3E to 4E Gripes (Was: What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?)

[Jeff Wilder]

I personally know for a fact that I would have been happier with a 4E that would have stayed as true to 3E as possible, but while fixing everything that was causing problems and the bog down of higher level play.

This is what I was expecting and hoping for. So no, I wouldn't have griped. I had a lengthy thread on here about how I believe that WotC discarded me as a customer, not that I left, because I had every intention to be as completist with 4E as I have been with 3.5. (And then the previews started ... )

Regarding the switch from 3E to 3.5:

I didn't mind all that much because it was done relatively early. Although the changes were relatively minor (but largely useful), there simply weren't that many books to rebuy. (Has anybody done a comparison of WotC 3E product released in the four years of 3E versus the four years of 3.5? I wouldn't be surprised if the latter four years had four times as much material released, in terms of page count and/or cost.)

And I wouldn't have minded the switch from 3.5 to a more 3E-like 4E because it had become obvious that changes were really, really needed for higher level play and other issues. As I look back on it now, I wasn't "feeling" our hypothetical 4E as an edition update from 3.5 ... I was feeling it as an edition update -- a needed one -- from 3E.

That said, there's something awfully, awfully nice about never having to buy another WotC D&D book again. It's hard to explain, because I loved collecting, reading, and using 3.5 products, but it's nice.

 

[Ariosto]

Because I have played only a little 3E, I'm curious as to the problems devoted players have found with it. I'm sure they're not the fundamental ones that ensured I would not DM it!

Apparently, there are some issues with high-level play. Are they in the core rules, or a product of piling on supplements?

 

[Runestar]

I see 4e as a necessary evil of sorts.

3.5 literally seemed to be collapsing under its own bloated mass. It had multiple supplements being released every month, and new broken combinations emerging ever so often. If it had a 3.75, then we would see people complaining about forking out money yet again for 3.75 versions of existing material.

Also, while 3.5 was meant to fix some of the issues with 3.0, the reality is that it solved only a few (such as haste and spell save dcs scaling out of whack), while opening the floodgates for newer, more broken material.

Thus, I feel that a new version was needed to rejuvenate the genre and make things seem fresh and novel again.

Though I admit I don't really like 4e, since it seems to come across as ToB lite to me (mostly due to the lack of a reliable recharge mechanic).

 

[Ariosto]

This is the sort of thing that really loses me. I haven't the foggiest notion of what "ToB lite" or "a reliable recharge mechanic" might be -- much less what they might have to do with D&D.

 

[Glyfair]

But I have always wondered about the taste tests for New Coke. Whenever I tried it, it tasted pretty bland and nondescript to me. I can't imagine people actually selected it over Old Coke. My money is on the Coca Cola company engineering the whole thing to boost sales with the release of Coca Cola Classic.

OT (although there are some parallels here):
Having read quite a bit, it seems there are two strong things here.

1) New Coke seems to have been very good at taste tests. People widely preferred it there. Long term, however, they didn't.

2) Coke underestimated the "peer pressure" issue. Coke noticed that in group tests the groups that had people loudly complaining about the New Coke had a far higher percentage of people who disliked the product. Coke ignored it. [And this is even more applicable to D&D, since D&D is a group exercise and drinking Coke doesn't have to be.]

Back on topic:

When 4E was announced Chris Pramas said it was the right move. He felt that a 3.75 would have been a big mistake. If you are going to have a new edition, you need to make it worth having a new edition. It would have been compounding the mistake of 3.5 (which, IMO, was one of the largest causes of the early 4E negativity). [Note that Chris wasn't commenting on the specific rules set, just the 3.75 vs. 4E issue].

I agree. Setting aside the specific choices, a new edition couldn't be a 3.75. While 3.5 may have worked, it set an even worse taste to the "new edition" controversy than was already there.

Personally, I wanted an edition that was updated on a regular but incremental basis. Someone said that the 2E PHB had small updates throughout the lifespan. I would have liked to see something like that done. When a new printing is due every few years, fix small things in the system (emphasis on "FIX"). Enough that the game works better, not so much that everyone feels they need to get all new books because of the changes.

That has its issues. The biggest being what happens when groups have contradictory books at the table. I feel that is easily done with the typical RPG method, the group decides which method works better for them and makes that the method. As long as the changes are transparently announced so the changes don't surprise most people, that would work best.

