigate those, because there are some neat ones. But 4e is pretty much The Straw, right here, pending some kind of massive revelation about the quality of the core mechanics as they are to be presented in the new core books.
But this is disgusting. |
|
|
|
Ayunken-vanzan
Senior Scribe
Germany
657 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 16:55:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
What bugs me the most about 4e is that they change things so much that old material cannot be properly used anymore. In 3e one could still use the 1st and 2nd edition modules and supplements with only a change to the monsters and traps. Now with the re-organization to mobs (erinyes = succubus = demon...err devil) and what have you they basically say "Oh, your old modules are worth nothing except the plot."
THAT is what bothers me the most.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I first heard about the changes for 4th ed: This time, you have to start anew, because there is no material left which has any relevance for the Realms of 4th ed. Neither rules nor lore can be used, you have to get the new books.  |
"What mattered our lives now? When our world had been torn from us? Folk wept, or drank, or stood staring out over the land, wondering what new horror each dawn would bring."
Elender Stormfall of Suzail
"Anyone can kill deities, cause plagues, or destroy organizations. It takes real skill to make them live on."
Varl
FR/D&D-Links • 2ed Downloads |
|
|
|
Odysseus
Seeker
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 16:55:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I disagree. They've already produced 2 FRCS's that just advanced the timeline a few years from the previous one... The point of these books isn't to act as nothing more than an update, it's an intro to the setting, as viewed thru the lens of the current version of D&D.
Thats kinda my point. An Intro to the setting as viewed thru 4e , would be a waste of a book, much like players guide to realms was. I look at the 100 years advancement as a sign that they are trying to put something more substantial out that an intro to the setting. But thats all my humble opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Alaundo
Well met
Aye, I must admit this is one thing which doesn't bode well with me. The lack of conversion from 3.5 to 4 is a little inconsiderate. Having to scrap long-standing characters who can't be converted will understandably upset a few players.
That to me is the biggest obstacle. I have all these 2e & 3e realms books. And if they are not easily convertable to 4e, I probably won't convert either.
Although reading the wotc R&D blogs. You will notice the first thing they did when getting 4e rules was convert their 3e characters. So just because they aren't producing any convertion guides doesn't mean you can't convert the characters. And I suspect converting 2e material to 4e might be easier than converting to 3e.
|
“Anybody can become angry, that is easy; but to be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose, and in the right way, that is not within everybody’s power, that is not easy.” —Aristotle |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 18:03:03
|
Curiouser and curiouser...
I often joke about how I am constantly seeing my House Rules appear in newer editions of sourcebooks as time goes on. Nothing new there - different people can come to the same coclusions when developing a logical set of rules. In fact, two of the optional rules systems presented in UE were identical to my own... uncomfortabley so.
Now I have a confession to make - I'm not nearly as creative when it comes to 'crunch' as I lead people to believe. 90% of my 'crunchiness' comes from adapting another old and forgottoen set of RPG rules to work within the D&D framework. Recently I adapted a section nearly 'whole cloth' for the Elven Netbook thread, when I was writing variant rules for the Racial Paragon Classes in UE.
The rules were all about using foci (wands, staffs, and even tiaras ala Elrond) to effectively allow casters a bit more power with their magic. At the time I wrote that, I also saw the connection to Harry Potter magic, but her first novel was written some 15 years AFTER the rules system I'm using for my adaptions.
So, after reading the stuff in that link that KEJ posted, it makes me wonder all the more.
Is someone at WotC using an old edition of Chivalry& Sorcery to write at least some of these rules changes? It could just be my imagination, but the fact that the two sub-systems from UE that I mentioned earlier will probably make it into the core rules really makes me wonder...
Perhaps I'm just being paranoid...  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 19:45:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
quote:
Originally posted by Mkhaiwati
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Food for thought - someone over at the WotC boards brought up the fact that Candlekeep might be gone a hundred years from now. 
So.... should we start throwing around new names now....
How about... Hamsterburg or Furrykeep?
Hey, I'll vote for either one of these!
I can support either name. 
