Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

[Thasmodious]

If you don't believe there's a HUGE difference between the negative reaction to 4E vs. the negative reaction to 3E, then I'm sorry but nothing anyone says is going to change your opinion because you're not accepting reality.

I understand rose colored glasses and the view they give you of history, but there are already links in this very thread to archives from the time of what it was like. You can do your own searches. Most of the community came around by virtue of actually playing the game. Same thing will happen with 4e.

An edition wars thread is going to have attacks on both sides, that's just the way it is. We're still waiting, though, for someone to show us the d20 threads, in which d20 gamers are discussing the d20 game in which 4e fans are charging into the thread and mocking or attacking them for still playing the game or attacking the system (haha, fools, if you only played 4e you wouldn't have to have a this thread). This happens all the time in 4e threads that are about 4e players talking about playing the 4e game.

 

[Irda Ranger]

My biggest complaint with 3e's release had nothing to do with changes to the rules, or the system, or the artwork; but with the fact that official support for 2e (and thus by extension 1e and 0e, as 2e was easily convertible to such) was withdrawn in favour of 3e only. No more 2e or 1e adventures in Dungeon magazine. No more pre-3e related articles in Dragon. Etc. Bloody annoying, at the time and since.

Now, the 3e community is hitting the same wall.

But 3e has the OGL, and now pre-3E has OSRIC. So it's not completely hopeless. WotC won't support it, but hopefully "the community" will, in a Linux sort of way.

Which I guess means you'll never get the the WiFi to work or decent graphics drivers, but boy will there every be an endless supply of free text editors!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Which I guess means you'll never get the the WiFi to work or decent graphics drivers, but boy will there every be an endless supply of free text editors!

Hehe. And QFT, even.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If someone says, "I don't like 4E because it is too much like WoW", is it a valid response to say "It plays nothing like WoW, what are you talking about" or is this seen as "attacking" the person.

Both sides just need to recognize that those kinds of statements are very subjective. They're both right, from their own point of view.

I've never played WoW, but I definitely believe that 4E is "too boardgame." And it is. For me. Maybe not so for you.

Most of the community came around by virtue of actually playing [3E]. Same thing will happen with 4e.

As a point of order, I would like to point out that I was a big fan of both 3E and 4E until I played the game. In both instances the designers said "This is what can be improved with the current edition." And I was like "Yeah, awesome! Preach it!". And in both instances they fixed those things but also introduced new elements that made the game unplayabe for me. It's pretty annoying actually.

Briefly, I was really glad 3E made all the races good choices, unified saving throws, and introduced the d20 mechanic. Nice. But they also introduced wealth by level and The Big Six into the system, and (worst of all) made "character builds" a game within the game. Ugh. I just want to roll up my Fighter's stats and kill me some Orcs. Why can't I do that? Why do I have to plan so much and worry about picking sub-optimal feats? Blech.

So then 4E comes along and the designers are going "We'll fix those build issues by taking away the dumb choices; all choices will be equally good. And those magical items will still be around, but a one-sentence house rule can make them 100% optional. And monsters & NPCs should take 5 minutes to make, and encounters are just as easy. Plus, Feywild, people." Nice. But they also turned the game into a Magic: The Skirmish Boardgame that's full on Wu-Xia at 1st level and you're strongly encouraged to not think about how the powers actually work or what they actually look like or how they translate into personal skills and abilities in non-combat situations. Blech.

I'm not trying to discuss any of the above issues. There are a 1001 other threads for that, and frankly I'm tired of it anyway. I'm just pointing out that I did not "come around" when I played the game, and I've seen several other posters who felt the same. And so when we say things like "Eh, that doesn't work for me." or "Yeah, we already discussed that and I still disagree.", we really mean it. It's not an accusation "You're doing it wrong" or "Only idiots play 4E", but c'mon, let us have our opinions.

 

[doctorhook]

I remember the switch from 2e->3e as smoother than 3e->4e.

