PDA

View Full Version : [4e]Do you feel that you are being alienated by WotC?



Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 08:45 AM
I have seen several posters say that they feel they are being alienated from 4th Edition because it targets a younger audience.

Now I personally am 32 years old and I have been playing D&D for a really long time. I think the first D&D "thing" I ever had as a kid was that old school model kit of the dungeon... anyone remember that? Anyway, I also had the 1e Monster "flash cards" with the stats on the back. This was while I was a mewling baby basically. As I grew up I started playing and here I am.

I don't feel alienated by 4th Edition. On the contrary it looks like they are cleaning it up and making it better, hopefully making it so I can play the characters I want to play. (Dragonborn is a good start)

So, how old are you and do you feel that you are being alienated by WotC playing to a younger fan base.

Note: If you are uncomfortable giving your age, you can give an age range (e.g. over 30, under 40) if you would feel more comfortable.

EDIT:

To define Alienated, just so we are clear:

al·ien·ate (ly-nt, l--) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alienated)
tr.v. al·ien·at·ed, al·ien·at·ing, al·ien·ates
1. To cause to become unfriendly or hostile; estrange: alienate a friend; alienate potential supporters by taking extreme positions. See Synonyms at estrange.*
2. To cause to become withdrawn or unresponsive; isolate or dissociate emotionally: The numbing labor tended to alienate workers.
3. To cause to be transferred; turn away: "He succeeded . . . in alienating the affections of my only ward" Oscar Wilde.
4. Law To transfer (property or a right) to the ownership of another, especially by an act of the owner rather than by inheritance.

*es·trange (-strnj) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/estrange)
tr.v. es·tranged, es·trang·ing, es·trang·es
1. To make hostile, unsympathetic, or indifferent; alienate.
2. To remove from an accustomed place or set of associations.

So, in case you feel that "alienate" is too hostile a term, you can see - it isn't.

Reinboom
2007-12-21, 08:56 AM
I'm 19 personally, though I have played more AD&D (mostly 2e) than 3.x.
I find that I am not alienated, though there are things I do not like. Nothing major and nothing I can't change. It's less than what I change in 3.x (and a LOT less than what I change in 2e).

I'm, personally, looking forward to 4e as a new system for high fantasy that uses a structure that fits my particular taste.

I do not feel alienated.


Ch-ch-Changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I can't trace time

It happens. It's scary. Just more things to try and have fun with - just another possible social interaction. :smallsmile:

squishycube
2007-12-21, 08:57 AM
Non-alienated 22-year old represent. I've started playing in third edition, most of my gaming friends started with second (one or two even dabbled in first edition for a little while).
I am looking forward to fourth edition very much, I hope Mike Mearls brings a lot of the good (in my opinion, obviously) things from Iron Heroes, such as the skill system, feat mastery and challenges and stunts.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-12-21, 09:00 AM
I am as old as my tongue and a little bit older than my teeth. I do not feel WotC is alienating me, any more than Subaru alienates me when they come out with a new model car. I have the same interest in 4.0 as I have in the new model car. When my old car breaks down I will get a new one, when my old D&D breaks down I will get a new one. My tongue is 39.

Matthew
2007-12-21, 09:00 AM
I have seen several posters say that they feel they are being alienated from 4th Edition because it targets a younger audience.

Now I personally am 32 years old and I have been playing D&D for a really long time. I think the first D&D "thing" I ever had as a kid was that old school model kit of the dungeon... anyone remember that? Anyway, I also had the 1e Monster "flash cards" with the stats on the back. This was while I was a mewling baby basically. As I grew up I started playing and here I am.

I don't feel alienated by 4th Edition. On the contrary it looks like they are cleaning it up and making it better, hopefully making it so I can play the characters I want to play. (Dragonborn is a good start)

So, how old are you and do you feel that you are being alienated by WotC playing to a younger fan base.

Note: If you are uncomfortable giving your age, you can give an age range (e.g. over 30, under 40) if you would feel more comfortable.

I think you're taking these comments to extremes. It isn't about alienation; it's just about not being appealed to. I don't like large chunks of 3e and, whilst I don't really know what 4e will be like, I have not so far been impressed with what has been presented.

What I desire from Dungeons & Dragons and what Wizards are providing are increasingly at odds. That's no big deal, it doesn't leave me feeling alienated, it just tells me that my preferences are not in sync with the general fanbase or target audience.

I'm 28, started playing D&D when I was around 13 or 14, stopped playing when I was about 16 in favour of other systems, started playing again at around the age of 22, but actually not as a result of the release of D20, which I was only vaguely aware of, rather as a result of my girlfriend buying me a copy of Knights of the Dinner Table.

Fuzzy_Juan
2007-12-21, 09:03 AM
The products are always geared towards a younger audience...that is how you get new customers into the game. Without new blood, it becomes the old game of your dad and his wierd friends. They try and make it faithful enough to not create too much 'hate' from rabid fanboys, but you can't eliminate it all...as long as you create something that the next generation will like then you have done your part in making the product a long lasting endevor.

Honestly though, rabid fans who don't want anything to change have pretty much written off the parent company since they don't want them to work anymore...such a person is likely to not get any more suppliments, and doesn't want anymore...they are happy with what they have...so...really...from the companies viewpoint...screw 'em. WotC is responsible to their current and more to their future customers...not to some of the fans that don't want anythign to change and won't be buying anything. While those poeple might rant and rave and post flaming messages about how WotC screwed them over or is destroying the game...in the long run those specific people don't matter.

If they choose to become customers of the new game, then their opinion will matter.

Matthew
2007-12-21, 09:04 AM
If they choose to become customers of the new game, then their opinion will matter.

Wrong way round: "If their opinions change, then they will choose to become customers of the new game."

DrummingDM
2007-12-21, 09:07 AM
28 years old, started in 2nd Edition, don't feel alienated.

Caewil
2007-12-21, 09:11 AM
I'm waiting expectantly. If it's anything like SAGA, I will like it.

Dausuul
2007-12-21, 09:16 AM
I'm 31. I was ecstatic when 4E was announced, and I'm still pretty jazzed about it. I don't like everything I'm seeing about 4E, but I like the vast majority.

Morty
2007-12-21, 09:18 AM
Hm. I don't know if I can call it "alienation", but I get the feeling I'm not the target audience of WoTC here. If it's of any relevance, I'm 17.

AKA_Bait
2007-12-21, 09:32 AM
I'm 28.

Really? For some reason I always thought you were older. I guess it was all those words of worldly wisdom. ::shrug::

On the topic:

I'm a 26 year old feller from New York. I enjoy long walks in the park and indie/antifolk shows in the east village. I do not feel alienated by WotC.

Am I thrilled at 4e's release? Not particularly. There is still a TON of classes, races, possible campagin styles in 3.5 that I haven't played yet. Despite it's flaws, I love 3.5. Thac0 drove me away from table top gaming. 3.0 brought me back. So I'd be perfectly happy as a gamer if 3.5 hung around without a new edition to muddy things up for another bunch of years.

However, I'm not alienated, or even ticked off by its release either. That there are so many options still left, and the unappealing ones outnumber the appealing ones greatly, is an indication that the system is becoming a bit saturated.

Also, I recognize that WotC is a company, not a charity. They need to keep putting out products, and people need to keep buying them to stay in business. Because 3.x is so saturated, if they wanted to keep their market, they were approaching the point where they pretty much needed to release a new edition. I understand.

Will I buy the 4e books as soon as they come out? Yes. I want WotC to do well. Will I begin playing 4e right away? Probably not.

Muyten
2007-12-21, 09:42 AM
I'm 31 and been playing for just under 20 years. Personaly I haven't been this excited since 3rd edition came out :)

So far almost everything I've heard about 4E sounds appealing to me.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-21, 09:49 AM
I am 11 and I do not feel alienated by WotC (not yet at least).

Why would an old timer like me not feel alienated you ask?

