4e: A work in progress?

Asmor · Jan 20, 2009

A few recent discussions have made me realize something. It seems like 4th edition is still very much a work in progress. Compared to 3rd edition, which despite its problems was a very thoroughly-developed product, it still seems like the designers are working on 4th edition.

For example, skill challenges are a hot topic right now. It's pretty obvious that, as written in the book, they're not just broken; they're all but useless. Everyone from posters here, bloggers elsewhere, and even designers at WotC are still working on trying to defining what a skill challenge is supposed to be and how to design and use them.

Then we've got a discussion about how the Druid is the way controllers should be, and another which has gotten into a bit of a tangent on the definition of solos and their execution. I think two things are clear on this latter topic. 1: Based on their name, solos were originally intended to be used alone (else they could have been called "Bosses" or something less pigeonholey). 2: This is not the way they reached printing, as demonstrated by for example sample encounters for dragons in the MM including other creatures.

Let me just say that I'm not attacking 4th edition. I love the system. I also like that stuff is not just being added to it, but things are being updated and changed.

Jürgen Hubert · Jan 20, 2009

I think skill challenges are pretty much the only aspect in need of serious work. Everything else seems to work fairly well.

Mallus · Jan 20, 2009

Asmor said:
Compared to 3rd edition, which despite its problems was a very thoroughly-developed product, it still seems like the designers are working on 4th edition.

That depends on your definition of 'well-developed'. I think of lot of great 3e material came in later supplements like the Bo9S and PHBII. Because of this, I consider 3e a work in progress, something that got better over time.

Cadfan · Jan 20, 2009

There are a few things about 4e that feel incomplete to me.

They tend to be the things that are genuinely new about 4e.

I know that skill challenges, single enemies, and "control" aren't new per se, but trying to make a science out of them is certainly new. And that's what seems unfinished.

I can't really call 3e "well developed" in comparison, because it kind of sucked at exactly those three things. Skills (you have 20 ranks in climb? I've got these slippers, see...), single monster fights turning into hit point grinds (or one shot kills...), and balancing battlefield control options (spells, for you 3e-ers). I mean, don't tell me that 3e is complete but 4e isn't because in 4e wizards aren't balanced right.

malraux · Jan 20, 2009

In some ways though, I think some of this feeling is mis-reading the situation. Its not that 4e at launch is less developed than 3e, its that 4e left obvious points at which new stuff could be added.

Rechan · Jan 20, 2009

Asmor said:
Compared to 3rd edition, which despite its problems was a very thoroughly-developed product, it still seems like the designers are working on 4th edition.

3.0 was so thoroughly-developed they released 3.5 to fix it.

JoeGKushner · Jan 20, 2009

I disagree with your base assumption that 3e was 'complete'.

The fighter for example, is a major bone of contention among some. PHB2 (3.5) tried to fix that, and the Book of Nine Swords was essentially an apology to people who thought fighters stunk the whole while.

Indeed, if 3e was complete, there would've been no 3.5.

No supported RPG is ever officially complete. Expansions come and go and new printings updating errata and FAQ, not to mention new editions of the game that build on what came before (Conan, Conan Revised, Conan 2nd edition)

No played RPG is ever complete as DMs and players continuously make changes to them.

Umbran · Jan 20, 2009

JoeGKushner said:
Indeed, if 3e was complete, there would've been no 3.5.

I the world of Quality Control, there's a difference between completeness and correctness. A thing is complete when it has all the desired features. it is correct when all those features have no bugs.

As far as that analogy goes, 3e was complete, but not correct.

And that analogy, again, may hold for 4e. Very few complex systems are released with no bugs. Even the best testing in the world does not ensure zero bugs will be in the system upon release.

DaveMage · Jan 20, 2009

JoeGKushner said:
Indeed, if 3e was complete, there would've been no 3.5.

No supported RPG is ever officially complete. Expansions come and go and new printings updating errata and FAQ, not to mention new editions of the game that build on what came before (Conan, Conan Revised, Conan 2nd edition)

No played RPG is ever complete as DMs and players continuously make changes to them.

I agree with all of the above. Indeed, IIRC, when 3E was released, it was even their intent at that time to release 3.5 (although, not with quite so many changes) with rules clarifications and fixing what didn't work with the hundreds of thousands of people that were playing the game. Monte Cook touched on this in his journal when 3.5 came out.

Besides, I think one of the ideas behind the 4E rollout was to update through the new volumes of the core books since they decided not to do a 4.5.