All joking aside, someone else has already embraced both my concepts and is going forward with a 3e FR site to continue material in the current timeframe. The site, and even the name - Libraries of Darkhold, are very reminiscent of what we do here.
http://d20academy.co.uk/default.aspx
If they come out with a Darkhold Compendium, do we go to war? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Sep 2007 19:46:45 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 20:25:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asgetrion
As I somehow had feared and suspected, Shar's actions will cause Mystra to die, and this will be the cause of the Spellplague. I just wonder why none of the other deities assumes the Portfolio of Magic, which is what always happened before -- why wait for a hundred years? Or will there even be a God/Goddess of Magic after the Spellplague has passed? It seems that Azuth, Velsharoon and Savras will all either perish or pass to the Astral Plane, which would hint that there will be only a single deity of magic, or none.
It also appears that there will a 'harrowing down' of dwarven deities, too. Let me make a bold assumption here: Deep Duerra and Laduguer had to be killed because Psionics will either vanish altogether from 4E or become completely 'optional' or possibly even a 'variant' type of magic. The latter option would indicate that the deity of magic would govern over them.
Hmmm, this is interesting that they released that much in GHotR. I will miss Mystra, but at the same time, I wouldn't be adverse to having magic deities who govern "types" of magic. For instance, having Savras (divinations), Azuth (transmutation & abjuration), Velsharoon (necromancy), Leira <after somehow coming back and whacking Cyric> (illusion), Talos/Malyk (invocation/evocation), Shar (shadow magic, enchantments), Set (unholy magic), maybe someone else could promote "planar magics" such as what falls under conjuration/summoning now... or maybe have planar/transport magic separated from summoning/binding magic and give over summoning/binding to Shar or Velsharoon.
As to the reduction of the dwarven pantheon, I'm surprised at this. I really liked Deep Duerra and Laduguer. Even if psionics goes away, Deep Duerra could stay around as the dwarven god of "dark" magic (i.e. necromancy, summoning, mental usurpment). Would definitely make an interesting thing where some communities of duergar are more warrior-esque followers of Laduguer. Others would be developing a more mage like culture (with warrior mages too) following Deep Duerra. The two might not get along even, some blaming the other for spell plague deaths, etc... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 21:00:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Didn't know if anyone had seen this yet, but there is a new article on Wizards about the direction of the Wizard class and "implements."
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070917a
Good, perhaps this will be a way to differentiate between the "focused" wizard whose primary goal is wizardry, and the eldritch knight type like I often play. I don't see Sleyvas (or any of his progeny) running around with a staff (unless of course, there's some good combat ability he can put it to as well as serving as a focus).
I do strongly hope that they do put consideration in though for those of us who play mage/ftrs, mage/priests, and mage/thieves though. That was something clearly missing in 3.0 rules. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11808 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2007 : 21:14:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
It seems that the designers were worried about wizards having to rest for 8 hours once they used up their spells, and that at high levels wizards had too many spells to prepare. Alright, you could actually change wizards so that they had a set number of spell slots, that they can fill with whatever spells they wanted to, and they only have a maximum level spell that they can cast. They could have refined the "reserve feat" system for having minor magical effects available if you have a more powerful spell still prepared and uncast. They could even have set up a "rest for an hour, get back X number of spell slots" mechanic that would allow a wizard to still have to rest and study their spellbook, but wouldn't require a full "night" of "camping."
I could be wrong, and I'm not a professional game designer, but it seems there was a lot of room to play with this class without tearing down the system and rebuilding it from scratch.
I'll agree there. I'm extremely worried about the level rebuilding of spells. Also, as you say, much of this could have been redone with a system like the reserve feats (which needed work, but was at least an idea in the works). It seems almost like they said "Wow! Warlocks are COOL! People like 'em... but now the wizards are mad! We gotta give wizards auto-reloading spells too!". Its kinda weird, we went from 2nd edition where the ultimate spells were ones that made you not have to sleep and/or refilled spell slots right after you cast them... just because it could take two days or more to re-memorize your spells at the upper levels. Then in 3rd edition, it only took an hour, no matter how many spells it was, but you still ran out. Now, its gonna be you never actually run out. Again, if you wanted to never run out of blast spells, couldn't the reserve feat idea have been fixed better (again, its mechanics need work, which really makes me worry about what the idea is that they have for 4e... since they would've been testing it around the same time)? |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Warrax
Learned Scribe
Canada
128 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 00:25:59
|
As far as worrying about spells running out, I think the newer systems cheapens the game.
