Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[Cthulhudrew]

Oh I get nostalgaic too.

Likewise.

I was going to weigh in and echo Psion's recollections somewhat, but Eric's post got me to thinking that- yeah, this site (as well as the numerous other 3E tidbit sites I used to visit, that ultimately caved before the power of ENWorld ), probably were catering more to the pro- (or at least optimistic) 3E crowd.

I wasn't hanging about in D&D Usenet crowds much in those days (save for the Mystara Mailing List, which showed both sides, but the Mystara crowd has generally been pretty civil, save for discussions about Thyatis vs. Alphatia), so I can't really speak to what the attitude was like in those locations. The internet community really wasn't nearly as widespread at the time as it is now (in large part due to what Eric, and later Morrus and everyone else have created with ENWorld). So it is hard to judge.

My own recollection, bearing the above in mind, is that there was definitely anticipation and optimism, with a certain degree of skepticism (Attacks of Opportunity? What are those?), but I think due in large part to TSR going under, the community as a whole was glad to have something to hang on to, even if it was just new products they could alter to fit their previous edition games.

It also seemed to me that there was a lot more substantive information coming in various forms- both through the 3E articles in Dragon (which started, IIRC, about a year prior to its release) as well as through leaks from the playtests (which I'm surprised still haven't been coming out. I guess rumors that the NDA was being loosened were incorrect).

I have an unhealthy aversion to conflict so I'm probably not the best judge, but there are times when the constant air of conflict here bothers me to a great degree.

I feel the same way, and have avoided the RPG sections (4E and General forums) of the site for a while now as a result (pretty much just posting/reading the Media and Software forums). With Paizo's announcement, I've started to edge back into the RPG forums because I'm heartened by the alternative to 4E, but yeah- still bugs (and is far too easy to fall prey to perpetuating it, even in small degrees.)

 

[MichaelK]

Kamikaze Midget identifies the "RIGHT SOLUTION" (His caps) as making certain problematic combat/game events difficult to do, though still possible. It seems that one can almost always try to do something in 4E, defaulting to Ability Score vs. Applicable Defense. In the case of the "Human Shield" example, the person trying to use the human shield might have to do a Strength vs. Fortitude against the shield (assuming the shield is already grabbed) and a Strength/Dexterity vs. Reflex Defense (or perhaps attack roll) in order to interpose the shield.

Ability score vs. Defense is going to be more difficult to accomplish compared to standard attacks and powers.

Could be good depending on how they do it.

This is one of the first really positive things I've seen from 4e. Not enough to change my mind yet, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[CleverNickName]

Actually there's a big difference there lol - "OD&D" is the very 1st, digest-booklet rules put out in the early-mid 70's. "Basic D&D" and "Advanced D&D" were separate editions that were put out several years later. And when dealing with "Basic," you have the Holmes-edited original, the Moldvay/Cook-edited Basic/Expert sets, then the Red Box through Black Box Basic through Immortal Rules as edited by Mentzer from the early 80's.

The distinctions between those sets are more akin to the 3.0 versus 3.5 differences, of course.

And people argue, sometimes just as passionately, about those as well. Indeed, AD&D (1e) is a major edition change from OD&D, probably the 1st real "new edition" in the chain (you are right in as much as B/X sets were more the direct lineage from OD&D, at least as I understand it).

LOL well, that should tell you about how much I pay attention to all of the "editions" of the game. All things considered, it is a very silly thing to be arguing about.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I remember a bit of dissent but I didn't really go looking for it.

I *do* know that the two groups I had then both swore blind they were happy with vanilla 2ed (which was what we played at the time), but all of them switched to new 3ed campaigns within six months. Some of those guys now swear blind that they're happy with 3.5 and won't be switching to 4ed. Some kids just never learn.

I think there are two reasons for this.

First, while players may outnumber DM's, most people will play what their DM chooses to run, especially if they like playing within their group. If the DM likes 4th Edition, and wants to run it, nothing short of an outright player revolt or someone else stepping up to DM will stop it from happening.

Second, despite what people post on forums, most people probably do not hate the idea of 4th edition enough that they would not at least play in a one shot. And if the game mechanics do not outright suck, they are probably going to be willing to play that system again. I myself like D&D, and have no intention of running a game in a different system. But I have played Paranoia, Shadowrun, Harn, Call of Cthulhu, and Mage. The only one of those I have actually run though, was Call of Cthulhu (and that using the d20 variant).

