3.5 better for world building?

[malraux]

malraux, do you think -- as that poster seemed to be claiming -- that 3e is inferior for world-building because it lacks a Curse of the Dark Dream power to hit for 3d8+Charisma modifier psychic damage and slide the target 3 squares?

I don't see how that has any relation to world building. I don't see how daze being a cantrip in 3e relates to world building, or the fact that rangers get spells at level 4 vs level 6 affects building cities, religions etc. My point is that worldbuilding is mostly independent of those factors.

 

[Ariosto]

My basic understanding is that system will dictate the type of world you build. It is inescapable: system does matter.

It matters more the narrower the range of possible worlds it can accommodate.

4e dictates -- and dismisses -- more to the extent that it is more about delivering a consistent and balanced experience. "It's the sweet spot all the time!"

That's the tail that wags the dog.

 

[Aldarc]

It entails such things as terrain (3.5 DMG pp. 86-93), climate and weather (pp. 93-95), cities (pp. 98-102), NPCs (pp. 105-128), towns (pp. 137-139), technology, economics, politics, law, religion, and other subjects addressed in 3.5.

I would say then that we agree. But I would also add metaphysics, as in the case of magic. And this is where classes and power sources come into play. The magic and abilities of classes says what feats people in a given world are capable of performing, whether that is calling down an apocalyptic firestorm, bringing people back to life, or creating pockets of planar space.

Would you mind then sharing the greater value to the enterprise of "Until the end of the encounter, as an immediate reaction, an ally of your choice within 5 squares of you can charge a target that you charge"?

Perhaps it does not have to be a great impediment, but I do not see how it is a great help!

Congratulations, this is not what I was saying or even implying at all. This is not an aspect of the power sources, which are more flavor oriented than mechanics oriented.

Yes, precisely! "Impacts" is what it does, which is just the opposite of what I think most here consider better for world building.

Exactly. So the question is which system's classes have the greatest amount of detrimental impact and least amount of in-built assumptions regarding the world. My argument is that the modularity of power sources and roles allow for certain power sources (i.e., flavor) to be added or removed without damaging gameplay, which must always be considered in world building.

It matters more the narrower the range of possible worlds it can accommodate.

4e dictates -- and dismisses -- more to the extent that it is more about delivering a consistent and balanced experience. "It's the sweet spot all the time!"

That's the tail that wags the dog.

I am not sure how that is different from any system, really. Particular systems garner a particular game style with particular world assumptions and particular possible worlds.

I must confess, I'm a little confused by what is meant by worldbuilding here. There are so many levels or starting points for it.

My basic understanding is that system will dictate the type of world you build. It is inescapable: system does matter.

Consider Dark Sun for instance. When you build the setting in 2E, you begin with the premise that there's no divine magic. That then trickles down and has significant game play issues. In fact, it pretty much breaks the baseline of D&D, so that you need to provide alternative sources of healing so that the game functions. (To be fair, D&D functions without healing, but the game changes drastically).

However, with Dark Sun in 4e, eliminating the Divine power source has a much less severe effect on gameplay, since there are already existing options for non-divine healing.

This is precisely my point! Well said. The various systems contain assumptions written into the rules about what is possible.

 

[pawsplay]

By that rationale, every individual DM's game is a completely different game. You and I could use the exact same mechanics and the exact same setting with the exact same characters, and the two games will be different. That doesn't mean we're using different rulesets, just that our particular way of running games is different. No matter what type of GURPS you're running, you're still running GURPS. Same with Savage Worlds, or any other generic system.

No, by that rationale, every individual DM's game is a slightly different game. Further, 3.5 and 4e are very different games. As far as this thread goes, I am taking the side that to some extent they must exist in different game worlds. I am not going to say one is better than the other, but I think it's true, practically speaking, that

3.5 makes it easier to implement new mechanics based on changes in the world you would like to make, and
4e makes it easier to edit the world as you wish in order to conform to the mechanics you want to use

In 3e, it's a lot easier to mix in moon phases into the magic system, or a new class based on constructing automatons, or whatever. Doing the same thing in 4e means confronting a baroque system of mathematical checks and balances. In 4e, it's a lot easier to say, "The Divine power source is just not available in this setting." I don't have to worry about parcelling out healing or whatever. If I don't want Divine, I ban Divine mechanics, and the result is a functionining game world that has no divine magic. Each approach has its own strengths in modularity.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

In 3.5, anyone could buy ranks in any skill. The multiclassing rules allowed for lots of flexibility, especially when you added prestige classes. With the right feats, a wizard could wear armour and wield swords. These may not always turn out to be effective, but they could certainly be done. In fact, that's how 3e was designed - rather than saying "Your wizard just can't wear armour and use a sword," they said "Your wizard can wear armour and use a sword, just not very effectively - as it should be."