Before, you had to work to acquire or craft scrolls, wands, rings of storage, things like that. You could hang spells with baldrics or mantles, use various magical items to supplement your craft, you had to use guile and forethought to plan your usage of magic...
Precisely because it was finite.
That whole aspect of the game has been withering away for a while now and I think that lessens what it means to be an arcane wizard, at least ITO the roleplaying game.
Sorcerers and warlocks and stuff are great but they're different and more limited in what they can do... wizards have heretofore been the most versatile of that casting group but the trade-off has been their finite supply of spells. It's a definite boo-urns to have that overturned. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 00:31:12
|
I just read the Design & Development bit about wizards in 4E. I guess that one of the reasons that 3rd Edition wizards are difficult to convert seems to be that they're cutting the Schools of Magic completely from the system, and replacing them with organization-like 'traditions' that rely on using the 'implements' (Orb, Staff and Wand). It seems that these 'implements' act somewhat like the 'foci' in UA (boost your spells) and each of the traditions rely on one of them. Seems like more work for Eytan, if they are going to be dropped into FR. I was just wondering if domains will be also cut and clerics will have to choose from a number of traditions, too? 
All in all, I don't like this change. It feels like an amalgam of influences from Lord of the Rings ("Hey, those Palantiri rock! And it was so *cool* to watch Gandalf and Saruman blasting each other with their staves!") and Harry Potter ("Isn't Harry using his father's wand? Maybe D&D wizards should all be using wands, too"). Or maybe the designers have accidentally bought some Tarot decks instead of MTG boosters?
IMHO the schools worked pretty well as a system in all the previous editions, and I felt it was easy to create a specialist wizard if you didn't want to play a 'generalist'. Now it appears that all these 'traditions' force you to specialize, one way or the other. I was just wondering why they didn't create more 'implements' and traditions -- or don't wizards rely on rings or amulets anymore? Any weapon also thematically fit the bill, especially if you're going to multi-class to fighter or playing an 'eladrin'.
Maybe the designers should have taken a good look at how 'Ars Magica' handles talismans (and magic in general), because apparently there are some mechanical similarities in 4E. These similarities to Ars Magica might be the reason why, in my opinion, 4E will feel like a half-hearted attempt to revolutionize the D&D magic system without any truly original innovations. |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 19 Sep 2007 00:34:38 |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 00:49:28
|
| Would drawing influence from the Lord of the Rings films and the Harry Potter books be very different from Gary's process when he used the magic he liked from Vance and de Camp and Pratt? |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 00:54:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Would drawing influence from the Lord of the Rings films and the Harry Potter books be very different from Gary's process when he used the magic he liked from Vance and de Camp and Pratt?
No, but should we be shifting the magic system with each edition based on what is popular in fantasy at the moment? I understand what you are saying, and if it was just a logical choice, I wouldn't mind so much, but I can't help but wonder if there isn't a little pandering to the theoretically young potential gamer that they are afraid can't "handle" the current magic system, but "gets" Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
Plus, I wouldn't mind there being more than one arcane caster type, one of which could be "Vancian" and another which could be more LOTR/Harry Potter item focused. I just don't like that "the" wizard has shifted dramatically in 4th edition. |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 01:29:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skeptic
That's definetly not the right thread for doing it but..
Let's start from that basic thing you want in D&D, try to explain why you want these *sacrifices*, what kind of balance does it achieve ?
The short reply: 'Sacrifices' enhance and promote role-playing and in general get your players more involved and invested in their characters and their characters' lives.