I like the general direction they are trying to go in 4th Edition, with all classes equally viable at every level, and per encounter based powers. I am skeptical about some of the changes, such as non euclidian diagonals (which I intend to ignore). In any event, my plan is to buy the PHB, DMG, and MM for 4th edition, run a 1 shot, and see what happens. If I like the rules, I may end my campaign a bit earlier than I had intended, and reset with new character. But I do not expect to migrate my game over whole sale.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Psion]

Maybe so. I can't speak on behalf of the whole community, but I *can* speak on the behalf of my local D&D community. I remember the whole lot of us (local DMs, five in all) being very tired with the limitations and constant houseruling back in AD&D, so the news and previews of 3E got us very excited. When the rules came out, we all embraced them with enthusiasm.

Yeah. Around here, in the late days of 2e, there was venom thrown about over AD&D2. The local mailing list was full of it, and it was very hard to find people to play AD&D.

The same exact list has seen 2 solicitations for games in the last week. Some folks seem happy to move on; plenty seem happy to stay. It's a different situation locally.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Oh, wise and mighty EN World community. Your ways are just, and your words are as a sweet ambrosia of truth. I submit to thee a query:

When 3rd Edition came out, I heard a lot of the same complaints from the people I gamed with as I do now with 4th Edition:
"They're dumbing the game down and taking away all the intricacies that I enjoyed."
"It isn't the same game as the one that I love playing."
"The new rules don't support the style of play that I like."
"There's nothing in here except fighting, fighting, fighting."
"This is soulless corporate gimmickery."
"It just doesn't feel like D&D."

They said that they would never switch and that they would only buy the core books in order to understand the rules for the purposes of converting later material. But they had switched over within months, at most.

Maybe because this isn't the edition that I learned D&D on, I don't have such sentimental attachment to 3rd Edition. It's just the usurper being usurped by yet another newcomer.

So, do you think that this furor over 4th Edition is going to turn out to be much the same sort of panic at change and then coming to like the new edition?
If you are proudly anti-4E, what can you tell me to convince me that this time you really mean it?

Hmph, I was known as a severe critic of 3E, and I didn't say any of that. I said a lot of the new ideas were stupid, and wouldn't work out well (and in some cases I believe I was correct), but I certainly didn't say "They're removing the intricacies!" for example.

The idea that anyone said 3E was all "Fighting, fighting, fighting", too, seems to be pure fantasy. I don't remember anyone saying that, and I was definately "here at the time". Indeed, the opposite criticism was levelled, if anything, with 3E.

That the fights were going to be overly long and complicated? That was a criticism of 3E. It was spot-on, too. That spells were being made more boring, that was a criticism of 3E which is also true of 4E, but only partially, as some others are being made more exciting.

So I have to say, I just don't believe you when you claim you "heard the same complaints" about 3E. That's either you exaggerating to the point of complete silliness, or you misremembering, I'm afraid. I was here, I was a heavy poster, and none of these were major complaints about 3E, apart from soul-less corporate gimmickry, but that's a complaint about everything ever. The "fighting, fighting, fighting" comment rings especially false. I don't remember any of the big 3E critics going on about that.

Do I believe most people will switch? Well, I believe most people will buy the books. I do think that Paizo's strategic move, though, will present some people with far more of an option than they felt they had before 3E. Before 3E, you could stick with TSR's rules and be forgotten, or go to 3E. With 4E, you go to WotC's new rules, or via Paizo, you can pretty much stick with the old rules, and still have support and regular adventures and add-ons and so on. That's a big difference, imho.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

So, do you think that this furor over 4th Edition is going to turn out to be much the same sort of panic at change and then coming to like the new edition?

Yes.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

So I have to say, I just don't believe you when you claim you "heard the same complaints" about 3E. That's either you exaggerating to the point of complete silliness, or you misremembering, I'm afraid. I was here, I was a heavy poster, and none of these were major complaints about 3E, apart from soul-less corporate gimmickry, but that's a complaint about everything ever. The "fighting, fighting, fighting" comment rings especially false. I don't remember any of the big 3E critics going on about that.

That's funny. . . I remember pretty much all those comments the OP mentions being trumpeted about. . .

. . . along with "Hardly anybody is going to switch to 3E. They've changed too much and its going to fall flat on its face and WotC will have to go back to supporting REAL D&D again. Just wait and see!"

Unfortunately, there aren't any forums around with 8 year thread retention, and while I'd like to throw those comments back in people's faces, I don't care enough to back them up on a hard drive. . . transfer them from computer to computer for the next few years, and re-post them down the road. . . only to have people claim I made it up anyway --> because you know they would when blatantly confronted by their own stupidity. There's nothing else they could really say.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Huh?

