Are people still mad about . . .

[Hussar]

I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
"4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game" or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive. And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.

Clearly there is a division between people who don't like 4E and found statements offensive and those who did like 4E and can't see it. I do not claim this is everyone. I don't much care for 4E, but I don't think the term offensive applies. To me it is more just clear evidence of a stark divergence in game philosophy.

But, still the don't like and offended vs. like and not offended division holds rather true. And some on the like side are claiming that the offense is just sour grapes from people that don't like the game. In effect they are saying that the dislike for the game is a cause and taken offense is a resultant effect.

I think it is more reasonable to say that these are both effects of the same cause. If someone liked the philosophy changes of 4E, then they very likely agreed with the comments and thus couldn't imagine finding offense. Whereas someone whose game preferences run contrary to the 4E changes is going to find that critical comments against the alternative that they did like are going to irritate them.

It is kinda like accusing someone of not liking a politician's positions because they are just upset because the guy they voted for lost. The fact of the matter is going to be that they probably voted for the other guy because they didn't like this guy's position in the first place. Unhappiness with the election outcome and dislike of policies are not cause and effect, but instead they go hand in hand.


Mearls did say on these boards that players who really like world building would not find 4E to be their thing. That isn't remotely offensive. But I do take it as validation that 4E was never designed to appeal to my tastes in gaming in the first place.

Now this I totally agree with. Well said.

Mark Chance, I think that there really was a fair segment of D&D gamers who thought that the 3e system needed to be entirely reworked, rather than keeping hold of elements from earlier edition. While 4e might not be to everyone's taste, I think it's fair to say that it's pretty popular. Obviously there were some people out there who thought the drastic change was needed.

3e drew heavily on earlier editions to draw lapsed gamers back into the hobby. They also borrowed heavily from certain games of that time - Rolemaster being probably the biggest one I can think of. 4e went in another direction. I think WOTC decided that they probably couldn't draw any more lapsed gamers back into the hobby thus they needed to go after new gamers.

New gamers have no ties to older editions. They don't care about dryads or the ethereal plane or the Great Wheel or anything that we've played with for the past couple of decades.

Was it a good idea? I have no idea. None. No opinion at all to be honest. But, I am sure it wasn't done as an attack on anyone. Just a shift in focus for the game away from one segment to another.

((Gonna avoid the marketing bit here, I started another thread for that, so, I won't pollute this one anymore. ))

 

[renau1g]

re: backwards compatability

Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think that if they started talking about 5E and said something like:
"4E was a good game, but we really didn't appreciate many player's desire for simulation and the value of not having to make certain a brand new DM can handle everything in the game" or a whole "proud nails" article on things being too gamist, or so on, then I would not find any of that offensive. And yet a lot of current 4E fans would.

I suspect some current 4E fans would find that offensive, and they may well complain loudly about it. Doesn't mean it's a reasonable interpretation though.

 

[Fifth Element]

re: backwards compatability

Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.

2E is very compatible with AD&D. I'd say 2E/3E is more compatible than 3E/4E, but I think you're right that the disparity between 2E/3E is greater than most people allow in these discussions.

 

[Hussar]

re: backwards compatability

Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible? I only started with 2e, but when 3e came out you can't just play using the 3e rules combined with 2e. Thaco's out, percentile strength is out, etc. 2e wasn't any more compatible with 3e than 3e is with 4e. Can't speak to the OD&D to AD&D or AD&D to 2e.

2e and 1e were pretty mechanically compatible and, with a bit of flinch factor thrown in, Basic/Expert was as well. I found that taking 1e modules into 2e meant that you had to beef up the module considerably though since 2e characters were generally a LOT more powerful than 1e characters. Except perhaps, 1e characters using Unearthed Arcana.

The combination of the (to use a 3e ism) arcane and divine spell lists really jacked up the power level of 2e casters. Also, standard was specialization for fighter types, not just fighters. Add in some of the splats (Complete Fighter for example) and 2e characters were probably a level or two ahead of the curve of a 1e character.

 

[Mark Chance]

Has any of the new editions been backwards compatible?

Not really, but that wasn't the bulk of my point.

Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to Pathfinder or Trailblazer would've been the way to go.

WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.

Also, THAC0 didn't go anywhere. It just got shifted to a new location. BAB is the new THAC0. I played 1E using a character-class-and-level based "to hit" bonus instead of THAC0 before 2E ever saw the light of day.

 

[Fifth Element]

Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to Pathfinder or Trailblazer would've been the way to go.

If they wanted to fix the problems and maintain backwards compatibility, sure. If compatibility was a low priority, then 4E could be the result. Your argument also rests on the premise that Pathfinder fixes 3.5's problems, which many people would not agree with.

Some people consider 3.5's problems to be systemic, and require an overhaul of the system to correct. To them, 4E can be seen to fix 3.5's problems.

 

[Mark Chance]

Some people consider 3.5's problems to be systemic, and require an overhaul of the system to correct. To them, 4E can be seen to fix 3.5's problems.

That sounds familiar. It's almost like I already said it:

But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.

 

[Hussar]

Some people make the claim that (1) WotC listened to player feedback about 3.5 so that (2) WotC could fix 3.5's problem areas, and that (3) 4E is the result. I don't buy that. Never did. If WotC wanted to fix 3.5 problems areas, something akin to Pathfinder or Trailblazer would've been the way to go.

Originally Posted by Mark Chance View Post
But 4E wasn't designed to fix the "areas of the game needed the most work" unless one is of the opinion that the entire 3.5 engine needed to be scrapped.

So, isn't it possible that, instead of:

WotC wanted to make more money. That's what businesses do. They figured the best way to do that was to completely scrap 3.5 and put out a new game system that would quickly repeat the same "book-a-month" marketing strategy that drove 3.5.

WOTC honestly thought that the problems with 3.5 were systemic and required a complete overhaul?

Why the automatic assumption of making money being the primary motivation and not that they were trying to make the best game in their opinion?

Sure, all businesses want to make money. WOTC does. Paizo does. Of course. But, why is overhauling 4e automatically all about the money and Pathfinder about making a better game? Isn't that your own personal biases showing more than any real objective fact?

Or, to put it another way, why can I not turn around your statement and say that Paizo wanted to suck dry the already heavily bled D&D gaming population by producing the same old, same old without any innovation? After all, isn't that about as "objectively true" as what you said?

 

[Mark Chance]

Why the automatic assumption of making money being the primary motivation and not that they were trying to make the best game in their opinion?

Combining a false dilemma with a strawman. Impressive.