3E to 4E Gripes (Was: What Did You Want Fourth Edition to be Like?)

[Herremann the Wise]

Definitely- both sides sniped back and forth after 4e was released. I'm not disputing that at all. And while some 4e folks (the ones I called "overzealous") did engage in some "4e is the bestest" comments, mostly what I saw in that first week after 4e's release were the 4e detractors making very rude comments about those who enjoyed it. I remember within two days after 4e came out, a couple posters on ENWorld in particular engaged in the "4e is D&D t-ball", "4e is for people who couldn't handle the complexities and sophistication of 3e", or "you can't roleplay in 4e- its only a glorified combat game" posts. The degree of elitism those showed made a lot of pro-4e fans pile onto them (which wasn't right in and of itself), and was the major start of the flamewars around here. I'm not claiming any of the rude behavior was justified- if that was your impression, I'm sorry I didn't express myself clearly.

Personally, I was excited about 4e, and wanted to discuss it with folks here in a calm, rational way, trade ideas, talk about ways to use the system, etc. But 4e detractors would invade every single thread and threadcrap (and on one or two occasions, I regretfully fell for the flamebait in those threads). I can't answer for other 4e fans, but I kept out of the pro-3.x threads and areas of the site, because I didn't want to perpetuate the flamewar, and quite honestly, I have better things to do than hate on how someone else plays a game. The flamewar has started to die back some now (thankfully), but you still have a few agitators running around (on both sides, but mostly pro 3.x from what I've seen recently) with nothing better to do than poop on everybody else's parade.

Overzealous 4E vs. Rude 3E supporters? I agree with PP here, there was overzealousness and rudeness on both sides of the fence (one I happily sat on at the time). However, now that 4E is not so new, various 4E criticism threads come up discussing issues/problems with the latest version. Some on the Pro4E side react to this "bashing" and unfortunately several interesting threads have fallen into a psuedo edition war as the 4E defenders pile in.

Unfortunately, I think the RPG and ENWorld communities have been scarred by the hate. Why is it so difficult to compare the editions? Why does someone expressing like or dislike for an edition, or aspects of an edition cause so many problems? I think unfortunately, the respect by all posters for all other posters that was once a signature of ENWorld, has gone (but is steadily returning). It would be nice if everyone could assume that respect be given to all other posters, rather than the mentality that it has to once again be earned. People have a right to be passionate about the hobby and that passion should be respected - regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their opinion.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Ariosto]

Every reason to prefer 4E is also (to someone else) a reason to prefer 3E or 1E. Many of those are also often reasons not to buy material designed with one of the other games in mind.

Don't put too much weight on this analogy, but (especially as the games have become more complex and systematic) the situation is akin to the old days of competing computer lines with different hardware and different operating systems (often at least partly in ROM). A Super Adventure Game IV binary disk for the Amiga was not much use if one had a MacIntosh, Atari, Commodore or Apple II machine. Even a Basic program might take quite a bit of modification to work with a different interpreter.

Nowadays, there are many open-source programs that can work fine when compiled on a wide variety of platforms.

The differences among the LBBs, Holmes Basic, B/X, BECM, 1st ed. AD&D, and 2nd ed. AD&D may warrant strong preferences. However, they are not such mutually incompatible species as WotC's games. Indeed, hybridization of material from different editions is common. One can without great difficulty mix in Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World, and/or The Arduin Grimoire (to name but a few). Even grafting on bits from, e.g., RuneQuest (which is a "different system" when taken as a whole) is quite feasible.

"Nothing has changed in how I play my games at all in terms of the stories that I can and do tell" need reflect no more than a decoupling of the story-telling from the game-play. If "nothing has changed" in 4E, then why make the change? Well, perhaps the game-play itself matters to some.

Irrelevance is not the claim actually being made for 4E; it is bruited as superior.

Pushing (pulling, sliding, etc.) pieces around a grid, and spending most of a session doing that, is at least quite different from the pre-3E game. A world in which any wound is mended after 6 hours is different.

A great many notable differences have to do with how the game increasingly does not map to medieval combat, sword-and-sorcery literature, or anything else including traditions of D&D.

What is a paladin? What distinguishes a cleric or wizard, and how do characters use magic? What does magic do? What is a sound strategy for interacting with a dungeon? How does one deal with a trap, a mystery, a negotiation? What are the capabilities of monster X? What are the economic aspects of magical scrolls and other enchanted items? What is the relationship of high-level characters to the rest of the world? All these things have changed, and more.