Well I simply don't know enough about the new edition yet. I don't know for sure that it will be a video game clone or that it will be anime inspired and therefore only apply to fans of anime.

D&D appeals to many age groups as it is and there is no reason, so far, that the new edition will not also have a broad appeal, but to expect advertising to target people in their mid 40s is just not realistic.

I think it will be a matter of taste whether you like the new edition, age won't make much of a difference.

mneme
2007-12-21, 10:02 AM
I'm 35, played AD&D, skipped 2nd edition for better roleplaying games (OTE, CoC, Everway, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vinyard, Feng Shui, etc), and came back to 3.5, not as a pure roleplaying game, but as the rpg/wargame high-challenge game it's actually designed as (If I want storytelling and deep roleplay, I'll play another game. If I want some roleplay mixed with strategic action, I'll play D&D. There's room for both chocolate -and- candy in the world).

4E isn't going to make me use D&D for serious roleplaying games, but it's definately a step up in every concievable way from 3E for what I actually -want- to use D&D for.

Alienation? Not so much; D&D is being redesigned by -my- generation.

Indon
2007-12-21, 10:05 AM
I feel no more alienated now than I did when WotC got ahold of the D&D franchise... and I first learned to think of it as such, a business venture, rather than just as a freeform game.

It's all business. None of it was ever personal.

Matthew
2007-12-21, 10:12 AM
Indeed, and this is the problem with using 'alienated' to describe what was being said about D20, 3e and 4e. What was actually said was that Wizards are not specifically targeting my likes and dislikes, and that people who do share these tend to be over twenty... though that was intended as a ball park figure, not an insult.

Captain van der Decken
2007-12-21, 10:14 AM
I am 11 and I do not feel alienated by WotC (not yet at least).

Why would an old timer like me not feel alienated you ask?


You have a strange definition of old timer.

:tongue:

ALOR
2007-12-21, 10:15 AM
I'm 28 and honestly yes I do. Everything I have read about 4e leads me to believe they are moving in a direction that is diffrent than my desires. However this is just my personal opinion and it seems many others do not agree with that view. Thats very good news for WotC.

edit: Matthew, I used the word alienated, I think he is refering to my comments.

Matthew
2007-12-21, 10:15 AM
You have a strange definition of old timer.

:tongue:

That's eleven Beholder years... :smallwink:


edit: Matthew, I used the word alienated, I think he is refering to my comments.

Whoops, fair do's. Strike one against reading comprehension for me...

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 10:25 AM
I'm 28 and honestly yes I do. Everything I have read about 4e leads me to believe they are moving in a direction that is diffrent than my desires. However this is just my personal opinion and it seems many others do not agree with that view. Thats very good news for WotC.

edit: Matthew, I used the word alienated, I think he is refering to my comments.

Yes, I was referring to your comment.

And I don't think alienated is too strong a word. Perhaps estranged could have been used also though.

Your comments did make me curious though, to see a relative comparison of people who dislike 4e and feel alienated by WotC perceived trend as it relates to their age.

Matthew
2007-12-21, 10:27 AM
Yes, I was referring to your comment.

And I don't think alienated is too strong a word. Perhaps estranged could have been used also though.

Your comments did make me curious though, to see a relative comparison of people who dislike 4e and feel alienated by WotC perceived trend as it relates to their age.

You probably won't get much of a feel for that here.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-12-21, 10:28 AM
Yes, I was referring to your comment.

And I don't think alienated is too strong a word. Perhaps estranged could have been used also though.

Your comments did make me curious though, to see a relative comparison of people who dislike 4e and feel alienated by WotC perceived trend as it relates to their age.


I think both alienated and enstranged are loaded words, both imply strong emotion. Perhaps indifferent is a better choice of word for most of the people who are not excited by 4.0.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 10:35 AM
I think both alienated and enstranged are loaded words, both imply strong emotion. Perhaps indifferent is a better choice of word for most of the people who are not excited by 4.0.

Look back up to my original post; I have edited it to add the definition of Alienated and Estranged. If WotC/D&D once filled your heart with like/love/happiness and now you are indifferent, you are alienated and estranged. I'm just sayin....

Telonius
2007-12-21, 10:37 AM
26 (birthday tomorrow though :smallbiggrin: ). The only alienation I'll feel is if I play a mindflayer. Horrible puns aside, no; no hard feelings. I'll feel just as free to ignore the fluff in 4e as I do in 3.x. From what I've seen so far, some of the mechanics might improve the game.

Leadfeathermcc
2007-12-21, 10:40 AM
Both alienate and enstrange imply hostility as shown in your definitions. Indifferent while one subset of enstranged in the definitions you quoted does not imply hostility. Which is why I would chose it as an apt description. Long live dictionary wars! wheee.


1. without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic: his indifferent attitude toward the suffering of others.
2. having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested.
3. neither good nor bad in character or quality; average; routine: an indifferent specimen.
4. not particularly good, important, etc.; unremarkable; unnotable: an indifferent success; an indifferent performance.
5. of only moderate amount, extent, etc.
6. not making a difference, or mattering, one way or the other.
7. immaterial or unimportant.
8. not essential or obligatory, as an observance.
9. making no difference or distinction, as between persons or things: indifferent justice.
10. neutral in chemical, electric, or magnetic quality.
11. Biology. not differentiated or specialized, as cells or tissues.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 10:41 AM
26 (birthday tomorrow though :smallbiggrin: ). The only alienation I'll feel is if I play a mindflayer. Horrible puns aside, no; no hard feelings. I'll feel just as free to ignore the fluff in 4e as I do in 3.x. From what I've seen so far, some of the mechanics might improve the game.

Well a pre-emptive Happy Birthday strike. :smallbiggrin:


You probably won't get much of a feel for that here.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There are plenty of people here who have an active dislike of 4e and a good number that are at least dis-interested.


Both alienate and enstrange imply hostility as shown in your definitions. Indifferent while one subset of enstranged in the definitions you quoted does not imply hostility. Which is why I would chose it as an apt discription. Long live dictionary wars! wheee.

Yes, but to say that one is simply indifferent, you could imply then that one has always been indifferent towards WotC/D&D/3.X; alienate or estrange though is, IMO, the more apt description since the implication is that there *was* an emotional tie that has now been strained/severed/cut & burned.

DeathQuaker
2007-12-21, 10:44 AM
If WotC's marketing towards a younger age group, I'm not surprised. It's a common thing to do, as FuzzyJuan points out. Older gamers are already hooked; they need to bring younger gamers in. Also, frankly, younger gamers are more likely to go out and buy products at full retail price because they don't know where else to (or bother to) look for stuff (on e-bay, etc.), so I imagine they are a good source of revenue. (This is of course a generalized statement and should not be taken to mean that I think every young gamer falls into this category, and posts from every under-25 on this board explaining that they all get their books for free because of their sweet gamer connections, etc. are not necessary.)

I don't feel that strategy is alienating, because they still put out information and products that are usable by all people.

The only thing that I feel particularly "alienated" about is the increased focus on online interaction, and how more and more stuff is not accessible on their site is not accessible without registration, etc. Dungeon and Dragon were lost in favor of an upcoming online "magazine" (and as a total aside, I read those magazines on the bus to work; can't do that now).

When Wizards put out 3.0 I thought it was extremely cool and gamer friendly that they put so many materials and discussions on their website, no strings attached. Now they are attaching strings--and in some cases, subscription fees--like crazy. I don't want to be part of your marketing records (aka register) just to read about or discuss D&D online.

I get a distinct feel from a move from an open, sharing attitude towards customers to a "members only" feel. It may work for them, and maybe they'll get more out of it from a business/marketing perspective, but it doesn't work for me and makes it far less likely I will visit their site (and therefore be less aware of the products they create that I might want to buy).

Matthew
2007-12-21, 10:46 AM
Perhaps, perhaps not. There are plenty of people here who have an active dislike of 4e and a good number that are at least dis-interested.

