History repeats itself

[Simm]

It basicall said "This game you've all loved and played for the past 30 years was No Fun Ever. Our new edition is Absolute Fun. You won't ever need to look up rules, remember acronyms, or not have the right miniatures![1]"

Hmm, absolute fun, you know I think I agree with them there. Absolute fun would be the fun you get after removeing it's sign.

 

[Lizard]

You need to stop interpreting things so negatively, and then trying to assign that negativity to the developers as if they're intentionally doing it. I saw the video as people having fun playing D&D, but running into some of the rougher patches (all of which have appeared in my game). It's not like they have time to show us a 4-hour session of each edition, showing all the fun people were having as well.

And 4e will be bug free?

Each edition of the game fixed (perceived or actual) problems with the old game, and either failed to fix all of them, introduced new bugs, or made old problems worse. It is pretty hard to imagine 4e will not continue in that vein.

It is probable to the point of certainty that 4e will have rules people don't get, over/under powered spells and abilities and races, times when someone has to wait for someone else to decide what to do (it doesn't matter how simple the rules are, if you have more than one option, someone is going to spend way too long pondering it, and since one of 4e's promises is "Lots of options for EVERYONE!", it's pretty easy to expect that even if resolution is quicker, decision making will be slower.), etc.

So stop telling us it will be perfect. Stop telling us we weren't having fun before.

Tell us what we can do now that we *couldn't* before. Forex, 3e -- dwarf paladins! Minotaur wizards! Templates! Skills! Feats! You didn't need to say '2e sucked!' -- all you needed to do was show the Shiny. Where's the shiny? "Simpler" isn't shiny. Especially not if you've been playing for 8 years and have memorized the grapple rules. We use them a lot -- grapple, bull rush, trip, disarm, all tend to show up *regularly* in combat.

And either you have the 'right' miniatures or you don't. And if you don't, then nothing has changed since 1978 -- when, uhm, both troll and minotaur miniatures existed. I had the troll.

(In our game, we have a box-o-random minis we use. All I care about is base size. For most monsters, esp. mooks, I use dice, i.e, if there's six orcs, each is a D6 with a different number. THAT makes it easy to know which one just got hit for 10 points of damage; using orc minis would make the game HARDER. "Which orc was that? Number two? Wait, isn't he dead? Hold on...you did 5 points to that one...I thought that was number 4? Dammit!" (I speak as the DM who has to keep track of this. And, again, since 4e will have more monsters per combat, with a lot of per-round effects, this will only get worse.))

 

[Lizard]

Or maybe it means rules you can't conceive of, since not everyone is limited to your vision of game design.

There hasn't been a real innovation in game design since, I'd say, the early 1990s, with about 80% of the real design work being done by the very ealry 1980s. Pretty much everything since then has been variations on existing mechanics or changing foci.

Is it possible 4e is *really* something new? Sure. But I doubt it. The mere fact it's built on the D20 system tells us a lot about its base mechanics.

(Off topic, but in terms of game design 'firsts'...)
1973: D&D. Duh.
1977: Traveller -- skills, backgrounds, no XP.
1979(?):Runequest -- 'same stats for everyone'
1981: Call of Cthulhu -- personality (sanity) mechanics
1981: Champions -- point build,first effect-based system.

Some other innovations might be Vampire (dice pools), Fantasy Trip (hex based tactical combat), and Amber (diceless). Very little, if anything, in 3e was innovative mechanically -- innovative for D&D, certainly, but nothing other games hadn't done before. And I really doubt we'll see new -- really new, my god, I have literally six large bookcases full of RPGs and I've NEVER seen THAT before! -- mechanics. Could I be wrong? Sure. Would I bet on it? No.

 

[The Little Raven]

And 4e will be bug free?

Who knows? But the point is: noone said it would be. This is some illogical extreme you're taking the argument to. Why does pointing out the flaws of previous work automatically mean that the new work has to be absolutely perfect? What kind of nonsensical standard is that?