Changing such things with "house rules" to suit one's campaign was one thing. Radically changing the common, "official," frame of reference is something else.

Back-compatibility is now negligible. A different "edition" now means so thoroughly different a set of referents that language learned in one is at best misinterpreted, and increasingly just unintelligible, in another context.

When Gygax advised that an "upgrade" to AD&D should mean starting a new campaign from scratch, that was IMO hyperbole. The same advice from the designers of 4E has turned out in my opinion to be spot-on unless I happened to be a masochist. It was a notably less work to retrofit new 3E material to a 1E chassis, but I could see how one might go the other way. The difficulties either way seemed to increase along with "level."

The adjustments that 4E demands seem to me to make it no more (and perhaps less) useful than many another game that's not even called "D&D."

 

[Desert Hare]

This thread wasn't started with the intent of inflaming an edition war, so I'd appreciate it if those people would find another outlet for their emotions.

The purpose of this thread was to gauge that IF 4E was a complete fix to 3.5E rather than a complete new system, would people gripe over money woes? I was interested in reading responses based on that and still do.

 

[Ariosto]

Sorry!

I reckon the finding so soon of second-hand books might have made less of a difference to me. For all that I had played 3E but rarely, it might have been enough to warrant $30 or whatever for an up-to-date PHB.

The question seems really significant in the context of DMs with a lot (not just of money but also of time and energy) already invested in 3E books on their shelves. Supposing it were like the shift from 3.0 to 3.5, how many engaged in that is probably a good indicator.

(I bought new 3.5 core books in anticipation of getting more use from them than I actually have. I was never in the market for devoting several linear feet of shelf space to supplements that would have broken my back to carry to a game!)

At least in my neighborhood, the availability of sessions in which to play seems greater with 4E than it was with 3E. The latter seemed to be something folks were much more willing to engage as character-players than as DMs (a supply-and-demand kind of problem). Because of that, I may already have gotten more "bang for buck" from 4E -- but I doubt that my experience is representative of the bigger D&D picture.

The actual magnitude of "money woes" at this juncture may be tricky to sort out from the "what if" scenario.

And for bibliographic violence, it's hard to beat harder than with the latest Hero System tome!

 

[The Ghost]

The purpose of this thread was to gauge that IF 4E was a complete fix to 3.5E rather than a complete new system, would people gripe over money woes? I was interested in reading responses based on that and still do.

No. Assuming, of course, that there was still a great deal of backwards compatibility. I own a near complete set of 3.5 books. (And BECMI, 1e, & 2e) Had WotC just done a fix to the base 3.5 rules, it would not have invalidated what I already own. A new system does that*. Which leads me to ask the question - when 5e comes around, will that invalidate my 4e collection? Why spend the money again?

*And yes, I do understand that I can still play older editions, or mine older books for ideas, but their inherent utility with respect to 4e is pretty limited.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Some of those folks were somewhat overzealous, but even from reading posts back then, they never stated "3e/your D&D game sucks, and if you don't like 4e you're a moron", contrary to what some folks around here would have people believe.

You can't honestly believe that?

...mostly what I saw in that first week after 4e's release were the 4e detractors making very rude comments about those who enjoyed it...

I can't answer for other 4e fans, but I kept out of the pro-3.x threads and areas of the site...

Oh. Okay. That explains it, then.

 

[Herschel]

I had hoped Half Orcs would go away, I always hated that race. Alas, no such luck.

 

[Fenes]

In my opinion the blame for edition wars goes to WotC's marketing. They used far too much negative advertising in early 2008, instead of positive advertising. Advertising 4E as better than 3E, instead of as a good new game/edition without going off about 3E's supposed faults, caused the rift.

 

[Desert Hare]

I don't care where the blame lies, Fenes. Just please don't discuss it in this thread.

 

[Fenes]

Then let me clarify it: If WotC would have made a "3.X" new edition instead of 4E, but would have used the same style of advertising I might have still griped, unless they somehow managed to match my playstyle perfectly (which is very unlikley given my favorite combat/non-combat ratio), just because I really do not like being told how I should have fun at my game table - especially not if it is worded as in "you're doing it wrong".

It's not just what the rules are, but also how they are presented and advertised.

And to get it even more back on topic: I'd have very much liked more options, not less. More support for campaigns other than dungeon crawls. More about social scenes, more about non-combat action, more about politics, more high-level support other than bigger monsters to bash.