Indeed, but you'll mainly be polling a community of people who very much like the direction D&D has taken with 3e. My original contention was that people who don't [i.e. are not enthused and not intended to be enthused by D20, 3e, 4e] would be mainly over 20, but that doesn't mean that most gamers over 20 won't like the direction 4e is taking, if you see what I mean.

Not sure if ALOR changed the meaning of that original statement or if he understands it the way it was intended.

Kiero
2007-12-21, 10:49 AM
Nah, I was "alienated" by 3e. Little I'm seeing with 4e is any better. But then I've not been terribly interested in any edition of D&D since '96 or so.

BardicDuelist
2007-12-21, 10:52 AM
I'm 17. For me, it doesn't feel like they are alienating a specific age group, but rather in trying to "revamp" D&D, they are changing so many aspects of it that it is no longer feeling like D&D, but some strange campaign setting. It seems like all they want to do is focus on "new" aspects rather than show the transition of the older ones into a new format.

Has it alienated me? Well, I started playing GURPS when I saw Races & Classes. I'll still play 3.5.

I see why they are focusing on the new aspects, as they are marketing a new edition, but I am seeing my favorite parts of the game dissappearing (Tieflings being rare and exiotic, which as a PC race they won't be, BARDS, and even Gnomes who did have a large role in my campaign world). Sure, I can wait for 2009 and the new suppliments, but it bothers me that core removes certain things.

EDIT: Lord Silvanos is 11!?

ALOR
2007-12-21, 10:55 AM
Not sure if ALOR changed the meaning of that original statement or if he understands it the way it was intended.

my interpretation of your statement was wrong I believe. "not being in there target demographic" I interpreted to be alienating.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-21, 10:57 AM
Indeed, but you'll mainly be polling a community of people who very much like the direction D&D has taken with 3e. My original contention was that people who didn't would be mainly over 20, but that doesn't mean that most gamers over 20 won't like the direction 4e is taking, if you see what I mean.

Not sure if ALOR changed the meaning of that original statement or if he understands it the way it was intended.

True enough, but it seems people are at least venting their feelings about it, which in and of itself is a good thing.

And as to ALOR's original statement, that merely got the ball rolling for me. Although his original statement had been about gamers 20+, I wanted to see if others who feel alienated by the 4e progression were in the same age range or if it was all over the spectrum. Also, I didn't want it to be "about" ALOR, which was why I didn't quote him in my OP, my intention was to keep it semi-anonymous, so he wouldn't feel I was "calling him out" in this thread. (Which was strictly NOT my intention, ALOR. Like I said in the other thread; your comment, plus the comments of others, made me curious of the ages.)

AKA_Bait
2007-12-21, 11:00 AM
Look back up to my original post; I have edited it to add the definition of Alienated and Estranged. If WotC/D&D once filled your heart with like/love/happiness and now you are indifferent, you are alienated and estranged. I'm just sayin....

Reasonable. I'm still not alienated since I've never had any more emotional attachment to WotC than to Pepsi. Both are, and always have been, soulless corporations whose product I enjoy and will purchase but have no moral or ethical attachment to. When LL Bean started importing stuff... then I felt alienated.


26 (birthday tomorrow though :smallbiggrin: ).

Happy Early Birthday old timer :smallwink:

MrNexx
2007-12-21, 11:00 AM
I wouldn't say I feel "alienated" so much as "disinterested". I did the edition overhaul, both with D&D and with Ars Magica. Most of the threads about 4th edition are too bloated to find information in, I don't really have the motivation to track down other sources of it... so I figure I'll wait until the PH comes out, read it in a Borders or something, and decide if I want to spend money on it.

hamishspence
2007-12-21, 11:01 AM
the membership only content on website is irritating, I remember the days when errata and extra content were yours without messing around.

That said, 3.5 is a bit of a monster, and I am speaking as one who owns virtually every single core, Realms, and Eberron 3rd ed and 3.5 ed hardback and a lot of the softbacks. Not fond of the more far afield campaign settings: Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Iron Heroes, and no 3rd party sources.

Even with this huge investment, I see it as giving me tools to work with. I would pick up the 4th ed ones for comparison even if no other reason, and if i thought the rules mechanics were more fun than 3.5, i would use them.

Yes, the new universe hasn't much support yet: its NEW. Realms fans who like 4th can do some making over of old NPCs, fix things that looked odd in 3rd ed, do a little history rewriting.

Narfell could be tiefling land, change history some so it is devils instead of demons, they are more organised anyway. Dragonborn are harder to add in, but maybe Ruamathar were really dragonborn. It does allow subjects for the REALLY old (30000 year) dragon empires that will actually have reason to support their scaly masters.

In short, I would take the first 3 books, see if they are worth it, then do my own homebrew Realms world (anyone who wants to import 3.5 newer classes into Realms has to do some homebrewing anyway)

If 4th ed Realms rules come out, will modify homebrew to match more closely.

I know, i am a bigger fan of supplements than many, but same principle applies. If 3.5 is too attaching, stick with it, OR make changeover special: big 20+ level campaign climaxing in the Year of Blue Fire, where new rules begin to be used.

ALOR
2007-12-21, 11:03 AM
True enough, but it seems people are at least venting their feelings about it, which in and of itself is a good thing.

And as to ALOR's original statement, that merely got the ball rolling for me. Although his original statement had been about gamers 20+, I wanted to see if others who feel alienated by the 4e progression were in the same age range or if it was all over the spectrum. Also, I didn't want it to be "about" ALOR, which was why I didn't quote him in my OP, my intention was to keep it semi-anonymous, so he wouldn't feel I was "calling him out" in this thread. (Which was strictly NOT my intention, ALOR. Like I said in the other thread; your comment, plus the comments of others, made me curious of the ages.)

It's all good this is the most civil thread i have read when the topic related to 4e, lol.
I do truley feel like they are ditching me in favor of other demographics. I thought more people my age would feel this way as well. Turns out the only 2 people who agree with me in this thread are 17 so what do I know :smallbiggrin:

Crow
2007-12-21, 11:33 AM
I don't feel that Wizards is taking D&D in a direction that matches with my group's preferred style of game. The more they reveal about 4e, the less it feels like "D&D". If it is a good product, and our group does move over, we will be playing "4e". Not "D&D".

It's not alienation. It's like McDonalds. McDonalds doesn't produce a product that I want to put into my body, so I don't buy it. This isn't likely to change, and barring a radical reversal, their menu will continue to add products which I prefer not to put in my body.

If I don't like what 4e brings to my table (which more and more it seems like this will be the case), I won't use it. Wizards is going to develop this thing however they want. People will buy it no matter what. Unless things shift more in the direction of what our group prefers, we will just have to pass on it.

Fhaolan
2007-12-21, 11:52 AM
Let me see. I'm 39. I started playing D&D when I was 8. I started DMing at 10.

Yep. I'm a true grognard. I've been a DM longer than many of you have been alive. :smallbiggrin:

Am I alienated/estranged/feeling left out by 4th? Not really. It's given me some hope, actually, that it will be a game system I can move to that will alleviate some of the issues I'm having with 3.5. Some of the things I've been hearing about 4th edition are things that I agree with, or have already done. For example, that newest silly little video with the Tiefling and the Gnome. That gnome is pretty much exactly how I portray gnomes in my current campaign. A semi-fey mix of gnome, halfling, and goblin. (I didn't have racial niches for all three races in the campaign, so I merged them and mixed them up a bit.)

However, some of the rumours make me... concerned about the homebrewing I will need to do if I convert over. Centaurs are an important PC race in my campaign, as are Gnolls, and it sounds like I will be forced to homebrew them one more time. I'm concerned about possible power creep with the new level ranges of 1-10, 11-20, 21-30. I don't like how 3.x handled levels 11+, and I *really* didn't like 3.x's version of 21+. I hope 4th will be cleaner, but I've got enough imagination to be worried about how screwed up it could be.

