Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Crazy Jerome · Jul 3, 2012

pemerton said:
My 3E-fu is a bit weak, but is this really true? I don't think 3E had active metagame player resources like Come and Get It (pre-errata version), or overtly metagamed scaling DCs, or out-of-combat scene resolution (skill challenges), or combat maths (including in-combat healing) deliberately designed to produce a partcular pacing outcome.

One of 4E's "sins" is that it kept a lot of the mechanical underpinnings of 3E/3.5, cleaned them up, and then destroyed the illusion that more was there. 4E pulled the curtain back, and behind it was just some little old man pulling levers. This necessarily says something about those mechanical underpinnings in 3E/3.5, too.

People that already knew that about 3E/3.5 weren't, as a rule, terribly bothered by this. We've never much cared for "make a mess of the mechanics to conceal that they don't do much" school of design. So we shrugged, and got back to using the same flavor on top of the mechanics that we had always used. For others, it went less well, for various reasons, less about the D&D than themselves. And then there are always people who actually do like illusionism as illusionism, and thus naturally objected to it being stripped way. (This paragraph is not a claim to divide all those who like or dislike 4E into three categories, as some people will like or dislike 4E for other reasons.)

The 4E metagame resources you listed are disparaged as proxies and/or examples for this larger issue.

Bedrockgames · Jul 3, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
One of 4E's "sins" is that it kept a lot of the mechanical underpinnings of 3E/3.5, cleaned them up, and then destroyed the illusion that more was there. 4E pulled the curtain back, and behind it was just some little old man pulling levers. This necessarily says something about those mechanical underpinnings in 3E/3.5, too.

People that already knew that about 3E/3.5 weren't, as a rule, terribly bothered by this. We've never much cared for "make a mess of the mechanics to conceal that they don't do much" school of design. So we shrugged, and got back to using the same flavor on top of the mechanics that we had always used. For others, it went less well, for various reasons, less about the D&D than themselves. And then there are always people who actually do like illusionism as illusionism, and thus naturally objected to it being stripped way. (This paragraph is not a claim to divide all those who like or dislike 4E into three categories, as some people will like or dislike 4E for other reasons.)

The 4E metagame resources you listed are disparaged as proxies and/or examples for this larger issue.

I think 4e fundamentally changed the way the game played. It certainly wasn't an illusion. Whether this was good or bad is opinion. But i think both people who liked 3e and people who liked 4e (as well as those who hated both) had reasons rooted in reality. I am just not finding what you say here to be true of my experience of 3E at all (and I have more than a few criticisms of that edition).

Imaro · Jul 3, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
One of 4E's "sins" is that it kept a lot of the mechanical underpinnings of 3E/3.5, cleaned them up, and then destroyed the illusion that more was there. 4E pulled the curtain back, and behind it was just some little old man pulling levers. This necessarily says something about those mechanical underpinnings in 3E/3.5, too.

People that already knew that about 3E/3.5 weren't, as a rule, terribly bothered by this. We've never much cared for "make a mess of the mechanics to conceal that they don't do much" school of design. So we shrugged, and got back to using the same flavor on top of the mechanics that we had always used. For others, it went less well, for various reasons, less about the D&D than themselves. And then there are always people who actually do like illusionism as illusionism, and thus naturally objected to it being stripped way. (This paragraph is not a claim to divide all those who like or dislike 4E into three categories, as some people will like or dislike 4E for other reasons.)

The 4E metagame resources you listed are disparaged as proxies and/or examples for this larger issue.

Huh???

pemerton · Jul 3, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
unless you started with Essentials, you've been through one rev-roll of a sort, already, anyway. I don't think that'll've built the same strong impression of "this is D&D" that 20 years of AD&D or 15 or so of BECMI did. I could be wrong, I clearly have the outsider perspective on it.

I started roleplaying with B/X D&D in late 1982. I played and GMed AD&D also, but GMed only a very small amount of 3E. For me, 4e is the game that delivers on the promise made in the foreword to Moldvay Basic (about the hero killing the dragon tyrant).

