Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[MichaelSomething]

...or you accepted that magic this powerful could never be balanced with any nonmagical ability, because it's magic.

Many people don't see it as a "problem" that wizards can teleport, polymorph, and grant wishes while rogues and fighters can't. That just makes sense.

That's not a problem that all. The problem is that martial characters don't get any (or much) good stuff at high levels. A wizard get a new level of spells every two levels that area always a huge boost of power while a fighter doesn't have any feats (or few) that are as awesome as a high level spell.

Pathfinder (and some 3.5 splats) does address this issue somewhat but YMMV on how good a job it does.

 

[innerdude]

The problem is that martial characters don't get any (or much) good stuff at high levels.

This is something that, as a personal preference, I'd actually rather see in 5e, if/when it appears, is that high level play be a completely separate component from low- to mid-level play.

The original BECMI had the right idea--if you wanted high-level, you used the high level supplements. If you didn't, you didn't.

(As a side note, I've never liked "high level" 3.x (levels 14+) because it leaves the realm of the system's casual gamist/realist roots, and also because most gamers I've met who like "high level" D&D, like it because they want their characters to "be awesome," not because it makes the game any more interesting. I've also never, ever really grokked the whole appeal of planar travel adventures. Like, there's not enough cool/awesome things to do/see/explore on your own planet? YMMV, of course.)

 

[Jhaelen]

The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.

Likewise you don't seem to have much to offer except "Pathfinder is perfect because it's perfect for my (perfect) group".

Ignoring criticism because you've never experienced the thing being criticized isn't particularly helpful and - to me - utterly unconvincing, particularly if at the same time you're so keen on criticizing other systems that don't seem to be "perfect" for your (perfect) group.

 

[BryonD]

The bolded section was true for me - it was impossible for me to see PC death. It never happened and was never going to happen. It was part of the system we made for ourselves.

Well in that case it WAS systemic to the "system we made for ourselves". But that doesn't say anything about the core system itself. So I don't see how it is relevant.

I'm not saying that everyone must see the power gap;

So far, we agree...

I'm saying that it's simply an artifact of the system, and one must take steps to change the system in order to get rid of it. That's how it's similar to PC death for me in AD&D - it's part of the system, but we changed the system to get rid of it.

I could be wrong. The power gap is true in my experiences, but I'm aware that my experiences aren't that broad. If you have some examples of your play that show how it's not the case, I'll accept it.

That is where we disagree. I wouldn't say we take any steps to change or avoid the system.

I *did* say that the system doesn't have any safeties to prevent it from happening. But if you both (a) don't want it to happen and (b) simply play the game in a manner that supports what you want, the conclusion that it is unavoidable is simply false. Yes, that does require a certain degree of skill from the DM, but I don't call designing a game that expects a minimum basic skill from the DM a flaw. And absolutely don't call "being a reasonably skilled DM" the same as "taking special steps" because I'd expect the same behavior under "reasonably skilled DM" for any system. There is nothing "special" going on.

I do think that 4E actually DOES do special things within the system itself to PREVENT it. The safties DO exisit there. And if that is a need, then it is a perk, no debate there. To me, personally, it isn't a need, and the price is a detrement.

I also don't claim that the way of playing 3E that I describe has any claim to "the one correct way" or anything remotely like that. I think 3E very much has a significant degree of variation in approach built into it. If you WANT to be all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story, then 3E can do that as well. If everyone loves CODzilla, enjoy your game. And the ability to mindlessly abuse casters in 3E is clearly more readily acheived than for non-casters. If you play THAT way then you WILL see the gap and you probably should buff non-casters to support your style. But from the stsrt I said it CAN happen.

My point is that claims that it MUST happen are simply wrong.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I LOVE splatbooks. I don't have the problem.
I don't know what else to tell you.

I would guess that the one key element in my group's problem does not exist in yours. We have players of varying levels of skill at making powerful characters. If everyone in your group is roughly equal in that skill then you won't see the problem we saw.

I still think this can be a systemic problem because the system breaks down unless certain parameters are met. And in a game where groups differ greatly across the board, that is a detriment. Just because your group falls under the right parameters does not mean the problem doesn't exist (which you've already agreed is true) and, IMO, doesn't necessarily mean the problem isn't systemic.

Of course, I'd also say that there are a lot more people who see the flaw in your statement and also the issues I identified pushes more people away from 4E than your issues push away from 3E.

The point being, if all you got is "3E sucks because your personal experience constitutes 'pretty close to systemtic' ", then you really don't have much to offer.

Neither "side" can validate how much an issue with each system pulls in or pushes away players except at an anecdotal level. Plus, I think you're equating "3E has systemic problems that led me to choose a different game" with "3E sucks." That's definitely not what I'm trying to say and I don't think the majority of people that discuss the problems they've encountered with a particular are saying "that system sucks."

One difference I think is occurring is systemic vs. taste/style issues. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that based on the opinions you've expressed on these boards you believe 4E is a solid system but it does not meet your tastes or your style. You have a taste/style issue.

I enjoyed playing 3E for many years. The game fits my tastes and my playstyle. If I could have solved my issues with the system I might still be playing it. I do not have a taste/style issue with 3E. I have a systemic issue.

 

[BryonD]

Likewise you don't seem to have much to offer except "Pathfinder is perfect because it's perfect for my (perfect) group".

Ignoring criticism because you've never experienced the thing being criticized isn't particularly helpful and - to me - utterly unconvincing, particularly if at the same time you're so keen on criticizing other systems that don't seem to be "perfect" for your (perfect) group.