The longer reply: 'Mechanical sacrifices' are built into the system as the counterpart to rewards (XP, Feats, Skills, Treasure, Increase in social status, etc.). They are there to remind players that power, and rewards, come at a price -- they are the 'hard choices' that affect your character in mechnical ways. Let me give you some examples: "Do I *really* want to create this Sword +4 to our group's fighter, if I will lose a level in doing it?" or "Do I still keep fighting these monsters and protect my friends, although I'll probably die before the wizard gets that slaying spell finished?" or "Do I *really* want to engage those undead, if it means that I'll most likely permanently lose some Con points?" or "Do I really want to max-out that skill, while neglecting my other class skills?" or "Do I *really* want to cast that Wish to resurrect my reckless barbarian friend for the ninth time in a row?" etcetera. These mechanical sacrifices usually make a player to care more about his character, and the other PCs, too. Note that it *is* important that all players care about their characters -- if not, why would they want to role-play them properly or care about their issues, dreams, goals and even eventual fates (which are represented by 'Social' and 'Moral' sacrifices in the game)?
As noted in the previous sentence, 'Social' and 'Moral' sacrifices are more 'intangible' in nature, because they don't affect your character in any mechanical way in D&D. They are the social and moral 'hard choices' your characters face in their lives. For example: your character becomes the ruler of his home-town and hears of an abandoned dragon's hoard half the world away while at the same an orc horde is marching towards the town -- do you abandon your own family and the rest of the town to their fate, or leave the dragon's treasure to be claimed by other adventurers to save your loved ones? So, essentially, these sacrifices serve to get players *emotionally* more invested in the same things and issues their characters care about.
If mechanical sacrifices are completely eliminated from the rules (as seems to be the case), the system is not in balance anymore. Yes, rewards are "COOL" and "FUN" (official WoTC keywords you can tag 4E with   ) but they should not be *ALL* the game is about. I like that players need to make 'hard choices' beyond "Oh my god! This is so wrong -- I have to wait until the next before I get the 'Supreme Cleave' because I want to have 'Blades of Fury' now!" -type of things, for the reasons I posted above.
And *this* (the elimination of all the mechanical sacrifices) is the primary reason why I think that (from my and my friends' perspective) WoTC is going the wrong way with 4E, and most likely it is going to be an edition of D&D we don't want to play.
Does this answer satisfy you?  |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
|
|
|
Asgetrion
Master of Realmslore
Finland
1564 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 01:37:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
Would drawing influence from the Lord of the Rings films and the Harry Potter books be very different from Gary's process when he used the magic he liked from Vance and de Camp and Pratt?
Well, I think that 'Orbs' as implements are a bit funny -- wouldn't Rings, Tomes/Books and Amulets have suited D&D better?
As for Harry Potter -- can you seriously play a wizard that waves a wand (Potter-style) as he casts each spell? I think that whatever you think of the 'Vancian Magic System', it certainly suits D&D thematically far better than this...
Oh, by the way, did you hear that 'Power Word, Kill' will be replaced by something called 'Avada Kavadra'? |
"What am I doing today? Ask me tomorrow - I can be sure of giving you the right answer then."
-- Askarran of Selgaunt, Master Sage, speaking to a curious merchant, Year of the Helm |
Edited by - Asgetrion on 19 Sep 2007 01:43:16 |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 02:17:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Faraer
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Granted, I didn't expect those guys to get on stage and tell us that their upcoming products were mediocre and "same old same old", but in truth I think a lot of what they talked about isn't anything particularly "revolutionary".
Wizards aren't saying 4E is revolutionary, because that's a direct claim that would incite doubt. The buzzword is the innocuous-seeming 'evolution', used in a powerful form of verbal deception known as presupposition, common in advertising and propaganda, which leads people to accept claims not made directly: here, that what's new is better (distastefully exploiting popular misunderstanding of evolution).
