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

[hong]

That just proves that you hate Mike Mearls and all his works.

crap

 

[mhensley]

Btw: the bit about negative marketing - slagging the old known (3E) rather than selling the new unknown (4E) - I loathe that type of tactic by businesses. I'm not persuaded by it as a consumer - it's a major turn-off for me if ever there was one.

I feel this way as well. While I may agree with many of the negative statements about 3E, I don't like them trying to sell me 4E by bashing 3E. Just tell me the positives about 4E.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So you're good at manipulating facts?

He can present the facts in a way that makes you interpret them in a certain way.

 

[Glyfair]

I do not share that kind of opinions. To me, Maths are meaningless. The game should be about something else. Give the players an adventure that is more than a battlemap for minis, with a PLOT, with serious villains, with ... adventure. THAT matters to me.

But if the math is screwy then the plot gets lost in player frustration.

For example, one complaint I've heard about 3E is that at high levels AC is meaningless for PCs. Attack bonuses grow so much faster than AC does that it makes little difference whether you go into combat with no armor, or the "level normal" level of defensive bonuses. Let's completely ignore whether this is accurate or not, it's just an example.

So, if we have this situation than your paladin PC who considers himself Mr. Defense, and wants to bravely enter the fray dishing out some average damage, but rarely getting hurt because that's where he focuses the character. This works at low levels and he gets to play up this part of his character. At high levels it breaks down until the paladin is hit almost as often as the wizard. Sure, he can change his focus because of this rules problem, but that goes against one of his key elements of his character concept.

It's much better if the designers sit down and work out all the math and make sure it works "right" before you come to the table. You don't have to worry about a character finding out that his character concept breaks down at some point in the game because of a mathematical flaw in the game. You, as a group, don't have to decide whether the character needs to change, or whether you can "patch" the game with a house rule to fix it (which will probably require you to go in and mess with the mathematical bits you dislike so much).

So if the game is about revised maths ... I am not interested, and I absolutely guarantee that the only player in my group will be the one math teacher. Incidentally, he happens to be our resident munchkin / rules lawyer.[/QUOTE]

 

[Glyfair]

I feel this way as well. While I may agree with many of the negative statements about 3E, I don't like them trying to sell me 4E by bashing 3E. Just tell me the positives about 4E.

First, it's too early in the process to give specifics (they are likely working on the details for many of them). They have given us many general examples of things that are positive about the game.

Second, what's the first question most people will ask when someone comes to them and says they have a new edition of the game? It will probably be "Why shouldn't I stick with the version I know and enjoy?" The first selling point of a new edition has to be in comparison with the old game.

Why did the designers make the changes to the game they did (ignoring the whole "they are only in it for the money" argument)? Do you believe they said "here is something cool, let's out it in the new edition"? I believe that most of the time they said "this doesn't work as well as we wanted it to work, let's make it work better." Their focus on the game is on fixing things with the old game, not putting new things in the game just because they want to do something new.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't like them trying to sell me 4E by bashing 3E. Just tell me the positives about 4E.

I don't think that's possible. The whole point of 4e is to change what doesn't work in 3e.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

I think the 3rd edition designers would have loved to do more radical changes to the system. Maybe get rid of the Vancian Spellcasting.
But I do not think the Gamers were ready for those changes back in 2000.
Think about it, what would you have thought if they told you "by the way, no more fire and forget, no more Spell levels 1-9. We did something new. Now there are Spell levels 1-20!"
Think about the uproar that would have caused.
Back then they could only change so much without alienating the Gamers from the Game.

And I honestly do not think that the 4th edition designers look down on the 3rd edition designers. I think it is more a "standing on the shoulders of giants" feeling.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So you're good at manipulating facts?

I'm manipulating my facts right now, IYKWIMAITYD.

/hong

 

[DaveMage]

I'm sure there will be elements in each system that are better than the other. (Granted, "better" will be defined differently by each person.)

For example, in 4E, it seems you'll have more "at will" abilities if you are a spellcaster (and probably other classes too). I like this change and I think it will make the game better.

In 3.5, you'll have way more options with regard to what race and class of PC you want to play. I like this better than being limited to just a few races and classes. For the forseeable future, you'll also have many, many more monster options to choose from to challenge the players. More = better to me.

 

[Glyfair]

For the forseeable future, you'll also have many, many more monster options to choose from to challenge the players. More = better to me.

However, they have indicated that creating new monsters will be much easier than before. While what this means remains to be seen, moving the monsters you want to use to 4E may not be that difficult.