D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[AbdulAlhazred]

While 3.5 had pretty much played out, there's every reason to believe that a new revision based on 3e would have worked, given the status of PF right now. WotC would have had far more license to change things than Paizo did with PF, and could have maintained the basic feel of the game while rewriting the mechanics from scratch.

And to this point, that's my frustration with WotC and in general. While I and some arbitrarily large number of others are "3.X" players who have homebrewed the system and incorporated new non-WotC rules, no one has really tried to create a new edition based on 3e for people who actually liked it. PF isn't really a new edition, and 4e is catering to people who don't like previous editions of D&D and want something completely different from an rpg (which is fine for them). Trailblazer is the closest thing I've seen to an attempt to substantively analyze and revise the game, but that's not on a satisfying scale. If I had an infinite amount of time, I'd write a new D&D myself.

I think the problem is once you go down that road what you end up with is SOMETHING along the lines of 4e. I mean it could be a different game in many respects, but the problems with 3.5 as I see it are MCing, which is a major component of the game, and the entire magic system, and the proliferation of different sub-systems, plus some less critical things like the saves instead of defenses (4e's flipping of that was brilliant). Now, some of those things could be handled in a way that was more like 3.5 in some sense, but frankly look at DDN. It isn't actually THAT much like 3e. The problem as I see it is that somehow in the design of 3e some BIG basic mistakes were made. The object was to rationalize and perfect 2e in a sense, but nobody had ever thought about what it was exactly that 2e was trying to achieve and whether it was doing it in a good way. While 3e shored up a bunch of the mechanical issues it did nothing for the larger underlying issues, and it failed to consider D&D as a GAME, which was also a lot of the problem with AD&D in general. IMHO 2e is really well-written in one sense, but it is a TERRIBLE game in another sense. So, IMHO 3e and development in the 3e direction are done. You can proceed, but only by completely rewriting the game in a major way, which leads you to something like 4e. Even if it was different it would trigger the same reactions, its a different game. IMHO the CONTENT of 4e isn't the issue, it is the fact that it is not your pappy's D&D, even nominally as 3e is.

The reason PF isn't a new edition is you can't really DO a new edition that is much like 3e. Trailblazer is about as far as you can go, and even that is really not solving 3e's problems, not even close. The point of all this is WotC was at a dead end. The success of PF is based on CONTENT and STYLE, not on game system. WotC has had 15 years to develop a style and learn how to write adventures etc. They've NEVER succeeded very well. Now and then they DO write a decent adventure, and they have done some quite nice source books, but nothing really earth-shattering. They've basically done NOTHING in the setting dept. TSR pumped out 20 different settings, at least, which was maybe too much of a good thing, but WotC has issued exactly ONE D&D setting AFAIK, Eberron. Its not bad, good even, but even that was an outside solicitation. Meanwhile Paizo pumps out stuff chock full of good writing, style, cool artwork, etc to the point that in the last 3 years they have buried the lifetime output of WotC 4x over in that department. Clearly that's the difference between the two, mainly. Paizo has figured out how to do content well and make some money at it, and WotC hasn't. No amount of revised 3es or 4es or DDNs is going to make any difference if they can't fix that. Personally I think they aren't capable of it. They are too wrapped up in Hasbro brand management type thinking. Paizo's guys are just over there thinking about how to make cool stuff. No doubt they have a degree of product line management, but WotC clearly plots it all out in detail in committees and focus groups. You can smell that stuff, it stinks of rehashed ideas and groupthink. Now and then something really good slips through, but I'd note that it wasn't until the D&D groups management fell apart in 2010 that some interesting material slipped through.

 

[Ahnehnois]

While 3e shored up a bunch of the mechanical issues it did nothing for the larger underlying issues, and it failed to consider D&D as a GAME, which was also a lot of the problem with AD&D in general.

Well that's the rub. I look at D&D primarily as a creative medium; it's a game to me only in a very nominal sense (i.e. that it is a recreational activity). So to me that's not a problem.

