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

[Umbran]

...why shoudn't one look at different editions of D&D as an upgrade?

Well, as others have already mentioned - an "upgrade" is an improvement. If you are talking about computer hardware, you have some point of performance or capability that you're talking about when you upgrade.

With an RPG, there is no universally accepted, or ever generally understood, performance points that everyone cares about, such that a change in edition is necessarily an upgrade.

I find that 4e combat, even for a neophyte, runs more smoothly than 3e combat. However, 4e combats seem to take longer than 4e. And 4e is a bit lacking in support for non-combat related powers.

End result - is it an upgade? That depends - if smooth and simple combat were my basic desire, then yet. Otherwise, it may not be.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I view it like this while each edition is still D&D, they should strive to bring in new mechanics, alter current mechanics in some regards, etc, etc.

Why? Well, so that each person can find the D&D game that best fits them, for me currently it is 4e, perhaps 5e will be even more so (this could be considered a upgrade).

But if one has found in any previous edition THEIR D&D then any future editions are simply different editions, not an upgrade, not a downgrade, simply a different edition.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

I think every edition with more than editing cleanup and clarification is a slightly different game. The point about conversion compatibility with adventures and other products is a pretty good measure of how close it is to being the same game.

To say that X is D&D because you can still fight monsters, take thier stuff, and gain levels is just like saying that Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, and Harnmaster are D&D. This is kind of what WOTC did with the 4E marketing.

I remember looking at the preview books trying to get a handle on how ANYTHING would be handled mechanically and being dissappointed.

 

[Crothian]

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.

I really ignored the marketing this time around. I have no idea what it was like or if it was misleading.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

This. The difference between a new edition of the same game and an entirely new game (when it comes to the history of D&D) is a matter of degree. Where you draw the line in the continuum is a matter of opinion only.

 

[Imaro]

This. The difference between a new edition of the same game and an entirely new game (when it comes to the history of D&D) is a matter of degree. Where you draw the line in the continuum is a matter of opinion only.

If this is true (and honestly I tend to agree with you)... why do people get pounded on when they say 4e isn't D&D to them?

 

[ExploderWizard]

If this is true (and honestly I tend to agree with you)... why do people get pounded on when they say 4e isn't D&D to them?

Because saying that whatever the most current edition of the game happens to be doesn't feel like D&D is considered an internet crime and will be punished accordingly.

On the flipside saying that a former edition thats been around for a long time isn't D&D to you is fine even if was the best edition EVAR a short time ago.

 

[billd91]

Every new edition of the same game is intended as an upgrade. That's the point of making it a new edition. The assumption is that some element of the core game is the very same one that debuted with the 1st edition.
There may be some conjecture as to whether or not the game was, in fact, UPgraded, but that's really no different from software upgrades. Sometimes the latest edition of the software isn't exactly an upgrade either. Macintosh version of Word 6.0, I'm looking at you...

 

[justanobody]

Forked from: Disappointed in 4e



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 they are not just upgrades....

Upgrade says they have compatibility. I upgraded my computer with new memory.

You only change enough to add more functionality.

You don't really upgrade to a whole new computer, that would be a whole new computer and you bought it. You "upgraded", but your computer did not.

So AD&D is not an upgrade to D&D, but a whole new game, 3rd is not AD&D but a whole new game, 4th edition is not 3rd edition but a whole new game.

These really aren't upgrades to a game just new games.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.

Also IIRC D&D even states that it is not an upgraded version of D&D, but a new game.

WotC stated 4th is not an upgrade to 3rd, but a new game.

2.5, 3.5, these were definitely upgrades...good or bad upgrades is left up to each individual, but they were upgrades.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whether the new edition of a game is an upgrade or a new game varies with the details of the new product in question.

I've been through every version of HERO, and the only one I didn't like, the only one that felt like a new game was the Fuzion version. The rest were upgrades. The Fuzion incarnation of it, however, was soooooo different that I couldn't even enjoy PC creation. It was a different game, and I avoided HERO until that experiment was over.

With D&D, its a bit murkier. Unlike HERO, there were definite mechanical differences as 1Ed transitioned to 3.X, but to me they all had enough of the same "feel" that each felt like upgrades to me. That converting from one edition to the next was easy or, in the case of 3Ed, facilitated by the RPG company that released the product meant that I could run the same campaign for 2+decades while maintaining continuity across the 3 different systems.

4Ed broke that line of continuity with radically different underlying assumptions about what people wanted from the game- different races became default, fewer playstyles were supported. Concepts that always seemed to be at the core of the game, things that set it apart from other FRPGS were winnowed away. Thus it seems more like a completely different game to me.

Its different enough that like many other people out there, despite the printed words on the covers, its not D&D to me- its a different game.