4e in the works

[Caedwyr]

My favourite books are the various regional sourcebooks. I've hardly boughten anything in 3rd edition as its mostly number crunching stuff.

[INS-Hyacinth]

I guess I'm just one of those weird people who chooses multi-class/proficiencies/feats/perks/whatever you call them based on the character's story and experiences and not on a min-maxer munchkin method. It often makes for some more challenging play, but I find it much more rewarding and produces a stronger attachment with the character.

 

 

WHAT??? Are a Role player, not a Roll player? This is bad for WotC, you won't need book after book of stats and stats updates with the latest updates of the stats & feats.

 

Ah, the Stormwind Fallacy. How cute.

 

Seriously, the only play you can really "role-play" is when you're in a game session. If someone chooses to spend time out-of-game thinking about the abilities their character will pick up then it's not something to be bothered about - unless they turn up with something really strange, which really would spoil the game for everyone else.

 

And in terms of needing book after book, you don't need more than the PHB to produce something appalingly broken.

 

My favourite books are the various regional sourcebooks. I've hardly boughten anything in 3rd edition as its mostly number crunching stuff.

 

What, like Grand History of the Realms, Serpent Kingdoms, Lost Empires of Faerun, Power of Faerun, Lords of Darkness? You should at least try for LEoF and GHotR, and PoF is worth it even if you don't play in the Realms for it's information on how to handle high level play and the things high-level PCs should be involved in.

[Caedwyr]

Err, what exactly is the snide "stormwind fallacy" comment refering to?

 

Also, I stand by my opinion that there are much fewer regional sourcebooks and fluffy material in 3rd edition versus 2nd edition. You've listed 5 or so, and I can think of at least 5 more for 3rd edition. Even then, a decent portion of those books is devoted to the crunch.

 

Compare that to second edition. If I leave out all the deity books, monster manuals, spell tomes, and other books that have a more mechanics/crunch focus than fluff focus, I can still count 45 books that focus mainly on fluff and setting in my possession.

[Simbul]

Also, I stand by my opinion that there are much fewer regional sourcebooks and fluffy material in 3rd edition versus 2nd edition.

It's not just your opinion, it's a fact. Also, many 3E fluff is actually copy-pasted from older sources. I was quite disappointed when I've noticed that latest Waterdeep sourcebook (set in 1374 or so) had absolutely the same info about Lords of Waterdeep that one of the first Waterdeep books had (and it was set in 1357). Almost 20 years have passed and these people haven't changed? I don't buy it, WotC.

[BigRob]

It's because fluff is harder to write than number cruncherry, especially if you don't think of how new abilites, skills and feats can unbalance the game.

 

Like the Warlock class... why take a mage? Ever? I'm just going to take the ability to endlessly "fireball" stuff. Oh, and wear medium armour without penalty. Oh, and fight decently.

 

Fluff takes time, imagination (even if you can steal loads of it) and polish. Things that just don't equal quick cash.

[Avenger]

Hunh ? Tyr killed Helm?

I thought both of them + Torm are on friendly terms or something

Yeah, but love (and associated organs) makes guys do funny things.

 

To tell you the truth, this all reads as simplification. There are too darned many FR gods. A few less wouldn't be so bad.

Well, why didn't they become even more friendly, and merge

[INS-Hyacinth]

Err, what exactly is the snide "stormwind fallacy" comment refering to?

 

The whole "I'm a role-player, not a roll-player" attitude. The Stormwind fallacy points out (quite correctly in my opinion) that there's no contradiction at all between role-playing your character well AND making an effort to optimise that character. Here's a linkto it.

 

Also, I stand by my opinion that there are much fewer regional sourcebooks and fluffy material in 3rd edition versus 2nd edition. You've listed 5 or so, and I can think of at least 5 more for 3rd edition. Even then, a decent portion of those books is devoted to the crunch.

 

And a proportion of the 1E/2E books was also devoted to crunch. That's always been the case.

 

Compare that to second edition. If I leave out all the deity books, monster manuals, spell tomes, and other books that have a more mechanics/crunch focus than fluff focus, I can still count 45 books that focus mainly on fluff and setting in my possession.

 

I can't.

 

Personally I regard the desire for more regional sourcebooks as seriously misguided. They give a snapshot of an area at a particular time, when we know from experience that there are regular major events that alter how things are. Once those events take place, places change, but the sourcebook isn't going to get properly updated for years.

