History repeats itself

[GVDammerung]

I remember when D&D 3E was first announced - and what happened on RPG-related online forums.

And I am incredibly amused how history repeats itself. Today we are seeing the same hysteria, the same rumors, the same denouncement of any changes (regardless of whether these changes have actually been confirmed), the same endless debates which are only based on hearsay instead of factual confirmation.

OK, some of the details have changed. But the way gamers are reacting to the edition change is exactly the same as it was eight years ago.

Who else finds this amusing?

Not amusing. Enlightening. Critics were right then and they are right now vis-a-vis the game and D&D as the two are not the same except in name since 3x. 3x made a _substantial_ move in a new direction, a substantial move away from the 1E/2E point of origination. 4E goes even father from where things started. Some will say this is an "improvement" when it is more accurate to say we have a new game with an old name.

What I find amusing is the sheeplike herd that "baas" at Wotc's command, unable or unwilling to see that while the name remains the same, the game behind the name is no longer the same. Its like if I say I want to shake your hand but then kick you in the nuts - redefining "handshake" to mean a kick in the nuts. What to call 4e D&D? Okay. Let's shake on that.

 

[Betote]

You said "Amen" in response to someone claiming that "There would certainly be a lot less negative feeling toward 4e if it wouldn't seem to be one of the selling points of 4e to constantly point out how much all prior D&D sucks"

So, you (and the guy you're agreeing with) are stating that the marketing that Wizards is doing is built upon them saying how much all prior editions of D&D suck. Now, if this is true, then provide some evidence, otherwise it smells suspiciously like it came from your ass.

"They constantly coint out how much all prior D&D sucks" and "They constantly say 'all prior D&D sucks'" are very different statements. I get that and English isn't even my mother language, so I suppose it'd be easier to you.

If you want evidence of WotC marketing based on pointing out prior D&D flaws, I can just tell you to watch the 4E announcement video and presentation (I think they're still on Youtube).

The impression I'm getting from almost every single WotC staff's blog entry is that 4E is goint to be the total opposite of 3E, not just a streamlined, fixed 3.X (remember the "don't bother converting your 3.X PC to 4E?"). I'm hoping my impresions are wrong, because I, as anyone, would gladly welcome any good RPG ruleset. But the hints I'm getting rub me the wrong way.

 

[DandD]

I had not previously understood that you spoke for WotC.
Since you do, would you explain to me why it is that you made a game that sucked so bad and why I should trust you to do any better this time? After all, you spent years telling me how great 3E was. Shouldn't I be very cautious believing you now?

Yes you should. After all, I appearantly speak for WotC.

 

[The Little Raven]

"They constantly coint out how much all prior D&D sucks" and "They constantly say 'all prior D&D sucks'" are very different statements. I get that and English isn't even my mother language, so I suppose it'd be easier to you.

But I have yet to see evidence that they are "constantly pointing out how much all prior D&D sucks." I see them pointing out flaws that we players recognized and discussed often on this very forum.

If you want evidence of WotC marketing based on pointing out prior D&D flaws, I can just tell you to watch the 4E announcement video and presentation (I think they're still on Youtube).

Wolfspider already tried that, and the videos say nothing about prior editions sucking. Merely that there were some quirks (lack of recognizable miniatures back in 1e's day) and issues (grapple rules suck).

The impression I'm getting from almost every single WotC staff's blog entry is that 4E is goint to be the total opposite of 3E, not just a streamlined, fixed 3.X

You must be reading entirely different blogs than I am, since everything I've seen looks like a streamlined, cleaned-up, and consistent version of 3.X instead of the over-complex hodge-podge that 3.X actually was.

(remember the "don't bother converting your 3.X PC to 4E?")

Remember the crappy conversion document that was effectively useless for converting anything but simple single-classes characters (which you don't need a conversion document for, since if you were a 6th level elf fighter in 2e, you'd still be a 6th level elf fighter in 3e)? It's better for them to say "We're not doing an official document, because it was worthless the last time" than to put out another worthless one again.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Exactly. There would certainly be a lot less negative feeling toward 4e if it wouldn't seem to be one of the selling points of 4e to constantly point out how much all prior D&D sucks

Designers can't change their minds? Monte Cook, who isn't involved with 4e, nonetheless has said that if he created 3e today he'd do a lot of things differently. In many respects many of his ideas are the same as, or similar to, 4e. For example here he talks about completely removing instadeath SoDs and replacing them with incapacitation.

