D&D 4E Comment about 4E designers loving D&D

[Nikosandros]

Oh, yeah. Here is an "old time designer" on 3E when it was announced.

Well, Gary isn't exactly fond of 3e....

 

[TwinBahamut]

Well, to be fair, I think it's there too, although I don't think it was intended.



Why will this be the best game yet? Because the people working on it love D&D.

which can be rearranged into the implication:

If they love D&D, then it will be the best game yet.

Which has the following corollary:

If it is not the best game yet, then they do not love D&D.

If you read it that way, it implies that if there are any shortcomings in 3rd edition, it's because the designers didn't love the game enough. That conclusion is preposterous, and certainly not what the writer of the quote intended, but when the implication operator gets abused by sloppy writing these things tend to fall out. Of course, if we give the author the benefit of the doubt, it ceases to be an issue.

I think your logical reduction is a bit screwy... I think your reduction to the corollary is a bit problematic, but I can't put my finger on exactly why. More importantly, what you say after stating your corollary is, in fact, not derived from the corollary itself.

Examine the following set of statements:

3E was the best game yet, because the designers loved D&D.

4E will be the best game yet, because the designers love D&D.

4E is coming after 3E

Taken as a whole, there is no logical contradiction in this set. Pre-3E < 3E < 4E, all because the designers love the game. The term "yet" removes any possible contradiction, because it places the editions in an ever-improving sequence.

I don't see any way to logically derive an insult towards the makers of 3E in his comments... Especially considering that some of the people who worked on 3E are working on 4E.

 

[Vigilance]

With respect to a news item posted this afternoon was this quote:

""I can say with confidence that anyone who attests that 4th edition is a “money grab,” or just a “3.75 edition,” need only speak to one of those architects to realize the truth: that 4th edition will be the best yet because the people working on the game, like the fans, love Dungeons and Dragons.""

That made me think......the implication here is that the people who made 3.0 and 3.5 *didn't* love D&D......so does that mean that Monte Cook et al didn't like D&D and consequently the edition sucked?

I'm a little leery about some of the changes being suggested, whereas others are intriguing....but by no means does 3E suck, IMO.

Banshee

Why is it that some people can't read a comment praising 4e without thinking that means 3e sucks?

All they're saying is that if they didn't think they could make the game better, they wouldn't have moved ahead with 4e.

That does not mean 3e sucks. Sheesh.

 

[Vigilance]

Wizards isn't doing 4e out of the goodness of their hearts...

But they also aren't doing it out of a cold heartless desire to screw us for more money.

 

[Rechan]

I think what they mean is that the 'sweet spot' exists because the maths just happens to work at those levels - the modifiers to the dice rolls are between 25% and 75% of the range of the dice roll itself (that is, between +5 and +15 on a d20), where at very low levels the modifiers are largely irrelevant (as they get swamped by the variance on the die roll), and at high levels the die roll is largely irrelevant (as it gets swamped by the modifiers).

When the designers put together 3.X, they didn't fully account for this oddity in the numbers, and so caused the 'sweet spot'. In 4e, the designers have noted this fact, and are building the game to suit. Hence, they have eliminated the 'accident of math'.

In a nut shell, the 4e designers are taking Probability into account when considering their effects.

How they're going to DO that, I don't know. I mean, aside from giving enemies low AC at low levels, how do you make a character hit them with more frequency when rolling?

This is one of the reasons I thought Epic play was just stupid. Not because of the level of power being thrown around, but when you're rolling 1d20+120. The d20 result is... sort've... pointless.

"we want to make a better D&D"
"you just want our money"

"we're are making a better D&D game"
"so you mean that 3E, the game I've spent thousands of dollars into, just sucks?"

"the game is becoming great because we do love D&D"
"so the old game is not good because the designer didn't love it back then?"

"no more CR, better grapple rules, all classes always have something funny to do!"
"you are changing D&D too much for someone who claims to love it, something is wrong..."

"It's a new edition of D&D, much better but there are still classes and the d20 system stands!"
"so it's not a "real" new edition just another update... it's 3.75!"

"there will be no 4.5, its 4th edition!"
"so you won't update the game anymore, or will just release a whole new edition in some years?"

Such a no-winning situation... give it a break, just for a while...

As the kids on the message boards say: This.

 

[Duncan Haldane]

This is one of the reasons I thought Epic play was just stupid. Not because of the level of power being thrown around, but when you're rolling 1d20+120. The d20 result is... sort've... pointless.

It's not pointless if the creature you are fighting has an AC between 121 and 140. At that point the 120 becomes pointless.

 

[hong]

It's not pointless if the creature you are fighting has an AC between 121 and 140. At that point the 120 becomes pointless.

In practical terms, the variability in numbers is not a fixed range, but appears related to the power level. When average AC is 20, that might be a range of 10-30 (with "range" defined suitably) across monsters. When average AC is 120, the range might become 80-160. In this case the die roll is indeed pointless, since you'll either always hit or always miss, excepting natural 1s and 20s.

Trust me, I'm a statistician.

 

[Rechan]

Trust me, I'm a statistician.

So you're good at manipulating facts?

 

[Banshee16]

So? What does that have to do with your point?

I'll note that Chris Pramas of Green Ronin, who was so worried about a 4th edition he tried to distance his company from a rules upgrade, felt that they were willing to make a major change was a good thing. He was afraid of small revisions that wouldn't really be worth a new edition, a "3.75" version of 4E. He felt that major changes were worthwhile and called for in a 4th edition.

What it has to do with my point is the concern that they claim that the guys making the new version love D&D...which led me to ask about that entire statement, and whether it was an implication that the makers of 3E didn't love D&D.

At which point someone mentioned that what it meant was that "because they love D&D, they won't change it into something it's not". (paraphrasing)

To which I pointed out that it's the whole enchilada....going to 30 levels from 20, going from 9 levels of spells to at least 25 (I'm willing to bet 30), possibly (allegedly) splitting up some races into multiple races, eliminating other races and classes, etc.

So, it's not sounding like such a small set of changes anymore. Given that 3.5 worked pretty well as is, I'm asking whether the statement that they won't change it for change's sake, because they love D&D is actually correct?

Banshee

 

[Banshee16]

Why is it that some people can't read a comment praising 4e without thinking that means 3e sucks?

All they're saying is that if they didn't think they could make the game better, they wouldn't have moved ahead with 4e.

That does not mean 3e sucks. Sheesh.

Which is why I asked the question and expressed concern. This is a message board wherein people post messages, discuss topics and debate. I started a thread to ask the question, and point out some concern.

Maybe I should have found some kind of an emote for sarcasm, for though I have some concern about the comment, about loving D&D, there was also a healthy dose of sarcasm in the message.

Why do some posters feel the need to make personal commentary, when we're discussing a non-personal topic?

It's a discussion, ease up.

Banshee