I think I'll pass. I have been buying less and less of the supplements with each edition because the writers seem to be moving away from the "old guard" that helped to make it what it is now. Such is the way of many things -- progress, dontcha know? While some of the changes made seem to be pretty cool, the majority of them are specifically geared for the younger crowd, and are not my cuppa tea (as I sit in my rocker, sipping, cane on one side and oxygen on the other, cat curled up on my feet, etc ...).
(1st edtion) AD&D, while touting itself for "ages 10 and up" was actually written for the college crowd, by a then-in-college crew. They knew what gamers wanted and allowed them to add it to see if it worked. If it did, fine. If it didn't, it was gone and the game moved on. That simple. And now the game is dictating how the game will evolve? If you thingk that is not true, you haven't played the boxed set or first edition AD&D, played them as they were meant to be played -- with liberty and enjoyment for all.
Not that I don't want to see the game progress, but it has already lost much of what it was famous for among the gaming community. I still run table-top games in 1st ed. and/or 2nd ed. (which I have all the supplements for), 3rd ed. (for which I have some supplements), but not 3.5e (there, I only have the core books). The "older" editions still interest me and my players, so I'll stay with them and stop spending money on books for a game that has "evolved" out of its own shell, as it were. The experts say that it's walking on it's own two feet, but what is it that's walking? It is so unlike the original creation of "mad doctors" (who, by the way, left the lab and sold it) that it just shouldn't be called by the original name. The new "creatng company of geniuses" is just rolling around in the laurels of the original makers ...
Posted on 2008-01-31 at 17:02:16.
Edited on 2008-01-31 at 17:04:53 by Zonk
I was curious last night, and went to the wizards.com forums to see if they filter out bad comments about dnd edition 4. They did in a way, but there are some forums where people express their distaste.
I realized something as I was reading those things... had they put all these new ideas in a new campaign setting or a book called: 'alternate Player's Handbook', it would not have been all that bad. I would've been like a Player's Option that we had in 2nd edition. It's this whole new edition so soon after 3.5 that makes it so rediculous.
They blame it on the fact that too many loops and flaws have come up in the rules. Basically, it's just that they had nothing left to write about and so they make a reason to keep on creating new material.
Now I don't object to them making money off their product, but there are plenty more ways they could've continued writing books. For instance: when was the last time a decent adventure came out that wasn't a remake of an already existing one?
Oh well... I know now for a fact that I don't need to look into the 4th edition rulebooks for anything more than the artwork.
Well the justification for 3rd edition was that there were so many (obscure) rulebooks out there, that AD&D had become quite arcane and unwieldy. At the time I agreed. 3rd ed. seemed like a natural continuation of the Skills and Powers book and Combat and Tactics, both of which I liked.
But now they're using the same justification for 4th edition. If it is the case that there are too many books out there, and that they're not of a very high quality, then why did they release them in the first place? And are they trying to say that their customers are mugs for buying them at all?
More to the point, do we honestly believe that there will not be a whole series of more splat books in the future?
And I agree absolutely with what you're saying about adventures Almerin. The day of creating really good adventures as supplements has died. The last one I was actually motivated into buying was War of the Spider Queen and that was 5 years ago (and I think it could have been improved in places).
Posted on 2008-05-08 at 18:31:03.
Edited on 2008-05-08 at 18:33:50 by Ginafae
Pretty much everything you have mentioned so far concerns fluff and not crunch, and I'm sure that fluff is not the reason why most of you would buy a new edition of D&D. I would be interested in seeing specifically what you dislike about the game mechanics of 4th edition.
As for 4th edition being premature: I mentioned the upcoming release to a friend who is not a gamer, and he laughed when I said that a lot of people think five years between editions is too short. After all, compared to similar hobbies, any period of time longer than five years is considered long overdue for a major revision: in this timespan, console gamers will cry out for a new generation, computer gamers will want to upgrade their computers, bands will change their musical style, and movie sequels will premiere. In fact, even governments will typically be changed around or fully replaced at least once within a period of five years. Perhaps roleplayers are just bad at dealing with change? (No offense intended toward the 2e geezers on this forum. )
Posted on 2008-05-12 at 12:16:12.
Edited on 2008-05-12 at 12:28:30 by Scarab