Are Essentials more old school or just a clever marketing ploy?

[Imaro]

It's the way it's built; there are two systems kind of.

One is the system that everyone needs to know- Those are the rules that can fit in a small amount of pages, and are very basic.

They govern all basic actions, and are easily adapted to cover situations not accounted for. (AKA Improv)

I disagree here, as many improved actions are, at least from what I could glean from DMG 1, really creating ad-hoc powers, and I don't think that is "easy"to do... at least not if you're worried about balance and running a fair game.

The other rules layer on top, and only interact in small self contained ways. They're the exceptions that people who have them can put into play.

Only they are not self-contained because they interact with other basic rules...as well as exceptions in a multitude of ways.

Those are the larger portion of rules that would not fit in a small amount of pages, but also don't need to be known by everyone, or even potentially known by everyone.

They don't even need to be known about/found in order to achieve a certain effect.

In fact two people might be doing a similar thing in 4e but have different rules to do it. Neither of them has to know how the other one does it, only witness the outcome.

Im not sure I agree with this...doesn't a DM still need to adjudicate as well as check for interactions and synergies between these rules?

Someone can even achieve the same effects using improv.

The exceptions simply give the user a sort of "known element" to base his actions on.

I don't think the question is whether one can make their own exceptions (powers) up, I think the question is how do you do it in a balanced manner that is consistent with the game... not so sure 4e (or even essentials) has given a good answer to this question for many.

3e on the other hand tried to make rules consistent across the board. Once a rule came into play it was essentially considered to be the rule to handle that concept. If you liked the idea of consistency across actions this was great- but also had the net effect of increasing the size of the rules that the player needed to know/account for.

Eh, actually the DM was the only one who needed to know all the rules... the players just needed to either look up or describe what they were trying to do and let the DM adjudicate it.

 

[Scribble]

There's some kind of X factor that is going on here, cause it's clear there are 4e groups who notice a change in their creativity during combat, while there are 4e groups who don't notice any change.

Do you think there is a core difference between groups that explains this different response? Is it a play style, different experiences of what "old school" means, exposure to indie rpgs?

I'd be curious to hear from the most vocal folks in this thread, like you Scribble, and AbdulAlhazrad, Kamikaze Midget, Imaro, UHF, TerraDave, and anyone I'm leaving out.

I don't know if I'd say there is a singular factor. I'd say this would be my hypothesis though: (There's obviously a little more to each of these descriptions, but in a nutshell)

1. Oldschool had minimal rules. Consequently actions not covered outside of the rules were left to the DM to decide how they would work, or whether they would work at all. While it kept the amount of rules people needed to know to a minimum, it also left the game open in many cases to the whims of the DM, which sometimes meant a horrible experience, and often an inconsistent one. (Especially from game to game.)

2. 3e gets to the point where it attempts to solidify things a little better. Make things like "how to trip someone" a codified rule, so that the game remains pretty consistant over the course of the campaign and also from table to table. If someone wanted to trip another thing in the game, there was a rule that described how to do it. They could use that info in their planning. Consequently this made the ruleset someone needs to know larger, and also led to unintended weird uses of the rules, (like someone spamming trip attacks over and over.)

3. 4e tries to kind of split the difference. To prevent the unintended rules abuse, and simplify the basic rule set, they put a lot of the rule decisions back into the hands of the DM. Players can say- "I want to trip!" and the DM gets to decide how to play that out, how hard it will be, etc on a case by case basis.

To keep things somewhat consistent and ensure players always had a known element to fall back on when making decisions, they added the powers. These exceptions to the basic rules are a piece that the players will always know work the way they say they work (like trip in 3e) but because of their limited use factor they can't be abused as easily.

I think- based on this info there are a few factors at play.

1. People are still in the mindset that if there isn't a rule for it, they can't do it.

2. A rule set in the hands of a DM also means that the players need to put more trust in the DM, and the DM needs to be sure to be truly fair.

Consequently I think it all plays into what I said before which is people tend to go with the known element rather then an unknown element, even if they have somewhat of an idea how it will play out and if they know the unknown element might offer greater returns.

There's also the "good enough" factor at play.

Say you have two cameras that cost pretty much the same cost. One is 10 mega-pixels has a bigger storage capacity, and takes generally better photos. It requires external software, and a cable to get the photos from the camera, then a extra step to upload them all to facebook.

