Pen & Paper - Spielsysteme > D&D4E

D&D 4e Smalltalk

<< < (56/388) > >>

Adanos:
Nein, ich gehe eben davon aus, dass sich die Waffenwerte verändern werden. Die Schadensvervielfachung beim Crit fällt schon mal als Faktor weg. Dann kann man die Waffen aber nur über ihren Schadenswürfel unterscheiden und wie man da balancen will ist mir noch schleierhaft. In DnD war es nicht immer ein Nachteil wenig Schaden zu haben, wenn die crits einfach um so verheerender waren. Jetzt bedeutet, wie ich das zumindest sehe, niedriger Schaden fast automatisch schlechter, es sei denn es ist eine leichte Nahkampfwaffe bezüglich Dual Wield. Aber so, naja.

Die Threat Range als faktor wird wohl auch wegfallen, zumindest geht das so aus dem Text hervor, wo nur noch von "Roll a 20" die Rede ist. Der Text erweckt den Eindruck, als wolle man es auch so einfach halten.
Damit ginge ein weiteres Element verloren.

Selganor [n/a]:
Schon mal dran gedacht dass es auch andere (neue) Faktoren geben koennte?

Aber genug darueber geredet... Dieser Thread sollte nur Infos sammeln.

Daher hier nochmal der Hinweis auf den neuesten D&D Podcast mit dem Titel "You May Already Be Playing 4th Edition" unter http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pod/20080111e18 in dem Autoren von Star Wars Saga Edition, Book of 9 Swords, Complete Mage und Magic Item Compendium verraten welche 4e-Elemente schon in den Buechern drin sind und wie sie diese Buecher veraendern wuerden wenn sie sie jetzt nochmal und "mehr nach 4e" machen koennten.

Archoangel:

--- Zitat ---Mike Mearls hat folgendes geschrieben:
I think the most important lesson I (re-) learned in the entire 4e process is that playing D&D or any other RPG is an intensely personal activity. There's a reason why we game with our friends, usually at the home of a friend, over food and drink. This is intensely personal stuff, where we say and do things that we wouldn't let loose in public.

RPGs also encourage creation, and that spawns an intense feeling of ownership. Those are good things, IMO, because there aren't many other things in modern society that drive those very human needs.

What that does mean, though, is that it's very, very easy to piss people off when you change D&D or any other RPG. It's like giving their baby plastic surgery without asking first, or re-arranging their house while they're away on vacation. Even if you do a great job, there's a good chance they're going to be pissed off on general principle.

At the end of the day, all you can hope for is that enough people thought their baby was ugly, or their house crappily laid out, that they happy with the change or able to accept it after giving it a try. I think the stuff we've done does make improvements to areas where the game didn't work all that well, makes the game more accessible, and makes it easier to play D&D.

In the end, gamers get to judge whether the changes we have made are for the good of the game or not. When the game is out there, then we'll know. Right now, you have some people who want it to fail for various ideological, personal, or other random reasons, and others who want it to succeed for all the same factors. All that conjecture and hope doesn't mean anything until the game comes out and the vast majority of gamers who are stuck somewhere in the middle pass judgment.

--- Ende Zitat ---


--- Zitat ---Lizard hat folgendes geschrieben:
This is a great analogy, but maybe it wasn't *quite* the message you wanted to send...

I mean, the fact is, D&D isn't our baby -- it's WOTCs, and they hired you to do plastic surgery on it. Now, I am in the camp that thought it didn't need it -- maybe some glasses, a new hairstyle, or a more stylish diaper. However, you'll never catch me saying WOTC didn't have the RIGHT to change it, or that they somehow "owe" me something for the time/money/emotion invested in the game. I am openly disappointed with many of the design decisions, feel that the game has been made more hostile to my playstyle, and think most of the "fixes" were unnecessary at best, done purely for the sake of change at worst -- but I will never say that either you or WOTC didn't have the right to do this or that I have been robbed/ripped off/otherwise "harmed" in any way.


--- Ende Zitat ---

--- Zitat ---Mike Mearls hat folgendes geschrieben:
This might seem a little funny, but I actually disagree with you. I think that D&D *is* your baby, and we're basically its caretakers.

I have a lot of clear memories of my reaction to 2e. It didn't change enough, and much of what it did change was random (why can't I keep playing a monk?). The game was still playable, but it wasn't the same to me. A lot of people seemed to agree with me, because in a few years we ended up with TSR up for sale. I stopped gaming for almost four years because of I eventually got sick of the tone and content of TSR, specifically Greyhawk, products.

D&D's healthy and vital are directly linked to the enthusiasm and happiness of its player base. I think that in some media, you can get away with a bad product through inertia. The nth book of a best selling fantasy series is going to sell as long it isn't complete gibberish. A direct to DVD movie with enough T&A and random violence is going to sell a minimum number of copies. Slap Batman on a comic, and you've guaranteed a ton of sales.

D&D is too active to get away with that. If the game doesn't appeal to its fans, they'll find better tools for their dungeoncrawls, their epic stories, their intricate, political thrillers.

I think I DO owe you something for the time and money you've invested in the game. Now, I can't promise that we can meet every individual gamers' needs or desires, but we do try to change the game to match what D&D players as a whole want.


--- Ende Zitat ---

--- Zitat ---und auf die Frage:
Zitat:
Did tabletop gamers actually ask for more MMORPG-style powers and tiefling PCs?


Mike Mearls hat folgendes geschrieben:
I honestly think that, short of changing nothing in the game, we would've been accused of copying MMOs. We never heard that with Book of Nine Swords, Tome of Magic, Magic Item Compendium, or even the monster revision articles I did, all of which drew on core 4e stuff. We heard criticisms, but the MMO thing was never loud enough (if it was even there) for me to see it.

Many of the changes we've implemented have been asked for by gamers, or at least are changes to features that people don't like about 3e:

1. Generating numbers for NPCs is like doing (really boring) homework.
2. The game seems to function best at about levels 5 to 12.
3. High level games are cumbersome and difficult to run.
4. Low level games are swingy.
5. The CR system is confusing and produces wonky results.
6. Spellcasters outclass everyone else.
7. Multiclassing works for only certain combinations. Classic tropes (warrior-wizards) need new core classes because the core system doesn't work.
8. Characters have too few skill points.
9. Monsters are unnecessarily complicated.
10. You don't get enough feats.
11. Attacks of opportunity are confusing.
12. Magic items are really important, but it isn't equal. Some items are critical, others are complete chaff.
13. There are a number of weird little subsystems that introduce unnecessary complexity, like grappling.

There's more, but I'm tired, and I have more weird analogies to dream up.

Now, your particular group might not notice any of these, but in the aggregate these are some of the issues with the current game. A good DM can avoid all of them, but why not fix stuff that we could improve?
--- Ende Zitat ---

Samael:
1. - 13. sind alles valide Punkte. Die werden das schon gut angehen.

WitzeClown:
Da kann ich nur zustimmen.

Punkt 2,3,4, 6 und 7 sind auch mir immer wieder aufgestoßen.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite

[*] Vorherige Sete