Basically, all my concerns are due to lack of information. Without hard data about what's really going to change I can't form a real opinion. Without a real opinion, all I have to go on is history. And... I have a lot of history. I've been around a long time. I know a lot of people who used to be in the industry and WotC specifically (and TSR before that), but I don't know the current crop of writers and editors. I know how easy it will be to make serious changes that will make it so I won't want to convert my campaign because it will be too much effort. Converting to 3.0 was, in hindsight, a mistake as I don't like high-magic/low-consequence campaigns. I prefer high-magic/high-consequence. (I just made up that terminology. High-consequence means that while high-magic is available, the cost of such is enough to justify the existance of non-spellcasters. Nothing is free.) I'm hoping that 4th will address that, otherwise I'm going to try to convert to some other system like GURPs, as I have slowly realized that 3.5 is untennable at higher levels in the kind of campaign world I like to DM.

ghost_warlock
2007-12-21, 12:04 PM
I'm 28 and I don't really feel alienated. If anything, WoW and a lack of a D&D group has resulted in me alienating D&D/WotC! :smalltongue:

I remember waiting with rabid enthusiasm for the release of 3rd edition, much of what I had heard about the edition made it seem worlds better than 2nd edition (even the Player's Option line I had come to love).

So far, I'm nowhere near as excited about 4E. Most of what I've read about it seems interesting but nothing has really grabbed me, yet. Maybe it's because of the following factors:

The demotion of my current favorite PC race (gnome) to the Monster Manual.
I'm feeling the hurt to my wallet more now than I did in the switch from 2E to 3E (most of the 2E books I own I received as gifts whereas I've purchased most of the 3E myself).
I don't have a group for D&D anymore.
After years of tweaking and perfecting my shadowmage class (a constant project since 3E came out, actually), I feel I finally have a solid, playable class. Although I'm currently doing another revision, I don't feel that the new ruleset is likely to show much more than a shadow of support for years to come.
When/if I next find a gaming group, I'll likely end up playing whatever game they're playing.

Artanis
2007-12-21, 12:14 PM
I'm 25 and I don't feel alienated...though admittedly I haven't been playing DnD long enough to get attached to previous editions in the first place :smallwink:

MrNexx
2007-12-21, 12:21 PM
I wouldn't say I feel "alienated" so much as "disinterested". I did the edition overhaul, both with D&D and with Ars Magica. Most of the threads about 4th edition are too bloated to find information in, I don't really have the motivation to track down other sources of it... so I figure I'll wait until the PH comes out, read it in a Borders or something, and decide if I want to spend money on it.

Some clarifications on my thoughts, from the "D&D is too anime" thread:


That said, I think it is the more contemporary view of Dungeons and Dragons, not as a subgenre of Medieval European-inspired sword and sorcery but, instead, as a system for role-playing, which transcends it's original genre. That's not a problem, but it does tend to clash with some people's perception of what D&D is, because that's what it was. If I want to play Asian-based fantasy, I'm not going to play D&D; I'm going to drag out Legend of the Five Rings, because the system better emulates what I'd want from it. If I want to play magical warriors and wizards in a gritty world, I'm going to play Earthdawn, not Eberron. When I look to get away from the D&D experience, I get away from D&D. When I see radical changes or additions being made to the system to better accommodate styles of play that I feel are better covered by other games, I see D&D as getting away from me.

Citizen Joe
2007-12-21, 12:24 PM
I'm 38 and have been playing DND since the basic/expert boxed sets. I was alienated by TSR about half way through their second ed. Complete X set when I realized how crappy the material was becoming. I haven't put a dime into DND since then. Fortunately, WotC has allowed OGL material on the net so I didn't even have to buy 3.x books.

Personally, I feel that 3.X has become bloated with rules and add-ons. It's like a bandage on a patch on a gaping wound without realizing the heart has already been taken out. If I were still buying books I would feel very betrayed if 4.0 turned out to be 3.5 with a larger font.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to happen in order to get DND to 'play' as WotC envisions it... And even as it was envisioned years ago when DND just started.

So, right now, no, I don't feel alienated by WotC.

JadedDM
2007-12-21, 12:29 PM
I'm 25--will be 26 in February. And I believe that D&D stopped catering to my interests with the release of 3E. I'm not even considering the idea of 4E.

I love my 2E games and see absolutely no reason to change over.

hamlet
2007-12-21, 01:22 PM
It's not alienation. I'm sure that WOTC would love to have my money.

What it is, though, is that suddenly I'm finding that the current incarnations of D&D just don't have what interests me. Or, more specifcially, they have so much loaded into them that doesn't interest me. So much of what I liked about my game is suddenly, and conciously, being lined up and shot as "sacred cows" and it's really apparant that WOTC isn't interested in maintaining the tradition that spanned editions for close to 30 years before third edition came out.*

As the days passed and more and more new books came out, I found myself less and less interested in them. Back before WOTC, even bad supplements had something interesting in them for me. Nowadays, I spend $40+ on a book and find out that there's absolutely nothing in it that interests me in the slightest. That's a completely new experience for me. I've never, before now, been able to open a D&D book (or any gaming book to be honest) and find nothing in it that was cool or interesting or applicable to my game. It makes me feel like I just spent $40 on 150 sheets of glossy toilet paper.

All the new and "improved" features that WOTC is now touting as benefits of their new game . . . honestly couldn't care less about them. Or, more specifically, couldn't disagree more with them.

But at the same time, the constant refrain from WOTC is that all those things from the past are old, didn't make sense, stank out loud, etc. And here I sit saying quietly to myself (and sometimes ranting here) that they all made perfect sense to me. I understood them. I liked them. And here comes the new custodian to the biggest name in RPG's, the game system I cut my teeth on (AD&D not 3.x) telling me that my game is out-moded and old fashioned and if I want to keep on gaming with new stuff, I'd better bloody well keep up.

It's not alienation. It's the realization that D&D has taken a hard left turn off the highway that I was just fine traveling along, and that sort of sad, quiet feeling that, really, they aren't interested in having me back in their game. It's sad and kind of unhappy in a way that a guy who would have been happy to move along if only they'd bothered to listen to what I wanted in the game rather than just dismissing it.

It's a "brave new world with such people in it" who aren't "my people" anymore. I'm 26, been playing since I was 10, and my favorite game has outgrown me, or maybe just grown away from me.




*To be honest, I've had a lot of these feelings since the later half of the 2nd edition age.

Dairun Cates
2007-12-21, 01:37 PM
Well, as big of a shock as it is, I don't actually own ANY D&D books. Despite no longer being able to count the games I'm GM'ed on two hands, I've never actually run D&D. It's always something that hasn't appealed to my players too much. The times I'm in a D&D campaign are exclusively as a player.

As such, I'm actually pleased with what I've seen of 4e so far. While I don't entirely like every change, it does seem like they're trying to CHANGE things up and keep them fresh. While some may hate this attitude, I think it's mostly a positive. From a business angle, it brings in new business and new income. From a gameplay angle, it keeps things from getting boring and old without having to resort to unbalanced splatbooks. From a social angle, it means a bigger player-base.

So, while I'm not going to say it's the best edition ever before it's out, everything thing I've seen so far has at least been understandable as a design choice from what I've been taught in my readings and experience as a designer myself. All in all, I'm pretty optimistic about the whole thing.

Oh, and I'm 22.

