4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Shroomy]

Personally I have no axe to grind in the aldarin debate, but it does puzzle me a bit. I don't really understand why the wild/fey elf split is described as a problem. It seems about the same as saying that there's a problem having humans in both agricultural and industrial roles. It's a cultural difference, not a racial one. At least that was always how I interpreted the different niches elves fill.

I think it had more to do with how the cultural distinction was represented mechanically then the distinction itself, though having a fantasy race with two very strong, conflicting archetypes is going to cause some problems. For example, in 3.5e, the elf's favorite class is wizard but they don't receive any boost to Intelligence (or any mental stat for that matter); in fact, they're more mechanically inclined to being a rogue or ranger or something similar

 

[justanobody]

The reason you have a preference of one over the other is a criticism of the one you dislike or a part of it.

That is what a criticism is. A subjective look at something from one singular person's perspective.

Nothing is immune to criticism.

 

[Andor]

It also irritating to listen to when they do this, because they aren't complaining about what is truly bothering them.

There is a psychology term called 'projection'. You might find it interesting if you look it up.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The reason you have a preference of one over the other is a criticism of the one you dislike or a part of it.

That is what a criticism is. A subjective look at something from one singular person's perspective.

Nothing is immune to criticism.

I prefer it when people are straight and say what they mean. Its annoying when they are not. It has nothing to do with what is actually being said.

 

[justanobody]

I prefer it when people are straight and say what they mean. Its annoying when they are not. It has nothing to do with what is actually being said.

What did I say that you did not understand?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

What did I say that you did not understand?

I wasn't actually talking to you in particular. I thought you were replying to my previous post, and what I said was a reply assuming you were talking to me.

 

[WalterKovacs]

That is true. Of course, if you perfected the way to avoid running into problems after 30 years of work, you'd likely be justifiably peeved to discover that your method has been tossed out the window, returning the problem while simultaneously undoing your work around. Especially if that work around has worked for such a long time.

Right?


RC

Has 3.5 stopped people playing 2e? Did 2e stop people playing 1e? If people are still playing older editions, the newer editions doesn't actually have an effect on them.

Basically, a new edition HAS to be different than the previous edition.

Each edition, in part, has to compete against the previous editions. They make a new edition "fixing" parts of the older editions. However most of the "problems" are something that, as the saying goes, may be a "feature not a bug". Some people are happy to have things change, like expanding the sweet spot from 1 to 30. Other people hate it, because they LIKED the way that things worked different at low levels, mid levels and high levels, as it relates to wizards.

So, you can either make a new edition with the same "feature not bugs". You are appealing to the people that like the old edition, are comfortable with the old edition, and aren't really looking for a new edition. OR, you can make a new edition that changes those things, for people that may be getting tired of the old edition and looking for a new one.

If WOTC felt that 3.5 was just about perfect ... and made a few changes and released it again ... they wouldn't attract people that may feel there are problems with 3.5, because most of the same problems would be there. And, a lot of the people that like 3.5 may not see a reason to abandon a "complete" edition with all the splat books, etc ... for a "new" edition. Pathfinder sort of accepts the fact that they can't reboot 3.5, and allow just about anything they didn't explicitly change from 3.5 to stay. Selling it as another expansion of 3.5 is one thing. A total reboot would have a very hard time competing.

So, in general, people that are overall happy with earlier editions may not be happy with newer editions. The new edition isn't necessarily indicating that there is something wrong with the older edition ... just that there are some things the older editions aren't necessarily good at. This edition tries to tackle that from a different angle.

Ultimately, someone who has found their "near perfect system" is likely not going to see WOTC release a new edition of D&D that they'll be happy with, because re-releasing the same game isn't going to happen. It already exists, and there is nothing stopping someone from playing it other than perhaps less players looking to play in a campaign of that edition.

Aside:

Defender/Striker/Controller/Leader isn't something they pulled out of WoW. 2e had Warrior/Rogue/Wizard/Priest. Warrior was a bit more strikerish, and the rogue's role was more of an out of combat role, but the foundations of the four basic roles were there ... following the original "only 4 classes" that came before it. 3e was really the only class to significantly go away from that idea of roles.

 

[justanobody]

I wasn't actually talking to you in particular. I thought you were replying to my previous post, and what I said was a reply assuming you were talking to me.

I was replying to the whole "4e is immune to criticism" concept. No matter what it is, nothing is immune to criticism.

 

[pawsplay]

The step into Faerie and reappear in the mortal world several feet away. Seems both folkloric and high fantasy to me.

... but unfortunately, not present in the Dragonlance trilogy, any of the Forgotten Realms novels, or any previously published D&D product that purports to describe an elven settlement and its defenses.

 

[pawsplay]

I've actually thought about it several times recently, not just now. I've been on various gaming fora dating back to Usenet. I was with Malhavoc when they went with DRM. I remember the reaction to the end of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon magazines.

The problem I see now is that, while in the past things would heat up and then cool down, we seem to have settled into a higher background temperature. Maybe it's just the economy, maybe there's an underlying sense of panic that one's D&D of choice is going to die, but things just seem more shrill than usual.

There are probably a lot of factors. But I think the biggest thing to consider is that 3e has no small number of fans. And 4e has inherited them. While D&D has had gone through many changes over the years, I think this is the first time since the Basic/Advanced split that a version has been published while another was still thriving. And in that case, the publishers had something of a demographic difference, with Basic D&D being marketed toward new players and also enjoyed by some OD&D holdouts, with AD&D being marketed to the hobbyists.

With 3e and 4e, there really is just about zero correlation between any major demographic I'm aware of. Anyone could be a 4e fan or a 3e fan. Both are tightly designed systems with a lot of fans, and the same kinds of people enjoy each. They read the same books, play the same non-D&D games, and ultimately, read the same message boards.

And so here we are.

Meh. Maybe I'm just too old and jaded for gaming forums! Maybe if everyone claps their hands and just wishes ever so hard, I'll brighten up!

I'm wondering if perhaps being on the 4e design team might make you especially vulnerable to burnout when it comes to stuff like this.

Things will cool off, but only after 4e has been broken in and the new converts have had a chance to appreciate it for what it is, and what it is not.

Here's looking forward to a 5e to look forward to.