Gary's changed his mind about many things over the years. 1e AD&D represents a 100% about turn in some areas from OD&D, and that was in the space of only 4 years.

With the attitude you express above, change is impossible. If designers can't change their minds we'd still be playing 1974 OD&D. Without splats*.


*Even diaglo uses the splats, so no one would be happy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The impression I'm getting from almost every single WotC staff's blog entry is that 4E is goint to be the total opposite of 3E, not just a streamlined, fixed 3.X (remember the "don't bother converting your 3.X PC to 4E?").

They have to focus on what's different. Why would you buy the same product twice? They've learned from the mistake of 3.0->3.5, which caused a lot of bad feeling for being not enough change to warrant a new edition.

I'm getting a quite different impression, btw. 4e will be very, very close to late 3e, especially if you used ToB, Complete Arcane/Mage and MM 4/5*. It will have much the same core system as 3e. Even small stuff like swift actions and 5 foot steps (renamed shifts) are still in. It's just the numbers going into that system have been rejigged.


*One of the WotC podcasts, called You May Already Be Playing 4e, talked about this in a lot of detail. SWSE was the other source referenced.

 

[shilsen]

I remember when D&D 3E was first announced - and what happened on RPG-related online forums.

And I am incredibly amused how history repeats itself. Today we are seeing the same hysteria, the same rumors, the same denouncement of any changes (regardless of whether these changes have actually been confirmed), the same endless debates which are only based on hearsay instead of factual confirmation.

OK, some of the details have changed. But the way gamers are reacting to the edition change is exactly the same as it was eight years ago.

Who else finds this amusing?

Absolutely. I was on Eric Noah's boards when 3e was coming out and there was some amazing hysteria about all sorts of stuff. And those of the people in my various groups who are on ENWorld generally find ourselves discussing some of the current hysteria at some point or other during our sessions, usually with a great deal of amusement. Geek rage is a glorious thing!

 

[Betote]

But I have yet to see evidence that they are "constantly pointing out how much all prior D&D sucks." I see them pointing out flaws that we players recognized and discussed often on this very forum.

I used the verb "mock" consciounsly. It's quite different to saying "We're trying to fix the grapple rules" than filming the "-I grapple. -Oh, why did you have to do that?" sketch.

Wolfspider already tried that, and the videos say nothing about prior editions sucking. Merely that there were some quirks (lack of recognizable miniatures back in 1e's day) and issues (grapple rules suck).

They didn't "merely" say it. They mocked at it and hyperbolized it (is that even a word? ) to the point of reducing 3.X to a mere bunch of quirks and flaws. And that's where they lose me.

You must be reading entirely different blogs than I am, since everything I've seen looks like a streamlined, cleaned-up, and consistent version of 3.X instead of the over-complex hodge-podge that 3.X actually was.

And even here, you're incapable of defend 4E without resorting to attack 3.X. That kind of polarization kind of scares me, because if 4E is being seen as the "anti-3.X" and I find 3.X a good, fun system with some improvable aspects, then the logic conclusion would be to assume that, to me, 4E will be a bad, boring system with some good aspects.

I won't judge 4E, however, until I've read the books. Then I'll see if I adopt it as a whole, refuse to play it, or continue my 3.X games with some 4E houseruled into it. But I find people who is constantly crying out "4E sucks" or "4E rules" with just some scarce glimpses of it quite annoying.

 

[Piratecat]

What I find amusing is the sheeplike herd that "baas" at Wotc's command,

I have no doubt whatsoever you can make your point without sinking to insulting people. Please do so next time. Blanket insults like this aren't okay.

That goes for everyone, of course. No cheap shots. Frankly, I think the original post is phrased in a way that incites tempers and makes people defensive, so please work harder to remain civil if you're going to post in this thread.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Guys, let's can the broad insults, either pro- or anti-4E.

Its not constructive to essentially call other people sheep, and stating prior editions "sucked" is unlikely to lead to a higher quality of discourse, either.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and what Piratecat said!