History repeats itself

[The Little Raven]

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.

And this is different from any other edition of any roleplaying game... how? 3E hype it's feats and skills (replacement for non-weapon proficiencies),BAB (replacement for Thac0), saving throws (three standard instead of the oddity of the old ones), experience chart (one standard instead of ones for each class), class/race limits, and all that stuff based on what 2e had previously done. The entire marketing campaign was pretty much "How is this game different from 2e?"

4e is saying 3e sucked as much as 3e said 2e sucked... all the way back to OD&D.

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.

And these problems are based directly on player feedback. ENWorld itself has hosted dozens of threads discussing the issues highlighted by the marketing of the game. What Lizard is implying through his arguments is that they're trying to tell us these are problems, as opposed to the truth: we know these are problems, and we've told them that over the past 8 years, and that's why it's being changed.

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.

They keep saying "we" (as in, them) when talking about having more fun, and the hope that you will have just as much fun as they are. I see nothing in "We're having more fun with 4e than any previous edition, and we hope you do too" that says "Previous editions are unfun," which is what is being claimed by some posters (like Lizard).

 

[Reynard]

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

Dude, it's subtraction.

 

[Betote]

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).

Many people here has already said they found it insulting. I'm not getting insulted by it, but previous editions of D&D are. And if it's insulting for a fair amount of people, it *is* insulting.

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).

Because God Forbade fighters to use different weapons, flanking, aid another, disarm, trip, grapple (OMG the horrible, complicated rules are trying to bite me!!!! ), two-handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, mounted combat, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, cleave, stunning blows, tactical feats...

And everybody knows than 1st-level spells are incredibly useful against CR14 monsters

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).

How do you know those things without seeing the whole picture? How do you know that "handful (or more) of abilities" are not reduced to just one real option if you don't know the full game? Are you not acting as a blind man trying to guess what an elephant is?

 

[Reynard]

They keep saying "we" (as in, them) when talking about having more fun, and the hope that you will have just as much fun as they are. I see nothing in "We're having more fun with 4e than any previous edition, and we hope you do too" that says "Previous editions are unfun," which is what is being claimed by some posters (like Lizard).

Traps have been a part of the Dungeons & Dragons game since its earliest days, fiendish perils that stood right alongside monsters as primary hazards to adventurer life and limb. Some adventures, like the classic Tomb of Horrors, featured traps as the chief threat to life and appendage. Unfortunately, they've rarely had a positive effect on the game. In the early days, DMs all too often felt compelled to demonstrate their cleverness and punish players for making "wrong" choices -- even a choice as simple and random as which passage to explore. Old-school players in the hands of such a DM responded by changing their characters' approach to dungeon exploration. The "right" way to play the game was to slowly and laboriously search each 10-foot square of dungeon before you set foot on it, or to use magic that made traps completely pointless. Neither option was much fun.

That right there is as about as close to "previous editions are unfun" as you can get (and completely off the mark, but that's a different thread).

 

[Lizard]

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).

Then they need better marketing, 'cause that's the message I'm getting.

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).

And, again, you still don't think this will lead to combat requiring more thinking time? Different complexity<>less complexity. So instead of "I can't use this because I'm flat-footed", it's "I can't use this because I'm bloodied (or not bloodied, as the case may be)" "Does this provoke an AOO?" becomes "Does this give me Combat Advantage?" "Did I use all my first-level spells?" becomes "Did I use all my per-encounter powers?" I am not saying these changes are inherently bad; I'm saying you can't have depth AND simplicity. They are contradictory goals. D&D has always chosen depth; this is part of the fun and appeal of the game. When marketing says "It's just as deep, but half as complicated!", I have to be skeptical until I see hard mechanics at work.

Oh, and toss 'Bloodied' in the 'win' column, would you? It's a nice mechanic with a LOT of potential for cool tactical choices, including holding off on healing in order to trigger bloodied-only powers. Now, we need more stuff like THAT, and less stuff like "Hobbits are taller now! And live on barges! Wheee!"

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.

Except every other edition of D&D. And, erm, most RPGs not explicitly based on LOTR. Oh wait...the Rolemaster version of the LOTR RPG had low-power rings. (And D&D is much more Vance, Lieber, and Howard than it ever was Tolkein). Don't know about Decipher's LOTR game.

What other games did have special rules for magic rings that did not apply to other magic items of equal power? I can't think of one, but I know I've missed some here and there. Earthdawn? Some edition of Runquest I missed? Which?

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.

No, not really. They were a LOT more forthcoming with the crunch in the run-up to 3e, in large part because they wanted to win back old D&D players (by showing them cool new versions of the old rules they'd outgrown) instead of trying to lure in new players (by showing them lots of pretty pictures and not scaring them with the rules).

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.

I never had a problem with it. I also never had problems statting NPCs or doing any of the other 'hard' things. Either I'm a genius, or maybe some things really weren't so hard?

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."

Hence, the feeling that 3e respected and built on older editions (by keeping things which were emblematic of D&D) and the feeling that 4e does not (for the same reason). I'm looking forward to Necromancer Games' products for 4e, because they "get it" in a way WOTC sometimes seems not to.

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.

You keep saying "No one" when I keep saying "But my group does". Obviously, some people do NOT think it's too complicated. YOU do.

 

[Lizard]

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

THAC0? You mean, the rule which "simplified" the mass of charts in 1e?

"Remember those huge charts you needed to use just to hit an orc? We've taken them away, and replaced them with a simple formula! You won't believe how fast fights go now!"

The more things change...

 

[Lizard]

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.

