A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[BryonD]

Whenever I see "simulationist" ascribed to 3e it's done so in the idea that 3e is meant to "simulate" a setting or world. My issue is that the thoughts behind the mechanics tend to ruin this greatly, and that this style of "simulationism" was never the intention.

On the intended, you are wrong. It may not work out that way for you, and that is fine. But making declarations about what other people intended is just funny.

And the idea that you are this lone voice in the wild telling thousands and thousands of people that their experiences don't exist is also funny.

At what point do I stop banning spells and realize that it may be the underlying system that is a problem, though? I'm picking a bit on 3e because in many cases 2e wasn't as bad, but the underlying problems are not with individual spells but rather with the underlying idea of "There should be a spell for that." To which I respond, "No, sometimes, there shouldn't be."

Well, you "snipped" me. But you didn't actually respond to anything I said. So noted.

I assure you that there are vast numbers of people who don't have this problem. So the common denominator clearly isn't the system.

But you can also go tell a bunch of baseball players that you know from personal experience that a curve ball can not be hit.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

As a someone who isn't a "h4ter", I note a hint of hypocrisy buried in that....

You always seem to find fault with my posts. It's like you can't discern the context in which I'm writing. Maybe I'm the one not being clear.

Then I'll try to restate my answer to the topic at hand:

1) At the time of previous edition changes older editions were not as well supported by companies with a reputation for good material.

2) Some players who didn't like previous edition changes kept playing an older edition, some found other games, and some just quit playing. The majority seemed to move on to the next edition as it was the only edition of D&D where they could get new material, IMO.

3) The gaming industry has changed dramatically since the previous editions changes. For those players who wanted to play a supported edition of D&D, they were not "forced" into switching to the new edition. Many great companies, larger ones like Paizo and smaller ones like Necromancer, still provide new material for the previous edition. There has even been a rise in support for older editions.

These were the observations I was trying to share. Do people find themselves playing a game that they don't like as well as another edition? Yes. I have at least two people at my weekly 4E game who prefer 3E over 4E. Why do they keep playing? Because they value the time we spend together as friends. They enjoy the game I offer despite their issues with the system. And they don't have a desire to run a 3E campaign (which I would play in despite liking 4E more than 3E).

The question of the thread dealt with popularity, not like/dislike. And much like the "feel" issue that came up before, the two are not directly linked, IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The 3e DMG says this:

p.142 It will cause your players serious strain in their belief in the reality of your world for them to see that they wield spells and magic items, and the lands and dungeons surrounding the city are filled with magic and monsters, but yet in the middle of the city everything looks and acts like Europe during the Middle Ages.
The presence of magic in your game world forces you do deviate from a truly historical setting. When you create anything for your world, the idea that magic could possibly alter it should be in the back of your mind. Would the king simply surround his castle with a wall when levitate and fly spells are common?
p.136 This section on world-building assumes that your campaign is set in a fairly realistic world.

To me it looks like you lose the point. 3e was meant to "portray" an "actual setting" considering the "implications of magic," specifically a "fairly realistic world" in which magic could "alter" "anything."

Ready to cry uncle?

That's the best you've got? An airy statement that says that "Magic can alter anything - bear that in mind when worldbuilding"? Well yes. That's obvious. But there is a world of difference between saying "This exists." and saying "Here is how you deal with the following problems." As far as worldbuilding is concerned, the DMG paragraph above takes the problems into account in the same way that making the button bright red and slapping a "Do not push" sign over a base self-destruct button takes into account the chance of someone trying to blow up a lair.

But the point you are failing to rebut is that the sort of magic present in 3e completely unbalances the world. The magic is strong enough that any attempt to build a "fairly realistic world" is like building a castle on quicksand.

And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy. 3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron). 4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.

 

[pawsplay]

Refresh my memory paws... did the 3e books give any substantial and specific advice on how to actually do that?

Of course. The lines I quoted are part of larger sections of the book.

Wasn't 3e the same gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag as the prior editions?