 

[Toben the Many]

Responding to the OP, yes I would have given it a serious thumbs-down if 4e had been just a cleaned-up and improved 3.x edition.

If you're going to have a new edition, make it different enough to call it a new edition.

So what would I have liked to have seen? Something akin to the SAGA system would have been nice. A radical change, but not one so radical that it bares no resemblance to the previous edition. And a system that is a bit more simulationist.

And, as others have said, a system not so focused on combat.

 

[kitsune9]

Forked from: What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?



Actually I'd have been one person that wouldn't have griped. What about the rest of you that have since stayed with 3E? Would you be griping about money woes or that it wasn't 'new enough'?

I personally know for a fact that I would have been happier with a 4E that would have stayed as true to 3E as possible, but while fixing everything that was causing problems and the bog down of higher level play.

Not sure if I'd gripe about 4e if just fixed all the broken stuff with 3e. Maybe I would if it didn't do something really different. I think Pathfinder's version would constitute a 4e version for me if that's what WotC put out.

 

[ProfessorPain]

OT (although there are some parallels here):
Having read quite a bit, it seems there are two strong things here.

1) New Coke seems to have been very good at taste tests. People widely preferred it there. Long term, however, they didn't.

2) Coke underestimated the "peer pressure" issue. Coke noticed that in group tests the groups that had people loudly complaining about the New Coke had a far higher percentage of people who disliked the product. Coke ignored it. [And this is even more applicable to D&D, since D&D is a group exercise and drinking Coke doesn't have to be.]
.

The taste tests themselves were flawed as well. Drinkers only sampled New Coke in Small sips; which is a very different experience than drinking a whole can or bottle. This largely explains the success of the Pesi Challenge too. New Coke and Pepsi were both sweeter than the original coke. And it makes sense that based on a single sip, someone would prefer the sweeter drink. But as most people know from experience, sweet foods and beverages can lose their appeal in larger quantities.

 

[Mournblade94]

Alcoholic's Anonymous doesn't advise blaming your issues on the beer.

You missed the anology that was originally made.

Yes alcoholics don't blame their problems on beer because their problems are not related to a harmless game.

OH!!! You tried to be funny! I see.

Ah you hate the thread so much you have to keep adding to it in constructive ways. Very good.

I would of liked to see 4e much closer to the Saga Edition of Star Wars. Much was fixed and it plays smooth.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The taste tests themselves were flawed as well. Drinkers only sampled New Coke in Small sips; which is a very different experience than drinking a whole can or bottle. This largely explains the success of the Pesi Challenge too. New Coke and Pepsi were both sweeter than the original coke. And it makes sense that based on a single sip, someone would prefer the sweeter drink. But as most people know from experience, sweet foods and beverages can lose their appeal in larger quantities.

As I said before:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...nderstanding-edition-wars-14.html#post4617783
Post #247
The New Coke analogy- which I was among the first to bring up on these boards in reference to 4Ed- is not meant to insult 4Ed. Its not an insult, its an observation.

It is brought up because it is the classic example taught in MBA programs (like the one I went through) when illustrating the potential pitfalls of reading too much into your market research and overcommitting to a particular business strategy or product.

Coke, the dominant softdrink manufacturer, had been losing market share to newer, sweeter softdrinks, especially Pepsi. They did extensive recipe testing in product labs, and millions of dollars worth of real-world product testing, marketing research. After the new recipe kept beating the old recipe AND other soft-drinks in test after test, they released New Coke and started winding down production of the original recipe.

It was a popular flavor, a world-beater according to empirical data.

The problem was 2 fold- it didn't fit into the identity of the product it was meant to replace, but even more importantly, the existing customer base didn't want the new flavor if it meant giving up access to the old. They wanted both. While they expected New Coke to bring in new customers- which it did- they lost members of the customer base.

The rest is history. Sales rose sharply as new customers flocked to New Coke, but then declined steeply as the backlash began. It cost Coke a LOT, not just in expenditures, but also in market share.<snip>

(boldface added here)
This was the key problem- no taster, no matter how positive their review, was asked about whether they would replace Coke with the product they had just tasted. That sweet taste was enticing, but it may not have been a flavor Coke drinkers wanted all the time- say, with a dinner- as opposed to using for making floats for dessert.

I can see the merits of 4Ed, and I'd even play it if someone offered. It won't EVER replace 3.5 for me (and apparently many others), though, because there are too many things about it that I simply don't like.