I'm not counting Erics/ENWorld, because that doesn't count.

But the attitude towards D&D on local gaming fora went from very negative to very positive upon the release of 3e. Late in the 2e days, there were routine verbal lynching of 2e, and it was very difficult to find players for 2e. This is a stark contrast to the late days of 3e before 4e's release, when the local mailing list is split about 50/50, and there were still people starting new 3e games.

I suppose you must've experienced it differently than I did. Subjective experience and all that.

I'll admit that the 3E->4E changeover was compounded by the fact that 3E hadn't been languishing to even remotely the same extent that 2nd Ed. AD&D had been. (Whether it would have with time, or whether 3E/3.5E was somehow more resistant to 'languishing' due to game design, I have no idea.)

But represents a philosophical shift that runs deeper than a mere shift in the core mechanic.

I disagree here, Psion. I think the "philosophical shift" is community-based, not rules-/system-based. I believe that part of why 4E is as popular as it is (and it is popular among an economically-significant portion of roleplayers) is that it fits well with the type of games that many people have been playing over the past few years*. The philosophies that guided the design of 4E are visibly present in 3.5E, in hindsight.

*The extension of this is that a sizable portion of players were playing 3.5E as a "different" game than the group mentioned above was. Nobody was right or wrong, of course, but there were at least two major mindsets in the D&D community, which was exacerbated by the release of a new edition. I posit that these, the disparate philosophies of the community, is the underlying cause of the edition wars of late.

100% disagree with all of that.

Even the designers are on record as saying they basically rebuilt the whole 4E system from scratch.

I'm gonna have to ask you to supply a quote on this one. It sounds much to opportunistic, like the words of that other kid on the playground, who swears on his mother's grave that your favorite flavour of ice cream is made from poop and dead babies.

I'm honestly not even sure what you mean by, "they rebuilt the whole 4E system from scratch". Did you mean, "they rebuilt the whole D&D game-system from scratch for 4E"? Or perhaps you're redundantly suggesting that, "they redesigned the mechanics of 4E several times before settling on the current system," which is obviously true? It obviously can't be the former, given that the mechanics of 4E highly resemble those of 3.5E:

• A unified core mechanic: d20 + modifiers, higher being better.
• Races, Classes, and Levels determined by XP.
• Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, from 3 to 18, determined at character creation by point-buy or rolling, and with ability modifiers equal to "(Ability -10)/2".
• Fort, Reflex, and Will defenses. (Except that in 4E, the attacker rolls rather than the defender.)
• Feats and Skills.
• Daily powers (Vancian casting, per day attacks), Encounter powers (barbarian rage, examples from ToB), At-Will powers (Warlock attacks, Reserve feats).
• Combat Roles (Fighters as "Defenders/Tanks", Rogues as "Strikers/Skirmishers/Lurkers", Wizards as "Blasters/Controllers", Clerics as "Healers/Leaders")
• Numerous conceptual/superficial D&D elements, including those that have not yet been published, but have been announced:
  • Classes: Artificer, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard, and more.
  • Races: Drow, Dwarf, Eladrin (reconcepted), Elf, Genasi, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Elf, Halfling, Half-Orc, Human, Minotaur, Shifter, Tiefling (reconcepted), Warforged, and more.
  • Feats: Numerous examples, including Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, Power Attack, Toughness, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Weapon Focus
  • Skills: Basically the same between 3.5E and 4E, just reorganized.
  • Equipment: Numerous examples of mundane and magical equipment, including bastard swords, full plate armor, hand crossbows, shortbows and longbows, Sunswords, Flaming weapons, Cloaks of Resistance, and more.
  • Attacks, Powers, Rituals, and Spells: Numerous examples including Turn Undead, Lay on Hands, Fireball, Cleave, Eldritch Blast, Magic Missile, Invisibility, Fly, Raise Dead, Gentle Repose, Lightning Bolt, Meteor Swarm, Cure Serious Wounds, and more.
  • Class Features and Concepts: Numerous examples including dual-wielding, animal companions, spellbooks, divine characters with patron deities, weapon specialization/mastery, and sneak attack.
  • Monsters: Numerous examples including Aboleths, Beholders, Demons (Balors, Vrocks, Hezrous, and more), Devils (Imps, Pit Fiends, Gelugons, Succubi*, and more), Dire Animals, Dragons (Black, Blue, Copper, Gold, Green, Red, Silver, White, and more, in a variety of ages), Duergar, Drow, Elementals, Genies, Gnolls, Gnomes, Goblins (and Hobgoblins and Bugbears), Mind Flayers, Rakshasas, Rocs, Slaad, the Tarrasque, Undead (Ghosts, Ghouls, Mummies, Specters, Vampires, Wights, Zombies, and more), and many others.

