Favourite D&D edition that’s not 5E

Zardnaar · May 27, 2019

I understand why they did it, smooth out the jumps in power. As Art and Arcana said it asked the right questions but got the wrong answers. There's st least 3 or 4 ways they could have done 4E to fix 3E.

Immortal Sun · May 27, 2019

Zardnaar said:
Online games are particularly addictive imho especially now with things like loot boxes that have been made illegal and gave legislation pending.

Interactive world's with all your friends, no pause always on 24/7 using techniques casinos use (no clocks etc).

I play online but a lot less than I did. After playing MMO games nether myself or my wife do, mostly because of the time sink and now money (pay to win, loot boxes etc).

And none of those things existed in MMOs in 2008 when 4E was released. "Loot boxes" are a relatively recent addition to standard gaming, even pay-2-win and cash stores made up a fairly narrow segment of the MMO market in 2008. Between 2004 (the launch of WoW) and 2008, most loot-boxes and addictive "fremium" services were limited to "mobile games". The PC and console gaming industry didn't see them start to become a major element in gaming until around 2012. Well after 4E was already out and already on the decline.

Moreover, the loot-box/pay-2-win/cash-store concept was largely asian in its earlier outset, having very little influence on western games again until almost 6 years after the launch of WoW.

You are quite literally, putting the cart before the horse as WotC's decision to cater to the MMO/video-gaming segment of gamers was made in a time where many of the addictive elements of gaming you cite DIDN'T EVEN EXIST.

So, again you can see why I'm having such a hard time here accepting anything you say, since for all your talk about how dangerous gaming is as some kind of strike against 4E and WotC's decisions, reads an awful lot like someone who wasn't very active in video gaming circles.

And the very idea that 4E should have been a "fix" to 3E just infuriates me further. It demonstrates no understanding of how WotC operates and perpetuates the degrading of 4E as nothing more than erroneous "fix" to another edition.

*throws up hands* I'm out!

Zardnaar · May 27, 2019

Well it's exactly what Art and Arcana covers and why 4E was influenced by an MMO. WotC wanted that monthly subscription cash and designed 4E to get it for use with an online VTT. Key difference is it's to different genres, I'm not claiming MMOs are inherently bad. But I don't recall a massive demand for D&D to be based off one circa 2006.

It's not a bug surprise what happens. IDK if WotC thought that just because you can should you?

It was also rushed, much like 3.5. There was a backlash against that and software developers are doing it now. Release now patch later. If people hate your product on release it's probably to late.

Nebulous · May 27, 2019

Same as [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION]. I spent a lot of time with 2e and loved it, but the sweeping update to 3rd edition was a welcome change. Hard to pick.

Aldarc · May 27, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
While I figuratively attended the Old School, starting in 1980, I suppose I must have graduated, or something, because I moved on to each new ed in turn, and played many other games in the mean time. Maybe OSR is incorporating some contemporaneous design, but, from my perspective that's just par for the course, what's noticeable is the atavistic aspects of the designs, and the appeal to nostalgia.

And, my 1e books weren't burned in a fire or lost in a move, and held up to years of hard use, and haven't yet been stolen by WotC ninjas, so OSR is just a big non-movement for me. OSRIC is nice when I don't have an old book handy, that's it.

I'm not terribly interested in retroclones, but I do like the rules lighter basic designs that have come out of the OSR movement. I would recommend, for example, the Black Hack. Beyond the Wall also does some incredibly neat things, combining OSR with PbtA elements. And for sci-fi on an OSR chassis, Stars Without Number has been making waves.

pemerton · May 28, 2019

Paul Farquhar said:
Tunnels and Trolls only differed from D&D in terms of presentation

This isn't true. T&T doesn't have a cleric/MU contrast; it is a spell point casting system; it uses group-vs-group combat resolution with no to-hit rolls and armour as a wounds buffer; etc.

Saying that T&T differs from D&D only in terms of presentation is like saying that Rolemsater or RQ differs from D&D only in terms of presentation.

Paul Farquhar said:
Because in a story telling game it is only presentation that matters. What goes on under the hood is relevant only to engineers.

I'm not 100% sure what a "story-telling game" is - Prince Valiant describes itself as a story-tellling game, but it's clearly a RPG and its mechanics (which are absolutely first-rate) are important to how it plays.

But anyway, the idea that the mechanical difference between (say) D&D and T&T don't matter to the play experience strikes me as a pretty ridiculous claim.

Tony Vargas said:
the meaningful fiction isn't really the illusion, taking the maths as being the fiction, instead of modeling the fiction, is.

So perhaps illusion is the wrong word..

Maybe I've misunderstood this, but I think you're saying something I agree with: in 4e the maths/stats of PCs and creatures aren't models of anything. They're mechanical elements to be used in a mechanical process for determining outcomes.

Tony Vargas · May 28, 2019

pemerton said:
I'm not 100% sure what a "story-telling game" is -

An RPG that, in the 90s, positioned itself on the ROLE side of the Roll v Role Debate's false dichotomy. The eponymous Storyteller, being the prime example.
Synonyms: snooty, pretentious, pseudointllectual, indie, low-volume, prize-winning, obscure, forgotten, out of print.
Antonyms: D&D.

Maybe I've misunderstood this, but I think you're saying something I agree with: in 4e the maths/stats of PCs and creatures aren't models of anything. They're mechanical elements to be used in a mechanical process for determining outcomes.

OK, I kinda like 'models' as a term, and I'd translate that last sentence to "they're just a resolution system." But i think we may be may be in danger of agreement, yes.

Fenris-77 · May 28, 2019

Yeah, there were a bunch of annoying and pretentious RPGs that wanted to pretend they were collaborative story telling experiences or whatever rather than, you know, games. A false dichotomy indeed, since they're all games. There are no RPs, only RPGs.

Hussar · May 28, 2019

Hexmage-EN said:
My question then is why did 4E only last four years, and why were so many of its innovations stripped from 5E? Did WotC put out content at an unsustainable pace, did they cave due to vocal 4E detractors, etc?

The Rick & Morty vs Dungeons & Dragons comic series even skipped talking about 4E, with Morty questioning why and Rick replying with "we don't talk about fourth edition". This after the comic criticized both 1E (too deadly) and 3E (wizards dominate).

Well, the fact that it was still only getting played by about a third of gamers pretty much doomed 4e.

As far as why we "don't talk about fourth edition", well, there's a very good reason for that. One only has to peruse the forums from about 2008-2010 to see why we don't talk about fourth edition. It was impossible to talk about without it turning into a giant edition war wank.

/edit to add

Heck, see [MENTION=6716779]Zardnaar[/MENTION] and his discussion with [MENTION=6981174]Immortal Sun[/MENTION] for why we don't talk about 4e. Imagine it was like that for every single thread, every single day, for three or four YEARS and that's what it was like to talk about 4e.