It is probable to the point of certainty that 4e will have rules people don't get, over/under powered spells and abilities and races, times when someone has to wait for someone else to decide what to do (it doesn't matter how simple the rules are, if you have more than one option, someone is going to spend way too long pondering it, and since one of 4e's promises is "Lots of options for EVERYONE!", it's pretty easy to expect that even if resolution is quicker, decision making will be slower.), etc.

The "more options" is in reference to character creation/advancement, not necessarily meaning that in combat you're going to have to dig through 20+ choices. And as some abilities probably play off of eachother, things might be far simpler to choose from than you are willing to give them credit for.

So stop telling us it will be perfect. Stop telling us we weren't having fun before.

They never said either. It seems like you're making it up and assigning it to them as some kind of rationale for the "betrayal" you feel.

You didn't need to say '2e sucked!'

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate they've said that 3e sucks.

Where's the shiny?

Being dismissed by anti-4e people as "adolescent anime-inspired MMO crap" or whatever the current Big Evil Influence is. Y'know, fighters (and everyone else) with powers, races with particular places in the assumed setting, the standard progression for all classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, new monster rules (with examples), new magic item rules, tiers of play, new cosmology, different multiclassing rules, quest mechanics. They've released a lot of information on what is different and shiny. Pay attention.

"Simpler" isn't shiny.

Not to you.

Especially not if you've been playing for 8 years and have memorized the grapple rules. We use them a lot -- grapple, bull rush, trip, disarm, all tend to show up *regularly* in combat.

You memorized an overly complex rule. Good for you. Some of us have more important things to use our minds for than memorizing a rule that isn't worth using 95% of the time.

 

[outsider]

It basicall said "This game you've all loved and played for the past 30 years was No Fun Ever. Our new edition is Absolute Fun. You won't ever need to look up rules, remember acronyms, or not have the right miniatures![1]"

No, they didn't say that. There's a difference between acknowledging flaws in an otherwise good thing(even mockingly) and saying that thing sucks. I love D&D. I'd rather be playing it than any other RPG out there. That doesn't mean I couldn't list at least a dozen things about the current edition that annoy me though(and I could probably list alot more than that when it comes to second edition, which was my first edition of D&D).

 

[Lizard]

Who knows? But the point is: noone said it would be. This is some illogical extreme you're taking the argument to. Why does pointing out the flaws of previous work automatically mean that the new work has to be absolutely perfect? What kind of nonsensical standard is that?

If your primary marketing strategy is "You weren't having fun before", your new system better be damn near perfect...

The "more options" is in reference to character creation/advancement, not necessarily meaning that in combat you're going to have to dig through 20+ choices. And as some abilities probably play off of eachother, things might be far simpler to choose from than you are willing to give them credit for.

Wait, what?

First, we were told "Being a fighter (or any non-caster, really) sucked because you had one strategy to use round after round -- 'hit the monster'. Oooo, you might have to choose to Power Attack or not! No fun! In 4e, EVERYONE has oodles of powers, so you'll have tactical options coming out your ass for every class in every round for every level! Really!"

NOW, you say, "Oh, but you won't REALLY have any choices in actual combat, just when you level up. You know, like in D20 Modern, which was radical and revolutionary and cool and came out in 2003 or so."

So, uhm, which is it?

Do we get a lot of tactical options round-by-round, so that no matter how fast the resolution is, there's still a lot of thinking about what to do? (Which I'd call perfectly fine, since I am not a speed-addicted 14 year old and don't mind thinking a bit during a game.) Or do we just get to make choices at chargen, and each round it's still "I do the same optimal attack I do every round, Pinky."?

Let me guess -- it's both! It's a floor wax AND a desert topping!

Being dismissed by anti-4e people as "adolescent anime-inspired MMO crap" or whatever the current Big Evil Influence is. Y'know, fighters (and everyone else) with powers, races with particular places in the assumed setting, the standard progression for all classes, paragon paths, epic destinies, new monster rules (with examples), new magic item rules, tiers of play, new cosmology, different multiclassing rules, quest mechanics. They've released a lot of information on what is different and shiny. Pay attention.