The other is only 3 megapixels, takes inferior photos, but has a built in USB dongle and a button that automatically uploads everytig to facebook...

People will more often then not pick the second option even though it takes inferior photos. The photos are "good enough" for facebook, and it's easier to get them there.

So in the case of powers vrs improv- the powers are "good enough" to get the job done, and require less effort then thinking up an alternative.


Finally I think part of it is also that people just tend to follow rules. Especially in games, I mean would you expect someone to improv in a game of monopoly? Or Poker? Improv in poker got people shot back in the day!

So part of this is just human nature... Another part is working to improve DMs, and also improving how the books teaches people about improv.

Ultimately though I think more often then not people will pick the rules known element, and this isn't really a bad thing. The game just needs to be open to easy modification/arbitration on the fly because lack of that ability, or shutting someone down when they DO try is the bad thing.


(I also kind of wonder if the old "Kill players at every optortunity" DM stereotype plays into it as well. I'm picking known elements so my DM can't screw me over plays into it as well.)

Sorry, I'm not following you. Do you mean that they're not needed because the group can just improvise?

That's part of it yes- but not the complete thought. It's kind of two separate but related ideas.

But also because the rules are exceptions to the codified rules, I don't need to find the specific trip attack- I can just use A trip attack.

Also if I never bother to take a trip attack, I can still attempt it, because of improv yes... It just leaves the results a little more in the hands of the DM.

YThat was my first reaction to 4e too, but after DMing for a year what I observed was a shift from the novelty of the "known elements" to the "known elements" trumping improvisation.

I don't attribute that to there being "known elements", rather to the rules presentation and improv guidelines (for both player and DM).

I think it's a little of both. I'm wondering when people improvised because you lacked guidelines, did you err on the side of caution, making the powers feel like a better choice with often more predictable results?

(Which leads people to fall back a little more on basic human nature...)


(Incidently I kind of wonder if part of the reason behind "grind" is that they left a little wiggle room in the balance of encounters expecting people to improvise more, and thus do more damage... Forgetting that people probably won't actually do that...)

 

[Scribble]

I disagree here, as many improved actions are, at least from what I could glean from DMG 1, really creating ad-hoc powers, and I don't think that is "easy"to do... at least not if you're worried about balance and running a fair game.

I don't think it's as hard as people think... I don't think balance is really as strict as people think- that a little extra power or less power here and there will drastically effect things.

I think this might also be a personality type thing too... Some people just want the gist of things. Sum it up and I'll make a choice.

Some want all the numbers- tell me all the numbers involved and I will make my choice based on cold hard facts.

Neither is better then the other- just a way people react to things.

I think the first type has an easier time with ad-hoc powers in 4e though.

Only they are not self-contained because they interact with other basic rules...as well as exceptions in a multitude of ways.

Interact with yes, but the basic rules don't rely on them to work.

Everyone uses the jump rules, except the guy who has a jump power. His jump power doesn't change the jump rules for anyone else, and only changes it for himself when he puts it into play.

Im not sure I agree with this...doesn't a DM still need to adjudicate as well as check for interactions and synergies between these rules?

Not so much.

I don't think the question is whether one can make their own exceptions (powers) up, I think the question is how do you do it in a balanced manner that is consistent with the game... not so sure 4e (or even essentials) has given a good answer to this question for many.

I don't really disagree here... Essentials does a better job at promoting the idea that the rules aren't the ONLY way to get things done, but could probably be better.

I think ultimately the game has wiggle room, and a table/chart for building powers isn't really needed. More advice would be great though... IE "When you add an effect to the ad-hoc power usually choosing less damage works best" or something...

Ultimately I think it's just designed to let DMs rely on their best judgement (very oldschool!)

Eh, actually the DM was the only one who needed to know all the rules... the players just needed to either look up or describe what they were trying to do and let the DM adjudicate it.

Eh... Not for planning tactics.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think it's as hard as people think... I don't think balance is really as strict as people think- that a little extra power or less power here and there will drastically effect things.

I think this might also be a personality type thing too... Some people just want the gist of things. Sum it up and I'll make a choice.

Some want all the numbers- tell me all the numbers involved and I will make my choice based on cold hard facts.

Neither is better then the other- just a way people react to things.

