Changeover Poll

[Scribble]

40 years from now, I'm hoping for an old-folks home dedicated to gaming. Think of all the free time we'll have ...

Yeah but think of how long a battle will take when we're all constantly falling asleep, forgetting what's happening, and can't hear half the stuff going on.

Oh wait... that sounds like a Thursday night campaign I ran for 8 guys once half of whom were potheads.

 

[Korgoth]

Nuh-uh.

Why are you defending it so vigorously? Are you invested in the result yourself?

I'm not defending it vigorously. I'm just pointing out that you find the results of the poll upsetting and I think that is why you're saying it's invalid. It's a poll that suggests (not proves) that 4E is something less than the all-conquering god-king of gaming, and so the "4E Avengers" are here to beat up on it and start slapfights.

And if anything, "grognards" are very under-represented at EN World. So the cross-section of D&D players it represents should, if anything, skew toward more recent designs. There have been a number of polls here that show that OD&D (my favorite system) is not anywhere near as popular as other versions of D&D. But you don't see me throwing a fit and claiming that polls are bunk.

If you're enjoying 4E, by all means continue to play and enjoy it. A poll isn't going to take that away from you. *shrug* Maybe I just got used to not being with the majority (in any number of things) a long time ago. Once you get used to it it's not that big of a deal.

Even if WOTC decided to scrap 4E tomorrow (not likely) you could still play it for the rest of your life and if you feel there are any gaps in the crunch you could just fill them in yourself. So it's really nothing to get worked up about.

 

[DaveMage]

For me? DMing became difficult at harder levels. I'll allow that is just as possible (if not probable) that it was my problem and not the game's. I also began to dislike the arms race and the preponderance of magic, magic, magic.

For my players? The excessive splat books which - again - could be a problem attributed to me (the DM) as opposed to the game. Otherwise, I think it's fair to state the players really enjoyed 3e (as did I, when I was a player).

You won't hear me (I hope) bad-mouthing 3e. I think it's rude, to be blunt, to heap negativity on another guy's choice of system. 3e brought me back into D&D, as it did with a couple of my friends. I got nearly a decade of awesome gaming out of it. I owe Monte & Co. quite a bit.

To your point (and you of all people know I ramble before I finally get to the point): I don't think we could ever go back to 3e because 4e exposed some of the "flaws" of that game that we, perhaps, didn't even realize were flaws until we played 4e. I know that doesn't make much sense on the surface, but it's true nonetheless.

WP

The reason I ask is that if 5E is to be the "holy grail of D&D", I think we need to look back on both why people love and dislike 3E and 4E.

To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point. If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide. That's it. We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks. Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) 24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD! That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master. Therefore, the game is bound to break as written (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything. 2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).

I'm all for options, not restrictions, but the drive to sell player-oriented books (in both 3E and 4E) is, IMO, killing this game. It's too much. I wish D&D were an evergreen, one-shot type base product, that says "here are the rules for players in this one book (or maybe a small few spread out over time - such as 1/year - but not 24!)" and the rest is using those rules (adventures, campaign setting, player and DM aides).

The other problem I have with 3E and 4E is the time it takes to play the game. I have mentioned this elsewhere, but I think 5E needs to be released as a game that is played without the grid & minis. That type of play can be added back in a tactical sourcebook, but otherwise I think it has the effect of making the basic game too centered on combat simulation and not on adventure (which I define as seeing unique places and meeting various challenges). By "too centered" I mean that a single combat takes up too long out of a session.

Of course, the economic realities at WotC may prevent such a strategy, but I think that for the health of the game, it needs a format change.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Edit: Re 3.5e, I think a lot of people share my opinion that the game doesn't work at high level. This caused many people to drop the system. However once this is recognised, it plays perfectly well with a ca 1-10 level spread, more like 1e et al.

I've said it before but I'll say it again. I think there's a "perfect" system out there somewhere that combines the best of 3e with the best of 4e, but I'll be damned if I'm smart enough to figure it out.