EvilJames
2007-12-21, 02:09 PM
Not really alienated. Just disappointed nothing about this new game interests me. I was excited about 3rd ed when they announced it, I liked 2nd ed and figured they could only make it better. I was very disappointed with the product they presented me. The D20 system isn't a bad system per say it's just not what I'm looking for WotC hasn't cared about my business since they bought TSR (well to be fair it's really more sine Hasbro bought them and dismantled what was left of TSR) and in turn I don't care about the well being of their company The new D20 seems rushed out to me but that's hardly important I don't expect anything better than what I received last time so I'm not going to bother. There are other games out there now that interest me more and allow me to make the characters I want, rather than random nonsensical anomalies (I mean dragonborn? wtf, and if I ever get roped into playing this new game the first thing I will undo is the new origin for the tieflings)

Actually that raises a question for me How on earth are all the new races going to be added to the previuos campaign worlds? The races are meshed into the cultures and stories of the previous campaigns just placing them there and expecting no one to notice wouldn't make any sense.

Tallis
2007-12-21, 03:33 PM
I don't feel alienated by 4e. I actually like a lot of what they're doing. It feels more like it's inspired by folklore and mythology, which is how I want my games to be.
Of course we haven't seen much in the way of mechanics, but I've looked over Star Wars saga editition and liked most of what was there. Presumably 4e will be similar.
As far as targeting a younger audience? I consider that a good thing. It'll keep the hobby alive. I don't want to see the game die out because it has stagnated and doesn't interest the next generation.
That said, AD&D and 3.x are totally different games. I would still love to play in a 1e or 2e (or even OD&D) if I could find one. I've just never been able to get the same feel out of a 3.x game. 4e looks like it'll improve on 3.x, but it's still not the game I grew up with. I'll probably replace 3.x with 4e and keep looking for an AD&D game to play on the side.

What does alienate me is the move to online supported play. I don't want to have a computer at the table when I'm playing. I do want to be able to take my Dragon magazine with me to work so I can read it on my break. Online support is great, but it should not be necessary to the game (hopefully it won't be) and it's not worth losing Dragon and Dungeon.

PS Happy Birthday Telonius!

kingpain
2007-12-21, 03:47 PM
Alienated? Meh. I'm 30, and have been playing for over twenty years. I enjoyed 1st and 2nd. Then came the optional rules...and that was nice. You really can't argue with more options. 3 and 3.5 were ok, I was just ticked that I'd have to rebuy my books so soon after getting them.
Now, along comes 4e. Will I buy it? Probably not. I game once a week, 6-7 hours at a time. I have all but 2 supplements for Forgotten Realms, every Eberron book and adventure, and countless minis. I would continue to buy 3.5, but am looking at supplements from other d20 that I can modify. I don't like much of what I'm hearing from 4e. To be honest it was a nasty shock logging on and seeing the countdown timer. It's nice that they're fixing EL's but I'm not interested in starting over again from scratch.
Wizards isn't appealing to me with this edition. So I won't buy it. That simple. Rant and rave like a madmen, I won't. But...my money stays in my pocket.

Spreeth
2007-12-21, 04:22 PM
I'm 36, and I've been playing D&D for as long as I can remember. Like the connection between a Wizard and his familiar, the connection between me and WOTC has been a comfortable and reliable source of happiness. It has allowed me to remain in contact with friends for years and years after others have lost contact with their friends, it has stimulated my imagination, and it has drained my pocket-book considerably.

So, when 4th edition was announced, I took it in stride. I had undergone transition from TSR to WOTC, I had seen the birth and death of game settings (including my beloved Planescape), and I had purchased vast amounts of materials from both 3.0 and 3.5 in order to keep up to date with the improvements to the game.

However, the more that I have heard about 4th the more worried I have become. I will still reserve judgment until the books are officially released, but I am starting to feel alienated. And when a Wizard loses its familiar...

Nightgaunt
2007-12-21, 04:29 PM
I'll find out when I have more data to go on for 4th edition. I suspect I may not be interested in taking it on after Core, but it's all academic until I see the rules laid out in front of me. I'm fine with 3.5 with a few changes to the Magic Item creation process and some other details home-brewed to lower the magic rating of the system slightly. Do I feel alienated? Nah, WoTC will do what they suspect will make them the most money, nothing new there.

Sebastian
2007-12-21, 04:47 PM
Alienated? Not really, it isimple like this, for a serie of reasons I never did really liked 3.x, for the same reasons I probably will not like 4D! . No problem, I just will not buy it.

On the plus side I 'm sure there will be some kick-ass videogames from it.:smallsmile:

Oh, yeah, almost forgot, 36.

KIDS
2007-12-21, 05:27 PM
20 here, started playing with 3.0 and am not alienated in the slightest. I like the direction D&D has taken of late though I will also say that 4E came a bit too soon for my taste. I've also tried some 2E and it was ok too.

rankrath
2007-12-21, 05:46 PM
Yes, as I prefer a low magic game. Making half demons a player race, giving everyone some kind of spell like ability, ect, has all given me a distinct magic saturated feel for 4E, something I hate.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-12-21, 06:05 PM
Well as a 'greybeard' at age 40 (41 in April) I guess I'm at the high end of the gaming spectrum - and let me state for the record my surprise that Silvanos is only 11! I was no where near as articulate at your age (most think I'm still not).

I felt a little alienated at first by 4e but mainly because WotC was ending Living Greyhawk, which was one of my primary gaming sources. I've put hours and hours of effort into the game and then I get the announcement that *poof* it's gone.

But it's not so much that I don't like 4e, I'm just disappointed that they will no longer be supporting 3.5. I enjoy 3.5 and I guess I'll keep playing it even if 4e is good (not something I'm certain of but have little information on it).

I've dispensed this advice before and I'm happy to do it again. Wait until 4e comes out and then wait again until others buy it, play it and render their judgement. If you like what you hear, give it a try. If you don't, don't buy it and keep playing 3.5 or whatever else you do like. Vote with your wallets, I'll guarantee that WotC will take notice. If 4e is s$#thouse then it will die a horrible, lonely death and WotC will probably sack some people and go into overdrive to figure out what went wrong.

Either way, we win. :smallsmile:

Yaki
2007-12-21, 06:58 PM
"Hi, I'm Billy Mays. Do you feel that you are being alienated by WotC? Do you feel often tired and depressed after extended sessions of DnD? Do you feel that when the new BBEG shows up, it just won't be the right moment? I used to have the same problem, but i got through it, and now with this LIMITED TIME TV OFFER, you can too! We offer the finest product on the planet. Take a look at this ACTUAL product demonstration:
Before:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/JeanLucPicard.jpg
After:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/JamesTKirk.jpg
This is a $199 dollar value, for the EXCELLENT price of only $9.99! And if that's not enough, call now, and we'll throw in this limited edition gnomish spatula! This offer is not available in all areas. Batteries not included. Call now!"

Serenity
2007-12-21, 07:04 PM
18, and starting to have a few reservations. I was moderately excited when I fst heard about it, partially in backlash ainst all the people raving against the mere announcement. Some of the earl things I heard were very promising. Especially when I picked up ToB; if this was a preview of 4e mechanics, I was very impressed indeed. Some of the things I've heard from the previews, however, are not so nice. Cutting player races srikes me as a very bad idea, it seems silly to write in tieflings but not aasimars, and most of all, I dislike the way their presenting the new edition almost as a campaign setting, with a very specific (and to me unpalatable) cosmology. Nonetheless, I'm reserving judgement until I actually see something concrete.

horseboy
2007-12-21, 08:27 PM
Hmmm. Anyone else catch a feel (http://www.thenoobcomic.com/daily/strip281.html) off this thread or is it just me? Well, to make it easy, I'm 33. I left D&D during 2nd, shortly after they canceled Spelljammer. Though not because of that, really. I just out grew it and didn't really look back. It's no secret my disdain for the awkward and clumsiness of 3.x, but one of the things I really dislike about it is it's half way attempt at being generic, but it's not really. 4th seems to be magnifying this, what with making 1/2 demons core and the like. So I'm an uninterested 3rd party looking in, seeing when the potato salad will start flying.

VeisuItaTyhjyys
2007-12-21, 08:31 PM
Sometimes I felt alienated with d20 Future, and certain campaign settings.