I think the first type has an easier time with ad-hoc powers in 4e though.

I don't think it's necessarily about how strict balance is... but moreso, how concerned with balance I am with my improvisation could determine whether 4e looses one of it's main selling points... balance between characters. IMO, you don't bill the game this way then expect people to wholeheartedly accept a method that runs counter to it's philosophy... "guesstimation!"... and may in fact disrupt this high point of the game.

Interact with yes, but the basic rules don't rely on them to work.

Everyone uses the jump rules, except the guy who has a jump power. His jump power doesn't change the jump rules for anyone else, and only changes it for himself when he puts it into play.

But if that guy is a leader (or an essentials half-elf) he very much can change general rules for other players. So I don't think it is as clean or as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Not so much.

Uhm...ok, as a DM I don't need to understand or adudicate other players powers in gameplay? Care to expound?

I don't really disagree here... Essentials does a better job at promoting the idea that the rules aren't the ONLY way to get things done, but could probably be better.

I think ultimately the game has wiggle room, and a table/chart for building powers isn't really needed. More advice would be great though... IE "When you add an effect to the ad-hoc power usually choosing less damage works best" or something...

Ultimately I think it's just designed to let DMs rely on their best judgement (very oldschool!)

Again I see a disparity here in how one is expected to improvise (judgement and estimation) with the main philosophy of the game... ballance and symmetry... less so with essentials (because of the changes in structure, roles, etc. of classes and powers but moreso in 4e classic.

Eh... Not for planning tactics.

Eh, I would say not for planning tactics based around abstract powers, dis-associated mechanics and grid-based combat. I personally think 3.x was more strategy than tactics... in fact I would argue most oldschool play involved more strategic play than actual tactical combat.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think it's necessarily about how strict balance is... but moreso, how concerned with balance I am with my improvisation could determine whether 4e looses one of it's main selling points... balance between characters. IMO, you don't bill the game this way then expect people to wholeheartedly accept a method that runs counter to it's philosophy... "guesstimation!"... and may in fact disrupt this high point of the game.

I don't see how it runs counter to this philosophy. You're not saying only one class can improvise. Anyone can do it.

Do you see the game as balancing classes by "locking down" what everyone can do or something? (And I mean this as an honest question. I'm trying to figure out how your statement applies.)

But if that guy is a leader (or an essentials half-elf) he very much can change general rules for other players. So I don't think it is as clean or as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Not really- he's still bringing an exception, that only matters when put into play.

Uhm...ok, as a DM I don't need to understand or adudicate other players powers in gameplay? Care to expound?

Sorry- actually I wrote that, then wanted to cover another part first and forgot to come back to it.

As for adjudicating- and checking for synergies- sure, when they come up in play, but not really before then.

Again because of the contained nature of the powers as a DM I really only have to account for what roles are in the group if I want to build a challenge not their specific powers. At most what class.

If I have a lot of say, strikers, I know I need monsters that can take damage, or controllers to keep them from getting good positioning.

I don't really care HOW they go about getting higher damage, I just know what to account for.

Again I see a disparity here in how one is expected to improvise (judgement and estimation) with the main philosophy of the game... ballance and symmetry... less so with essentials (because of the changes in structure, roles, etc. of classes and powers but moreso in 4e classic.

The two are working together to form a whole. That's kind of what I meant by it sort of splits the difference.

Put the ball entirely in the DMs court players have no "known elements" to fall back on, and the game relies a LOT on DMs being fair.

Put the ball entirely in the players court and the players have all known elements to fall back on, but at the same time gives the DM less ability to overrule technically fair, but "cheap" abusses of the rules.


4e tries (how well it does is a different argument) to split it evenly. Give the players ways to do cool stuff, but put caps on how much they can do it by raw to prevent the "cheap shots", but give the DM ways to let the players do that stuff on a case by case basis.

Ultimately yeah- it relies on a DM being fair and paying attention to the game as it progresses, but not as much as putting everything in his court. Because I don't think the idea of balance is really super strict, a DM not getting the number exactly right all the time isn't going to have a huge effect.

Balance between classes also in my opinion means that the fighter can do cool stuff just like the wizard can do cool stuff. If you're a DM and you're not letting the fighter do cool stuff, but letting the wizard do cool stuff- that's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with you as a DM. (At least it is if it's leading to the players having a bad time.)

