Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

[Bluenose]

I'm not sure it's entirely a rules thing either. Ruleset matters less to me, but when you slaughter sacred cows willy nilly and redefine many of the game's concepts, including using classic names for very different creatures, that's where the fundamental disconnect is. I wouldn't discount the flavor and fluff changes as part of the reception, alongside the rules.

Are you actually claiming that altering too much of the flavour/fluff means the game doesn't qualify as D&D any more? Because I'm damn certain that half the D&D audience plays a homebrew setting, and they aren't doing that because they love the default fluff and setting(s). And I'm equally sure that they still think they're playing D&D. An awful lot of published settings have been making burger of sacred cows, as well. And they're still D&D. So if it's not a rules thing, then you're going to have to explain just what it's acceptable to change about the flavour.

But that's what we've got _now_. A shoe labelled "D&D" that doesn't fit a lot of people who it once did.

A thousand times this! It seems that they realize this somewhat since Essentials seems to be an abrupt backpedaling to try and win back many that passed on 4E. Unfortunately, it seems to be too little, too late. They now have Pathfinder and retroclones to compete with. It seems they were doomed once they decided to make a complete break with many traditions of the game. D&D has strong name recognition but not strong enough to sell a game that bears little resemblance to the D&D that many fans cut their RPG teeth on.

I was 47 earlier this year. I've played D&D since the 1970s. And you're describing 3rd edition as well when you talk of a shoe that doesn't fit.

 

[Ydars]

Bluenose; the key phrase in what you just said is 'about half of people who play D&D use a homebrew'. So about half don't; it is many of them who have left D&D both because of the slaughtering sacred cows and because of the changes to the crunch.

I personally got off the D&D bandwagon at 4E because it feels like a glorified boardgame to me, but I recognise that the traditions of D&D have also been trashed by the new edition and what has happened to the realms is a travesty...........

 

[Bluenose]

Bluenose; the key phrase in what you just said is 'about half of people who play D&D use a homebrew'. So about half don't; it is many of them who have left D&D both because of the slaughtering sacred cows and because of the changes to the crunch.

I personally got off the D&D bandwagon at 4E because it feels like a glorified boardgame to me, but I recognise that the traditions of D&D have also been trashed by the new edition and what has happened to the realms is a travesty...........

The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.

 

[billd91]

The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.

That is not at all true. Of course there were some changes but, from my perspective, 3e is a LOT more like 1e/2e than 4e is. So I don't think it's ridiculous at all.
You also have to consider that not all change is weighed the same by individual gamers. You can't simply hold up 3e and 4e and say that both are different from 2e so any objections 3e fans have to 4e are invalid. You have to delve into the nature of the changes.

 

[Ydars]

Bluenose; I am sure that AD&D to v3.0 was a big shift (I was out of the hobby at the time, and so missed most of it).

However, there is one fundamental difference between that shift and the v3.5 to v4.0 change; in both AD&D and v3.5, ALL playstyles were possible (I am not saying 3.5 actively supported all playstyles, but it didn't prevent them either).

In 3.5 games you could start out as a lowly nobody, like in all the great books, and end up a world conquering group of heroes. Or you could start out very powerful and become godlike.

With 4.0e, it feels like Exalted all the time; everyone 'feels' like a superhero and for me there is a real disconnect, because my default playstyle has always been low magic, low power.

I cannot find a way to play like that in 4E (and yes, I have read the thousands of threads here about how you can in fact play low magic and none of them work for me).

 

[DragonLancer]

The difference when compared to 3rd edition is that they admitted it. You can't play 3e the way you played earlier editions and get the same results. Yet people still carried on playing the same settings and pretending nothing had changed. So they could do so now. Disliking the 4e rules is fine, but insisting that the 3e ones were like earlier editions in a way the 4e ones aren't is ridiculous.

Why couldn't you play 3rd the same as 1st or 2nd? My group did and it worked fine.

 

[Bluenose]

That is not at all true. Of course there were some changes but, from my perspective, 3e is a LOT more like 1e/2e than 4e is. So I don't think it's ridiculous at all.
You also have to consider that not all change is weighed the same by individual gamers. You can't simply hold up 3e and 4e and say that both are different from 2e so any objections 3e fans have to 4e are invalid. You have to delve into the nature of the changes.

