The roots of 4e exposed?

Jester David · Jun 30, 2018

Ancalagon said:
It makes these discussions more difficult doesn't it? I would have said, a week ago, that I knew 3.X pretty well (with the only obstacle being the amount of time since I last played). Now I'm not so sure.

... Ironically, it sounds like this "late 3.5" is more different from 3.5 that 3.5 was from 3.0

Saga's skill system definitely has echoes in 5e, although implemented differently... a first level character could have like +13 on a skill at level 1 in Saga.

It was different, but still compatible and largely balanced. Much was confined to new classes or existing rule elements like feats. It was additive options rather than variant rules.

Honestly, late 2e was likely much more different, will Skill & Powers and Combat & Tactics, which added new elements to the foundational rules.

Charlaquin said:
Designers never "just experiment." When designers start experimenting, it's because they want to try something that the ruleset they're working with doesn't normally accommodate. It doesn't always lead to a new edition of course, but it's almost always a sign that the designers are unsatisfied with the constraints of the ruleset they're working with, and unsatisfied designers are usually a sign of impending rules changes.

Well, game designers design games. It’s what they do. They don’t stop just because the edition is “done”. They have house rules and tweaks and variants. It’s less being unsatisfied, and more trying to do what they love doing.

Charlaquin · Jun 30, 2018

Jester David said:
Well, game designers design games. It’s what they do. They don’t stop just because the edition is “done”. They have house rules and tweaks and variants. It’s less being unsatisfied, and more trying to do what they love doing.

Oh, sure. I just mean, when you see those house rules and variants being published, it’s never “just” (and that’s the key word) them experimenting. It’s them pushing the bounds of the system, and that usually means they’re looking forward to the next edition.

Ted Serious · Jun 30, 2018

Charlaquin said:
Oh, sure. I just mean, when you see those house rules and variants being published, it’s never “just” (and that’s the key word) them experimenting. It’s them pushing the bounds of the system, and that usually means they’re looking forward to the next edition.

Mike Mearls has already shared his initiative house rules.

Marshall · Jun 30, 2018

Ted Serious said:
The at-will magic was the warlock.

The martial magic was the sword sage. The warblade was interesting but not magical.

And no late 3e experiment nerfed casting into the ground.

Then you never read ToM or MoI. Both of which are casting thats severely constrained.

Charlaquin · Jun 30, 2018

Ted Serious said:
Mike Mearls has already shared his initiative house rules.

In an Unearthed Arcana that was clearly signposted as unofficial. That’s very different than what book of nine swords was.

Ted Serious · Jun 30, 2018

Marshall said:
Then you never read ToM or MoI. Both of which are casting thats severely constrained.

The Truenamer was abysmal.

Bad mechanics.

Not exactly a caster.

You have a good point. I was thinking nerf in the sense of existing casters.

Jester David · Jun 30, 2018

Charlaquin said:
In an Unearthed Arcana that was clearly signposted as unofficial. That’s very different than what book of nine swords was.

What does "official" have to do with it?
You said yourself:

Charlaquin said:
Designers never "just experiment." When designers start experimenting, it's because they want to try something that the ruleset they're working with doesn't normally accommodate. It doesn't always lead to a new edition of course, but it's almost always a sign that the designers are unsatisfied with the constraints of the ruleset they're working with, and unsatisfied designers are usually a sign of impending rules changes.

But I disagree with that statemement. Sometimes, it very much is them just playing and experimenting. Seeing what works and what doesn't. Trying something new to see if it works better/faster.

That's because, to the designers, the rules are never finished. They always see something they could have fixed with more time, or could have phrased differently, or could have made more clear or balanced.
It's not tweaking to make a new edition. It's designing rules because that's literally their passion and what they do. Painters paint, singers sing, and game designers hack games. Because designing things exactly like they've designed it before with no variation is boring. They've done that before, and want to do something new and different.

Yeah, some of the late 3e elements were testing the system and gauging the fan reactions to certain new editions. But they also released the giant book of optional rules, Unearthed Arcana, in 2004, just a year after 3.5e released. But pretty much every splatbook added something new. Some innovation or tweak or new way of doing things. Because that's how they sold the books.

Charlaquin · Jun 30, 2018

Jester David said:
What does "official" have to do with it?
You said yourself:

And I standby what I said. It is abundantly clear that Mike Mearls is unsatisfied with the constraints of the 5e rules. He doesn’t even try to hide it, he actively talks about how much he hates bonus actions. In this case, it doesn’t mean a new edition is coming soon. But you can bet that when 6e does come, it won’t have Bonus Actions if Mearls can help it.

Jester David said:
But I disagree with that statemement. Sometimes, it very much is them just playing and experimenting. Seeing what works and what doesn't. Trying something new to see if it works better/faster.

That's because, to the designers, the rules are never finished. They always see something they could have fixed with more time, or could have phrased differently, or could have made more clear or balanced.
It's not tweaking to make a new edition. It's designing rules because that's literally their passion and what they do. Painters paint, singers sing, and game designers hack games. Because designing things exactly like they've designed it before with no variation is boring. They've done that before, and want to do something new and different.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing with what I actually said. I did not say “when designers experiment, it’s always in preparation for a new edition.” I said , “designers never JUST experiment.” Keyword being “just.” Because as you observed, the game is never finished for them. They’re always looking for ways to improve it. That’s not JUST experimenting, that’s experimenting with a purpose. As I said, it doesn’t always lead to a new edition, but it is always a sign that the designers are looking forward.

Aldarc · Jul 2, 2018

Charlaquin said:
And I standby what I said. It is abundantly clear that Mike Mearls is unsatisfied with the constraints of the 5e rules. He doesn’t even try to hide it, he actively talks about how much he hates bonus actions. In this case, it doesn’t mean a new edition is coming soon. But you can bet that when 6e does come, it won’t have Bonus Actions if Mearls can help it.

I'm not sure if I would say that he "hates bonus actions," but he has voiced dissatisfaction with how they work:

"Bonus actions are fairly hacky, and with 3+ years running the final game under my belt it's now obvious how to live without them."

I don’t think you’re disagreeing with what I actually said. I did not say “when designers experiment, it’s always in preparation for a new edition.” I said , “designers never JUST experiment.” Keyword being “just.” Because as you observed, the game is never finished for them. They’re always looking for ways to improve it. That’s not JUST experimenting, that’s experimenting with a purpose. As I said, it doesn’t always lead to a new edition, but it is always a sign that the designers are looking forward.

Most definitely.

fjw70 · Jul 2, 2018

Interesting that one thing 4e people like about 4e was not planned but was done because they ran out of time (I.e. the standard power structure).

I love 4e but it could have used more development time, but every edition prior to 5e could probably say that. Coming from the 80s D&D straight to 4e (due to a break in playing) I was a little more sympathetic to a less than polished game.

The roots of 4e exposed?

Jester David

Hero

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Ted Serious

First Post

Marshall

First Post

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Ted Serious

First Post

Jester David

Hero

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)

Aldarc

Legend

fjw70

Adventurer

Similar Threads