Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5707611" data-attributes="member: 32740">Warning: long post. You may disagree with me for any number of reasons. The OP asked specifically for opinion - this is mine.Nope, there were indeed fewer haters of 3E at the time of its release than of 4E at the time of its release. Some of that the 4E rules are directly responsible for, some of it is simply the result of the times themselves. When 3E was released D&D had spent a SIGNIFICANT chunk of time being quite dead. The publisher, TSR, had been managed into the ground and the only new material it seemed you were ever likely to see was what you wrote yourself. There were no third party publishers of anything, no retroclones, and TSR had seen to it that gamers were paranoid of putting ANYTHING of their own devising up on the internet lest TSR sue them or at least whack them with another of their infamous Cease & Desist letters. When WotC came along and pulled D&D out of the wreckage they began by releasing materials that TSR already had in the works at various stages of completeness. Problem was they quickly determined that TSR's approach to the business was fundamentally flawed. They also knew that there were fundamental issues that had accumulated against the rules themselves - failures, missed opportunities, etc. They determined to create a new edition of rules and proceed forward with new material for that, rather than carry on with new materials for older editions. There were objections. There was a segment of players even then who were staunchly advocating that 1E was the better ruleset, or even OD&D, not 2nd Edition. On internet forums they were commonly derided as Luddites, or just predictable statistical variations... oddballs. Thanks to the growth of the internet as a medium of communication and the well-known playtesting program for the new rules THIS edtion change, unlike the one from 1E to 2E, would be quite visible. Thanks to ENworld, whose very existence arose as an effort to gather information about the new edtiion as it became available, we gamers were not simply presented with a fait accompli. We could comment, critique, and suggest. Some of it may even have been taken to heart in the development. Certain people, even if not staunch fans of a given older edition were VERY resistant to change. Since many elements of 3E were based on concepts learned about RPGs as they had developed over the years some changes were quite "radical" in appearance to someone firmly grounded in 1E/2E. My own perception is that they were still more of a vocal minority than true sampling of a large resistance. Most people were still happy that D&D was alive AT ALL. One of the drawbacks to WotC's release of 3E was THEIR approach to selling the game. Their primary experience had been collectible card games: Pokemon, M:tG. It seems undeniable to me that their approach to the rules and how the rules should be presented to the consumer was heavily colored by their success with CCG's. In a massive, but little noticed shift in philosophy I believe they set the stage for the far greater objection to 4E. 1E was a highly organic development - it wasn't really planned or managed. It just sort of happened. It was a collation of new and variations of rules from many sources that Gary assembled into an edition. People still were learning what an RPG could be and should be. One thing that was WELL understood by both "designers" and players was that the rules were just a starting point. You could do with them and TO them whatever you wanted. It was expected. 3E was built from the ground up as a set of rules that demanded to be adhered to. Oh, you could make changes and additions - heck the rules were made open source for that very purpose. But everything else about the rules said that there was a right way and a wrong way. Sage Advice was not about what you could do to solve rules problems but what you were SUPPOSED to do. It was also overly player-empowering. It was clear that players wanted greater freedom to develop characters in ways not so strictly confined by limited options in the rules, but 3E came to be driven by sales of RULES to the players for that purpose. Over the life of 3E there came a growing dissatisfaction from DM's who saw control of their own campaigns being taken from them. The very premise of humorous cartoons like Knights of the Dinner Table was that, for better or worse, the players could dictate to the DM how he was supposed to run the game. There was also dissatisfaction from players who actually became overwhelmed, drowning in a sea of possibilities. Too much of a good thing. Too much emphasis on manipulation of the system being where the fun was at, too little mention that the game first became popular not because of what shiny new RULES said you could do, but what ROLEPLAYING allowed you to do within the rules. The release of 3.5 rules was seen to be an inevitable step and was actually planned for. Once the rules were given to the entire gaming world there would be flaws and omissions revealed that even extensive playtesting would not. Testimony reveals that the release of 3.5 rules was... deliberately premature, however. When sales began to plataeu or slide they pushed out the 3.5 rules before they were actually NEEDED as such by the gaming consumer. THIS produced immediate backlash. Backlash not just against the new rules and their changes but against the 3E rules themselves and the changes THEY had made to the game. Unlike dissatisfaction over previous edition changes, THIS time the dissatisfaction did not die down with time. It became a permanent fixture and even grew with time. Perception of an excessive top-down control over the game that people wanted to play. Too little appreciation for alternative approaches to rules and gameplay. Whatever the individual and collective motivations, dissatisfaction with the current rules and how they had come to be was unalterably established. And into THAT environment the 4E rules were tossed. Whatever the merits or wrongs of 4E in and of itself are it is no surprise to me that OF COURSE the objection to it is higher than 3E. No matter how good it is, it won't be of benefit at cracking that dissatisfaction, and any failures or inadequacies it has will only serve as proof that dissatisfaction is further warranted. It is no longer a battle that can be won by sheer momentum as it has with past editions. There is too great a spread in what people want from the game for any one edtion to be the cure. 1st Edition AD&D. For all its failings it had the "design philosophy" that the game MUST have permeating it. The individual campaign is controlled by the DM, not dictated by the players. The rules exist to be ignored, altered and added to. You stand in the way of that at your peril, and indeed failure to advocate for that openly and consistently means you're probably doing it wrong. The fun of the game is NOT just about manipulation of the mechanics - certainly not for everyone, and not all the time. Failure to embrace that idea and openly advocate for enjoyment of the game beyond just gaming the system also means you're probably doing it wrong. MHO</blockquote>

Verification