Every Edition is a Failure

[Stormonu]

Except 3.5 was not a new edition. It was little more than a minor revision.

.

Minor my foot. As much as I like 3E, it was significant enough you had to have new core books to run it, and whole swathes of the 3.0 books were invalidated by 3.5 changes.

 

[seregil]

OTOH, the 1E books have long been out of print. So long in fact, that there are a good number of D&D fans that have never seen or played it. Yet the 1E core books are being reprinted again this year. If 1E were a failure, and a really old one at that, why would WOTC reprint those books while letting a line they promised as 'evergreen' fade into oblivion?

The 1E books are being reprinted not so much to meet a demand for the books themselves (although there is one) but as a tribute to one of the founders of the game. Gamers will buy the book, not so much to play the game as to have them (as a group, gamers are packrats) and to fund a project they believe in.

I think the OP's choice of words was off a bit. I would not qualify an edition being discontinued being a failure necessarily. He's right when he says ALL edition will eventually be replaced. Call it 'dies too young'.

Besides, his point is simply that while 4E is considered by some a failure (there's that word again) it does not mean that all ideas from 4E should not be retained.

I'll be honest, I don't like 4E. However, there are concepts from 4E that I love. Minions! Such a simple idea, easy to implement, cool to use. It's so simple, in fact, that my initial reaction was 'Why didn't I think of that?'.

It's a perfect example of a concept that should be retained even though it originates from an edition that I dislike. And THAT is the point of the OP.

Not that 1E or 4E or whatever is a failure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Minor my foot. As much as I like 3E, it was significant enough you had to have new core books to run it, and whole swathes of the 3.0 books were invalidated by 3.5 changes.

I played both extensively, 3.5 was a minor revision. They changed things here or there that certainly required use of the new books if you wanted to incprporate those changes but the overall change was not that big. You could jump into 3.5 after playing 3.0 with very little effort. Obviously it was a bid to sell more books. It was essentially the same system. By no stretch would I regard 3.5 as a new edition. It was a revision.

 

[TheFindus]

This thread has somehow turned into a discussion about whether 4E was a failure or not.
I am of the opinion that it was not. Because people who were completely dissatisfied with 3.x and would have discontinued playing DnD altogether kept playing DnD with 4E.
The publishing cycle is not too bad either. 3.5 followed after 3.0 within 3 years. 4 years later the designers felt (and I guess from actual feedback) that it was time for something new and 4E came along.

But all of this is beside the point. I absolutely agree with the OP that the argument that functionalities of 4E can be discarded just because "4E failed" is nonsense and leads nowhere. Instead, there should be a discussion about the functionalities and mechanisms in question. And that is not limited to 4E, but extends to all editions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

from actual feedback) that it was time for something new and 4E came along.

But all of this is beside the point. I absolutely agree with the OP that the argument that functionalities of 4E can be discarded just because "4E failed" is nonsense and leads nowhere. Instead, there should be a discussion about the functionalities and mechanisms in question. And that is not limited to 4E, but extends to all editions.

but you have to account for preferences and tastes when talking about the funcitonality of mechanics. And if 4e's mechanics recieved negative responses we have to examine that. Because this negative reaction eventually translated into the system not being embraced as widely as 3e, I think the failure of 4e is a valid point of discussion.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I played both extensively, 3.5 was a minor revision. They changed things here or there that certainly required use of the new books if you wanted to incprporate those changes but the overall change was not that big. You could jump into 3.5 after playing 3.0 with very little effort. Obviously it was a bid to sell more books. It was essentially the same system. By no stretch would I regard 3.5 as a new edition. It was a revision.

It was a revision that killed my character. In 3.0 Brother Jules was a level 1 monk/level 5 cleric. I wanted a healer who was fast, a tumbler, and could get to people quickly to heal.

In 3.5 evasion was moved to a level 2 ability for monks. Taking 2 levels in a non-casting class meant sucking as a cleric ( BTW if you don't have access to spell levels of half your level then you suck) .

3.5 was a big change.

 

[seregil]

People are giving evidence. The argument hussar describes is more complocated than "everything from 4e is bad because 4e failed". Normally when people suggest 4e mechanics should make it into core 5E, they are mechanics which were related to 4e's unpopularity (surges, martial dailies or encounters, etc). The point of 5e is to re-unite the base but you cant do that if the very things thag caused the split are core parts of the new edition.

Do you deny that 4e powers or healing surges were divisive innovations? Because those are among the chief criticisms of 4e.

You're right, of course. What Hussar is saying is that the mere fact that they are from 4E should not ban them from making it to 5E. However, the mechanic itself can be attacked.

I do NOT want healing surges in the next edition. I dislike their very premise. If I hit you with a sword for more than 1 HP, NOTHING except time/medical attention or magic will get you back in shape and ONLY magic will get you back in shape within a day. PERIOD.

Now, what did I do there? I explained why I, personally don't like the mechanic and what the problem I see with the mechanic is. There fact that it belongs to 4E is besides the point.

However, since all arguments have two sides, the question really comes down to "should this mechanic be retained?" and THAT depends on several factors: Is the mechanic sound? Is it good etc.

An extra point where the fact it is from 4E DOES come in is the point Bedrockgames raises above. IS the mechanic divisive?

THIS is where 4E should be taken into consideration. IMO, 4E was far, far more divisive than any previous edition and that stigma must be taken into account. If a given mechanic cannot be included in 5E in such a way that it call be removed or replaced easily (ie it is a basic premise of the entire edition), then its 'divisiveness' is a MAJOR factor since the stated aim of 5E is to reunite the editions.

As of now, I am aware of no mechanic that fits this description because we have, to date, no real information on what mechanics are being brought into 5E from ANY edition.

So we should wait and see. In the meantime, the basic point remains: a mechanic should not be excluded simply because it is from 4E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

And if 4e's mechanics recieved negative responses we have to examine that. Because this negative reaction eventually translated into the system not being embraced as widely as 3e, I think the failure of 4e is a valid point of discussion.

There's no problem using negative reaction to any edition's rules as one facet in discussing how new rules will work... but you also need to give MORE than that. Not liking something is NOT ENOUGH evidence to say something doesn't work. Give some mechanical evidence to BACK UP why you think it doesn't work... and then we can have discussion.

But just defaulting to "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" as your sole reasoning for not using certain rules doesn't do any good because we can't USE that to create new rules which might be an effective compromise to everyone involved.

 

[FireLance]

Do you deny that 4e powers or healing surges were divisive innovations? Because those are among the chief criticisms of 4e.

Oh, they were certainly unpopular (among a certain subset of gamers, anyway), but not all aspects of them are universally disliked.

As mentioned, some people might not like martial healing, but they might like the idea of healing being proportional to the recepient's hit points.

Others might not like healing surges as a daily limit on easy healing, but might like the idea of healers being able to restore hit points with a minor action.

Some might like martial encounter powers, but not martial daily powers.

Others might like at-will attack spells for wizards, but not wizard encounter attack spells.

Yet others might like the idea of at-will, encounter, daily and utility powers, but don't like classes to share the same power structure.

"Healing surges and powers are often criticized" fails to convey these nuances.

 

[P1NBACK]

What's the point of this thread again?