It's really not a question of being smart enough to fix the problems. Certainly WoTC is smart enough to fix design problems.

The issue at hand is agreeing on the revised list of design criteria. WoTC's 4e design criteria included a long list of things that not only weren't perceived problems for many folks, the changes they pushed through made some folks even more recalcitrant. Some of the things on the 4e redesign list were purely marketing/legal/IP considerations-- clean design had nothing to do with it.

Even taking a step back from that-- throw out all the marketing changes-- there's no clear consensus from 3e players on what mechanics needed fixing.

At any rate, I am sure somebody will take a stab at that perfect system.

 

[Darkwolf71]

To your point about splats, I think this is a seldom-talked about, but very important point. If one looks back at 1E, there are really only 5 core books for players with rules - the Player's Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, Oriental Adventures, Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and Wilderness Survival Guide. That's it. We had 12+ years of an edition with only FIVE player-focused rulebooks. Compare that with 3.5, which had (not including compendia) 24 IN A FOUR YEAR PERIOD! That's way, way too many core rules options for a DM to master. Therefore, the game is bound to break as written (especially in a homebrew) as there is no way for a DM or adventure writer to account for everything. 2E started to break when kits took off, and 4E shows no signs of curtailing the problem as there will be 5 Core Player Rule Books within 1 year (Player's Handbook, Adventurer's Vault, Martial Power, Arcane Power, and Player's Handbook 2).

That's a very interesting observation. Unfortunately, the need to make a profit and pay employees nearly assures that we won't see any drastic course changes.

 

[DaveMage]

That's a very interesting observation. Unfortunately, the need to make a profit and pay employees nearly assures that we won't see any drastic course changes.

Actually, once the base game rules are written, you don't need any design employees working full time on D&D. All you need is someone to coordinate the direction of the game and freelance authors.

Edit - although I agree you do need significant numbers of employees in the current rulebook-a-month model.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

At any rate, I am sure somebody will take a stab at that perfect system.

I thought OD&D was the perfect system Or at least the one true D&D.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Actually, once the base game rules are written, you don't need any design employees working full time on D&D. All you need is someone to coordinate the direction of the game and freelance authors.

Well then scratch it all up to the need for corporate profit. Whatever the reason, I doubt we'll see a change in the multiple book design of D&D anytime soon. OTOH, I think with 4e they've pushed the envelope as far in that direction as they can, so it can't get worse, right?... Right?

 

[Wisdom Penalty]

Regarding splats: They're an unfortunate necessity in today's D&D. It started with 2e kits, worsened with 3e's softcover splats, and continues now with 4e. The only difference I see (and this is by no means a positive one) is that 4e requires splats; the core is simply incomplete. Before anyone jumps on me - please realize this is just my opinion.

The counter to this argument about splats is this: "Dude, if you don't want them in your game, don't use them."

I find that a bit facetious, however, because (IME) it's very, very hard to keep that stuff from creeping into your games. Sometimes it's a whole book, sometimes it's only a feat, sometimes it's a couple spells. And then, before you know it, your "core" is 32 books and 17 Dragon articles.

Something I dearly like about 4e is the strength (mathematically) of the system. If we use an analogy, building an RPG is like building a house of cards. The more cards you use (e.g., splats), the more unstable it becomes. 4e provides a fairly stable "table" upon which to build, but it does not wholly circumvent this problem of instability.

WP

 

[Greg K]

I don't mind splats per se. I liked the 2e splatbooks in general. However, many of the kits, imo, just suffered from the patchwork nature of 2e.

With 3e, I generally didn't care for the splat material from WOTC. In general, I don't like PrCs, but I do allow (and, in some cases, require) some of the class variants from UA and a few other sources. Furthermore, I would have preferred a release format for classes and race splats similar to Green Ronin's Master Class series, Mongoose's Quintessential line, and 2e's Complete Handbooks.