Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e; 4e upgrade or new game??

[Imaro]

Forked from: Disappointed in 4e

My solution: Don't treat each editions of D&D as an upgrade. Find the editions that you are more comfortable with and stick with it. Then get some ideas off other editions and house rule it into your game...

I'm curious about peoples thoughts on the above part of bagger245's statement... why shoudn't one look at different editions of D&D as an upgrade?

For this discussion I want to mainly focus on 4e, it was advertised as "Ze game is still ze same" (which in retrospect seems an arguable assertion) and really just an improvement over the previous editions. Now with that type of marketing push, why shouldn't people have expected it to be an upgrade as opposed to expecting a brand new game?

Another point I wanted to bring up is with other rpg's...I mean when a new edition comes out I don't expect a totally new game, I expect an upgrade of the game I have already purchased (examples...Earthdawn 2nd ed., Fading Suns 2nd ed., Gurps, Hero,etc. ...unless it is advertised as such. Case in point White Wolf did a good job of expressing to fans that the oWoD was dead and the nWoD would not be the same...they were up front about this and no purchase of a world book or character book was required to know this. They didn't market Exalted 2nd ed. like this because, for all intents and purposes it is the same game with mechanical upgrades.

So what do others think about this, should D&D 4e have been marketed as a totally different game? Could the fact that it wasn't be driving alot of the disappointment with the final product in certain camps. I will state upfront that 4e was not what I expected from the marketing buzz WotC put out there, but I'm curious what others think...

 

[Crothian]

I ignored the marketing and listened instead to what people in the know where saying. I was not expecting 4e to be an upgrade. It is a new edition, a new game. When I run 4e in a few weeks that is how I'm going to treat it and that is how I'm going to present it.

I do the same when I play older editions of the game too. Each older edition is not a downgrade from 3e either. I find treating them like the different games they are cuts down a lot on baggage people try to bring to them.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Different game. Not just 4E but every edition that has been released since OD&D. All editions have differences and this can be objectively observed.

Upgrade status depends on perspective. A difference is a difference but being better or worse is a matter of opinion.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

If you stop looking at D&D editions as upgrades and instead treat them as different games entirely, you open yourself up to killing even more sacred cows. I'm not saying that's good or bad, specifically, but I think it's worth mentioning.

 

[Thasmodious]

Upgrades, and I think each edition of D&D has been an upgrade. The edition improves on what came before, makes numerous changes, a few experimental, and in a bit less than a decade it upgrades again. There may well be an upgrade ceiling, a point at which the pen and paper RPG has tapped the well of innovation in game design, but we've not seen it yet in what is still a very young hobby.

 

[Korgoth]

This is one of those cases where I think it's best to speak in terms of "family resemblances".

If you look at OD&D74 to AD&D1e, there is strong mechanical compatibility (if you use OD&D w/ Supp I: Greyhawk, the compatibility is almost total). You can easily run material for one with material for the other and don't have to change much, if anything. However, the games had different philosophies. Even though AD&D1e was still open to imagination and DM fiat, it was certainly more defined than OD&D and in places represents a "tournament mindset". The games are very close, philosophically, but not the same.

Classic D&D (esp. Holmes and Moldvay) occupies a middle position in that there is strong mechanical compatibility with both OD&D and 1E and it is a little more defined than OD&D... but generally in the simplest way possible and it doesn't go into the baroqueries of AD&D in terms of initiative, segments and all that rigamarole.

Among OD&D, Classic and 1E there is strong compatibility and closeness of philosophy... but they're not the same mechanically or even philosophically. They bear very strong resemblances.

Skipping over the obvious things that could be said in this line of thought regarding 2E and 3E, by the time you get to 4E you have some differences so profound that it looks a lot like a different game. There are some resemblances, but it's not a close relation.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree with Korgoth. Every edition is different, but some are more different than others. I find that one of the best measures is "how easy is it to mix rules and adventures/supplements?" If it's super-easy, those systems are probably very closely related, and one might say they are variations on the same game. If it requires detailed conversion, or a complete replacement of the stats and rules, or there's a fundamental disconnect in the approaches, then you're looking at "hmmm...these are different games."

I'm firmly in the "4E is a very different game" camp. Consider what Mike Mearls said, contrasting OD&D and 4E: "OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs." It's not just that they're *different*, but that the differences are large and significant.