 

My preference would be to increase the amount of space devoted to each region in the core FRCS book, and to publish an annual almanac (similar to the old Poor Wizard's Almanac published for Mystara) that explains the events that have taken place in the region in the year and how the region has changed because of it. It makes me more willing to detail particular places if I know that a sourcebook won't come out contradicting me, and it avoids the problem that the novels create where you don't get any information how novel events changed a region once the series is over.

 

Much more useful to me, and they exist in 3E and 2E , is a book that concentrates on things that aren't regionally specific. Power of Faerun is useful whether you're gaming in one of the more popular regions of FR (such as Cormy, the Dalelands, the North, or Waterdeep) or in one of the more out-of-the-way regions (Lapaliiya, Tashluta, the Lake of Steam and Calimshan for my games). A book about the Cult of the Dragon is of little use to me in those areas, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for one about the Rundeen and other southern organisations.

 

Which brings up my main point: WotC needs to make a profit, or they'll go the way of TSR. Any book they publish that is very specific will be bought by people with an interest in that specific area/group/topic, and by people who are collectors. That automatically reduces the potential sales. As I mention above, my games use the area around the Shining Sea. I have no interest in buying a book about Cormyr, or the Dalelands, or the Cult of the Dragon, etc. If I buy one anyway it's because I've more money than sense, or because I think it's worth showing support for the FR line as a whole even when parituclar bits of it don't interest me.

 

Sorry about rambling on so long, it's really not like me. Didn't realise I felt so strongly about this.

[Caedwyr]

Ok, take for instance one of my biggest pet peeves about 3rd edition manuals versus 2nd edition manuals. The monster manuals in 2nd edition describe the stats, behaviour, combat methods, social grouping, habitat and diet of the specified creature. It still gives the crunch necessary to use the creature, but it also gives more details that make it much easier to use the creature in a non-combat role, or better describes the creature's behaviour and motivations. 3rd edition monster manuals mostly read as stat blocks for combat encounters without any of the additional details that really bring the creatures to life as part of the world.

 

While I agree that they may not have as large of an audience for certain regional sourcebooks compared to general publications, I'd still love to see a book on organizations and power-groups of the realms, or provide web publications for the regional sourcebooks if physical publications don't seem to be worth the return.

 

Looking at the history of TSR's financial woes, it seems that internal mismanagement and business practices are more likely sources of financial woes. They certainly appear to have overpublished and overextended themselves, diluting their fanbase and causing expansion/addon exhaustion. Rapid expansion during the 80s when interest rates were high caused more than one company to have issues at that time.

 

Also, having over a million novels returned during 1996 probably didn't help either as did the legal action against fan-fiction and fan-produced content.

 

If you'd like, I can list the fluff heavy 2nd edition publications I have for you.

[INS-Hyacinth]

Ok, take for instance one of my biggest pet peeves about 3rd edition manuals versus 2nd edition manuals. The monster manuals in 2nd edition describe the stats, behaviour, combat methods, social grouping, habitat and diet of the specified creature. It still gives the crunch necessary to use the creature, but it also gives more details that make it much easier to use the creature in a non-combat role, or better describes the creature's behaviour and motivations. 3rd edition monster manuals mostly read as stat blocks for combat encounters without any of the additional details that really bring the creatures to life as part of the world.

 

That's one of the things I slightly preferred about 3E, but that's mostly because in my homebrew setting (when we played in it) many creatures didn't conform to the versions from the MM. That comes mostly from starting out with OD&D, and creating my own world with that ruleset in mind. There really wasn't that much information about creatures available, so I did what I thought was best with them and if later information changed it I kept my own version.

 

While I agree that they may not have as large of an audience for certain regional sourcebooks compared to general publications, I'd still love to see a book on organizations and power-groups of the realms, or provide web publications for the regional sourcebooks if physical publications don't seem to be worth the return.

 

For organisations and power groups, there's a fair amount available in 3E in the Lords of Darkness/Chamions of Ruin/Champions of Valour books. It's not as much as was available in 2E, but a book detailing one group (am I right remembering a Cult of the Dragon book for 2E) isn't as generally useful for FR players who aren't using the relevant areas/groups.

 

It's possible that the "Digital Initiative" may have material that compares to a regional sourcebook. Dragon magazine certainly did with it's Impiltur and Hordelands articles in it's last couple of years. That sort of material might make me willing to actually pay for it - but I won't hold my breath

 

Looking at the history of TSR's financial woes, it seems that internal mismanagement and business practices are more likely sources of financial woes. They certainly appear to have overpublished and overextended themselves, diluting their fanbase and causing expansion/addon exhaustion. Rapid expansion during the 80s when interest rates were high caused more than one company to have issues at that time.

