D&D 4E Why has 4E become the D&D zeitgeist?

[Bacris]

I definitely agree that it was 3.5.

3.0 came out when I was out of the gaming mode focusing on college. Pretty much right in that same time period, 3.5 came out. So in my short hiatus, not only has D&D experienced a complete revision, it received two! Of course that poses the question "so when's the next one due out?"

 

[Pierson_Lowgal]

My interest in 4th edition stems from my anticipation of a mini-centric or online-centric DnD, which would upset me. If I expected 4th edition to be a purely tabletop reinvention of DnD, I'd be in the optimistic camp instead of the pessimistic camp. But I rarely post on the boards so my interest is basically invisible.

 

[Nightfall]

Jeremy,

Exactly! It seem llke this: OKay we got a new version of D&D (3.0). We played with it, and kept expecting it to stay the way it supposed to be. Then came d20 and followed in their footsteps, doing different things. I was okay with that and in fact ENJOYING it. Then out of nowhere, they revise it. Why? Was it so wrong? No they said, we just felt like it.

So 3.5 came...and now we're like "Gee I feel like the guy on top of a glacier, waiting to fall off."

 

[Agamon]

I was a player in the 2E days, and the playtest groups notwithstanding, 3E wasn't even a thought before it was announced in 1999.

This actually isn't true (unless you mean 'in your perspective', and not generally speaking). Both the old Wizards iChat boards and the WotC newsgroup had their share of 3E rumors before it was officially announced. Not to the point of 4E rumors here, of course. It's all the internet's fault, IMO.

 

[Nightfall]

Ag,

I think Al was saying from HIS perspective, not from an objective one.

 

[Hussar]

one that had most of the drawbacks of a new edition of the game but few of the benefits,

In your opinion of course. For, I suspect, the vast majority of players out there, 3.5 was a pretty decent improvement. The fact that 3.0 got dropped like a bad pass for 3.5 kinda points to this.

 

[Nightfall]

Hussar,

Maybe but I think the fact is many people supported 3.0 since it was new and seemed to be fairly stream-lined in many places.

 

[teitan]

I agree, it was 3.5e that did it.

Well, in 2e people were afraid of a 3e and I remember 4e threads way before 3.5 came out.

I remember when 2e Revised was announced and TSR had to let people know it wasn't a 3e because it was very divisive. I still know people who refuse to buy the black covers (I won't because I thought they were ugly and why buy it when my unrevised book has the same rules and is excellent shape?). Remember the "why this isn't 3e" editorial in those books by Dave Cook? When Revised was announced I remember some rumours about how TSR was splitting the PHB and DMG into 3 books which wound up being the Option series in the end. I was so ticked that they were going to do 3 books instead of the 2 etc. People in my area were really upset that it was going to be 3e and they didn't want a 3e.

Were there really any differences in the revised and unrevised 2e books outside of artwork, poorer printing and erratta inclusion?

 

[Alzrius]

The fact that 3.0 got dropped like a bad pass for 3.5 kinda points to this.

I don't think this is true. I think that 3.0 got dropped in favor of 3.5 due to the perception of being "left behind" by the game if you didn't. I seriously doubt that the 3.5 Core Rulebooks were bought only after people had read them and come to an honest decision that it was an overall improvement for the game itself.

 

[Nightfall]

Al,

You got my vote on that one. Buying 3.5 was to be a money issue NOT a "game needs improvement" issue.