 

[Imaro]

I ignored the marketing and listened instead to what people in the know where saying. I was not expecting 4e to be an upgrade. It is a new edition, a new game. When I run 4e in a few weeks that is how I'm going to treat it and that is how I'm going to present it.

I do the same when I play older editions of the game too. Each older edition is not a downgrade from 3e either. I find treating them like the different games they are cuts down a lot on baggage people try to bring to them.

But would you agree that the marketing for 4e was at least a little misleading? I'm just trying to get some perspectives, and I was thinking mine might be skewed... but when 3e came out I was aware of the changes in a much more meaningful way before I purchased my first 3e product than with 4e.

The reason I wondered if my view is skewed is because I bought Dragon magazine regularly and it basically had preview articles in it for all the mechanical changes in 3e... and the motto of 3e seemed more about stressing and embracing the difference between 3e and 2e, than claiming the game would be the same.

Different game. Not just 4E but every edition that has been released since OD&D. All editions have differences and this can be objectively observed.

Upgrade status depends on perspective. A difference is a difference but being better or worse is a matter of opinion.

Okay, so what in your opinion would make a new edition the same game? I think there has to be a line where mechanics and fluff can be tweaked or changed (for what the designers feel is an improvement upon a game) without it becoming a "new" game instead of just a "new" edition. Like I said earlier, Exalted 2nd ed. has some mechanical changes, and even some slight fluff changes from 1e... but I still considered it the same game. nWoD is a totally different case, but WW was openly honest that this would be a new system and new fluff and oWoD really was over. I didn't see that type of thing with 4e from WotC, so I wonder if they...

1. Expected people to look at it as a whole new game, and thus were being slightly to very misleading in their marketing to retain former players.

3. Really see 4e as the same game that D&D has always been, and honestly felt claiming certain things were "previews" (like SW saga ed.) was honest and totally truthful marketing.

If you stop looking at D&D editions as upgrades and instead treat them as different games entirely, you open yourself up to killing even more sacred cows. I'm not saying that's good or bad, specifically, but I think it's worth mentioning.

I have no problem looking at a game in this way...if the company is upfront and honest about it when trying to sell the game. However if they don't or worse yet put an angle that is the oposite of this into their sales pitch for it...am I wrong for expecting something that is an advancement or improvement upon what has come before, rather than it being torn down and built up differently?


I'm just really starting to think this may have alot to do with the dissatisfaction some feel with 4e... heck I'm even starting to wonder if it's part of the reason I find myself leaning more negatively towards it. The funny thing is I picked up SW SE because it was suppose to be a preview and I was curious... but now I have bought every book for SW SE, while I find myself very reluctant to continue with 4e.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Upgrades, and I think each edition of D&D has been an upgrade. The edition improves on what came before...

"Improves" is subjective, in this case. I don't agree at all.

 

[Imban]

I'm curious about peoples thoughts on the above part of bagger245's statement... why shoudn't one look at different editions of D&D as an upgrade?

Because "upgrades" have very high (near 100% for free ones!) acceptance rates for a simple reason - they are, in almost all ways, just plain better than what came before, without "Well, tradeoffs have been made..." nonsense. Almost no one wants to play NWN with no expansions or patches when they could play NWN with both expansions and patch 1.69, and most of the people who DO play an older version are doing it for reasons of compatibility with a specific module or server, not because they prefer it.

On the other hand, especially if the editions are aimed at different things - and I'm going to look at you real funny if you try to suggest the design goals of 2e, 3e, and 4e are the same - you're not creating "the old game, but better", you're creating a new game that looks or acts like an old game in some ways. Because it does, it appeals to a large section of the same fanbase, but not the near-100% of the true "upgrade". See the Interplay Fallouts versus Fallout 3 for details.

They didn't market Exalted 2nd ed. like this because, for all intents and purposes it is the same game with mechanical upgrades.

Indeed. And Exalted 2e met with very high acceptance, especially right after the corebook was released. Some people didn't like the newfangled "tick" thing, but most Exalted players I know liked it... until a lot later on in the line when WW started going for crapping into a book in lieu of good design.

So what do others think about this, should D&D 4e have been marketed as a totally different game?

If the acceptance rates for "upgrades" are much higher than for "new games", marketing it as anything but an upgrade that is still the same game and fixes all of the problems of the old game and does everything better, including wash your dishes is the only thing that makes sense. So no.