Eh, I would say not for planning tactics based around abstract powers, dis-associated mechanics and grid-based combat. I personally think 3.x was more strategy than tactics... in fact I would argue most oldschool play involved more strategic play than actual tactical combat.

I'd say it depends on the players.

 

[UHF]

I feel that the rules are a strong determinant of play style and improvisation. I would like to point out that pre-AD&D the rules didn't really have any skills. Players that wanted to disarm a trap had to say exactly what they did, and the DM had to judge the results. There was no "disarm trap" roll. All you could do was improvise. (I'll wager that that is the reason those players stay in their games.)


Technically all characters in AD&D could be as cool as 4e. But I feel that its very difficult to ask the players to constantly improvise their actions. Hence, many players devolve to "I hit it with my sword." Or "I pick the lock." There is probably not a huge difference between that and "I use my At-Will" in 4e.


I feel that setting and play style is a very strong determinant of improvisation. An adventure that is all wall to wall battles by the book, will certainly result in players that see little reward and consequently put little effort into improvisation. On the other hand, settings which constantly offer intellectual challenges and problem solving will probably make a big difference in what kind of approach the players come up with to the game.


Last but not least... DM and players are huge factors. Some guys just want to "Hit it with a sword." Gumps... Tanks... Some of us DMs are lazy or incapable too. Many DMs like 4e because putting together encounters is a snap.


In my vision, rules light results in more improvisation. Rules Heavy.. not so much. I do feel that 4e is half way in between. Its easy to understand, so the rules don't generally get in the way. But because it codifies coolness in the form of powers it results in many players who just follow the card's descriptions. The coolness is in the character sheet, not the character, or more importantly the player.


In my opinion there is more creativity and role playing to be had from 4e powers, and I feel that is often overlooked. Thief Utility: Bump.. hit a lock with rock to open it. Given that like 90% of modern locks in use today can be bumped... this is totally cool. Your guys get locked up... thief finds a rock... Bump... cool. Don't want to carry picks? Take Bump. I've already mentioned Archer's Staircase. I'm personally leaning to less combat optimized characters and I'm amazed at what can come out of 4e.

Improvisation in 4e needs special attention to be encouraged. The reality is that 4e is well known for being easy to set up as a DM. But that doesn't necessarily result in more complex encounters where the players need to think. I feel that it is important for the DM to stop taking the easy way all the time and put some effort into providing a challenge that goes beyond the character sheet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I can't speak for KM but IMO, your posts do seem to come off with more than a bit of essentials hate. Which is cool because everyone has their own oppinions on stuff.

Eh, well, if people interpret it a certain way then maybe I haven't said it as well as I can. I don't hate Essentials at all. I think the effort going into it might not end up accomplishing what was intended is all. Basically if you take any rules system and make some different variation of it then that variation is going to appeal somewhat to different people than the original. So Essentials will grab some people that 4e hasn't already. The question is does it really accomplish making a game that more people play? It doesn't matter much as long as all the different flavors of the game continue to exist. It does matter though in the sense that there is an opportunity cost. What ELSE could have been added to the game instead? Nobody will ever know the answer to that really, but we might at least see how it changes the popularity of the game.

Again, I feel you are missing the bigger picture. Technically what you descriube above can be done in any fantasy game with monsters... find an example of a monster with a power you want and in the level range you're looking for and slap it on another monster. The problem is that "guesstimation" isn't really a good system, especially with the multitude of unforseen synergies that may arise between powers, as well as the tactical nature of 4e combat.

All I'm saying is that the powers which are out there are a good guideline to what improvisation can reasonably do in different situations and at different levels. Guesstimation IS one of the primary arts of DMing. You NEVER know what the results of putting the party in any given sort of encounter is going to be. Really though, improv isn't rocket science. My players do it a lot. I have a bunch of example DCs and standard damage expressions that make a good solid starting point. One of the best practices I know of (and something that none of the books really comes out and says) is that a stunt can work like a power, but it should basically require hitting a DC first, so if you have Tide of Iron you can shove people around just by hitting them. If you don't, well, you can still do basically the same thing, but you'll have to pass a check to try it, and then STILL have to hit. It is less reliable, but the player can do it. You'll find they will generally take the power if they do it very often. If they just do it once in a great while then they probably won't.

