Yep, 4th Edition is coming out....

[HuManBing]

Heh heh, cross post.

Thanks for putting "Cure" at the start of your post to make it clear. I appreciate your precision, as always.

[elliott20]

I just like the online tools. though, to be honest, I would never actually replace f2f games for online ones.

[Jester of the FoS]

It sucks being a late adopter of a new system and then having to buy new books twice.
But it's balanced out by the money saved over the years spent not buying books and it's a obvious risk you take not buying it when it was new.

I got lucky and bought both sets of books right when they came out and hadn't bought a new 3E book in a while so I'm not hurting and regretting my most recent purchase.

Really, the person who buys the year of release and person who buys it late all pay the exact same amount of money. Unless one of said people gets it on eBay for a crazy discount years after the fact...

I might bitch and moan more about wasted books I'll never use but I have so many campaign settings and other games I'll also never get a chance to play. What's one more?

Cure, I acknowledge that you were late to adopt 3E, but the cold hard fact is that there are people on this earth today, who can walk and talk and write their names in school, who had not yet been born when 3E was released. "Continual upgrades" between editions is something you conjured up from the dark recesses of your imagination.

You think there's a large market for 9-year old gamers?

[LordGodefroi]

Cure, I acknowledge that you were late to adopt 3E, but the cold hard fact is that there are people on this earth today, who can walk and talk and write their names in school, who had not yet been born when 3E was released. "Continual upgrades" between editions is something you conjured up from the dark recesses of your imagination.

It's been around five years since 3.5 was released and now we're being asked to invest in another revision. In fact, WOTC has even said "start your campaigns over, we're not going to bother with conversion from the older system."

How is that not a "continual upgrade" scheme when first edition worked well enough and was popular for more than a decade ? You don't see a new edition of the Monopoly rules every five years.

[Isabella]

Okay an addena to what I reported before. Some members of the press found out that there will be an OGL for 4th Edition.

WotC isn't twisting your arm to run out and buy their core books. You don't need them to keep up, even in the unlikely event the FoS or whatever dumps 3.5 overnight for 4e. You can run an entire campaign in 4e without giving WotC a cent of your money, because you can just download the System Reference Document for free.

I can understand people saying they don't want to buy into 4e. But it kinda feels like some people feel WotC deserves their own darklord domain for daring to release 4e, and I don't understand that.

[Joël of the FoS]

even in the unlikely event the FoS or whatever dumps 3.5 overnight for 4e.

Err...

(runs back in panic to the Green House)

[Isabella]

Heehee, oops, well I figured there'd be a transition period but I'm all for that. The point still stands.

[LordGodefroi]

I can understand people saying they don't want to buy into 4e. But it kinda feels like some people feel WotC deserves their own darklord domain for daring to release 4e, and I don't understand that.

For some, like me, it's not having a new edition; It's releasing a new edition and abandoning support for the old one long before such is due. My personal opinion is that WOTC is five years too early in releasing a new edition.

[Matthew L. Martin]

I would note that while 1E and 2E ran for a decade, both of them were disrupted midway through by a near-collapse or actual collapse of the parent company (by all reports, TSR nearly went down in the mid-80s), which may have postponed the update schedule longer than expected. Heck, Gygax was talking about 2E back when he was still a major presence in Dragon.

Between that factor and the increased speed and breadth of communication we've seen over the past decade, I think the time's about right for 4E. However, I don't count 3.5E as a new edition so much as a cleanup job that somehow ran away from the designers and wound up being neither fish nor fowl.

Now, how can we fit tieflings and eladrin (formerly aasimar, it would appear) into RL games?

[Rotipher of the FoS]

However, I don't count 3.5E as a new edition so much as a cleanup job that somehow ran away from the designers and wound up being neither fish nor fowl.

Heck, the original Unearthed Arcana and the Player's Option books were essentially AD&D 1.5 and AD&D 2.5, respectively. The only thing that was odd about 3E's mid-lifespan revision was that they actually came out and admitted that's what it was.

Now, how can we fit tieflings and eladrin (formerly aasimar, it would appear) into RL games?

For starters, we might consult Dr. Reuland's expert opinion...

[LordGodefroi]

Heck, the original Unearthed Arcana and the Player's Option books were essentially AD&D 1.5 and AD&D 2.5, respectively. The only thing that was odd about 3E's mid-lifespan revision was that they actually came out and admitted that's what it was.