I'm not sure what you're asking. I should certainly hope so, but you seem to be hinting at something to do with the larger question of simulation. Do you object to simulating "gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag?" Are you implying there is a contradiction between such and and simulation? Because there isn't.

 

[pawsplay]

That's the best you've got? An airy statement that says that "Magic can alter anything - bear that in mind when worldbuilding"? Well yes. That's obvious.

If it's obvious than it seems that you, at least, concede the point. Very good, we will move on unless ProfessorCirno posts a rejoinder.

But there is a world of difference between saying "This exists." and saying "Here is how you deal with the following problems." As far as worldbuilding is concerned, the DMG paragraph above takes the problems into account in the same way that making the button bright red and slapping a "Do not push" sign over a base self-destruct button takes into account the chance of someone trying to blow up a lair.

If you want to take issue with the advice given, feel free to write a review of the DMG. The point under contention was whether 3e ever, at any point, even once, purported to simulate a realistic world. Since it stated that it assumes a realistic world, I hope you are ready to concede that point, as well.

But the point you are failing to rebut is that the sort of magic present in 3e completely unbalances the world. The magic is strong enough that any attempt to build a "fairly realistic world" is like building a castle on quicksand.

Nonsense. D&D can be "fairly realistic" or nonsensical, just as with comic book RPGs, or Cold War espionate RPGs, or any other genre. You can use the DMG guidelines, as written, and simply by keeping most communities after 50,000 people (as they were during most of the medieval period) you will see the amount of magic and magic items shrink to very manageable levels. Sprinkle the world with metropolises, and you have the Forgotten Realms. But a "fairly realistic" setting is not a function of how magical it is. Eberron is a very magical setting, yet many people enjoy the sense of magic belonging in the setting. I'm not a huge Eberron fan. I was raised on Mystara and Greyhawk, so "medieval drag" appeals to me. In 27 years of playing D&D, I have yet to find the assortment of spells and magical items an impediment to the existence of a believable world.

And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy.

No, it's not. The rules look exactly like the world of a standard D&D game. If you want the world to look differently, you will have to modify and prune some elements. But as it stands, D&D's assumed world has been the basis of many successful, internally consistent campaigns for decades. Specifically, I ran a level 1-20 campaign and not once did I feel the campaign world was unsupportable simply because it was fantastical. I have never banned a single core spell, class, or feat from my games.

3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron).

In other words, it can't support it's own worlds except that it can and does. Simply disliking the Eberron approach or the FR approach does not mean those approaches are not a valid approach to world-building. Living Greyhawk took a third way which you glossed away; mid power levels, with gonzo elements less common and more isolated in the game world. Greyhawkian D&D with its feudalism and relatively medieval-esque militaries and economies has also been a viable approach, again, for countless campaigns over the past few decades.

4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.

Unless you want to put those resources into the hands of the PCs, in which case you are worse off than you started. Actually, in my view, the ability to endlessly produce a magical effect is a much larger obstacle to world-building, because it makes it impossible to build any world in which magic is rare and mysterious. If I were going to adapt 4e to my preferred style of game worlds, I would have to replace the wizard's zot powers with... I don't know, crossbow powers or something.

 

[MrGrenadine]

And as for the "ban certain spells" approach, that's simply the Oberoni Fallacy. 3e can not even support its own worlds with the magic flying around unless you either go all out gonzo with a comic book world (Forgotten Realms) or relatively low powered and start from the principle mages will attempt to break any normal economy (Eberron). 4e on the other hand keeps strategic resources (i.e. the resources needed to unbalance a world) in check far more and thus is much more flexible for worldbuilding.

If we agree that magic in 3.5 had the potential to completely unbalance the world or setting in terms of power/money/resources, etc., then I can see how 4e makes it more difficult to unbalance things, since power is fed to the players in a trickle, and in very limited ways.

However, I can't understand how that makes world building in 4e more "flexible". It seems like the complete opposite to me, especially for DMs who managed 3.5's magic system in creative ways to avoid unbalancing.