And indeed, up through the 3e era, it seemed that D&D was trying to be all things to all people. Given that this era is now over, it seems like there should be several versions of D&D, which only try to be some things to some people. Supposedly 5e was going to combine them into one option-heavy approach, but I think we agree that neither of us sees that really working.

The reason PF isn't a new edition is you can't really DO a new edition that is much like 3e.

I could. Build the whole thing on skills and feats, flatten the math, standardize and codify everything that needs to be and leave out everything that doesn't. There's a ton of work to be done on taking the basic 3e play experience and making it less bookkeeping-intensive to get there, as well as in balancing the game and in increasing the level of customizability in character generation and action resolution and (most importantly) making it make more sense.

When I learned 2e and got a sense of its problems, 3e came along and it was exactly what I wanted it to be. Fixed everything. New and shiny. Cool things I hadn't even thought of. Obviously, many people shared that opinion. I could see that happening again. There is, in a purely theoretical sense, a new edition of D&D that starts from scratch (as 3e did in many ways) yet retains the positive aspects and the quirks of the existing system. I'd like to see that game actually made.

The success of PF is based on CONTENT and STYLE, not on game system.

I'd say their success is based on a variety of things; world content, style, their open license, good customer service and marketing, and the low learning curve for existing d20 players. I'd agree that mechanical innovation isn't it.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think the problem is once you go down that road what you end up with is SOMETHING along the lines of 4e. I mean it could be a different game in many respects, but the problems with 3.5 as I see it are MCing, which is a major component of the game, and the entire magic system, and the proliferation of different sub-systems, plus some less critical things like the saves instead of defenses (4e's flipping of that was brilliant). Now, some of those things could be handled in a way that was more like 3.5 in some sense, but frankly look at DDN. It isn't actually THAT much like 3e. The problem as I see it is that somehow in the design of 3e some BIG basic mistakes were made. The object was to rationalize and perfect 2e in a sense, but nobody had ever thought about what it was exactly that 2e was trying to achieve and whether it was doing it in a good way. While 3e shored up a bunch of the mechanical issues it did nothing for the larger underlying issues, and it failed to consider D&D as a GAME, which was also a lot of the problem with AD&D in general. IMHO 2e is really well-written in one sense, but it is a TERRIBLE game in another sense. So, IMHO 3e and development in the 3e direction are done. You can proceed, but only by completely rewriting the game in a major way, which leads you to something like 4e. Even if it was different it would trigger the same reactions, its a different game. IMHO the CONTENT of 4e isn't the issue, it is the fact that it is not your pappy's D&D, even nominally as 3e is.

Exactly, you can't really create something like 3e without it either being 3e or ending up not being 3e. It'll either end up so close as to be virtually indistinguishable such as Pathfinder, or it'll be too distinct and look too much like a hypothetical 4e.

Wizards could continue to support old material, but running multiple product lines at the same time doesn't really do anything to unify the base, people who like the distinct new stuff play the new stuff, people who like the old stuff play the old stuff, the two are incompatible so the same problem exists.

At some point you run out of decimals to place behind the "3" and by the time you've reached 3.98567742e going and calling it 4e is basically the only thing between 3.98567742e and it actually being a 4th edition.

