I think this conversation left the initial bit about the comparison of Pathfinder's world guide and 3.5E to 4E. A few people keep on chiming in and telling me I'm wrong, evidently missing the posts where I pretty much agree that they aren't the same in
degree. I understand and agree that a world guide is different than a rules set. That said, let's move on to what this thread is
really about, at least at this point, which is the change of editions in D&D. And I think we're actually successfully talking about it without falling into an edition war! (Knocks on wood).
My assertion still stands that the ire directed towards WotC for coming out with 4E is misplaced. Why? Because of something I stated earlier and is key to this whole discussion, IMHO:
If Wizards of the Coast had not come out with 4E, D&D would have stagnated and eventually declined into another "Dark Age."
As I said, maybe 2008 was too soon. 2009 might have been better, but 2010 would have been high time and 2011 might have been too late. A company simply cannot retain its size without or revitalizing their product in some way, and in the case of an RPG company that means re-booting the system, starting the product cycle all over again.
Can we agree that this is a necessity? 3.5 was getting awfully close to being tapped out; sure, they could have come out with another new setting or two, but what about crunch? How many splats could they possibly have published? Things were already starting to get watered down.
I am not saying that WotC could not have handled things better. Sure, they could have. They could have offered a new OGL, or at least grandfathered in established d20 publishers. Maybe they could have made a 3.75E instead of a 4E, but I would argue that this would have merely delayed the inevitable.
4E was necessary. I would even say that the degree to which it was a new game and not merely a new edition was also necessary to enable a full re-booting (although I still don't agree that the difference between 3.5E and 4E is greater than 2E and 3E).
To address a couple points:
And in my estimation most, perhaps all, of edition wars begin when someone points out a problem and someone else shouts 'you're wrong' and tries to invalidate the problem rather than address it. As soon as you started doing that you began the journey into the warzone.
I
am addressing the "problem" by showing that it isn't one, or rather it isn't as big of a problem as many are making it out to be. See the above. A new edition is not a problem, it is a necessity.
The point Wicht made was that rather than a new edition WotC introduced a new game with the same name. The point is valid, whether you agree or not. Substantial changes were made, and for many conversion is no longer a prospect that brings any pleasure.
Again, see what I wrote above. First of all, WotC had already introduced a "new game" in 3E, which was as new as 4E was, or at least roughly so. Furthermore, as I have been saying, a new edition in the way that you mean would not have been enough. If WotC had essentially published Pathfinder in 2008 as "D&D 3.75E" people would be crying foul just as loudly, if not moreso. And it, as a partial rebooting, would have only delayed the inevitable total rebooting.
Folks can and do convert between 3.X and Pathfinder with ease. Folks can and do convert between 3.X/Pathfinder and 4.0 with difficulty. Even WotC did not bother with a conversion guide. The first is a translation, the second is a reinterpretation, nearly as much work as starting a 4e adventure from scratch. (Which may well be less than starting a 3.X adventure from scratch. 4e does make that easier, from all accounts.)
First of all, as some have said, this depends upon the individual. Some find the conversion from 3.X to 4E not so difficult. I'm still trying to get my head around why it is so difficult and all I can think of is that the folks that say it is difficult are being too exacting. I mean, a party of drow is a party of drow, right? It doesn't matter what edition. Furthermore, with "Rule Zero" (DM Fiat) one can ad hoc adjust any situation, one can "convert" on the fly.
Secondly, even if this is true--that 3.X to 4E conversion is difficult--so what? There are literally
thousands of 3.X products available, far more than 4E--and probably far more than 4E will ever have before it is superceded by 5E (thanks to the OGL). And it is not as if 4E is flooding the market with new adventures and such to be converted.
Producing a new edition of a game that is backwards and forwards compatible through eight generations of the same game engine is not the same as completely changing the game engine. (Heck, it is easier to convert a critter from 1st edition Rune-Quest to the current edition of Call of Cthulhu than it is from second edition AD&D to 3.X....)
That is why WotC is getting complaints and Paizo and Chaosium aren't.
Fair enough, although I think this is only partially true. The other part of it is the demonization WotC receives as being Top Dog. I don't even disagree with those who have said that this is as it should be. But let's just recognize it for what it is.
However, as soon as you say 'with the DDI' you add an additional cost per month - which substitutes expense for difficulty. And there are no third party software game aids allowed to likewise fill that niche. (Yes, I like PCGen.)
This is misleading. The DDI tools I assume Lucky is speaking of are Character Builder and Monster Builder. These can be downloaded through subscribing for one month at $10. That's $10 and $10 only to get everything published from June, 2008 to now. To get further updates one has to re-subscribe, but one could subscribe once a year for $10 and get every monster and every character option available. Not a bad deal, and hardly a huge cost.
It is definitely true that you cannot convert 3.5 directly to 4e. They are two different games, though set in the same genre, and with linked titles. But definitely different games. In switching from 3.5 to 4e, WotC stopped making new material for one game, and started making new material for a new game. However, they've don that before -- 2.e to 3e is nearly a new game. I just don't see what is wrong with that, though?
I don't see why there is an imperative for D&D to remain backwards compatible through all of its editions. There has been a lot of innovation in RPG design since the eras of (the much-missed) Gygax and Arneson. Why not implement that new game design expertise? Especially since the old material remains available and is still fully playable. At the meetup I play in, there are regular 3.5/Pathfinder games and also some older D&D games too.
It still comes down, to me, to the idea that WotC (or TSR, or anyone other company) has the right to stop making new material for one game, and start making new material for a new game. While I can see disagreeing with the new direction, I still don't understand asserting that it is wrong at a base level for a company to even try going in a new direction.
Yes, well said.
I'm more chiming in because I have observed that there is a subset of critics of 4e/WotC who seem motivated by their dislike of 4e to criticize 4e/WotC merely for existing/making new rules/or no matter what design decision is made on a certain issue (i.e. they will criticize WotC no matter what it does). Obviously, that doesn't apply to all critics, and there has been some substantive criticisms. But other stuff just seems like hyperbole to me.
Again, well said.