El Jaspero, the Pirate King
2007-12-21, 08:41 PM
I'm feeling shoved aside, but that's because my interest is mostly in variant d20 systems: Arcana Evolved and the like. The fact that (as far as I know*) they haven't yet said 4.$ is going to be OGL means to mean that it is not, especially in the light of the whole "virtual tabletop" aspect of it. It doesn't come off as a money-grab to me...it comes off as a money-and-control-grab, the classic sort of bonehead decision that gets made in boardrooms so very far distanced from the products they control.

That said, I also have a bade feeling about the flavor of this thing. I (and many OoTSers) went to the release event at GenCon, and as a very wise man sitting next to me commented, "This isn't a role-playing game, this is a combat system." Everything I've seen so far gives me the feeling that 4.$ is D&D minis with an XP chart tacked on. I don't play D&D to prove my tactical superiority, I play D&D to tell stories with a bunch of friends! If the point is to streamline combat so we can have more combats per session, meh. Killing orcs can be fun, but I'd rather know why we're killing orcs.


*-Please, please correct me if I'm wrong in this. Please!

Timespike
2007-12-21, 08:54 PM
I don't feel alienated, but I'm wary. Not antipathetic, not pessimistic, wary. I really want to see something concrete before I make any sort of judgment.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-12-21, 08:58 PM
El J,

I was browsing WoTC site the other day and I believe I saw confirmation that at least part of 4e will be OGL and have an SRD, although the details of what will be in them aren't clear yet. I was reading one of the 4e FAQs in the forums.

---

My thoughts on what I've seen are very mixed. I generally like the class re-balancing and moving somewhat away from Vancian casting. I've never liked it very much. Like others I absolutely love Tome of Battle, so if it's an example of whats in store I'm pretty excited.

Pretty much everything else I've seen about it I've had a slightly bad reaction too. None of them are truly deeply horrible, but the combined effect isn't pleasant. I'm almost more worried by the online aspect of it. I've never been a subscriber to any of the magazines, so the idea of basically subscribing to the website isn't pleasant at all.

For the most part I'll reserve judgment until it comes out.

(and I'm 32)

TheOOB
2007-12-21, 11:20 PM
Of course WotC is marketing D&D 4e to younger people, thats where they are going to make most of their money. Older folks either are going to stick to their old editions out of a sense of loyalty without even trying 4e, or they are going to buy 4e because it's D&D and thus they must buy it. It's the younger people who haven't played(or have played little) D&D that they need to market to. Remember, WotC is in this to make money, and thus far they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Me personally, I'm looking forward to 4e. Until I have the book in my hands I can't say what I'll think of it, I'm in a state of "cautious optimism".

Wordmiser
2007-12-22, 01:44 AM
I can't say I feel alienated. I seem to be outside their target audience, but I am being sold by most of the glimpses I've seen at the mechanics.

There are some developments that I strongly dislike already. Chief of those is the announcement that Tieflings and Dragon-people are going to be in the Core races. Both of those have strong fanboy followings (mostly the younger gamers--not that I'm not on the "young" end of the spectrum [I'm 21]--who are already passionate about their Anime, Magic cards and videogames) and strong tendencies toward the already annoyingly-overdone Antihero archetype. The presence of the Warlock in the core classes only furthers those worries (though if it were given a "gritty" and Faustian flavor, that class could be very well executed).

So I suppose I am around the age bracket of the intended audience, but the gimmicks they seem to be using to push their products (anime for the Tome of Battle, fanboy-nerddom for the 4e material) don't tend to be ones that I have any interest in. I'm not alienated, though. I frankly don't care.

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-22, 03:06 AM
I think that the main thing that annoys me about 4th edition is the fact that they made 3.5 fairly recently; 3rd edition didn't last very long so you ended up with like an edition and a half over the course of eight years, which is IMO too much. I think the problem was mostly that 3rd edition just wasn't as good as it could have/should have been.

EvilJames
2007-12-22, 05:18 AM
I think that the main thing that annoys me about 4th edition is the fact that they made 3.5 fairly recently; 3rd edition didn't last very long so you ended up with like an edition and a half over the course of eight years, which is IMO too much. I think the problem was mostly that 3rd edition just wasn't as good as it could have/should have been.

That is also something that bothers me slightly it was over 10 years between other editions but less than or barely 8 for this one.

Swordguy
2007-12-22, 06:51 AM
Put me down for a qualified "yes".

I'm 28, and I've been playing in one form or another since my fifth Christmas when my uncle sat me down with some of his friends in Lake Geneva, WI to learn how to play "a better game of pretend". I started DMing 3 years later after hooking my friends.

What I've always liked about D&D has been its portrayal of the traditional western sword&sorcery genre. No matter what extra fluff was put out for it, the mechanics always seemed to come back to that source.

Since the release of 3.0, though, I've seen WoTC slowly moving away from that genre, or maybe staying with it but diluting it with other influences that, frankly, didn't interest me. And with the later stuff, I've HAD to accept to fluff that goes along with the mechanics that really are needed to maintain balance within the game. This distresses me.

Like Nexx and, I think, Matthew, I play D&D to indulge in that Sword&Sorcery genre. If I want to play something else, I go play anther game. As WotC's influences come less and less from the game I grew up with, and more and more from sources I don't find interesting, I find myself caring less and less about the game. Sure, I'll give 4.0 a shot - I rather like some of the mechanics I've seen, but the fluff is the truly important part - but if WotC continues along the path they've been treading, then the alienation of myself as a customer will be complete, and I'll no longer buy their product. There's always other games out there.

EDIT: Looking at the 4.0 elf article, I think that's a step in the right direction - very Mirkwood elf-y. The jury will remain out until I've seen the finished product, however.

raygungothic
2007-12-22, 12:42 PM
25, started with 2e (well, actually, started with basic D&D... but not very successfully at that age), and no, not alienated.

Of course they market at teenagers. They always have marketed at teenagers, because most new blood introduced to the game is teenage - it's fair enough. This is no different from when I started. The maturity level of a game has little to do with this, it's down to the GM and players and I'm pretty happy with mine.

So there's going to be a new edition... big deal. 3.5 is pretty intimidatingly complex to try to introduce a non-gamer to, and while some of that complexity can be entertaining in its own right it doesn't actually have anything to do with an excellent gaming session. Therefore, if they release a lighter more concise game it'll probably be a good thing. As for my own games, I run what I feel like, and occasionally buy games books to hang it on or loot an idea from. Why should 4e change this? It won't. Nor will it prevent my mine of 3.5 books or 2e books or material from other games from being useful sources of inspiration. I just hope they do something interesting with it - which it is WAY too early to judge. Good luck to them.

Sleet
2007-12-22, 12:47 PM
I'm mid-30s. I only feel alienated in the sense that my favorite campaign setting doesn't look like it will fit terribly well in 4e. Otherwise, I'm peachy keen with it. Looks like it will be a fun game in its own right, even if it doesn't support what I want to do with it.

Balkash
2007-12-22, 01:10 PM
I'm 16, I started off reading the original AD&D books, the first time I actually played (and i mean real table top with a DM), was 3.5e. I still play that. Now I will definately wander through the pages of the new 4e material, see if there is anything interesting that 3.5e doesnt have and I might want to houserule in, but unless 4e turns out to be the most awe inspiring, jaw dropping, epic thing I have ever seen, I plan on playing 3.5e for a long long time to come. It's not that I feel alienated, its just I personally like 3.5e a lot, much more than 1e or 2e.

Brother Pain
2007-12-22, 01:53 PM
I'm 28, and I don't feel alienated at all. Rather the opposite :smallsmile:

I started playing D&D (the red Basic set) around the age of 10-12, but have since drifted to other systems. 3rd Ed. made me come back to D&D, and 3.5 was a great improvement. From what I've heard and read of 4th Ed., I'll be picking up the books when they come out.

(Oh, and this is my first post. Been reading the forums since Haley's aphasia started, but haven't registered an account until now.)