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not sure what you're asking. I should certainly hope so, but you seem to be hinting at something to do with the larger question of simulation. Do you object to simulating "gonzo fantasy in Medieval drag?" Are you implying there is a contradiction between such and and simulation? Because there isn't.

What sort of economy is implied by the Profession skill and the cost-of-living in 3e? Is it one in which all professions are equally profitable, the only difference being the skill with which you approach it? In which nearly everyone has the same standard of living. Does that seem particularly medieval to you? Do published settings reflect the rules in that respect?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If we agree that magic in 3.5 had the potential to completely unbalance the world or setting in terms of power/money/resources, etc., then I can see how 4e makes it more difficult to unbalance things, since power is fed to the players in a trickle, and in very limited ways.

However, I can't understand how that makes world building in 4e more "flexible". It seems like the complete opposite to me, especially for DMs who managed 3.5's magic system in creative ways to avoid unbalancing.

It's because most of the conversation in this topic is (quite justly) responding to particular points, but only a holistic (or at least comprehensive) survey of all the factors is going to lead to any real understanding across some of the barriers evident in the dicussion thus far. Problem is, there probably isn't any one person capable of rendering that holistic survey.

For example, I know full well that some bit of the disconnect on simulation is disparate preferences, facility, etc. with details versus abstraction. A great many of those "creative ways" with 3.5 is very effectively leveraging those details to avoid unbalancing. I've done a bit of that myself. But when I do, I instinctively start to classify and abstract the problem sets, and then deal with them at that level. Which is all that 4E is really doing here, albeit with extreme prejudice. I know this is what is happening because I work with highly abstract software development, mainly for users and managers that are very detailed people. So I have to deal with bridging this different mindset every day. The symptoms are unmistakable.

But don't mistake me for saying that the preceding paragraph fully explains anything. Some of those "creative ways" have nothing to do with concrete details at all. Some of the people who mainly like the details nontheless highly abstract what they do with the details--they just use radically different abstractions than the 4E design team. Yet different again, some people thrive on details but deal with it via organziation versus abstraction (see Ptolus for the pinnacle of this effort--so well organized that even a guy like me that prefers abstraction can deal with the sheer mass of detail present.) And none of that is even touching the causal-based mechanical simulation versus effects-based simulation preferences (which are often strongly held). Or throw in how the 4E "exception-based" design is a reasonably good idea that nonethless manages to make some critical mistakes in implementation (not uncommon in first tries at such designs).

All of those distinctions go a long way towards explaining why I find 4E far more satisfactory for world building, the way I want to do world building. But anyone that would easily understand that is already predisposed to find 4E useful, too. It's tempting to say that 3E has a bunch of "useless details" and 4E has a few "useful" tools. And that's correct on one level, but rather crude and misleading (not to mention unfair) on another.

Yet I guarantee that there is at least someone reading this for whom the distinctions raised above might as well be picking out the catering menu for your own wake. Less really, because the distinctions don't even register as hypothetical. That whole discussion is off in some quadrant that doesn't even come up for them. And their focus is probably on some other area that I didn't even mention.

 

[pawsplay]

What sort of economy is implied by the Profession skill and the cost-of-living in 3e? Is it one in which all professions are equally profitable, the only difference being the skill with which you approach it? In which nearly everyone has the same standard of living. Does that seem particularly medieval to you? Do published settings reflect the rules in that respect?

I think it clearly simulates day-to-day wage-earning being an unimportant part of the 3e game. You are incorrect about the standard of living; common laborers earn 1 sp a day, far less than someone with the Profession skill, which does seem particularly medieval to me. Every published setting of which I am aware does indeed assume that common laborers make 1 sp per day and that adventurers and important NPCs typically make several times that much.

I think this is a tangent. The suitability of any specific rule is a different question of whether 3e allows a believable world. Few campaigns are going to collapse because of inobvious math issues with the coinage. Picking at the details is no more relevant than claiming a driving simulator is unrealistic and unsuitable because there's no cupholder.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

What effect do the rules have on how much of a stimulation a game is?

I see people pointing to the same rule and saying "this rule ruins my world" and "no it doesn't" at the same time. What's the difference?