In the face of these similarities, the differences between 3.5E and 4E are mere tweaks.

...Now, what were you saying about 4E being entirely different from the previous edition?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I disagree here, Psion. I think the "philosophical shift" is community-based, not rules-/system-based. I believe that part of why 4E is as popular as it is (and it is popular among an economically-significant portion of roleplayers) is that it fits well with the type of games that many people have been playing over the past few years*. The philosophies that guided the design of 4E are visibly present in 3.5E, in hindsight.

*The extension of this is that a sizable portion of players were playing 3.5E as a "different" game than the group mentioned above was. Nobody was right or wrong, of course, but there were at least two major mindsets in the D&D community, which was exacerbated by the release of a new edition. I posit that these, the disparate philosophies of the community, is the underlying cause of the edition wars of late.

This is a really insightful comment, especially thinking back to the state of 3E forums and the discussions there before 4E started creeping into things. I would actually go a bit farther and say that this wasn't a binary issue and there were more than two groups of "philosophies" on how to play D&D. One of the hallmarks of 3E was that it tried to do everything and to accomodate everybody. The issue I found was that a lot of things and philosophies aren't really compatable, and that 3E was often a game that was at war with itself. Many of the simulationist aspects of the game didn't really mesh well with classic beer and popcorn D&D. The difference in results between optimizing your character to 11 and not doing so often caused friction. You can go on and on.

4E chose to define D&D and pick a side, and then make the best game possible to cater to the core audience it defined. Other people like different things, and it was decided to let those players go and drift off to other games.

 

[Dire Bare]

Would you admit it if they didn't like your sainted game for a non-spurious, non-false reason, or is such a thing possible?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Sainted" game? Interesting choice of non-judgemental language there, heh.

I'm actually on the fence between 3e/Pathfinder and 4e. I've been playing 3e since its release in 2000 and have loved the game. I love the evolution that Paizo's Pathfinder is taking that game in. Most of my friends are still playing 3e.

However, there is a lot I like about 4e too. There are some elements of the system that I don't like or am not yet comfortable with, but overall I'm really digging the system.

I'll probably end up playing 3e/Pathfinder when one of my buddies is the GM, and we'll play 4e when I'm the GM. (Right now we are on gaming sabbatical due to busy lives)

There are plenty of folks on these boards who have decided they don't like 4e, and have excellent and well thought out reasons why. Psion's a great example. While I don't agree with the way he views the shift in focus from 3e to 4e, he isn't negative or attacking when expressing his views and he's got a legitmate dislike of some aspects of the system.

Heck, there are even plenty of folks who admittedly don't have a "rational" reason why they dislike 4e, they just prefer to stick with 3e (or sometimes an even earlier edition). And they do this without the need to attack, get grumpy, or get unnecessarily defensive. And that's cool.

It's the relatively few folks who have a "4e disliker" persecution complex and try to play the victim while actually being quite negative towards the 4e game and those of us who like it that get under my skin.

If you were to post, "I dislike 4e because, to me, it doesn't carry the same 'D&D feel' that 3e does for me." I'd be cool with that. I'd disagree, but I'd be okay with that simple disagreement.