Talya
2007-12-22, 01:55 PM
If they retcon a single bit of fluff in the FRCS, I'll be pissed off.

If they take their fluff changes (including the succubus becoming a devil) as things only for the core rules, and utterly ignore it for FRCS, changing it all back to the way it was before and leaving only the rules as something new, then we'll see how I like the "crunch" of it all.

Bag_of_Holding
2007-12-22, 08:32 PM
20 here. As I feel current 3.5 edition is full of loopholes and abusable typos, I'm looking forward to 4e myself.

kingpain
2007-12-23, 11:37 AM
Ok, read Races and Classes. I'm not impressed. Also found it odd that warforged are in, yet gnomes aren't. I DM Forgotten Realms and Eberron, Eberron mostly, so I'm confused on the impact of an entire nation of Gnomes disappearing. I was hoping this supplement would clarify things, but it was just fluff- like coming attractions at a movie theatre, but we get no movie.

daggaz
2007-12-23, 12:06 PM
I am 11 and I do not feel alienated by WotC (not yet at least).

Why would an old timer like me not feel alienated you ask?

Well I simply don't know enough about the new edition yet. I don't know for sure that it will be a video game clone or that it will be anime inspired and therefore only apply to fans of anime.

D&D appeals to many age groups as it is and there is no reason, so far, that the new edition will not also have a broad appeal, but to expect advertising to target people in their mid 40s is just not realistic.

I think it will be a matter of taste whether you like the new edition, age won't make much of a difference.

You know... I have the hardest time ever believing you are only 11 man. That is a typo, right? Or a joke?

Anyhow, Im 30.5 and I dont really feel alienated. Not that they could or it would matter, Ive never payed a penny to Wizards, Ive always used my friends books or the SRD.

If the book is really good, I might buy it... I like a lot of what I read, (racial stats, melee changes) am fencing on others (new magic vs old magic), and dont care at all for other changes (dragonborn...as a race? its a PrC if anything... loss of gnomes), but that is pretty typical anyhow. We tend to use a few houserules anyhow, and campaign worlds are always made up in my groups.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-12-23, 04:03 PM
I'm now beginning to feel a little alienated.

Making Teiflings a core race, creating a dragonborn race and now bringing drow in as a core race link. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67394)

4E is starting to look like 'Fanboy Central'. Only races that are 'cool' with the younger set are allowed in. I swear, if I could talk Salvatore into writing a trilogy with a cool, bad-a$$ Gnome in it, they would be back into 4e before I could blink.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-28, 07:51 AM
You know... I have the hardest time ever believing you are only 11 man. That is a typo, right? Or a joke?

Yes, it is a "joke".

The point of my post was to say that you may feel alienated by 4E, but the main reason is not that you are old or that you feel old.

People may like or dislike 4E for a variety of reason, but these reasons have a low correlation with age. I think the responses in this thread also supports that point.

Ohh and I am 27 human years, not that it matters much. :smallwink:

Tormsskull
2007-12-28, 08:42 AM
Wow, the average posting age on these boards is a lot higher than I thought. Maybe most of the people I get into it with only argue/debate at a 10th grade level? :smalltongue:

Anyhow, I'm 25, started playing with Basic D&D, and I have been hooked ever since. I think that WotC is definitely taking the game in a different direction than what I would prefer, but they have also had a lot of improvements as well. The OGL is the first thing that comes to mind.

In the end, regardless of the way that the rules change, my group and I will continue to play the game the way that we like it. If the rules change so drastically, then we'll just adopt the parts of 4e that we like and leave the rest.

It would be nice if 4e was spot-on out of the box, and I'm holding out high hopes from some of the advance articles I have read, but we'll all just have to wait and see.

Lord_Kimboat
2008-01-01, 05:05 PM
I think I may have figured where some of the feelings of alienation come from, especially with the older set (like me).

I see role playing as a sort of 'collaborative book'. When I play a character, I'm creating someone like Garion from the Belgariad, Frodo from LotR, Thomas from the Magician; or any of a number of others. My character and the story will be completely unique and the story is the important part.

However, my gaming group see things quite differently. In their spare time, they play computer games, watch television and (much to my horror) haven't read more than two dozen novels since they left school. Further, the television they watch is flashy, full of special effects but often somewhat light on plot and almost always episodic or not long ranging. Again, this is not a criticisms but allows me to understand why they don't consider backstory vital to their character and why they aren't really interested in large story arcs. They don't even baulk at obvious plot devises or even complain about blatant railroading.

I feel that 4E is, quite rightly, attempting to appeal to this second audience. Maybe it is that I have just grown too old.

Thrythlind
2008-01-01, 05:24 PM
Unalienated 30 year old that started missing with D&D around age 5 by watching older brothers play. (inherited their old gaming books so I have an original Fiendish Folio floating around). Made my own, highly simplified version of the game around age 10 or 12.

Now, the only problem I have is when are they going to give us shape-changing fans a basic option other than druid.

I want my shapechanging rogue or fighter damn it.

AslanCross
2008-01-01, 05:46 PM
Not at all. I'm 24, and although I like traditional Western fantasy a lot more than Eastern fantasy, I don't mind them coming together at all. My country's history is all about East and West clashing (and it was that way for almost 400 years), so I don't have issues with the cultural idiosyncrasies of anime creeping into my fantasy.

I watch anime and like some of it, (I still can't stand Naruto, though) and it inspires many of my character designs. I've been playing D&D only for about a little under a year, though I've been exposed to it since the 80s. I run it for an exclusively younger audience, though (hard to find players my age here), and neither of us minds the anime influences much.

Overall I think WotC is doing a good job making money off D&D. That's the point of running a gaming company, anyway. They're adjusting their market to a younger audience, while the old-timers will still buy the product if they want it anyway.

EvilElitest
2008-01-01, 06:42 PM
I just turned 16, i've been playing sense i was 12 and i feel quite alienated. It is not that it is becoming to anime (I like anime by the way) but to video game i think. It is changing what D&D fundamentally is, a role playing experience to a video game "kill it, loot it, move on" experience
Full list of complains can be found on my essay on the topic (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3736311#post3736311)
Caution, ranting
For the record i love D&D and it really saddens me to see it degrade so much:smallannoyed: i feel like what i started playing the game for (role playing in a realistic and engrossing manner) is being lost
from
EE

Conjurer
2008-01-01, 08:18 PM
30 years old (and I've been playing for 13 years, if that matters), not really alienated, but a little worried about a few items from WotC. That said, I think that there are also a few interesting things hinted at by WotC, so right now, I plan to look at the finished rules once they are public, and if turns out I don't like it, no harm, no foul... I can keep playing any of the older systems I enjoy with the material I already have.

masamonkey
2008-01-02, 02:53 AM
I'm feeling shoved aside, but that's because my interest is mostly in variant d20 systems: Arcana Evolved and the like. The fact that (as far as I know*) they haven't yet said 4.$ is going to be OGL means to mean that it is not, especially in the light of the whole "virtual tabletop" aspect of it. It doesn't come off as a money-grab to me...it comes off as a money-and-control-grab, the classic sort of bonehead decision that gets made in boardrooms so very far distanced from the products they control.

That said, I also have a bade feeling about the flavor of this thing. I (and many OoTSers) went to the release event at GenCon, and as a very wise man sitting next to me commented, "This isn't a role-playing game, this is a combat system." Everything I've seen so far gives me the feeling that 4.$ is D&D minis with an XP chart tacked on. I don't play D&D to prove my tactical superiority, I play D&D to tell stories with a bunch of friends! If the point is to streamline combat so we can have more combats per session, meh. Killing orcs can be fun, but I'd rather know why we're killing orcs.


*-Please, please correct me if I'm wrong in this. Please!

This pretty much sums up most of my feelings on the subject, though I will go out on a limb and say I -do- feel alienated.

