3E & 4E Love and Hate Polls - What does it mean?

[keterys]

Yep - same people _really_ prefer the Canadian sugar-based coke over the US corn syrup coke

 

[N0Man]

If the source you cite from Wikipedia is true then explain why New Coke today is almost an extinct product.

You know what they say about "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

What's to explain? The point was that New Coke wasn't some complete disaster which there was a huge universal (or majority) backlash against it that was being implied. It simply wasn't like that. The backlash was created by a pretty small group of people, that made a lot of noise.

Once they brought back Coke Classic, New Coke sales still outperformed Coke Classic for the first year, however people did gradually shift back to Coke Classic. By the second year, the majority were buying and drinking Coke Classic again. They had the choice of buying either, and there was just a gradual shift back. It's as simple as that.

 

[Celtavian]

That's just it.

I think a lot of experienced D&Ders dismissed 4E for what it was, but remember that many of us gave it a good go first. I ran a short campaign, then played in another, and I know from that experience that 4E simply cannot provide the type of game I enjoy.

The reasons for that are numerous, but mostly come down to the default superhero level of the PCs, the unprecedented focus on combat, and the rigid nature of the system which, it's true, makes arguments at the game table less common, but kyboshes flexibility and mystery in big way. My mileage varies!

So, when Hasbro markets 4E as a fine-tuned version of previous editions, my BS-detector goes off the dial, because it's demonstrably not a member of the same family. To compound that, players who absolutely dig 4E are fond of proclaiming that it's simply a better game than its predecessors - without realising that it seems that way to them because it's actually a different game altogether.

If you want to make people angry, there's no better way than telling them, "my X is a better version of your Y, and I dismiss any argument to the contrary".

Like you I gave 4E a good go. But it really grates on you after a while.

In 3E they took the time to make monsters very unique and make races feel like races. Then 4E throws most of that out and turns everything into modular hit point sponges with some special powers.

When my fighter was using powers like Come and Get it against oozes and zombies, it felt like fingers across a chalkboard as I tried to reconcile why the mindless oozes and zombies were responding to insults. Just like trying to reconcile while some powers allowed a character to run over at something 30 feet away, hit it, and run back to their exact start point in a round. All very annoying for internal consistency and game immersion. There were times when the players were using powers and I was grumbling under my breath, "This is so incredibly stupid. I can't believe they have this in the game."

Then the round to round power tracking made combat even more unwieldy than 3E. I couldn't believe they thought this was a simpler combat system. I'd bet money the majority of DMs lose track of round to round modifers and saves in large combats a great deal of the time.

Those that consider 4E a better game astound me. It's a simpler game. It has some good ideas incorporated into it. But overall it's a lesser game than 3E which was the most advanced version of D&D to date in terms of rules and world building.

We saw incredible stories and rule sets built on the 3E framework. Like I said before, let's see if 4E inspires the same level of creativity from the overall game community if it is a better game. As I already stated, I wish there were odds in Vegas as what edition of D&D inspired the most creativity.

Just as small example, you had 5 level Prcs, 7 lvl Prcs, 13 lvl Prcs, along with the standard 10 lvl Prcs in 3E because the Prc and class model was so flexible. Can you do that in 4E or will that be too disruptive to the balance model for Paragon and Epic paths? And don't even think about multiclassing. Not going to happen.

4E is a worse game from a creative and rules standpoint. The 4E system is less flexible from a rules standpoint. It gives less rules help for dealing with a situations a player might want to undertake like wrestling and extended strategy that may involve a spell that lasts more than a round or two. It is a better game when it comes to adventure preparation and character building in terms of time spent.

It had some good ideas with skill challenges. But you can easily work those into a 3E framework and with a more developed skill system it will work just as well if not better. Moving away from a skill point system in 4E was devolution no matter how much you love 4E.

Just like you can work the improved trap system into a 3E system.

I was really hoping they would have advanced the game rather than devolved it. But I guess their marketing tests indicated the majority of gamers wanted a simpler version of D&D. I just happened to fall into that category of D&D player that wanted the game to continue to advance the rule system increasing complexity thus allowing for more archetypes to be worked and the combat system to approach realism to an even great degree. Even 3E didn't have rules for a decent ninja and 4E certainly hasn't improved on that.