If you were to post, "I dislike 4e because it's just like WoW, or it's too anime, or tieflings are emogoth, or 4e really isn't a roleplaying game, or any of the multitude of other lame, ignorant, emotional, and spurious arguments on why 4e isn't just for you but sucks eggs . . . well, then I get annoyed with that crap. Especially when I might respond that 4e isn't anime, its nothing like WoW, and of course its a roleplaying game . . . and you get defensive and cry about being "flamed" for not "simply" liking 4e . . . .

(and by "you" I don't mean any one specific poster, but the more general "you" referring to a small group of vocal posters . . . and "you" know who "you" are . . .)

 

[Irda Ranger]

Doctorhook, speaking of "irreconcilable differences", I'd like to quote you against .. yourself.

I believe that part of why 4E is as popular as it is (and it is popular among an economically-significant portion of roleplayers) is that it fits well with the type of games that many people have been playing over the past few years*. The philosophies that guided the design of 4E are visibly present in 3.5E, in hindsight.

*The extension of this is that a sizable portion of players were playing 3.5E as a "different" game than the group mentioned above was. Nobody was right or wrong, of course, but there were at least two major mindsets in the D&D community, which was exacerbated by the release of a new edition. I posit that these, the disparate philosophies of the community, is the underlying cause of the edition wars of late.

vs.

I disagree here, Psion. I think the "philosophical shift" is community-based, not rules-/system-based.

Your observation in the first quote is spot on. You're not the first one to notice this, but you're right, and I'm happy to give you full credit for figuring it out on your own.

But your absolute correctness in the first quote undercuts the second quote. It's both community-based and rule system-based. 3E tried to cater to both sides of the community, and 4E picked one. And they did it by changing the rules.

So one side of the community (which I'll call the "Wormwood-Snoweel Alliance") is happy as a pig in mud, because 4E is now exactly the game they were always trying to play. However another side of the community (which I'll call the "Irda-Midget Imperium") is like "Well crap, these rules are useless for playing the game we're interested in."

I'm gonna have to ask you to supply a quote on this one. It sounds much to opportunistic, like the words of that other kid on the playground, who swears on his mother's grave that your favorite flavour of ice cream is made from poop and dead babies.

I don't have the quotes you're looking for (there was more than one), but I remember them quite clearly. Maybe some ware in a podcast?

Anywho, it was Mearls who said (if you'll allow me to paraphrase from memory) that "We [meaning WotC] have made several design choices that the 3.x designers were certainly aware of but but passed the buck on because they didn't want to abandon the simulationist players. Well, we think by making these choices we can make a better, more focused game for the way most people play it." And he may have been right (sadly).

And the whole design team said on multiple occasions that "Nothing was off the table" as far as sacred cows were concerned.

...Now, what were you saying about 4E being entirely different from the previous edition?

In feel and effect, it is quite different.

 

[justanobody]

...and the 2e gamer, and the 1e gamer, and the 0e gamer...
<snip>
Lanefan

Exactly.

Curious question:

If someone says, "I don't like 4E because it is too much like WoW", is it a valid response to say "It plays nothing like WoW, what are you talking about" or is this seen as "attacking" the person.

I personally don't see it as an attakc on the person, but also do not see it as a valid response, because the first statement didn't claim it played like WoW, and the second doesn't address how 4E is not like WoW. They are too dissimilar.

A: Pizza is too much like a salad.
B: But you don't eat it with a fork.

There is too little context from A to have B disprove the statement, as A never mentions forks.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So one side of the community (which I'll call the "Wormwood-Snoweel Alliance") is happy as a pig in mud, because 4E is now exactly the game they were always trying to play. However another side of the community (which I'll call the "Irda-Midget Imperium") is like "Well crap, these rules are useless for playing the game we're interested in."

Whew!!!...................took a few minutes to recover from that one!!!

IRDA-MIDGET IMPERIUM

That just rocks. XP for you.

EDIT: Crap. It won't let me give you any xp right now. Somebody toss this guy some XP!!!!