You're correct -- it makes sense to hold off releasing too much info when "seeing it early" is a big draw for DDE. This didn't exist in 2000, so, there's a logic to it. It will be very interesting to see actual play experience.

Here's what I am curious about: Thus far, everyone who has played the game (under NDA) has been positive. This is Good. It will be very instructive to see how people who haven't "absorbed" 4e for the past several years as playtesters, who aren't privy to evolving design decisions and changes, and who are (presumably) hard core 3e fans react. If the general consensus is positive -- and there will be no way to shut up critics -- I'll have to admit most of my fears are incorrect. Games are, after all, meant to be played, and if play is fun, the game works.

 

[The Little Raven]

And if it's insulting for a fair amount of people, it *is* insulting.

A fair amount of people in San Diego are insulted by a war-time memorial that bears a cross that is on public land (which was formerly private land until the land was given to the city, free of charge). That doesn't make the memorial insulting, it makes those people overly sensitive to the point where they seem to actively search out things to "insult" them so they can get riled up.

Because God Forbade fighters to use different weapons, flanking, aid another, disarm, trip, grapple (OMG the horrible, complicated rules are trying to bite me!!!! ), two-handed weapons, two-weapon fighting, mounted combat, reach weapons, whirlwind attack, cleave, stunning blows, tactical feats...

Different weapons don't change the "full attack is the only real effective option" problem.
Flanking doesn't either.
Nor does Aid Another (giving someone else a +2 bonus on a roll doesn't help me fill my role).
Disarm and trip and grapple are not as effective as they should be, and are usually not worth the effort required to be effective at them.
Two-handed weapons fall under different weapons, and thus offer no additional options during play.
Mounted Combat is just another way of fulfilling a role, one which most players don't go for because of the extra things involved with dealing with a mount.
Reach Weapons fall under different weapons.
Whirlwind Attack is useless in most situations, since you're not often surrounded by enemies. Plus it's overly expensive for what it does.
Cleave is okay, but is still a "proc" off of something else (not an ability to choose to activate on your turn).
Stunning Blow is pretty awful for non-monks.
Tactical feats aren't part of the core.

And everybody knows than 1st-level spells are incredibly useful against CR14 monsters

Protection from Arrows (level 2) is awesome for all levels. Magic Missile's (level 1) ability to always hit is definitely nice (better than a crossbow). Death Ward (level 4) is freakin' awesome.

Are you not acting as a blind man trying to guess what an elephant is?

I take the designers at their word, and these are all things they have expressed. I don't see any reason to take the speculation seriously unless it's backed up by statements from the people doing the work.

 

[The Little Raven]

That right there is as about as close to "previous editions are unfun" as you can get (and completely off the mark, but that's a different thread).

So, suddenly, "Arbitrary traps weren't very fun" equates into "The entire edition isn't fun?"

Did I miss that memo?

 

[The Little Raven]

And, again, you still don't think this will lead to combat requiring more thinking time?

No, I don't. That's also partially because I have a friend whose a playtester and he keeps raving about how much faster it goes, even with players having more individual choices. Since I don't expect people to believe the "I have a friend..." explanation, I don't use it in my arguments (despite it having a dramatic effect on my personal opinion) and I stick to what the designers/developers say.

Oh, and toss 'Bloodied' in the 'win' column, would you? It's a nice mechanic with a LOT of potential for cool tactical choices, including holding off on healing in order to trigger bloodied-only powers.

We see eye-to-eye on this one. Maybe there's hope for us after all.

Now, we need more stuff like THAT, and less stuff like "Hobbits are taller now! And live on barges! Wheee!"

Well, I don't think we needed "Halflings are the size of a two-year-old," like in 3e, and giving them a more distinct culture is a plus in my book.

What other games did have special rules for magic rings that did not apply to other magic items of equal power?

And that's where our difference in thought lies.

You think that the weakest magic rings should be as weak as the weakest magic swords (thus, available from level 1, if applicable). I think the weakest magic rings should be (and are) as weak as moderate magic swords (paragon tier).

No, not really. They were a LOT more forthcoming with the crunch in the run-up to 3e, in large part because they wanted to win back old D&D players (by showing them cool new versions of the old rules they'd outgrown) instead of trying to lure in new players (by showing them lots of pretty pictures and not scaring them with the rules).

That's also because the crunch was going through far more substantial change. 3e was tearing down the old house and building an entirely new one. 4e is taking that new house and renovating it while leaving the solid foundation (basic d20 mechanics) in place.

I never had a problem with it. I also never had problems statting NPCs or doing any of the other 'hard' things. Either I'm a genius, or maybe some things really weren't so hard?

I guess you're some kind of genius, because it's pretty obvious that WotC's market research has concluded that you are in the minority in this regard.

Hence, the feeling that 3e respected and built on older editions (by keeping things which were emblematic of D&D) and the feeling that 4e does not (for the same reason).

Or the feeling, to people like me, that some people's resistance to change is preventing poor designs from being discarded because of "legacy appeal." I've played every edition of D&D (except OD&D), and nothing bothered me more than poorly-designed legacy items surviving simply because they're legacy items.

I'm looking forward to Necromancer Games' products for 4e, because they "get it" in a way WOTC sometimes seems not to.

Necromancer's goal seems to be to appeal to the 1e crowd, but in the latest system. WotC's goal is to grow the potential pool of players. Necromancer's goal would not be conducive to keeping D&D alive, honestly.

You keep saying "No one" when I keep saying "But my group does". Obviously, some people do NOT think it's too complicated. YOU do.

Then allow me to rephrase, since you've made it abundantly clear that your group in no way represents a "standard" D&D group.

The majority do not use them, because they're more effort than they're worth.