No one here is asking for an exact "Trip" power with every permutation categorized, and it's condescending statements like the one above that people may be reading your dislike about certain things from. However I would like the rules and guidelines that the designers use to create powers with.

I'm not being condescending. I think most of the built-in rules that say 1e, 2e, and 3.x had for doing things like tripping, unarmed combat, etc really didn't work well at all. I don't really think I understand what exactly it is that you DO want. Maybe there is some middle ground that works for everyone. I don't want exhaustive rules for every situation, you don't want just a single very simple improv rule and nothing more. I figure there's a level of rules support that might work for both of us.

Neither the DMG or PHB had guidelines for improvising particular skills... and honestly the SC advice and rules in the DMG were crap, IMO of course. I'm curious... have you read the book from the DM's kit? If not how are you able to compare and contrast it's advice vs. the original DMG? If you are only comparing the RC... which I still feel is better about improvising than the PHB was... you aren't comparing the same types of books.

Well, I disagree that the mechanics of the rules in the DMG and the SC stuff was 'crap'. I think it had its flaws, but the concept is pretty solid. It can be hard to master SCs. I don't think there is any amount of guidance for that which would be too much. The real question is only how much can they afford to put in a book and is it the best it can be? The DMG1 missed on that in some ways. There is still a lot of good advice and general stuff there.

The RC talks somewhat more about improvising than the PHB did, yes. That's good. I'm all for it. I did think that some of the material in the RC was a bit off though. DCs that scale to PC level are a bad concept for instance. They either feel extremely artificial and/or they actually punish you for being higher level. As it stands right now a LOWER level Wizard for instance can more easily detect the same magic than a higher level one can if you go exactly by the RC.

I'm good with improvements in presentation and mechanics. Essentials has some. I just didn't see it as being uniformly better. It is actually pretty hard for us who have the baggage of the existing 4e rules in our heads to tell how it will look to someone just coming to the game. Maybe it is better, maybe not. The fact that all the errata are worked in is a big plus at least.

Well no one is forcing you to play it. I mean if you don't see it as an improvement that's cool but I haven't seen you articulate in any objective way why. I haven't seen you say what information is missing from the DM book in essentials vs. DMG or anything of that nature. It seems like you don'tlike it because it's not the same old 4e. I could be wrong though and I invite you to give some specifics on what it is you don'tlike about essentials.

I think I've articulated some pretty detailed ideas about it actually. Maybe it isn't coming across very well. Nobody is 100% objective either, and I'm not even going to pretend I am, but I figure that is true of everyone else too and I look at what gets posted in that light. In the final analysis does it really matter what I think? Seems to me all we can really accomplish in a forum is trade ideas about how to play the game better. Maybe at most some WotC dev will read some post someone makes and take that idea into account. Essentials is what it is, we're not going to change that now.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm happy with my game. I had the same feeling as others here, identified the problem (the imagined stuff doesn't effect resolution), then hacked the game to change it the way I wanted.

It is working out really well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't really think I understand what exactly it is that you DO want. Maybe there is some middle ground that works for everyone. I don't want exhaustive rules for every situation, you don't want just a single very simple improv rule and nothing more. I figure there's a level of rules support that might work for both of us.

I think Pathfinder's CMB does a pretty OK job of this, honestly.

My pet idea: An improv rule that makes improving just as good as any power, combined with class/race/feat/whatnot features that specifically influence the improv rule, rather than using it for corner cases.

Make it a significant part of your character's abilities. Let that improv rule shine. Let groups replace the entire powers structure with it, if they want.

And then cut down on the amount of "powers" a given character needs to juggle at once, to encourage more "out-of-the-box" abilities.

So, with that, you have:

1. Incentive to use the improv rule (your powers aren't going to be able to do everything you want to do).
2. No reason NOT to use the improv rule (you don't loose anything by replacing a power with a stunt)
3. Sufficient complexity and interesting options when using the improv rule (it's not just "arbitrary d20 roll against arbitrary DC to roll arbitrary dice for damage;" the rules affect it, and there's a lot of different things you can do with it, and the rules tell you what you maybe want to do with it).
4. Leading to fun results when you jump outside of the powers structure.