 

Also, having over a million novels returned during 1996 probably didn't help either as did the legal action against fan-fiction and fan-produced content.

 

If you'd like, I can list the fluff heavy 2nd edition publications I have for you.

 

Yes, TheySueRegularly certainly brought a lot of their problems on themselves, and the plethora of campaign settings and marginally profitable books probably didn't help.

 

I don't dispute there's a lot of fluff-heavy 2E books, but I think there's enough of it in the 3E books. Honestly I haven't made my mind up entirely on the subject. Sometimes I want books to be pure - either fluff or crunch - but other times I think that means I end up buying two books, one with the fluff and another with the crunch that enables me to use it. And now I'm going to have to drown myself, in case Wizards get hold of that idea and run with it. Although I have heard that there will be a Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide and a Player's Guide to FR with one having all the fluff and the other with the crunch, so they may already have come up with it on their own.

[BigRob]

Personally, I infinitely prefer fluff to statlines, as I find it very very quick to throw together monster/NPC stats, but some help in motivation and ecology saves me a lot of time. And if I want to do it different on my gameworld, it's different and what the MM says goes out the window.

 

 

The whole "I'm a role-player, not a roll-player" attitude. The Stormwind fallacy points out (quite correctly in my opinion) that there's no contradiction at all between role-playing your character well AND making an effort to optimise that character.

 

But there is a difference between someone who roleplays a character, no matter how rounded or Min/Maxed and someone who wanders through a game doing nothing until the time comes to start rolling initiative. I'll use every trick in the book to make a character a monster of destruction, but when I drop a fighter's INT to 5, by the gods, everyone around him knows his sword's a lot sharper than he is.

[INS-Hyacinth]

Personally, I infinitely prefer fluff to statlines, as I find it very very quick to throw together monster/NPC stats, but some help in motivation and ecology saves me a lot of time. And if I want to do it different on my gameworld, it's different and what the MM says goes out the window.

 

 

The whole "I'm a role-player, not a roll-player" attitude. The Stormwind fallacy points out (quite correctly in my opinion) that there's no contradiction at all between role-playing your character well AND making an effort to optimise that character.

 

But there is a difference between someone who roleplays a character, no matter how rounded or Min/Maxed and someone who wanders through a game doing nothing until the time comes to start rolling initiative. I'll use every trick in the book to make a character a monster of destruction, but when I drop a fighter's INT to 5, by the gods, everyone around him knows his sword's a lot sharper than he is.

 

Certainly there is, but the two thiings aren't opposed to each other. There's not a direct line with "good role-player" at one end and "min-maxing munchkin" at the other. That sort of assertion annoys me for two reasons. One, it just isn't true, as your own example makes clear. Two, it's a way of putting people down, claiming my way of having fun (role-playing) is superior to yours (roll-playing). Personally I prefer the first but if people enjoy themselves playing differently then I'm not going to tell them they're doing it wrong.

[Guest The Simbul]

Simbul, are you the same poster as The Simbul on the WotC forums?

We are not the same person.

 

For clarity, I am "The Simbul" from the WoTC forums. I only carry that username on

 

-Wizards of the Coast/Gleemax forums

-Candlekeep.com forums

-Bioware.com forums

 

Obviously selecting a moderately popular existing character as a user ID will in turn involve multiple people across numerous other message boards eventually having the same user ID, so it simply comes with the territory. I certainly do not have any claim or ownership on the name, nor do I fault or otherwise hold anything against anyone who draws upon the same fictional character for their user ID.

 

On that note, Google goes a long way to substitute for a real world equivalent of the name attunement supernatural ability. In this instance, I was simply looking to see if anything new surfaced regarding her (or a lack thereof) in 4E.

[Domi]

I didn't really care one way or another about 4th Edition, until someone mentioned in passing that Gnomes will no longer be a playable race. That really made me sad.

[Lord Ernie]

Heh, not to disparage the new Edition (or you) in any way, but if that's the case, I reckon there's more about 4th which might make you sad.

 

As a sidenote: Gnomes are supposedly still a playable race. They just lost their place in the Player's Handbook, and moved to the Monster Manual (where they get a writeup which makes them functional as a PC race). Some of the info that's been released seems to indicate their new function/writeup is quite popular.

[Domi]

Well, that's better I confess that I love gnomes, in fact they are my fav race after elves.