Are people still mad about . . .

[Scribble]

Haffrun and Scribble: Wow. Just, wow. The problem is that I am the DM and have not usually had a problem finding players. Further, my players have been very generous in going along with me if I wanted to run something other than DND. I think the trade off is that I don't get the character depth I would like to see but that's hardly their issue.

Oh... Most of my groups I've gamed with have pretty much always been willing to give whatever one of us wanted to run a shot. I didn't mean to imply otherwise if I did.

 

[Beginning of the End]

This, though - Why? 3e wasn't backwards-compatible with 2e (anyone who's tried a conversion knows that). Even PF requires a bit of work to update, and that had BC as a specific design goal. Why expect the new edition to be backwards-compatible?

While there wasn't stat block compatibility between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition, 3rd Edition still played like the same game. Playing a fighter in 3rd Edition felt like playing a fighter in OD&D; playing a wizard in 3rd Edition felt like playing a magic-user in 1st Edition; and so forth.

4th Edition doesn't play like that. 4th Edition has about as much in common with previous editions of the game as Runequest does.

Take the name "Dungeons & Dragons" off the cover of 3rd Edition and people would still point at it and say, "Oh. Hey. That's a cleaned up version of D&D."

Take the name "Dungeons & Dragons" off the cover of 4th Edition and people would point at it and say, "Oh. Hey. That's a nifty fantasy RPG."

(Of course, without the trademark they'd probably both have been doomed fantasy heartbreakers.)

The weird French guy saying "the game remains the same, the game remains the same, the game remains the same"? Yeah. The wizard doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[evildmguy]

At first, I wasn't thrilled about the changes in FR but the guys who follow FR as much as I do, or more, aren't my regular weekly players anymore. So, I realized it didn't matter because the weekly group didn't know anything about FR anyway, other than what I had done with them in other campaigns! One guy has read some of the FR DND books but not the game material.

BotE: Hmm. Maybe. I still think that 3E and 4E could have come from 2E but I guess I am hard pressed to argue that you would have to tell someone that 4E is DND if it weren't on the cover as it is very different. I don't think that's bad, though. ymmv

edg

 

[Scribble]

While there wasn't stat block compatibility between 2nd Edition and 3rd Edition, 3rd Edition still played like the same game. Playing a fighter in 3rd Edition felt like playing a fighter in OD&D; playing a wizard in 3rd Edition felt like playing a magic-user in 1st Edition; and so forth.

4th Edition doesn't play like that. 4th Edition has about as much in common with previous editions of the game as Runequest does.

The weird French guy saying "the game remains the same, the game remains the same, the game remains the same"? Yeah. The wizard doth protest too much, methinks.

I think it's really just a personal thing. In my experience the Game felt more like the game experiences I had (the good ones) back in my 2e/1e/basic era. Sure some characters had new tricks, but overall it felt closer then I'd felt in a while.

I'm fully aware that others don't agree, but like I said... A personal thing me thinks.

(Also this is based on how the game plays, as I am well aware that the way it looks in the book is very different.)

 

[evildmguy]

I think it's really just a personal thing. In my experience the Game felt more like the game experiences I had (the good ones) back in my 2e/1e/basic era. Sure some characters had new tricks, but overall it felt closer then I'd felt in a while.

I'm fully aware that others don't agree, but like I said... A personal thing me thinks.

(Also this is based on how the game plays, as I am well aware that the way it looks in the book is very different.)

I feel this way from a DM perspective. I remember the other guys getting 1E stuff before me but me getting 2E stuff before them, especially the monstrous compendiums. I remember showing them the new picture of the (2E) hobgoblin and them running, first time, because they didn't know what it was!

Playing in 4E and having monsters with kewl powerz that they can unleash on the PCs and not hold back is a LOT of fun! So, yeah, for me 4E has really captured the best of my early days of gaming. 3E was fun but it didn't have as many moments as 4E has already had for me.

edg

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Conversely it can be said, the worse part is that people STILL don't see how they WERE insulting.

MAny boiled down to: "we fixed the bad fun that was rampant in Third edition. It will be better for everyone this way. Trust us."

I don't see why they were insulting. Wizards listened to the feedback of its customers. Customers highlighted areas they disliked about the game, we had many threads pre-4E discussing those problems. Wizards set out to fix the problems their customers were having with the game. Not all of their customers had the same problems. I would assume that they tackled the most common problems people were having. I'm sorry you weren't in the majority that was having said problems. Even those that did share the same problems may not have liked the ways Wizards tried to fix those problems. Don't take it personally, they were doing what they thought best for the game. They didn't ask you what you liked about the game and then design against that. They designed a game based on the feedback of the majority. If I still enjoyed 3E I wouldn't be angry. I thought 2E AD&D was totally unnecessary, but I wasn't angry with TSR when they explained why they were fixing what they considered wrong with 1E.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm still mad that Raven posted a lolCat!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm still mad that Raven posted a lolCat!

As well you should be!

 

[Chrono22]

Wizards listened to the feedback of its customers. Customers highlighted areas they disliked about the game, we had many threads pre-4E discussing those problems. Wizards set out to fix the problems their customers were having with the game. Not all of their customers had the same problems. I would assume that they tackled the most common problems people were having. I'm sorry you weren't in the majority that was having said problems. Even those that did share the same problems may not have liked the ways Wizards tried to fix those problems. Don't take it personally, they were doing what they thought best for the game. They didn't ask you what you liked about the game and then design against that. They designed a game based on the feedback of the majority. If I still enjoyed 3E I wouldn't be angry. I thought 2E AD&D was totally unnecessary, but I wasn't angry with TSR when they explained why they were fixing what they considered wrong with 1E.

And how did WotC go about collecting this information? Was it a survey? A general examination of trends? Or perhaps (more likely based on the results) the devs simply assumed their own playstyles and experiences were reflected in the majority? Cause nothing you've said in the above paragraph is really supported by any data or facts. On the other hand, the results seem to support my idea.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't see why they were insulting.<snip>

One thing that I learned in my Conflict Negotiation & Mediation program is that you don't win any arguments by discounting a party's emotional response to the situation. All you do is erect barriers to rational discourse.

Some players- myself included- were insulted by the language and tone 4Ed designers took when discussing 3.5. I actually talked about that from a marketing & advertising point of view when they were doing it. It was one of the first indicators to me that I wasn't going to care for the next edition.

You may not agree with the perception certain gamers had of the rollout, but don't tell us we were wrong to be insulted.