Very true--I'm definitely getting that vibe from them. Of course, that kind of marketing always works because people tend to want new stuff over old stuff, especially when it is subtly implied that you'll be "left out in the cold" if you don't buy the new products.
|
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 02:53:32
|
| As far as the new magic system goes--I read that article, and it doesn't look like we've been told much yet. But personally, in my Realms, I'll be sticking with the old system--it's what I know and what I like. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
|
|
|
Jorkens
Great Reader
Norway
2950 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 07:12:41
|
| From what I hear this magic system seems interesting and could be included in a very interesting game world. Strangely enough, the last thing I think about here is Lord of the Rings or Potter. But to try to modify existing game worlds to these new core rules will be ridiculous, whether it be the Realms, Dragonlance or Grayhawk. |
|
|
|
Thauglor
Acolyte
Brazil
36 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 07:18:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
[Very true--I'm definitely getting that vibe from them. Of course, that kind of marketing always works because people tend to want new stuff over old stuff, especially when it is subtly implied that you'll be "left out in the cold" if you don't buy the new products.
Hehehe. It is really quite funny you'd say that, Rinonalyrna. I do agree that it will certainly work for new gamers. As for me, well... since my players trust me to get them the best in the setting, in adventures and in rules, I'm certain I won't be left out in the cold. I'll always have the company of my 100+ kg of 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 edition books. You know... for the first time since all this hubbub about 4e began I'm feeling quite comfortable with all the books I already own. Thx. |
|
|
|
Thauglor
Acolyte
Brazil
36 Posts |
Posted - 19 Sep 2007 : 08:26:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
As far as the new magic system goes--I read that article, and it doesn't look like we've been told much yet. But personally, in my Realms, I'll be sticking with the old system--it's what I know and what I like.
Unless WotC stops trying to "adapt" (did I really say that?  ) the Realms to these very questionable new rules and seriously produces something of value about game and magic mechanics, I'm scrapping it all and staying with the old ways.
Concerning magic, this "novelty" of traditions seems a big nonsense to me which will only limit the possibilities of Wizard creation and roleplay. Traditions certainly tend to incorporate preferences in a variety of social aspects and in magic it would not be different. But social preferences are far apart from "physical" limitations. I hope I'm wrong but, right now, limiting factors are exactly how traditions seem they will behave.
And what about orbs, wands and staves? Should they also limit magic? Noooooo!! I can even understand traditions favouring this or that magic and wondrous item. I also understand a specific item being best suited for a certain spell or class of very similar spells, due to its inherent characteristics (such as an orb for a clairvoyance spell and a staff to hold more potent fireballs).
But saying such and such item (sorry, implement) focuses magic of a particular discipline or tradition more effectively is mixing the social aspects of traditions with the physical characteristics of the implement itself. I'm so sorry but it disgusts me to even think of such a shallow and naive approach.
I'm really tempted about going back to refining my own system (which I've already talked about in this thread). It allows for greater flexibility of spellcasting, firstly because it incorporates metamagic-feat effects only and secondly because fatigue is a very important aspect of the system.
Can WotC come up with even nicer rules? Certainly! But will they? |
|
|
|
Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
Great Reader
USA
7106 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 00:55:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thauglor
quote:
Originally posted by Rinonalyrna Fathomlin
[Very true--I'm definitely getting that vibe from them. Of course, that kind of marketing always works because people tend to want new stuff over old stuff, especially when it is subtly implied that you'll be "left out in the cold" if you don't buy the new products.
Hehehe. It is really quite funny you'd say that, Rinonalyrna. I do agree that it will certainly work for new gamers. As for me, well... since my players trust me to get them the best in the setting, in adventures and in rules, I'm certain I won't be left out in the cold. I'll always have the company of my 100+ kg of 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5 edition books. You know... for the first time since all this hubbub about 4e began I'm feeling quite comfortable with all the books I already own. Thx.
Oh, of course there's no logical basis in that kind of fear advertising (and in a way, that's exactly what it is), but advertising is all about appealing to the emotional side of people. It's very much in any company's interest to send the message that if you don't buy their products, you'll be missing out on something fun, that everyone else will have and you won't...
I'm not knocking WotC for their advertising (it's part and parcel of being a business), but I think it's beneficial to be aware as a consumer about the ways in which you're being manipulated.