Pathfinder is getting closer to a decent martial arts system. Their CMD vs. CMB mechanic simplifies the exchanges while still incorporating some complexity.

I better stop now. I just can't believe the majority of gamers on EN World really enjoy the simplicity of 4E and didn't yearn for a more advanced version of D&D than even 3E. I can see why they liked the killing of some sacred cows like the magic item Christmas tree, boring and limited melee, and the prep time. But giving up a better skill system, the flexibility of the combat rules in 3E, the unique monster races and types, as well as a combat feat system that came the closest to giving your character a unique fighting style that wasn't limited by encounter or daily powers, but rather felt like you learned a martial fighting style.

So much to give up, and so little to gain that could not have been built into the previous 3E ruleset.

And 4E wins the prize for most weakest and most limited arcane casters ever designed. Not even GURPS and Shadow Run made their arcane casters as weak as 4E arcane casters. And 45%/55% saving throws where the casters level of power are irrelevant was a bad idea. Talk about feeling weak and impotent as a flip of the coin in favor of the target decides your fate no matter how strong you are.

Just a backwards step for the game. But then that was the stated goal. To return more to classic basic D&D when gamers were first became interested in D&D. Maybe if 4E brings in more gamers, they can start the cycle towards increased complexity with a stronger, future customer base. I don't know. Maybe it will happen.

 

[keterys]

We saw incredible stories and rule sets built on the 3E framework. Like I said before, let's see if 4E inspires the same level of creativity from the overall game community if it is a better game.

Given the OGL/GSL differences and 3pp support differences, that's really not going to happen. Much like if we look to see what the community has done with creativity efforts for, say, Palladium Fantasy.

Just as small example, you had 5 level Prcs, 7 lvl Prcs, 13 lvl Prcs, along with the standard 10 lvl Prcs

10 wasn't a 'standard' - one of the first PrCs was 5 levels. 7 and 13 aren't exactly innovative there. PrCs just took levels as their basic function - if you want an equivalent question, how many PrCs didn't take any levels at all?

It gives less rules help for dealing with a situations a player might want to undertake

You might want to check out the DMG, specifically the chart on improvised actions, the advice to say yes and how to make things work.

and extended strategy that may involve a spell that lasts more than a round or two.

Plenty of spells have effects that last for an entire encounter or as long as sustained, and many rituals last even longer.

Moving away from a skill point system in 4E was devolution no matter how much you love 4E.

That depends on whether you consider the gain in customization worth the additional complexity. Personally, I don't consider the 3e skill system a good system, so the 4e replacement is an improvement. A minor one, to be sure, but it cleans up a mess and is still functional so that's fine.

Just like you can work the improved trap system into a 3E system.

Weirdly, I'm not sure 4e _has_ an improved trap system. Seems pretty lackluster to me.

I just happened to fall into that category of D&D player that wanted the game to continue to advance the rule system increasing complexity thus allowing for more archetypes to be worked and the combat system to approach realism to an even great degree.

We're looking for very different things in a game system. Rules complexity IMO is a bad thing for a RPG, because it breaks immersion in the game and distances your character from a concept to the rules underlying it.
And I consider realism a goal for which it's _never_ worth sacrificing gameplay.

It's a tricky balance to get between a system that is simple enough that you can still mostly just do storytelling and RP without worrying about the mechanics and a system crunchy enough that you can just dive in and enjoy the gameplay. Different people like different things. Personally, I'd set OD&D ahead of 3e and 4E ahead of OD&D, if we're looking at D&D.

If you're actively looking for more complex and more realistic, I encourage you to look into other systems, because there are certainly some out there. I remember actually fleeing from a rolemaster game for roughly that reason back in college (into the Earthdawn game across the hall), and it's been ages since for even more systems to come out.

And 4E wins the prize for most weakest and most limited arcane casters ever designed. Not even GURPS

Having played spellcasters in both systems, I have to call shennanigans here. I remember exhausting myself to launch one lackluster fireball and having to spend months to pull off fairly sedate by 4e terms rituals.

And 45%/55% saving throws where the casters level of power are irrelevant was a bad idea.