I'm twenty eight and...three quarters I think; playing an RPG system of one sort or another for over fifteen years starting with second edition D&D. I do like the third edition core material, but beyond that, I'm starting to realize these days, what I like about third edition is mainly something I like about the d20 system in general, so I've been trying to look at other systems.

What really frustrates me about everything I've heard about fourth edition beyond a heavy focus on powers and combat is in the fluff department. It just seems really anti-D&D. Sure, the popular themes were bound to change since the seventies, but that's what campaign modules were for. Maybe dragonlance just isn't hip at all anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't make say Eberron 4th edition. There just comes a point when your product becomes so artistically cleft from the original source that it isn't the same thing; vodka isn't a potato.

Cuddly
2008-01-02, 03:36 AM
Put me down for a qualified "yes".

I'm 28, and I've been playing in one form or another since my fifth Christmas when my uncle sat me down with some of his friends in Lake Geneva, WI to learn how to play "a better game of pretend". I started DMing 3 years later after hooking my friends.

What I've always liked about D&D has been its portrayal of the traditional western sword&sorcery genre. No matter what extra fluff was put out for it, the mechanics always seemed to come back to that source.

Since the release of 3.0, though, I've seen WoTC slowly moving away from that genre, or maybe staying with it but diluting it with other influences that, frankly, didn't interest me. And with the later stuff, I've HAD to accept to fluff that goes along with the mechanics that really are needed to maintain balance within the game. This distresses me.

Like Nexx and, I think, Matthew, I play D&D to indulge in that Sword&Sorcery genre. If I want to play something else, I go play anther game. As WotC's influences come less and less from the game I grew up with, and more and more from sources I don't find interesting, I find myself caring less and less about the game. Sure, I'll give 4.0 a shot - I rather like some of the mechanics I've seen, but the fluff is the truly important part - but if WotC continues along the path they've been treading, then the alienation of myself as a customer will be complete, and I'll no longer buy their product. There's always other games out there.

EDIT: Looking at the 4.0 elf article, I think that's a step in the right direction - very Mirkwood elf-y. The jury will remain out until I've seen the finished product, however.

I agree. Sometimes I do like to get away from the western style swords&sorcery, but at its heart, D&D is very much Conan or LotR. Or at least, that's how my first experiences with it were.

Some people say "change the fluff keep the mechanics," which I do do. However, those people miss the point- if I shell out 30 or 40 dollars/book, and half of it's fluff I don't like, I feel like I just threw away 15 or 20 dollars.

Thrythlind
2008-01-02, 07:50 AM
That is also something that bothers me slightly it was over 10 years between other editions but less than or barely 8 for this one.

3.5 was mostly done as a way to get some playtesting for ideas they wanted to use in 4E

for example:

Notice that all the race books came out, including numerous Feats that required you to be a specific race in order to choose them. This was probably to playtest the Racial Talent Trees

Warlock was probably a way to test the infinite casting abilities they planned to bring out in 4E. They probably weren't expecting it to be popular enough to carry it over as a class in and of itself over to 4E, but it did, so now we have three arcane classes in 4E, not including Bard, which is apparently not arcane anymore anyway.

Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords is almost certainly a precursor to 4E fighters (I have a friend now claiming to have been the first to play a 4E fighter with his selection of a Warblade)

Thrythlind
2008-01-02, 07:59 AM
I agree. Sometimes I do like to get away from the western style swords&sorcery, but at its heart, D&D is very much Conan or LotR. Or at least, that's how my first experiences with it were.

Some people say "change the fluff keep the mechanics," which I do do. However, those people miss the point- if I shell out 30 or 40 dollars/book, and half of it's fluff I don't like, I feel like I just threw away 15 or 20 dollars.

Well, one thing I like with D&D compared to other RPGs, they try to keep the fluff in their core books down to a minimum.

If you buy a Legend of the Five Rings or World of Darkness book, then about half the book WILL be that fluff you are talking about. When you buy the core books of D&D the fluff is basically the text on the various races (not the stats) and the list of Gods. All in all, that's not even 10 pages of fluff.

Granted, if you get a campaign book, the majority of it will be fluff...but that's why it's a campaign book.

Really, when you buy the core books of 4E, you should be looking at rules for 250+ pages and fluff for about 10- pages.

I know that some people have complained about that too, saying that the company is getting rid of the RP content. But that's not true. D&D has always done what it could to supply you with straight rules and only the most basic concepts of campaign setting rather than a fully fleshed out game world for the sheer fact that they expect most people will be playing in their own world settings.

If your complaint is that they don't publish low fantasy Conan style or high fantasy LotR style campaign settings, then that's another complaint entirely, but it has nothing to do with the Core rules books which are predominantly a skeletal structure with which you can build a campaign world around.

**************

As to the game's focus on powers, combat and conflict and the rules to handle them.

I don't mind if a game focuses its attention on handling combat first and foremost.

Why?

Because as far as I'm concerned, systems are what the rules are for. There are no real hard or fast rules to govern Roleplaying.

I don't want the rulebook to tell me why I'm killing orcs.

I don't want the rulebook to tell me why the princess needs saving.

I don't want the rulebook to tell me how to destroy the evil artifact.


These are all things that the DM has responsibility for telling me.

What I want the rulebook to do is to give me a set of clear and concise set of systems for handling:

A) situations I don't want to spend too much time with (shopping)

B) situations where my character is better at something than I am

C) conflicts or challenges involving physical skills (crafting, combat, hide vs spot)




Most of what I want to see from the rulebook is how to find the answer to following question:

"Does my action succeed?"

There should be some basic fluff and abilities as examples of professionally created and balanced abilities and systems, but for the most part the rulebook still just comes down to:

"Does my action succeed?"

Most every other question can be answered by the GM.

In fact, even this question can be answered by the GM, but in the interest of being fair and avoiding favoritism, this question is mostly answered by the books and rules of an RPG.


************

Just remember. The "RP" part of "RPG" does not come from any book, it comes from the decisions and ideas of the players around the table.

If you're finding a lack of good RP and finding that your game is focusing too much on combat. The problem is not likely to be in the rules.

Matthew
2008-01-02, 10:55 AM
3.5 was mostly done as a way to get some playtesting for ideas they wanted to use in 4E

According to Monte Cook, 3.5 was planned from the inception and release of 3e. It was supposed to contain all new art and revised rules, but the actual degree of change was apparently much smaller than originally planned. We can only speculate as to why, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say to cut down on overheads. Some things were fixed, but some were made much worse. The 3.5 version of Power Attack and the Two Weapon Fighting Tree were, in my opinion, both poorly thought out.


for example:

Notice that all the race books came out, including numerous Feats that required you to be a specific race in order to choose them. This was probably to playtest the Racial Talent Trees

Warlock was probably a way to test the infinite casting abilities they planned to bring out in 4E. They probably weren't expecting it to be popular enough to carry it over as a class in and of itself over to 4E, but it did, so now we have three arcane classes in 4E, not including Bard, which is apparently not arcane anymore anyway.

Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords is almost certainly a precursor to 4E fighters (I have a friend now claiming to have been the first to play a 4E fighter with his selection of a Warblade)

Whilst it's true to say that many 3e expansions served as testing grounds for future rule supplements or editions, it does not follow that this was their primary purpose. As far as I can tell, though all of the above books were developed alongside fourth edition, they were released in order to generate revenue. Their role in gauging audience reaction and providing play test feedback remains entirely secondary to the first purpose.
Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing; indeed, I think it is positively necessary for the business model Wizards are using. However, EvilJames' complaint was 'too much, too fast', not 'why are they doing this?' That reaction is a risk that any company runs when releasing a significant amount of new rules material. So far, however, the market seems quite able to bear it.

an kobold
2008-01-02, 11:09 AM
20 years old here and not feeling alienated. From what I can tell, I like what they are doing with the mechanics, especially if skills are handled along the line of Star Wars SAGA. Sure, the fluff and art style are both changing, but I don't see anything that I particularly dislike.