PS: I'm probably not going to buy much 4E stuff either, because I (as you probably already know) dislike the apparent new direction of the FR setting. |
"Instead of asking why we sleep, it might make sense to ask why we wake. Perchance we live to dream. From that perspective, the sea of troubles we navigate in the workaday world might be the price we pay for admission to another night in the world of dreams."
--Richard Greene (letter to Time) |
Edited by - Rinonalyrna Fathomlin on 20 Sep 2007 00:57:21 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 02:36:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jorkens
From what I hear this magic system seems interesting and could be included in a very interesting game world. Strangely enough, the last thing I think about here is Lord of the Rings or Potter. But to try to modify existing game worlds to these new core rules will be ridiculous, whether it be the Realms, Dragonlance or Grayhawk.
I quite agree.
The system sounds very interesting, but the whole things seems wrapped up in its own lore. A NEW world would have been the way to go with this - they could have launched it as the 'core' setting for 4e, and then provided us with 'updates' if we wanted to use it. It just seems like so much more work trying to 'shoe-horn' this system into the old settings.
Although I wouldn't have minded seeing them bring back Mystara for 4e core.
Edit: A funny thought occurred to me just awhile ago, while I was busily going over my maps. When they decided to do 3e, someone got it into their head that there was too much empty space on the map, so the map was twisted, and parts of it shrank, bringing all the civilized regions closer together.
Now, with 4e and 'points of light', they tell us there is too much civilization close together, so they need to destroy a bunch of it to create 'wide open spaces' once again.
WTF? They created the problem, and now we get 'nuked' because of their lack of forsight?
Just thought I'd share my latest epiphany. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 20 Sep 2007 17:47:41 |
|
|
|
Na-Gang
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
348 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 12:25:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Edit: A funny thought occurred to me just awhile ago, while I was busilly going over my maps. When they decided to do 3e, someone got it into their head that there was too much empty space on the map, so the map was twisted, and parts of it shrank, bringing all the civilized regions closer together.
Now, with 4e and 'points of light', they tell us there is too much civilization close together, so they need to destroy a bunch of it to create 'wide open spaces' once again.
WTF? They created the problem, and now we get 'nuked' because of their lack of forsight?
That's a very good point. Oviously, we still can't be sure how 4E will fully change the Realms, but it seems that's the way they're going. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 17:42:46
|
A new journal entry from Christopher Perkins.
"There's a thread on our message boards stemming from a really interesting question: Why muck around with the D&D "story"?
The short answer is that the R&D team would only be doing half its job if we just focused on mechanical innovation. In addition to being a great rules system, D&D is a rich intellectual property. We would be remiss if we didn't put a certain amount of flavor in our core rulebooks. People relate to proper names (Pelor, Vecna, Ioun, Hommlet, the Temple of Elemental Evil, etc.), even if they don't include these names in the lore of their home campaigns.
We're also storytellers, and we have folks on staff whose primary job is to develop the "story" of D&D. Thus the D&D world, in the generic sense, is receiving as much scrutiny as the D&D rules. The primary goal of this exercise is to inspire adventures. We also want to integrate new elements of the game into the lore of the world and contribute something new and exciting to the D&D world.
Inspiring Adventures
Going back to 3rd Edition for a moment, I don't think the warmage class was negatively impacted by the inclusion of Tarth Moorda, a warmage academy, in the class description (see Complete Arcane, page 12). In fact, I've used Tarth Moorda in my games because it's a cool adventure site. The 4th Edition "points of light" concept (discussed here) inspires adventures in a different way, by giving DMs the flexibility to build their campaigns on the fly and make sure that the heroes don't know what awaits them at the end of every road.
The D&D cosmology — largely unchanged since 1st Edition — is receiving its share of scrutiny as well. We're making revisions to the cosmology so that the planes work better as adventure sites. Case in point, the individual Elemental Planes (as decribed in 2E and 3E) aren't the most interesting adventure locations; their inhospitability, vastness, and uniformity discourage exploration, and the creatures that dwell there are predictable and easy to thwart if you're packing the right spells. (Of course, these planes don't hold a candle to 2E's hilarious Plane of Vacuum, which is truly the antithesis of fun.) In the Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters book, we'll present in more detail 4th Edition's alternative to the Elemental Planes of Water, Fire, Earth, and Air. My hope is that the cosmological changes will excite players and actually encourage DMs to set adventures in these far-flung locales.