The reason PF isn't a new edition is you can't really DO a new edition that is much like 3e. Trailblazer is about as far as you can go, and even that is really not solving 3e's problems, not even close. The point of all this is WotC was at a dead end. The success of PF is based on CONTENT and STYLE, not on game system. WotC has had 15 years to develop a style and learn how to write adventures etc. They've NEVER succeeded very well. Now and then they DO write a decent adventure, and they have done some quite nice source books, but nothing really earth-shattering. They've basically done NOTHING in the setting dept. TSR pumped out 20 different settings, at least, which was maybe too much of a good thing, but WotC has issued exactly ONE D&D setting AFAIK, Eberron. Its not bad, good even, but even that was an outside solicitation. Meanwhile Paizo pumps out stuff chock full of good writing, style, cool artwork, etc to the point that in the last 3 years they have buried the lifetime output of WotC 4x over in that department. Clearly that's the difference between the two, mainly. Paizo has figured out how to do content well and make some money at it, and WotC hasn't. No amount of revised 3es or 4es or DDNs is going to make any difference if they can't fix that. Personally I think they aren't capable of it. They are too wrapped up in Hasbro brand management type thinking. Paizo's guys are just over there thinking about how to make cool stuff. No doubt they have a degree of product line management, but WotC clearly plots it all out in detail in committees and focus groups. You can smell that stuff, it stinks of rehashed ideas and groupthink. Now and then something really good slips through, but I'd note that it wasn't until the D&D groups management fell apart in 2010 that some interesting material slipped through.

To give WOTC some credit though, Paizo didn't have to put much effort into the core rules of the game. They've developed some creative materials, variant abilities/classes, new classes, new races, but these all build from the core mechanics WOTC already developed. Beyond that everything Paizo did with 3.x was simply errata, errata that almost EVERYONE knew was desperately needed. So honestly Paizo didn't have a real tough job when it came to refining 3.X and then applying Golarion as their base setting, I mean there's a reason Pathfinder is often referred to as 3.75. And a setting devoid of mechanics is pretty easy to apply any edition's rules to.

That left Paizo in the same position of WOTC....what to do instead of create more splat? Well...adventures! So really the OGL was quite the blessing for Paizo and an impressive kick in the knickers for WOTC...they basically gave away their product for free to a competing company who then jumped on a new way to sell that product and became incredibly successful with it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You don't look at a 1d4 HP at first level and Longsword 1d8 damage and think gritty? Or save-or-die needle traps on doors with 10% Find Traps?

I thought I'd qualify having thought about it that what I find low level characters in old school D&D to be is pretty much explicitely Super Heroes In Training - with the superhero part being very much a part of the game.

 

[Hussar]

i have been following these discussions since they began and i think there is plenty of bad faith on both sides. I dont find the characterization of people who dislike 4E as just being affraid of new things accurate

Really?

You see people spend several pages complaining about 3e mechanics without doing even a few minutes of fact checking? Because we've seen that pretty solidly in this thread.

I mean, look at the following myths that have come out:

1. CaGI is just the tip of the iceberg. A convenient term for a pernicious problem. Fact: There are 3 possibly 4 powers in the PHB which a martial character can use to force an opponent to move without physically interacting with them. 4 out of almost 300 powers isn't a tip and certainly isn't an iceberg.

2. CaGI allows the fighter to position an opponent exactly. Fact: Neither the pre nor post errata version of the power allows this. Pre-errata, the opponent gets to choose his square and post it's a pull, meaning that it's a straight line movement.

3. CaGI is mind control, not a lure. Fact: CaGI is specifically flavoured as a lure in the flavour text post errata. Even pre-errata, it was still something like a taunt/lure.

4. The 4e errata is behind a DDI paywall. Fact: WOTC to the best of my knowledge, has never charged for errata in any edition. Of course, this dovetails with the criticism that WOTC is all about sucking money out of the players and is a soulless corporate entity. The fact that this would be discovered to be false with about a one second Google search doesn't stop people from spreading it.

Throughout this thread, critics have repeatedly made any or all of the above statements. All of the above statements are shown to be false with even a cursory reading of the books. People have spent several minutes spouting off their opinions, but, even when those opinions are shown to be absolutely bereft of any factual basis, the same critics refuse to admit that they have not actually taken any time to fact check their opinions.

There is a reason I don't criticize Pathfinder. I don't know the mechanics. So, I have no opinion. It would be really nice if people would take the thirty seconds to actually fact check their statements before pronouncing that this or that works this way or that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is a partial truth - earlier in this thread I linked a real video of someone with a knife against IIRC four trained police officers with guns in hand.