Most of those are bugs, not features. Esp "races with particular places" and "tiers of play" which turn out to have mechanical effects.

There is some cool, of course. Racial choices mattering over 30 levels is a win. Pity we've seen only 2 racial powers so far. Reduced dependence on magic items is cool, but coupling them with stupid rules about who can wear rings tarnishes that shiny pretty quickly. The new monster rules seen thus far are over-simple; I hope the MM has some serious hardcore crunch in it. We have no clue what the "different multiclassing rules" are, so they cannot be judged. Quest mechanics? We called them "story awards" in the old days and they've been in the DMG since 3e 1.0. Standard progression and the new skill system==homogenity, never a good thing in a niche-based game.

Power source mechanics could be interesting; we need more info. Cross-role classes could eliminate much of the distaste the 'role' system leaves in my mouth. The Feywild/Shadowfell, and the general intent to make planar adventuring more accessible are definitely good ideas. Higher customizability of classes is a promise; we'll see if they keep it.

I've been paying attention. Vague hints and unneeded fluff don't excite me. It's five months till D-Day. Start showing us the steak, not the sizzle.

And, of course, many of the EXACT SAME promises (Simpler! Faster! More consistent!) were made for 3e. (And they were true...and false..in many ways...)

You memorized an overly complex rule. Good for you. Some of us have more important things to use our minds for than memorizing a rule that isn't worth using 95% of the time.

"This rule is TOO HARD!"
"My group hasn't had any trouble with it. It's easy and fun after you've done it a few times."
"WE have more IMPORTANT things to think about when playing a game than, y'know, the RULES to it!"

Riiiight.

Got your kittens picked out?

 

[The Little Raven]

If your primary marketing strategy is "You weren't having fun before", your new system better be damn near perfect...

But that's not their marketing strategy. You're making that up. You're assuming because you can't seem to get through a simple video without getting insulted by it that they must be saying you weren't having fun before (which is totally ridiculous to claim).

Wait, what?

A lot of character used to only have one real option in combat, whether it was level one or level 20. Spellcasters, on the other hand, had huge increases in options as they leveled. So, while your level 1 spellcaster may have four or five options, your level twenty has dozens, while your level 1/20 fighters are still limited to the same one real option: full attack (if you don't move, that is).

Now characters will always have a handful (or more) of abilities as real options at each level, instead of the incredible imbalance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters. Also, since abilities play off other things (opportunity attacks, Bloodied condition, etc), not all abilities will be part of the decision-making process on your turn (you can't use a Bloodied-only ability when you're not Bloodied).

Most of those are bugs, not features. Esp "races with particular places" and "tiers of play" which turn out to have mechanical effects.

Just like "monsters with player rules" is a bug, not a feature, so your minotaur wizard example is just an example of a bug.

See how that subjective dismissal thing works?

Reduced dependence on magic items is cool, but coupling them with stupid rules about who can wear rings tarnishes that shiny pretty quickly.

That's your opinion, and it seems to be based on 3e's cheapening of rings into things like +5 bonus to a skill. 4e appears to be looking to it's influences, which almost all show magical rings to special items, not trifles. 3e was the only thing I can think of that treated them in such a mundane fashion.

The new monster rules seen thus far are over-simple; I hope the MM has some serious hardcore crunch in it.

We have no clue what the "different multiclassing rules" are, so they cannot be judged.

So, you can bring up things that we heard about before 3e, but hadn't seen yet, but I can't do the same with 3e stuff? We knew as much about feats then as we do about multiclassing now.

Quest mechanics? We called them "story awards" in the old days and they've been in the DMG since 3e 1.0.

Oh, you mean the vague handwave "figure out what the CR would be, despite the CR system being bunk and award experience for that" system? Yeah, it was superb.

Standard progression and the new skill system==homogenity, never a good thing in a niche-based game.

Star Wars is a pretty damned niche game and it works wonders in that.

And all these are examples of example what I said: things that are presented, but dismissed by the anti-4e crowd.