And one member of the original 3.0 core rules team also said 3.5 was also released to generate cash for WOTC during a slump. (I believe it was Monte Cook who said so on his web site. But, don't quote me on that as I couldn't produce the source.)

AD&D 1.5 and AD&D 2.5 ? Perhaps. But one thing sets those apart from true new editions: Both original Unearthed Arcana and Player's Option books were optional. No one was expected to adopt the changes presented by those books and material published after those books didn't require those books. Nothing was made obsolete with the publication of Unearthed Arcana and Player's Option books and support of the original 1.0 and 2.0 core rules sets continued.

One core rules set, without x.5 revisions, every eight to ten years is enough for me. I'm not going to shell out $125 for new core rule books every three to five years just because its "the latest thing" or a corporation needs to improve its shareholder equity. (The Microsoft business model is the worst thing to ever happen to the American public.)

Like I said before, I'm not against a new edition when the time is right for it. I am against a new edition when a company's doing it primarily to improve their bottom line.

[HuManBing]

It's interesting - Isabella made a good point about OGL. When I first bought into 3.0, I was excited and happy about it. Then they came out with 3.5, and all my friends told me not to worry - the update stuff was all available free of charge.

Well, it wasn't that simple. True, I could download the update documents and piece stuff together on my own. But then there is the pressure of time deadlines before adventure sessions, and questions that crop up in the middle of games. In the end, it's just easier to get the 3.5. Is this literal arm twisting? Probably not. But I'd argue there is definitely an issue of economic pressure here.

The point that I do (sort of) agree with is that if you don't like buying a game system's products, you can always sit down and make your own. I did that for much of 3.5's early release and only got around to getting the official supplements relatively late in the cycle.

But making your own stuff automatically writes you into a corner. Online support and community input is limited enough for this entire hobby and industry (at least compared to, say, computer gaming). If I were to come onto FoS displaying a complete disconnect from canon 3.0/3.5 Ravenloft and showing off my own inventions, chances are that people would say (politely, because it is the FoS after all) "Try checking out [this source]."

There's nothing wrong with this, but it does show that the initial response is to refer somebody to a sourcebook. Whether you intend it or not, there's a social tendency towards the (usually non-OGL) materials, and lonely indeed is the path of him or her who wishes to come up with their own stuff without any recourse to existing supplemental materials.

[Note that FoS' responses are usually the cream of the crop, too. If I were to do this on the official Wizards board, there is a large contingent of people who would shoot back the role playing version of "RTFM" (Read The Frickin Manual).]

So the end point I want to make is that it's true that nobody is forcing us to buy the materials. But it's also not a write-off to say "Come up with your own stuff". Sure you can do it, but would you have the time to do so? Would you have the independence to make a choice which would drastically reduce your points of common contact with message boards like these? I tried it for quite a while in the interim between 3.0 and 3.5 and I couldn't do it.

(I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I failed. This may well be a reflection on my own DnD skills, but I don't think I'm unique in this respect.)

[Rotipher of the FoS]

Both original Unearthed Arcana and Player's Option books were optional. No one was expected to adopt the changes presented by those books and material published after those books didn't require those books.

Granted, that's true of the Option books. The original UA was deemed 100% "official" at the time, OTOH: in fact, people who didn't use its rules were often accused of "not playing real D&D", even by Gygax himself. People forget how extremely stringent the 1E-era could be about what was "official" and what wasn't; back then, I mostly played with OD&D gamers, because the 1E AD&Ders were so hardnosed about sticking to the Holy Words Of St. Xagyg.

As touchy an issue as 4E might be, at least nowadays, folks aren't going to accuse each other of playing by "illegal" rules if they don't keep up. We should think back to the "House Rules Aren't Real D&D" era, if we want to keep some perspective on whether or not we're being 'forced' into changing over.

[midnightcat]

How is that not a "continual upgrade" scheme when first edition worked well enough and was popular for more than a decade ? You don't see a new edition of the Monopoly rules every five years.

You do see new boards , and Parker bros have intoduced a new faster Monoply along with the old one.

[LordGodefroi]

How is that not a "continual upgrade" scheme when first edition worked well enough and was popular for more than a decade ? You don't see a new edition of the Monopoly rules every five years.

You do see new boards , and Parker bros have intoduced a new faster Monopoly along with the old one.

Yes. . . and this is the first substantive change of the rules in 71 years while still leaving the original unchanged and still supported by Parker Brothers. So, "You don't see a new edition of the Monopoly rules every five years." is still true.