3.5 and 4e question

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

warrior-poet

Aug 17, 2009 13:28:16		I have a theory...
My theory is that those of us who enjoyed the numerous, well written FR sourcebooks in 3.5 are now hesitant to make the jump to 4e. I believe one of the cited reasons for not creating more sourcebooks was to encourage gamers to innovate and to create their own material within the settings.

However, as an older gamer with numerous 'real world' responsibilities---I don't have the time to do in depth campaign creation. The 3.5 FR books filled that gap, and made for GREAT pleasure reading as well.
For myself (and my group)---I am sticking with 3.5 for the time being.

The only thing that could really lure me to 4e would be if D&Di lived up to its original promises (in particular the Virtual Game Table). If I could be assured that I had a comprehensive, easy-to-use digital gaming tool that incorporated character creation, campaign creation/management, monster creation, encounter/combat management, mapping (with virtual game table integration) and support of all WoTC datasets with errata---then I would most likely make the jump to 4e. Also---it would need to run on a Mac.

Tall order you say? Well, maybe---but I think the original D&Di was supposed to deliver all of this in one package (but then so was Mastertools/Etools...).

What do you think? Is the lack of new source material holding you back to 3.5? Or have you gone on to 4e and are enjoying the switch regardless?
#2

LordManshoon

Aug 17, 2009 14:28:49
I have a theory...
My theory is that those of us who enjoyed the numerous, well written FR sourcebooks in 3.5 are now hesitant to make the jump to 4e.

I loved the 3/3.5 sourcebooks, but I hopped on board the 4E train as soon as it came out.

I believe one of the cited reasons for not creating more sourcebooks was to encourage gamers to innovate and to create their own material within the settings.

Well, that's one of the reasons, yes. But it's also the desire to make things more accessible to all kinds of players, notably newcomers who might be turned off by the lore ocean (or so they said).


What do you think? Is the lack of new source material holding you back to 3.5? Or have you gone on to 4e and are enjoying the switch regardless?

No to the former, yes to the latter. However, that being said, I don't care for a lot of the 4E FR changes, so I've ignored or altered what I dislike (but then again, I think everyone does this). Also, most of the lore from past editions (with the exceptions of certain NPCs) is still valid in my game.
#3

Diffan

Aug 17, 2009 16:14:13
The only thing that could really lure me to 4e would be if D&Di lived up to its original promises (in particular the Virtual Game Table). If I could be assured that I had a comprehensive, easy-to-use digital gaming tool that incorporated character creation, campaign creation/management, monster creation, encounter/combat management, mapping (with virtual game table integration) and support of all WoTC datasets with errata---then I would most likely make the jump to 4e. Also---it would need to run on a Mac.

Considering some of your requests are already done (character generator, datasets, errata support) I think that in a farily short time, possibly a year or less, we'll see programming of this sort available on DDI. It's not there yet, but I believe WotC is working towards a goal very similar to what your asking.

What do you think? Is the lack of new source material holding you back to 3.5? Or have you gone on to 4e and are enjoying the switch regardless?

The only thing holding me to play 3.5 at all is the joy and excitement I feel when I play a completly broken character (lvl 12 paladin dealing over 200+ damage with 1 attack?!! Ohh yea!) and the Tome of Battle.

That being said, I've embraced FR4e as a respite from the virtual strangle-hold I believe previous editions put upon the Realms. Don't get me wrong, fleshing out cetain aspects of a campaign setting are all fine and good, but giving levels to every Bob, Chuck, and Mary that 3.5 did was getting to be a bit absurd (that and statting Deities).

So yea, I like the "Lore-lite" apprach. Great taste, less filling and all that.

Well, that's one of the reasons, yes. But it's also the desire to make things more accessible to all kinds of players, notably newcomers who might be turned off by the lore ocean (or so they said).

That and WotC wants you to pay into DDi (something I won't do reguardless of my love for 4e).

And I think it's sorta funny when people say 4e is going to be the death of FR. Each setting is only getting 1 campagin guide, 1 player's guide, and 1 adventure. Thats it. The same goes for Eberron, Dark Sun, DragonLance, Ravenloft, etc..)

So the only way I see FR dying is if they completly stop making any DDI articles or further support in the way of DDI materal (Paragon Paths, Feats, etc.) and novels.

EDIT: Sorry, that last part was a bit of a Rant. My apologies.

I don't care for a lot of the 4E FR changes, so I've ignored or altered what I dislike (but then again, I think everyone does this). Also, most of the lore from past editions (with the exceptions of certain NPCs) is still valid in my game.

Why wouldn't lore from past edition be less valid in other's games? Considering that it's still history, then it's valid no matter what edition you play.

P.S. sorry for cutting up all your quotes. I was only trying to address certain aspects of your POV. :D
#4

LordManshoon

Aug 17, 2009 17:08:06
That and WotC wants you to pay into DDi (something I won't do reguardless of my love for 4e).

Well, yes this, too.

And I think it's sorta funny when people say 4e is going to be the death of FR. Each setting is only getting 1 campagin guide, 1 player's guide, and 1 adventure. Thats it. The same goes for Eberron, Dark Sun, DragonLance, Ravenloft, etc..)

So the only way I see FR dying is if they completly stop making any DDI articles or further support in the way of DDI materal (Paragon Paths, Feats, etc.) and novels.

I agree.
Why wouldn't lore from past edition be less valid in other's games? Considering that it's still history, then it's valid no matter what edition you play.

Shouldn't it read "Why would lore from past editions be less valid..."?

I wasn't saying it isn't valid in other people's games, though canonical 4E games requires some reshaping. I don't mean history, more along the lines of deities and such. For instance, since I've retained the old alignment system in 4E, Hoar is still Lawful Neutral in my Realms, and not Evil. Sehanine and Selune are still two different deities. Things like that. I'm avoiding certain retcons and such (not that everything is a retcon, of course).