And, of course, many of the EXACT SAME promises (Simpler! Faster! More consistent!) were made for 3e. (And they were true...and false..in many ways...)

There is also one key thing that came up way too many times during the run-up to 3e that doesn't seem to be the case now: "We were going to do away with <sacred cow X>, but playtester feedback led us to keep alignment restrictions and stuff like that."

"This rule is TOO HARD!"
"My group hasn't had any trouble with it. It's easy and fun after you've done it a few times."
"WE have more IMPORTANT things to think about when playing a game than, y'know, the RULES to it!"

You love ignoring context, don't you? What part of "Noone really uses it because it's not worth the effort" is so difficult to understand? It's needlessly complex for the benefit you gain from it.

Got your kittens picked out?

Taken your medication yet?

 

[outsider]

I've been paying attention. Vague hints and unneeded fluff don't excite me. It's five months till D-Day. Start showing us the steak, not the sizzle.

I agree with you 100% on this one. I really am boggled at how little they are actually revealing as far as the mechanics are concerned. It leads to everybody who is pessimistic or remotely conservative about the new edition filling themselves with(probably unneccessary) dread about how bad it's going to be. I remember in the closing months before 3.0's release, we had almost enough information to play a stripped down version of the game. They've revealed close to nothing this time around, though what they have revealed has been pretty good(from my view at least). I really don't know what they're hoping to achieve with this secrecy.

"This rule is TOO HARD!"
"My group hasn't had any trouble with it. It's easy and fun after you've done it a few times."
"WE have more IMPORTANT things to think about when playing a game than, y'know, the RULES to it!"

Riiiight.

Got your kittens picked out?

There is such a thing as a needlessly complex rule. THAC0 anyone?

 

[Reynard]

But that's not their marketing strategy. You're making that up. You're assuming because you can't seem to get through a simple video without getting insulted by it that they must be saying you weren't having fun before (which is totally ridiculous to claim).

While Lizard is being a little extreme, a quick perusal of many of the Design & Development articles or the preview books will show, without a doubt, that one of the regularly used methods of promoting 4E is by directly comparing it to elements in 3E or even older editions and indicating how those things were not fun. Sure, they don't come out and say "that sucked", but they do regularly tell you that the game had big problems. And in some cases it may be true -- the CR system not working correctly -- and in some cases it is entirely a matter of play preference -- dragons or demons with lots of abilities being too hard to run. In either case, though, the fact is that in trying to sell 4E they are emphasizing those elements of previous editions that were problems, either real or perceived.

My guess would be that the list of problems is largely directly related to the results of various forms of market research. I don't believe for a second that R&D gets to do whatever they damn well please: they are charged with putting out an edition that will sell to the largest portion of their customer base, as well as to potential customers. But just because market research says something doesn't mean that people who feel differently are somehow inherently wrong -- any more than just because the design team has found a new and fun way of doing something means that the previous way of doing ti was bad or unfun.

 

[Reynard]

I've been paying attention. Vague hints and unneeded fluff don't excite me. It's five months till D-Day. Start showing us the steak, not the sizzle.

I think we'll be seeing a lot more "steak" very soon, if fo no other reason than hundreds (or more?) of gamers will soon be exposed to actual play at D&DE. Not only will we get (wildly divergent and cobtradictory) playtest reports from there, WotC themselves will want to head off certain misconceptions that could arise from these (probably) two hour, combat specific playtests and release crunch and info related directly to it either when it happens or shortly beforehand. Plus, it seems reasonable to assume that those people that were going to be sold by "sizzle" alone have been sold and if they want to sel anyone else, they are going to have to do it with steak. I predict that in addition to more crunch at a faster pace, though, we'll see a slow down, maybe even a grinding halt, of non-4E preview related D&DI content. The "magazines" are already woefully behind schedule and with crunch time coming up -- even after the books go to press, a lot of support material needs to get produced, including adventures for GenCon -- I doubt they'll devote too many resources to the free online content.

In any case -- more crunch is definitely good. I want to see an actual class.