The Inverse Trek Law?

[Darrin Drader]

Fine, fine. Honestly though, while The Undiscovered Country made for a graceful retirement of the Enterprise-A, much of its symbolism doesn't move me as much as it does others, since I was two--maybe--when the Iron Curtain fell.

Then you never had to live with the ongoing question of whether today would be the day that posturing gave way to action and they would finally push the button. I wasn't one of those kids who could just sit back and not thing about it. I often thought about how close to war we were and how likely it was that it would all end badly for everyone involved. It was frightening and fascinating at the same time.

I think one of the reasons that the post apocalyptic genre appeals to me so much now is because it was my greatest fear growing up. When the cold war ended, I felt like an enormous burden was lifted because it meant that the serious threat of nuclear annihilation was effectively over. For a while I didn't really trust the Russians, but when it became clear that this was for real and it was final, I was happy because I could let go of that stress.

So anyway yeah, Trek VI was meant to reflect the end of the cold war and show that peace could prevail. Since Star Trek was ultimately about hope, peace, and optimism, it made sense that they would choose to end the series in that way. More than that, it was a classy movie that was strong on story, strong on character, and had some of those classic moments that we hadn't seen since the original series.

Anyway, sorry to derail this conversation into the realm of Trek geekdom. My belief is that 4th edition will probably be a fun game to play, just as second edition was a fun game to play. Whether or not it will be a worthy successor to 3.5 remains to be seen, but who cares, as long as people are having fun and the brand continues on? I remember that when 3E came out, I had just finished up a 2E campaign and I really had no desire to switch to 3E at that time. I mean why should I? I had all the 2E books, I had relatively new players who knew the game, and we were happy with it as it was. Then I looked at the PHB, liked what I saw, and asked them to convert their characters so we could try out the new rules while keeping the option open of going back to 2E. We never looked back.

I don't know if 4E will be like that; honestly I think it's too soon to say based on the information we have. I am feeling a lot like I did at the end of 2E, except that you can add the fact that I design games now and I didn't then. I am not someone who will do design work for a game I don't like, so if I look at it and decide that it's not for me, and I don't enjoy playing it, then you won't see me doing any design work for it. I'll find a game I like and go there instead - heck, I might even start a new company that specializes in designing stuff for 3.5 after the release of 4E. If I do like it, I'll either be doing work for WotC or some other company publishing under the GSL. Right now I've moved into the cautiously optimistic category. So if we have to compare 4E to one of the Star Trek movies, I hope it's a Wrath of Khan! Give me something I can work with and get behind and I'll be its strongest supporter!

 

[Belgarath]

I rarely post on the boards, but read them often. I had to chime in my opinion on this discussion though.

Each new edition has had its plusses and minuses. There have been changes that I thought "wow, that is a great idea!" and others which were "god, how can they be so stupid!"

On the whole however, I think that each new edition has been an improvement. I loved the 2nd edition handling of spheres and schools of magic. I enjoyed the fact that there is no longer any racial limtiation on classes in 3e. I am sure that there will be things that i really like about 4e, like choices in class abilities and improving racial abilities, and some that I dont care about.


I think really what most people are missing is that 4e is not out yet. I say give it a chance. Only when you have the books in your hands and played it a bit can you really sit back and say "I dont like it" or "what a great game". Until then my suggestion is wait and see

 

[MaelStorm]

You know what's funny, is that your theory might work for me! (But to be honest, I did not try all the editions, so my example can't verify if your theory has real ground.)
Of all the RPGs I tried before: AD&D 2E did go a long way for me (the other two games that had a lasting impression on me was: GURPS 2E, and Shadowrun 2E).
D&D 1E got me onto RPG, but I found there was a lot leaving to be desired. (But it was a nice and fun starter.)
For the 3E and 3.5E, I was either playing other 2E RPGs, or not playing at all!!!
And now that I want to start roleplaying again, it looks like 4E is going to be the game that got me back into the RPG industry.

 

[S'mon]

Imo those OD&D splats broke the game. Adding 7th-9th level spells when stuff like teleport and raise dead had previously defined the maximum level of power possible was a major problem...

...And the OD&D splats have remained in the AD&D line all the way up to 3e. That's why 3e doesn't work at high level. The OD&D splats broke the magic system. That's why we need the major overhauls of 4e.

I came to realise this when I looked at OD&D. The game just makes far more sense in terms of its source material with spells restricted to 1st-6th. 7th-9th might be ok for a particular high-magic setting, but they break the swords & sorcery feel.

 

[Danzauker]

1e -"Hey! This things sells!"

2e - "Hey! Let's crank out a new edition and sell some more! whoa. This isn't going the way we thought."

3e - "Hey! This thing sells!"

4e - "Hey! Let's crank out a new edition and sell some more! . . . "

This sort of reasoning applies to grogn... *ahem* players, too.

1e - Hey! What a fantastic and original game! It's got everything I wanted! It's MY game.

2e - Bah! They changed everything that was nice pointlessly! It's not MY game anymore. I'll play something else until nostalgia brings me back.

3e - Hey! What a fantastic and original game! It's got everything I wanted! It's MY game.

4e - Bah! They changed everything that was nice pointlessly! It's not MY game anymore. I'll play something else until nostalgia brings me back.

