D&D 3E/3.5 3E sucks, but keep playing it for next few months

[Ogrork the Mighty]

It could have been worse... he could have been from Kazakhstan.

 

[Asmor]

"The world's best! ... Now even better!"

How is that double speak? Just for the sake of argument, let's say that every game on the planet has a score on an arbitrarily large "funness" scale. A game with a score of 1 is the worst game ever, and the more fun a game is, the higher the score. There is no limit to how high the score can be.

Now, imagine that every game on the planet has a score somewhere in the range of 5 and 2,497... except for GameX, which has a funness of 2,451. That is to say, it's the best (most fun) game in the world.

Now, along comes GameX 2nd edition, with a funness score of 2,612.

GameX is the world's best, and now it's even better.

 

[pawsplay]

How is that double speak? Just for the sake of argument, let's say that every game on the planet has a score on an arbitrarily large "funness" scale. A game with a score of 1 is the worst game ever, and the more fun a game is, the higher the score. There is no limit to how high the score can be.

Now, imagine that every game on the planet has a score somewhere in the range of 5 and 2,497... except for GameX, which has a funness of 2,451. That is to say, it's the best (most fun) game in the world.

Now, along comes GameX 2nd edition, with a funness score of 2,612.

GameX is the world's best, and now it's even better.

Yes, it's certainly within the limits. But it begs the question, what is it being compared against in terms of improvement? It's presumptuous to say that a game is being improved a lot but was already superlatively the best; the implication is that it is now in some stratosphere which other games can hardly aspire to.

So the comparison simultaneosly discounts the competition (they were never even with us) while emphasizing its competitive advantages (now we are farther ahead of the competition, or at least where we were before). If the game can be improved, that means it was not perfect; if it was not perfect, how absolutely can it be said to have been the best - wouldn't that depend on the criteria used? If it can be said to be "the best" it must be nearly perfect, since it must contend in several areas of comparison.

"The best... now even better!" pretty much always invites self-contradiction unless you hold a product is being improved for itself, rather than to any specific purpose, or unless it has no competition.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Anyone else notice this conflicting message? One of the big points in the presentation is to "keep playing your 3E game for now." It's been mentioned in a few interviews, too.

On the other hand, we're treated with examples of how 3E is horrible and will be made so much better in 4E. Damn those grappling rules and attacks of opportunity! I'm so confused! I'm not sure I can keep playing!

Asmor answered this well. There's no conflict. They're not saying 3e sucked, they're saying it has flaws which 4e will fix.

Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved by edition X+1.

 

[F4NBOY]

Anyone else notice this conflicting message? One of the big points in the presentation is to "keep playing your 3E game for now." It's been mentioned in a few interviews, too.

On the other hand, we're treated with examples of how 3E is horrible and will be made so much better in 4E. Damn those grappling rules and attacks of opportunity! I'm so confused! I'm not sure I can keep playing!

Congratulations Agamon. Somehow you managed to come up with another original and creative motive for grumbling!
Much better than the old "Beh, 2E is just better!".
I think Grognardism is evolving alongside D&D, they are on their 2nd edition now. Or is it just a revised 1.5 edition? who knows?
Keep up the good work!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Yes, it's certainly within the limits. But it begs the question, what is it being compared against in terms of improvement? It's presumptuous to say that a game is being improved a lot but was already superlatively the best; the implication is that it is now in some stratosphere which other games can hardly aspire to.

Presumptuous or not that is what a salesman must believe. He must believe that his product is the best. Likewise he must believe that a new version will be even better. If he believed anything else he would not be doing his job.

If the game can be improved, that means it was not perfect; if it was not perfect, how absolutely can it be said to have been the best - wouldn't that depend on the criteria used? If it can be said to be "the best" it must be nearly perfect, since it must contend in several areas of comparison.

Forget about perfect. Products don't need to be compared to a non-existent idealised absolute. They just have to be compared to other products.

"The best... now even better!" pretty much always invites self-contradiction unless you hold a product is being improved for itself, rather than to any specific purpose, or unless it has no competition.

If an athlete who holds the world record for an event achieves a new personal best then the best has become even better. This is analogous to what WotC must claim for D&D. Whether you agree is another matter, but there's no contradiction.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, I am German and the accent didn't sound even remotely like German. My guess was a really bad imitation of a French accent, too.

Really bad.

So can you understand what the "angry German kid" is screaming about? Just curious.

 

[pawsplay]

Presumptuous or not that is what a salesman must believe. He must believe that his product is the best. Likewise he must believe that a new version will be even better. If he believed anything else he would not be doing his job.

And that is engaging in doublethink.

Orwell never said it didn't work, after all.

Forget about perfect. Products don't need to be compared to a non-existent idealised absolute. They just have to be compared to other products.

And that is precisely the source of the contradiction. You can't be "more number 1."

 

[SHARK]

The one thing I dont understand is about 3e being complicated. Aside from a few AoO questions at the beginning, my group hasnt had any problem figuring things out. Is it really that complicated or is this just an excuse for the need of 4th? That asked, I can see where AoO can mess people up, especially if they are just starting and didnt switch over from 2e. But I dont think its as complicated as some people make out. Oh well, no system is going to work for everyone.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see the system, or at least a more detailed preview of combat.

Greetings!

Very true, Cevalic. Good point, too. I don't quite understand what is so "complex". What if something is too bothersome to niggle about all the details? So what. Just ignore it, or make a loose judgement and move on. Someone misses an AOO? No biggie. Just move on, and when the get it, great. If they never remember to use it, so what? It has never slowed my games down a bit.

Part of the "complexity" problem at least to some--may be the pathetic ways that WOTC has written some rule explanations down--which often serve to confuse rather than illuminate. Simply a matter of better writing, and better editing--and a timely errata. I'm not sure such "problems"--such as they are--neccesitate a full new game edition.

Of course, why didn't WOTC fix some of these "problems" in DMG II and PHB II? Seems like an ideal place to adjust, edit, and change some things.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Draxo]

The funny thing is, when 3E was coming out, the biggest complaint was that D&D was getting "dumbed down". LOL

I agree. And I find it very odd.. 3e is simple and easy to use. If the worst they coudl come up with is grapple rules and AoO's then really.. its nothing to really shake a stick at.

plus, the D&D community were never known for lack of smarts.. we're seen as the computer geeks and nerds. Whats up with that? We're not stupid.

I do feel like they're tryingt o dumb it down.. and i dont see the reason in it.