Yes, but all of that equates to 4e as well. Any character can take skill focus or skill training or weapon proficiency. No class is barred from multiclassing into others. Want to train in a certain skill? Just grab a background for it - and those have no prerequisites at all. Hell, you can be a fighter with Ritual Caster - something that couldn't be done in any other edition.

That's why the claim doesn't make sense. The only place the classes have their niche protection is in combat, and again, that's because it's the first time there are niches for classes in combat. And hey, even those are breaking down with classes with very strong secondary roles, like a predator druid, a controller who can be a damn good striker.

 

[Bluenose]

It entails such things as terrain (3.5 DMG pp. 86-93), climate and weather (pp. 93-95), cities (pp. 98-102), NPCs (pp. 105-128), towns (pp. 137-139), technology, economics, politics, law, religion, and other subjects addressed in 3.5.

Now here's the disconnect for me. 'There are random tables for stuff' isn't world building, at least as far as I'm concerned. The number of farmers it requires to support a craftsman, or a warrior; the implications of divine magic helping crops to grow; Christaller's Central Place Theory and how it affects distribution of urban centres; plate tectonics as a geographic limiter on mountain ranges; distribution of climate zones according to Koppen's Climate classification; differences between shamanistic and divine cultures in barbarian tribes; these things matter in world building. Random tables, pshaw.

 

[Ariosto]

You could try not being an ass.

You could try not engaging in name-calling.

Moreover, if I'm building my own world, I'm going to be varying from the default world, so those base assumptions are irrelevant.

It is the systematic correspondence between mathematical abstraction and imagined world that is either relevant or not! There is no varying from something that is not there to vary from in the first place.

One way to do things is to decouple game and world. One can build a world freely out of cognitive dissonance.

That can get pretty tough, though. 4e has some pretty bizarre and intrusive assumptions about human nature, labor and prices. I'm glad I have no need to build such a world in order to have conformity with game rules!

Others might find similar stumbling blocks in old D&D, and welcome relief in the systematically mediated variation of 3e. That's a big step closer to the kind of predictability that 4e delivers, but not quite there.

 

[Bluenose]

Yes, but all of that equates to 4e as well. Any character can take skill focus or skill training or weapon proficiency. No class is barred from multiclassing into others. Want to train in a certain skill? Just grab a background for it - and those have no prerequisites at all. Hell, you can be a fighter with Ritual Caster - something that couldn't be done in any other edition.

That's why the claim doesn't make sense. The only place the classes have their niche protection is in combat, and again, that's because it's the first time there are niches for classes in combat. And hey, even those are breaking down with classes with very strong secondary roles, like a predator druid, a controller who can be a damn good striker.

What? Classes in OD&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, and BECMI D&D all had niches, even if they weren't described as openly. You didn't see many 1st edition clerics replacing fighters, the way it could happen in 3e.

 

[Ariosto]

Random tables, pshaw.

Phony baloney, pshaw.

I made no commendation of random tables.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, but all of that equates to 4e as well. Any character can take skill focus or skill training or weapon proficiency. No class is barred from multiclassing into others. Want to train in a certain skill? Just grab a background for it - and those have no prerequisites at all. Hell, you can be a fighter with Ritual Caster - something that couldn't be done in any other edition.

I suppose 3e would let you give up an entire fighter level to get a wizard one.

That's why the claim doesn't make sense. The only place the classes have their niche protection is in combat, and again, that's because it's the first time there are niches for classes in combat. And hey, even those are breaking down with classes with very strong secondary roles, like a predator druid, a controller who can be a damn good striker.

The Tank/DPS/Healbot trinity for niche protection comes from D&D. (Fighting Man/Magic User/Cleric - with the Thief being off to the side). Niches are core for any class based sysem - and most MMORPGs (and certainly WoW) can be traced back to D&D for inspiration. 3e was the first edition that encouraged you to break outside niche protection, and it ended up doing it in a way that sucked - and in practice this meant that spellcasters ran over everyone else.