Bedrockgames said:
The transition from 2e to 3e made some logicial sense and while different, i could easily see 3e as a new iteration of 2e.

I don't really see this either. 3E is pretty different from AD&D - monsters are mechanically stronger (because they have stats), PCs are built differently (multi-classing, feats and skills are quite different from kits), saving throws change from fortune-in-the-middle to simulationist, initiative changes dramatically, XP rules change. What doesn't change much is the weapon list (but it's also pretty similar in 4e - daggers do d4, shorswords d6, longswords d8, two-handers d10) and the wizard spell list.

Bedrockgames · Jul 3, 2012

pemerton said:
I
I don't really see this either. 3E is pretty different from AD&D - monsters are mechanically stronger (because they have stats), PCs are built differently (multi-classing, feats and skills are quite different from kits), saving throws change from fortune-in-the-middle to simulationist, initiative changes dramatically, XP rules change. What doesn't change much is the weapon list (but it's also pretty similar in 4e - daggers do d4, shorswords d6, longswords d8, two-handers d10) and the wizard spell list.

there are definitely important shifts but classes still work on the same principles mostly, the overall structure feels the same. Skillsnreally were not that big a change from 2e because NWPs were so widely used (and one of three skill options available in the phb). Multiclassing was greatly simplified for sure (and I think this is the single biggest double edge sword of 3e's design). The could easily see how they started with 2e and arrived at 3e. The gulf between 4e and 3e just seems so much wider to me. 3e may have had some different mechanics (feats for example) but 4e feels like a completely different game. The classes function in a way that is completely new.

Campbell · Jul 3, 2012

Imaro said:
Huh???

In areas like monster and encounter design 4e showed the man behind the curtain. 3e had all sorts of "systems" for things that mostly consisted of making stuff up and adjusting it until it felt right. 4e basically flat out states that the house is made of cards and that's alright.

Imaro · Jul 3, 2012

Campbell said:
In areas like monster and encounter design 4e showed the man behind the curtain. 3e had all sorts of "systems" for things that mostly consisted of making stuff up and adjusting it until it felt right. 4e basically flat out states that the house is made of cards and that's alright.

I get that, I'm just not seeing that as the "major" or even one of the "major" issues many of the people that disliked 4e had. Now the fact that this information was presented in a format that was, IMO, a pretty dry read probably didn't help 4e become better liked.

Imaro · Jul 3, 2012

pemerton said:
I started roleplaying with B/X D&D in late 1982. I played and GMed AD&D also, but GMed only a very small amount of 3E. For me, 4e is the game that delivers on the promise made in the foreword to Moldvay Basic (about the hero killing the dragon tyrant).

Are you saying that you couldn't kill dragons in other editions? Or is it the fact that 4e is the first edition that lets you kill a dragon at 1st level (though technically in 3.x a party could slay a wyrmling at first level)... Or am I totally missing the point?

LostSoul · Jul 3, 2012

Imaro said:
Are you saying that you couldn't kill dragons in other editions? Or is it the fact that 4e is the first edition that lets you kill a dragon at 1st level (though technically in 3.x a party could slay a wyrmling at first level)... Or am I totally missing the point?

Do you have the Moldvay Basic edition? If not...

FOREWORD

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave.

[some stuff about the D&D game and what the point of Basic is]

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shouted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return a hero.

Tom Moldvay
3 December 1980

Harlock · Jul 3, 2012

LostSoul said:
Do you have the Moldvay Basic edition? If not...

FOREWORD

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave.

[some stuff about the D&D game and what the point of Basic is]

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shouted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return a hero.

Tom Moldvay
3 December 1980

Well, since you're answering for pemerton now, What exactly is the promise made above and how is it that 4e is the only system of D&D ever to deliver on that promise?

Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Crazy Jerome

First Post

Bedrockgames

Legend

Imaro

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Bedrockgames

Legend

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity

Imaro

Legend

Imaro

Legend

LostSoul

Adventurer

Harlock

First Post

Similar Threads