People have delved into the nature of the changes here and elsewhere. The biggest ones from my perspective include; massive hit point inflation, a huge change to the way saving throws work (they're no longer absolure, instead going against a target number), alterations to the initiative system, skills as opposed to NWPs/characteristic checks. They add up to making a game that doesn't give you the same results if you approach it the same way.

Bluenose; I am sure that AD&D to v3.0 was a big shift (I was out of the hobby at the time, and so missed most of it).

However, there is one fundamental difference between that shift and the v3.5 to v4.0 change; in both AD&D and v3.5, ALL playstyles were possible (I am not saying 3.5 actively supported all playstyles, but it didn't prevent them either).

In 3.5 games you could start out as a lowly nobody, like in all the great books, and end up a world conquering group of heroes. Or you could start out very powerful and become godlike.

With 4.0e, it feels like Exalted all the time; everyone 'feels' like a superhero and for me there is a real disconnect, because my default playstyle has always been low magic, low power.

I cannot find a way to play like that in 4E (and yes, I have read the thousands of threads here about how you can in fact play low magic and none of them work for me).

In 1st edition your level 1 Fighter had the name title Veteran. You weren't a lowly nobody then, or in BECMI, or in 2e. You weren't even one in 3e, if you started out with levels in a PC class, no matter what people claim. You're part of that very small percentage of people that the DMG claims have PC levels. You might not yet be Miyamoto Musashi, but you are a trained Samurai and not a peasant who picked up a sword. And I'm pretty certain no-one really thinks a 1st level Wizard or Cleric hasn't had lots of training.

Personally I don't find 3e supports all playstyles. It's actively bad at some, though to be honest I find the same trues of all editions of D&D.

Why couldn't you play 3rd the same as 1st or 2nd? My group did and it worked fine.

Because you get different results.

At least, that's what we observed when after a couple of months playing 3e we started to find things working strangely. We took some 2e characters, ran them through an old dungeon (one of the Slave Lords series), and recorded what characters did and what they rolled. Then we converted the characters and dungeon to 3e and used the same actions and rolls. The results were different, even more so when we experimented with higher level adventures.

 

[BryonD]

I was 47 earlier this year. I've played D&D since the 1970s. And you're describing 3rd edition as well when you talk of a shoe that doesn't fit.

Very true

But I think an important difference is that 3E gained a lot more than it lost.
That doesn't mean it did not lose some or that the difference is relevant to the individual. But it is a difference.

I actually went TO 3E because it was a new shoe and fit me so much better than the prior editions. And I DO think 4E is yet again a new shoe, closer to pre-3E than to 3E, but really a whole new thing.

But your opinion is one thing, and mine is another and neither are really here nor there.

The question is: does the shoe fit the market?

 

[mudbunny]

Mudbunny, though not an official WOTC guy, is excellent.

*blush*

Thanks.

While the initial post of the thread seemed to take the thread in a direction which I have seen many, many times before, I think that it is a testament to EN World users that it hasn't gone there. I will be pointing this thread out to WotC and giving specific examples of the things that people have posted.

 

[billd91]

Because you get different results.

At least, that's what we observed when after a couple of months playing 3e we started to find things working strangely. We took some 2e characters, ran them through an old dungeon (one of the Slave Lords series), and recorded what characters did and what they rolled. Then we converted the characters and dungeon to 3e and used the same actions and rolls. The results were different, even more so when we experimented with higher level adventures.

But you also get different results depending on play styles in just about any edition.

In my experience, running the A series in 1e and in 3e, the way things played out was very similar. The extra structures in 3e added to some of the richness of the mechanics, but the games were quite similar to the point that I didn't even have to adjust most of the encounters. I was able to convert them pretty directly. Same basic character levels were supported as well once I stepped down the XPs awarded. And that's a minor concern.

I have also been able to convert the giant series fairly directly as well and it has been playing out fine, much like the play in 1e. The character levels happen to map a bit higher for giants but that was already the trend in 2e.

So, yes, you can achieve very similar results between 1e and 3e without radically changing the content of the original materials.