Knife vs guns? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPlT2uKruwM

i have been following these discussions since they began and i think there is plenty of bad faith on both sides. I dont find the characterization of people who dislike 4E as just being affraid of new things accurate

Really?

You see people spend several pages complaining about 3e mechanics without doing even a few minutes of fact checking? Because we've seen that pretty solidly in this thread.

I mean, look at the following myths that have come out:

[SNIP]

Throughout this thread, critics have repeatedly made any or all of the above statements. All of the above statements are shown to be false with even a cursory reading of the books. People have spent several minutes spouting off their opinions, but, even when those opinions are shown to be absolutely bereft of any factual basis, the same critics refuse to admit that they have not actually taken any time to fact check their opinions.

There is a reason I don't criticize Pathfinder. I don't know the mechanics. So, I have no opinion. It would be really nice if people would take the thirty seconds to actually fact check their statements before pronouncing that this or that works this way or that.

What does this have to do with what you quoted? You posted objections pr misinterpretations people had with the mechanics, but how is that "afraid of new things"? As always, play what you like

 

[Garthanos]

Knife vs guns? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPlT2uKruwM


What does this have to do with what you quoted? You posted objections pr misinterpretations people had with the mechanics, but how is that "afraid of new things"? As always, play what you like

I believe its examples of arguing "in bad faith"

 

[pemerton]

I find the idea that a DM could "cheat" or that rules could supersede his judgment equally controvrersial.

Of course. That's part of my point - that there are very different views about the role of GM force, and that 4e (and especially a power like CaGI, or 1 hp minions) is designed to work better from one rather than the other approach.

4e is catering to people who don't like previous editions of D&D and want something completely different from an rpg

This is pretty outrageous.

I liked previous editions of D&D - esp Moldvay Basic. Plenty of 4e players, like Hussar and Obryn, liked 3E.

And 4e is not "completely different from an rpg". It's completely different from your preferred approach to RPGing, but your preferences don't define the hobby.

 

[Libramarian]

Honestly, not particularly. I see chess pieces that take a couple of minutes to roll up. I look at WFRP and see grittiness. I look at Call of Cthulu and see grittiness. I look at GURPS where you could arm the entire party with double crossbows doing 2d+2 impaling damage (two shots, fire and forget, the party brute reloads them after the fight) against people with an average HT of 10 (impaling damage is doubled in the torso - or breaks limbs). That's far grittier than D&D ever was - especially because you almost never have a HT of more than 15.

And above all the reason I can't see AD&D is gritty is that it's Save or Die. You're either alive or dead. Grit is about consequences. It's about being made to live with what happens. And above all it's not about "Take risks like going dungeoneering in the first place and at least some of us will turn into superheroes" (as Old School D&D literally was) - it's about not levelling up and the consequences grinding you down. Jason Morningstar's "Fight Fire" FATE Core module is grittier than early D&D. And that's a FATE module.

As for the article I look at any article talking about "TEH AWESUM" and that literally includes the sentence "You young folk just don't know how to have fun these days! Not proper fun anyhow" as nothing more than a "Get off my lawn" rant. And that's before we get into his misconceptions about ... just about everything. Exalted's social combat is nothing more than turning Charm Person spells up to 11. Balance is something Gygax worked very hard to produce. He worried about it at least in part so others didn't have to.

"Grit is about consequences"--yes I agree. Like then your character dies and you have to start over at level 1.

(we're talking past each other because you're interpreting grittiness as a thematic thing. I'm talking about it as a gamist thing).

 

[JamesonCourage]

I believe its examples of arguing "in bad faith"

So when Bedrockgames says "i have been following these discussions since they began and i think there is plenty of bad faith on both sides.", why does Hussar seem to question that? I mean, Bedrockgames just said that people argue in bad faith on both sides. I still don't get the what the purpose of the reply was. As always, play what you like