 

[delericho]

My theory is that because the heyday of D&D was the late-70's/early-80's, it was due for a revival in the late-90's/early-00's. In a decade's time, when the eagerly-anticipated 6e is about to be released, we'll probably find that both 4e and 5e will be rather poorly regarded, just as 2e is today.

And that applies regardless of the content or quality of 2e, 4e or 5e. These things seem to run in cycles of about 20 years.

(I'm assuming we'll see 5e in about 5 years. That may or may not be accurate. It could be that in 2019 it is 5e that is being released, or 7e, or something else entirely.)

 

[Hussar]

My theory is that because the heyday of D&D was the late-70's/early-80's, it was due for a revival in the late-90's/early-00's. In a decade's time, when the eagerly-anticipated 6e is about to be released, we'll probably find that both 4e and 5e will be rather poorly regarded, just as 2e is today.

And that applies regardless of the content or quality of 2e, 4e or 5e. These things seem to run in cycles of about 20 years.

(I'm assuming we'll see 5e in about 5 years. That may or may not be accurate. It could be that in 2019 it is 5e that is being released, or 7e, or something else entirely.)

To be honest, I think that the reason that 2e is poorly regarded is because it lacks a vocal following, not because it was any worse than other editions. People who switched to 2e either jumped to 3e or dropped the hobby. Very, very few people went to 2e, then back to 1e. ((Yes, yes, in the back, I KNOW that you did, sit down please.))

So, we've got those who left 2e for 3e, or those that never went to 2e and stayed with 1e. For those who moved on from 2e to 3e, most would not try to defend 2e mechanically, because you can't. For those who stayed with 1e, anything else is bad, so, they won't defend it either.

I really don't think that 2e was mechanically bad. I think it was a vast improvement mechanically on 1e. I think there were some things in 2e, particularly at the corporate level, that drove D&D into the ground. It wasn't system failings so much that caused the problems.

People tend to gloss over the fact that after the bubble burst on 1e, TSR was scrambling to try to bring gamers back. They released the Unearthed Arcana considerably early just for that reason. IMO, 2e saved the hobby of D&D. Had we stuck with 1e, people would have simply dropped the hobby or moved on to other systems entirely.

 

[BryonD]

To be honest, I think that the reason that 2e is poorly regarded is because it lacks a vocal following, not because it was any worse than other editions. People who switched to 2e either jumped to 3e or dropped the hobby. Very, very few people went to 2e, then back to 1e. ((Yes, yes, in the back, I KNOW that you did, sit down please.))

There are quite a few people who left 2e because they found better games.
When I found better games, I played that and loyalty to the name Dungeons and Dragons had zero impact. Newest version, shiny and current, whatever, I played the game that was best for what I wanted. I came back in with 3e still not because of the name, but because it became the game I found to be the best around. And based on the boom that happened back then, I don't think I am alone on that.

So 2e may not have been much worse than 1e. But 3e boomed from the ashes of 2e because it was far better than 2e.

Again, the editions shouldn't be measured one against another so much. The editions should mainly be measured against what else was out there. 1e and 2e weren't that far apart, by for their day 1e rocked and 2e sucked.

 

[Ourph]

As the originator of one of the posts that spawned the "reverse Trek rule" discussion, I'd like to point out that the comment wasn't as simple as "X rocks, X+1 sucks". In fact, there was no edition suckery implied in my comments at all. I just think the 1e-2e transition and the 3e-4e transition have a lot of points in common, not the least of which is a desire to rewrite the rules to break ties with a non-rule-related entity (in the case of 2e, it was Gygax's name in the authorial credits, in the case of 4e it's the stipulations of the OGL). Both transitions also touted a need to streamline and simplify a ruleset that was too complex and unwieldy.

The 2e-3e transition reversed a lot of that simplification and streamlining in the interest of spicing up tactical elements of the game (ex: 2e eliminated 1e's fiddly and complex initiative, facing, helmet and shield rules, then 3e reintroduced a lot of new fiddly tactical combat rules like flanking, AoOs, reach and 5ft steps). I predict that 5e will uphold the odd/even pattern by reprioritizing granularity and rulesmastery over streamlining and heralding itself as a return to D&D's roots.

I guess whether that counts as a Reverse Trek Rule or an extension of the regular Trek Rule depends on whether you like your RPGs streamlined or fiddly.

 

[Delta]

Read the quote carefully. They sell more PHBs each year than they sold during the 1980s. Now, this either means that they sell more PHBs in 1 year than an entire decade, or they outsell every single individual year from the 1980s. One is obviously way more impressive than the other, but either way, they're outselling 1st Edition during it's heyday.

You'd really have to demonstrate that the 1E PHB sold more in years in the 1980's than the 1970's, which I don't think is the case. Big sales in 1978 & 1979 is what allowed for lots of players to be active in 1980+. ENWorld polls have shown pretty consistently that the biggest player spike was actually the year 1980.

I'd love to see WOTC release actual sales figures throughout the years. Up to this point, they've been very careful to avoid comparing sales of 3E to the 1978-79 era.

Of course, Charles Ryan actually reads & responds to these boards, perhaps you can get him to chime in with clarification.