Mischaracterizing my point and group doesn't make your words true.

I'm not ignoring anything. The claim that it always happens DEMANDS that it ALWAYS happen. That is false.

I've agreed that it does happen for others, which your reply pointedly ignores.

 

[BryonD]

I would guess that the one key element in my group's problem does not exist in yours. We have players of varying levels of skill at making powerful characters. If everyone in your group is roughly equal in that skill then you won't see the problem we saw.

I Still disagree.

I don't think player skill is important. I DO think DM skill is important, but much more importantly, I strongly think PLAYER commitment to the same type of play style is quite important. If the players WANT the story based game a decent DM can make it happen. I've got a guy in my group now who has been with us about 6 months, never having played 3E or PF before, and only moderate RPG experience with other systems. It is working great and his lack of skill with the system presernt zero barrier because his attitude is great.

I still think this can be a systemic problem because the system breaks down unless certain parameters are met. And in a game where groups differ greatly across the board, that is a detriment. Just because your group falls under the right parameters does not mean the problem doesn't exist (which you've already agreed is true) and, IMO, doesn't necessarily mean the problem isn't systemic.

You are pushing this to the point that I practically have to declare the game immaculate to refute you. No game is perfect. It CAN happen in 3E.
But, feeling VERY board-gamey CAN happen in 4E and unless certain parmaters are met it will. Therefore, by your standards, we have just proven that 4E is systemically very board-gamey.

My group finds that meeting the parameters happens without even really making an effort. So I don't consider that an unreasonable expectation.

 

[LostSoul]

Well in that case it WAS systemic to the "system we made for ourselves". But that doesn't say anything about the core system itself. So I don't see how it is relevant.

My point was that you can never encounter something in a game by approaching the game in a specific way, even if that "something" is part of the game. In other words, even though PC death is part of AD&D, that doesn't mean PC death must be part of everyone's game.

I think you agree - if you approach the game one way, you'll see the power gap; in another way, you won't.

My point is that claims that it MUST happen are simply wrong.

I agree with that, though I think that your description of play where the power gap appears - "all about optimized destrcution machines blowing through foes without significant regard to story" - isn't fair. I can easily see a story-focused game having a power gap: one where the players advocate for their characters, give their characters interesting goals and strong motivations to achieve them, and the DM creates challenging obstacles between the PCs and their goals.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I DO think DM skill is important

I'd call this a backhanded compliment, except there is no complement. Or I feel like the guy who didn't like Blair Witch Project and told that I just didn't get it. I guess I never 'grokked' 3E well enough to avoid this pitfall then, despite being a skilled DM in OD&D and AD&D. And now I am a skilled DM in 4E. All of this is player feedback. I guess I never figured out how to make all the BMX Bandits in my group feel like they were useless next to Angel Summoner.

but much more importantly, I strongly think PLAYER commitment to the same type of play style is quite important.

Here I can agree with you. If the skilled character makers are willing to tone down their skills. If the less-skilled character builders are willing to let the other guys make their characters for them. For my group neither solution was fun for them. And since our first priority is being friends that hang out together and play a game, the system needs to accomodate the skill/power gap better, for us. I've already admitted that their may be a better word than 'systemic' for these issues, but labelling it a mere personal issue seems insuffiecient, IMO.

You are pushing this to the point that I practically have to declare the game immaculate to refute you. No game is perfect. It CAN happen in 3E.

I don't require the game to be perfect and never inferred that. The system breaks down at certain parameters, IME. And there have been many discussions regarding these breakdowns long before 4E was ever announced. E6 addresses on group's following on how to patch this issue with the system.

But, feeling VERY board-gamey CAN happen in 4E and unless certain parmaters are met it will. Therefore, by your standards, we have just proven that 4E is systemically very board-gamey.

Replace "4E" with "Any edition of D&D" and I agree. But this is an accepted systemic issue accepted by those who fall outside the parameters because there is no version of D&D that CAN'T feel boardgamey.

My group finds that meeting the parameters happens without even really making an effort. So I don't consider that an unreasonable expectation.

I'm sorry we don't all live up to your reasonable expectations.

I made a great effort to provide a challenging game for my players. I tweaked encounters, I changed tatctics, I studied the books to a point where it was verging upon intrusion to the more important aspects of my life. I still ended up with encounters that alllowed the power gamer a one-man team or would prove too challenging for the non-power gamers. The effort became unreasonable within our groups parameters. Could I have "solved" the problem your way by toning down the power gamer? If by solve you mean strip an enjoyable aspect of the game away from a player, then sure.

In 4E the same power gamer has his fun and the other players do too. I don't have as wide of a power gap to cover and find the effort to do so reasonable once again.

Again, my premise is that you have players on the same skill level, although in your case it seems by choice. Good for you.

 

[prosfilaes]

Here I can agree with you. If the skilled character makers are willing to tone down their skills. If the less-skilled character builders are willing to let the other guys make their characters for them. For my group neither solution was fun for them. And since our first priority is being friends that hang out together and play a game, the system needs to accomodate the skill/power gap better, for us. I've already admitted that their may be a better word than 'systemic' for these issues, but labelling it a mere personal issue seems insuffiecient, IMO.

So your personal issues are too important to just be personal issues.

Replace "4E" with "Any edition of D&D" and I agree. But this is an accepted systemic issue accepted by those who fall outside the parameters because there is no version of D&D that CAN'T feel boardgamey.

And there's no version of D&D that can't develop a power gap. So why is this an issue for 3E? It's not different; it's a persistent complaint about 4E and not about 3E, so obviously people feel 4E works differently here than 3E.