Your Improv Rule is part of the PHB. It contains a list of options you might decide to do with it. There are rules in classes and races and whatnot that affect it. It's not just something for DM's to use in corner cases. It is a core part of the player's arsenal.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think Pathfinder's CMB does a pretty OK job of this, honestly.

My pet idea: An improv rule that makes improving just as good as any power, combined with class/race/feat/whatnot features that specifically influence the improv rule, rather than using it for corner cases.

Make it a significant part of your character's abilities. Let that improv rule shine. Let groups replace the entire powers structure with it, if they want.

And then cut down on the amount of "powers" a given character needs to juggle at once, to encourage more "out-of-the-box" abilities.

So, with that, you have:

1. Incentive to use the improv rule (your powers aren't going to be able to do everything you want to do).
2. No reason NOT to use the improv rule (you don't loose anything by replacing a power with a stunt)
3. Sufficient complexity and interesting options when using the improv rule (it's not just "arbitrary d20 roll against arbitrary DC to roll arbitrary dice for damage;" the rules affect it, and there's a lot of different things you can do with it, and the rules tell you what you maybe want to do with it).
4. Leading to fun results when you jump outside of the powers structure.

Your Improv Rule is part of the PHB. It contains a list of options you might decide to do with it. There are rules in classes and races and whatnot that affect it. It's not just something for DM's to use in corner cases. It is a core part of the player's arsenal.

There are issues that it solves, but also issues that it creates.

I don't really get what in your point 3 is 'arbitrary' about page 42 now. Any normal attack bonuses etc can apply to an improvised attack. Normal damage bonuses can apply as well. Both types of bonuses by default DO apply. The DCs are not generally arbitrary. They are usually derived either from attributes/skills/defenses of the target and/or simply based on the situation like other skill or ability checks. I don't know anything arbitrary in the 4e DC system beyond all DCs are ultimately decided by the DM. However since all defenses are also ultimately decided by the DM this actually doesn't mean too much.

"Ad Hoc Powers" in any case have all the issues of actual powers. The players will inevitably pick up on a few options that work well for their character and primarily lean on them. They will tend to pick options that optimize them as well, just like players do now with powers. You will have even greater decision paralysis and if your system of deciding what effects they have is thorough enough you will really basically just have a game where players and the DM have to collaboratively write the powers they're going to use. I suspect that would create a lack of focus with many classes.

Overall I don't know how well it would work. I mean there are games that sort of do that now, but with 4e's tactical focus I think you might well just end up with "ZOMG I have infinite tactical choices, brain melt, swing sword" a lot. It will probably work OK with some groups, but I'm skeptical going that far is actually an improvement on the whole.

I think there are things that could be improved. I think Essentials actually hints at a lot of them, but it is still strapped to the existing game and you aren't going to make a lot of those improvements without changing things in incompatible ways. Even if the rules TECHNICALLY stay almost the same just adopting a structure for character classes that is enough different from the existing one to do the job would make it unplayable with existing material.

Essentials though does do some things. Cutting back on the overall number of powers isn't bad. Frankly though I'd have ditched encounter stuff vs daily stuff like the martial classes do. Make the difference between what you can do all the time and your plot coupon snazzy stuff more stark. Essentials also does draw its classes more distinctly. A lot of the differences between and mechanical underpinnings of 4e classes are pretty subtle. The classes are NOT "all the same" as some critics would like to think, but still a lot of things don't just jump out at you or are a bunch of small advantages that work synergistically together. E-classes tend to be more obvious, which is good. Less powers does reduce the number of effects in play too, which is good.

Honestly though, if I were starting over with designing 4e I'd have just had a lot less individual powers, made them better designed and more distinct, not used very many effects that needed tracking, cut back a lot on the number of feats, and really that is about it. Heck, you could rejigger some of the numbers (dump ability score boosts for instance, etc) but that's just icing on the cake. Problem is you can't really do much of that and still play 4e. And that is sort of ultimately the problem with all discussions that go down this road. I'm sure I could design the mechanics for a decent game along those lines. Except I really want to PLAY, not write!

I still say though that the 4e classes are more thematically and conceptually flexible and I really like that about them. Whatever Essentials is, mostly I think it is the devs sitting around thinking "gosh we could do so much better with a second cut at this system." Only it is going to be what, 5 more years probably before they have ANY chance of getting to really do it.