The casters level of power determined whether it hit in the first place, and also did give them access to more ability to modify saving throws. But the important part is the whether they hit in the first place.

 

[SteveC]

I seriously doubt it. But there are noticeable differences between high fructose corn syrup sweetened Coke and cane sugar sweetened Coke.

Yep, that's the difference: the corn syrup tastes sweeter and more like the "new" formula, and thus more like pepsi. If you want to get a true "classic" coke, you'll need to get it made from sugar. In the States, many grocery stores stock it in the "ethnic" isle, as it comes back from Mexico. Canada and Europe still use sugar from what I've experienced as well.

And that's a pretty big tangent, isn't it?

The problem with this analogy is that that the market made a sudden and very deliberate decision about New/Classic Coke. As much as people who don't like 4E may think so, the switchover hasn't engendered the same level of vitriolic response. Millions of people are still playing D&D in its current form, and new players are still largely coming to it through the current edition due to its availability. And before it gets asked, my source for that is WotC themselves.

And beyond even that, those who like the "classic" flavor can still get it in Pathfinder form.

 

[Umbran]

Once they brought back Coke Classic, New Coke sales still outperformed Coke Classic for the first year, however people did gradually shift back to Coke Classic. By the second year, the majority were buying and drinking Coke Classic again. They had the choice of buying either, and there was just a gradual shift back. It's as simple as that.

Careful there - there may be a confounding bias in availability and distribution. Having lower sales of Classic is not meaningful if there were fewer bottles of Classic available. They took a product off the market for three months. That it came back on the market does not mean they were producing it in similar volumes as before - there's a spin up time, for one thing. For another thing - much of their production capacity would have been dedicated to New Coke, which didn't go away.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'd like to challenge those who hate the game, players of it, or WotC themselves over the these reasons (or partially these reasons) to ask themselves would they still feel this bitterness and anger if the OGL and old PDF sales never existed. Be honest with yourself on this one, because I have a lot of trouble believing that the answer would be 'yes'.

I can confidently state that I would not still be invested in the D&D hobby today if not for the OGL.

In fact I would have left the hobby in 2003 or so.

But assuming that the GSL replaces me with at least 1 new player, that's not a loss for WoTC.

 

[The Little Raven]

In 3E they took the time to make monsters very unique and make races feel like races. Then 4E throws most of that out and turns everything into modular hit point sponges with some special powers.

There is far more difference between a 4e orc and a 4e gnoll than a 3e orc and a 3e gnoll. Nothing is unique about the 3e incarnations, while the 4e incarnations have powers or properties you don't find in other monster types.

 

[N0Man]

Careful there - there may be a confounding bias in availability and distribution. Having lower sales of Classic is not meaningful if there were fewer bottles of Classic available. They took a product off the market for three months. That it came back on the market does not mean they were producing it in similar volumes as before - there's a spin up time, for one thing. For another thing - much of their production capacity would have been dedicated to New Coke, which didn't go away.

I tried looking for information on this, and really there was nothing to support or refute this. However, I also could not find any information at all regarding their being any shortages, or that Classic was hard to come by once it was reintroduced. The closest thing I could find on this was from an official Coke site:

When the announcement of the return of "old" Coca-Cola was made in July 1985, those hoarding as many as 900 bottles in their basements could stop their self-imposed rationing and begin to drink the product as they always had -- as often as they'd like.

Personally, I think the interesting things about it was that it really was a small minority that made the big fuss and created a perception of a universal reaction when that wasn't quite the case. Admittedly, the negativity was infectious, and in the end it did become rather trendy to bash the new formula, and by the end of the year the sales rate of the Classic formula did come back to overtake the new recipe (but still did not overtake the sales total for the year apparently).

I think that what is being confused here is distinction between a universal rejection of the old formula (which did not happen) versus a majority embracing the classic formula (which did occur *after* the reintroduction of the new formula). The latter was definitely a more pervasive social phenomenon than the former.

But these are really tangent issues, and don't follow the parallels of Edition wars in my opinion since those who preferred the old edition didn't have to stop playing and also there are many who strongly like the new edition.

 

[MoxieFu]

But these are really tangent issues, and don't follow the parallels of Edition wars in my opinion

Then why do YOU keep replying back to it?