D&D 3E/3.5 3e/4e as Operating Systems: An Argument for Grognardism

[Man in the Funny Hat]

*but* I don't think everyone feels this way.

Of course they don't. NOBODY is suggesting they do. Nobody ever suggested any such thing. And, of course, there is no requirement to make the switch.

So, even assuming 4e really has the cool factor, is affordable (they're already piling on the add on costs with D&D Insider and annual core book upgrades), and that the rules actually work (anyone's guess, especially with such bold changes), I still might not upgrade because of my own investment in 3e.

"Piling on the add-on costs" eh? For what you get for your money, D&D insider is a BARGAIN which only increases in value as you invest more in future purchases. And, of course, it is still UNNECESSARY to invest in that to play. If you don't want/need the added value and convenience of what they provide with Insider you have nothing to complain about. And I don't know what you're talking about with "annual book upgrades".

To summarize the point of this ramble, I think there will be plenty of gamers out there to play 3e forever because they either: 1) love 3e, 2) have too much invested in it to switch or 3) don't care what "OS" they're using, they just want to play Dungeons and Dragons.

Note that "don't care what 'OS' they're using" means that 3E, 4E, 1E, and so forth are all EQUAL in value in the eyes of such players. It ISN'T a point in specific FAVOR of 3E.

It's just a pity, IMHO, that they didn't make 4e backwards compatible. Because if I *could* run my 3e software on the 4e OS, I'd make the leap in a heartbeat.

Except that when you decide to include backward compatability you
A) have to quantify what aspects of the old system you want to keep which is very subjective call, and
B) are immediately cutting yourself off from improvements that could be made by abandoning old systems in favor of new ones that can actually work BETTER - but will require working DIFFERENTLY. Insisting on a high degree of backward compatability sabotages one of the primary motivations for doing a new version in the first place. It's an factor that will force a revision more like moving from 3.0 to 3.5, not one like moving from 2E to 3E. It's like saying that you don't want anyone to have XP and Office 2003 because YOU insist that everything must still work with your DOS version of Word Perfect.

 

[jdrakeh]

Is it naive to think that 3e and 4e can co-exist since they appear to be appealing to different kinds of D&D gamers?

No. But it's naieve to think that they will be mechanically compatible. Since WotC has already made it very clear that they they won't be.

 

[SavageRobby]

I think lack of backwards compatibility, in this case (as in many) is a plus.

The Singularity OS example is a good one. Another are VOIP phone systems. A lot of the big name PBX brands have to worry about backwards compatibility with their older analog systems. There are some new VOIP PBXes (with built in IVR and ACD functionality - ie, voice/key response & phone trees and call routing/queueing) that are far superior, because they are built on newer technologies with newer methodologies, and don't have to worry about slaving to outdated conventions.


If the point of 4x is to fix problems in 3x, why would you the new system to remain compatible with the system that has problems? If you don't believe in the premise 3x has problems (that 4x will solve), or if you don't believe that the cost of the fixes in 4x outweighs the problems in 3x, that is one thing. But if you believe that 4x will be enough better than 3x to merit the new version ... why would you want it to be backwards compatible?

I see this is a case where you can't eat your cake and still have it, too.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I personally care less that the mechanics are backwardly compatable than that what the mechanics are used to describe is.

RC

 

[Desdichado]

It's just a pity, IMHO, that they didn't make 4e backwards compatible. Because if I *could* run my 3e software on the 4e OS, I'd make the leap in a heartbeat.

Maybe I just haven't read the right material in the rumor mill, but isn't it fair to say that the degree of backwards compatibility at this point is still unknown? I have high hopes that it's fairly good. Otherwise, I'll give some very serious thought to not converting myself.

 

[Desdichado]

Although this thread has already pushed the analogy way beyond it's ability to still be sustainable, I'm going to go even farther: what I'd like to see in 4e if it isn't already fairly backwards compatible, is some kind of little emulator module that allows us to import 3e and 3.5 material without any fuss into a 4e native environment.

 

[green slime]

I agree. Of course, the same holds true for any edition change.

On the other hand, if you want to argue that the proportion of 3E players who don't switch to 4E will be higher than the proportion of 2E players who didn't switch to 3E, I would be inclined to agree with that as well.

The change from 1e to 2e wasn't. The changes were pretty minor. 2e to 3e was timely and necessary, and was a massive change.

 

[Arnwyn]

To summarize the point of this ramble, I think there will be plenty of gamers out there to play 3e forever because they either: 1) love 3e, 2) have too much invested in it to switch or 3) don't care what "OS" they're using, they just want to play Dungeons and Dragons.

That would be me and my group (especially relating to #1 and #2).

Backwards compatibility isn't that much of an issue for my group, as they all have no interest in 4e - they certainly won't be purchasing anything from that edition, in any case. It's a tiny bit more of an issue for me, as I'd like to continue buying adventures. I'm not interested in heavy backwards converting.

The irony is that in this case, if I decided to switch to 4e ("latest & greatest") it would be me that would be cut off from the rest of my circle of gamers!

 

[boerngrim]

With the 3.x material I already have, both WoTC and D20, I can play D&D forever and never buy another book. 4E would have to really blow my socks off to get me to invest in it. When 3E was anounced I was sceptical, until I played a demo at Dragon Con. The D20 core mechanic sold me on it. It was much better IMO than THAC0 and what not. Maybe something in 4E will win me over. We'll see.
I've converted some 2E adventures to 3E fairly easily. I just used the 3.x stats for the monsters. It may not be perfect but it worked. Converting to 4E will probably be much the same.
Thanks.

 

[dpetroc]

Where I think the fanbase for 4th is going to be, and where I think WotC plans to find its fanbase, is online. I think 4th edition is being designed with adoption to a computer format in mind. So your analogy of 4th edition being an OS maybe apt in more ways than one.

You are so very right (I say with great bitterness).

If I wanted to play an MMORPG, I'd play one - I think trying to emulate the online experience through tabletop (or a hybrid tabletop/online environment - the virtual table) is a huge step in the wrong direction. Frankly, a lot of the players who have come to my table with their first experience being online rpgs are lousy gamers. So busy trying to level that they can't remember any part of the plot. They go encounter to encounter.

Many people who say they won't convert will give in to the shiny new covers either instantly or six months to a year down the road. For many of us, rpg books are like potato chips, you can't stop at one. Ooh! Conan 2e with only minor changes? Sure sign me up! A new splat book I don't need with a hundred bizaare feats and obscure prestige classes? I'll take two!

I figure I skipped out entirely on 2e, so I guess I'll just wait until 5e to reinvest. By then all of my WotC books should have composted.