Integrating New Elements
We have new stuff in the core rules. For example, as many of you know, the tiefling now appears as a core race in the Player's Handbook. Tieflings have a dark edge to them, and they have some fun new game mechanics as well. Their story is a particularly interesting one, involving diabolical pacts and ancient tyrannical empires. Of course, whether you choose to adopt that story or create a different origin story for your campaign is entirely up to you.
The tiefling's inclusion in the core rules compelled us to imagine what the D&D world would be like with tieflings around in greater numbers. It also gave us added incentive to include the warlock class in the Player's Handbook, since tieflings and warlocks are an excellent match story-wise and flavor-wise. (Just so we're clear, tieflings can belong to any class in 4th Edition, not just warlocks. I'm playing a tiefling cleric in a current 4E playtest. His name is Zade Shadowhorn, and he worships Erathis, the goddess of civilization.)
Contributing Something New
The new edition isn't just about new rules that improve the quality of game play; it's about new ideas to help DMs build their campaign worlds and their adventures. We can't keep revisiting the same places and re-using the same names, cool as they might be.
One of the joys and privileges of working at Wizards of the Coast is the ability to expand the story and lore of our games. When Dave Noonan writes a D&D adventure and makes reference to a new demon lord named Mu-Tahn Laa, he's giving DMs everywhere something from his home game that they can pillage for their own campaigns. He's also added something to the ever-growing wellspring that is D&D. Gary Gygax did the same thing waaay back in the days of 1st Edition, populating his published work with elements from his Greyhawk campaign.
Many of these purely "flavor" elements are still around in 4th Edition because they resonate with us and with fans. But there's also new stuff. (As far as I can tell, Mu-Tahn Laa doesn't appear anywhere in the 4E core rulebooks, but I know Dave's working on the DMG right now, and he's a sneaky guy.)
Everyone Has Opinions
In tinkering with the "story" of D&D, we want to make sure that we don't turn it into something that's not D&D. That's a bit of a trick, because everyone has their own opinions about what's D&D and what's not. No specific example illustrates this point better than psionics, which has been in the game since 1st Edition (and was even in the 1st Edition Player's Handbook). However, some people rebuke it, saying "that's not medieval fantasy!" Maybe they're right. The story team assigned to 4th Edition is committed to making it work. (That said, rules for building psionic characters don't appear in the Player's Handbook. However, we are building these rules now so that they're integrated with the core system.) Naturally, a DM can still choose to disallow psionics in his or her campaign; I heartily empower all DMs to make the call that's right for them and their players. That includes scrubbing the D&D cosmology, the D&D core pantheon, or whatever else doesn't work in your home game.
__________________
Chris Perkins
Design Manager, RPGs and Miniatures
Wizards of the Coast, Inc." |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 18:01:24
|
They are moving back to a more 'planar savy' setting? How will that effect FR? Have they rethought that 3e design decision as well?
Also, he specifically keeps talking about 'core' D&D, but several designers have already noted that they are trying to move away from the concept of 'core' and 'FR' rules...
The more we hear, the more likely it seems the new game won't resemble the old much at all. I hope they give us something concrete about FR when the first Insider comes out in October. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4687 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 18:08:20
|
Which all in all comes down to if you do not like our changes, do not change the lore, but still buy the "improved" rules. *shrugs*
It will not work well, it still will be "breaking the Wheel" an offering a new magic system, new combat system, etc. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 20 Sep 2007 : 18:26:22
|
| Who knows, in 6 years we will be playing D&D 5E (or will it be 6E already??) and maybe in that one they will have reverted back to some older rules....but I will wait and see exactly what 4E is before panicking too much (a bit is ok) :) |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
D&D 4e Discussion Scroll