Nothing in the rules requires you to use the dryads as written in the MM. Write up your own dryads. Nothing stops you from saying chromatic dragons are evil. Just, you know, say they're evil. Nothing stops you from enforcing lawful goodness from paladin players either. Saying, "You must play a paladin as lawful good," does not affect the mechanics of the system in any way, shape, form or otherwise. No rule says you can't have gnomes as a player race, and in fact it has been stated that there will be assistance to do so provided in the MM. Bards are coming out in PHB2 and there will be, no doubt, a plethora of player created bards once the game comes out if you can't be bothered making your own. And there is no rule that requires the use of the planes as written in the flavour text (that we know of, admittedly).

The only thing that ever stops the DM from doing what the DM pleases is the players at the table. In theory, the DM could house rule everything until your essentially playing GURPS instead of D&D. However, some things are easier to modify in practice than others.

If I want to have a size Huge White Dragon that has the same stats and attacks as a Colossal Red Dragon except swapping Fire for Ice, I can do that. I could have Save or Die Rattlesnakes roaming about. And I could have an NPC Fighter that has 1 feat every level instead of only on even levels. But the players probably wont stand for it unless there is some precedent for such a massive alteration in my game. If I pull this sort of thing on them without warning, I could suffer a player revolt.

Most players wont complain to much if you disallow something in a non core book. (And despite what Wizards may want to say, only the original MM, DMG, and PHB are ever considered core). If they want to use Complete Scoundral, and you say no, most will accept it. But if you try to remove the Barbarian, Spiked Chain, or Gnomes, you run the risk of having long and potentially heated discussions with one of your players about your reasoning. In short, the DM has to justify to the player why he cannot play a Spiked Chain Wielding Gnome Barbarian.

Another good example of how much the core rules of the game actually matter is 3.0 Haste. That spell was broken, and pretty much everyone who took the time to consider it knew it was broken. But if you tried to introduce 3.5 Haste as a house rule, you would probably have to argue with a player over it if that player used 3.0 Haste often. But as soon as the rule is put in print in a revised handbook, much of the complaining stopped.

It often turns out that the only thing that will get a player to stop saying "This is not fair" is if you can say "It is in the rules".

END COMMUNICATION

 

[seskis281]

Most players wont complain to much if you disallow something in a non core book. (And despite what Wizards may want to say, only the original MM, DMG, and PHB are ever considered core). If they want to use Complete Scoundral, and you say no, most will accept it. But if you try to remove the Barbarian, Spiked Chain, or Gnomes, you run the risk of having long and potentially heated discussions with one of your players about your reasoning. In short, the DM has to justify to the player why he cannot play a Spiked Chain Wielding Gnome Barbarian.

Of course, the info we're getting indicates that Hasbro/WotC is reacting to this with very clever marketing -- they're going to wait and NOT include some of these things (Gnomes anyone?) and only add them in yearly NEW core books (IIs, IIIs, IVs of PHB, MM & DMG).

As I have read this thread I've pulled out all the rule books I have on my shelf (not counting Lejendary Adventure as its a completely separate system - i.e. classless).

I have before me:

Moldvay/Cook edition of Basic/Expert D&D, circa 1981.

Gygax AD&D PHB (1e), circa 1978

2nd Edition PHB, David "Zeb" Cook, circa 1989

Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, 3rd Edition D&D, circa 2000.

Castles & Crusades, Chenault/Golden, Circa 2004-2007. (Yes, I consider this a "version" of the D&D game - it is specifically intended as a hybrid between differing editions - 1e'isms meshed with 3e d20 mechanics).


I mention all this because the above post makes an intersting point - I can pull out virtually all of these and run a game in which I say "remember, I as the DM am the final arbiter of rules..." The original 3.0 works fine... now, because it is also considered "archaic," and when I say "nope - you can only really flank if you're in a more open space and the critter is focused on something in front of him" they go "ok."

The problem I have with the massive supplementary nature of 3.5 is likely to be repeated within a few short years with 4e.... continued, unending expansion of books that give the players "rules" amo to challenge DM fiat. In some regards, it seems that 4e is a strong step towards "DM-less" D&D, at least in the traditional sense. There are many who would strongly like this concept - the idea of a system so self-contained and clear that a "rules interpreter and rules master" becomes obsolete. That concept is alien to me when I think of "D&D," but again that returns us to what "D&D" really "is." If the answer is merely: Fantasy/Medieval setting with basic Classes that progress in levels to explore and combat in Dungeon/City/Wilderness encounter areas, then yes.... 4e is as much "D&D" as is Gygaxian 1e.

Ultimately, whenever anyone says "the feel" of D&D, they or I are only referring to our own SPECIFIC game experiences.... and I'm willing to bet almost all of us equate different things as being important.

I'll shift metaphors here (no more food or cars!):

I went to see some excellent Jazz performed at my university's theatre....

It was excellent. But....

My early love of Jazz included the smokey bar and glass of strong alchohol that accompanied the experience of hearing that music.

So the experience of the recent jazz concert, despite being wonderful musically, just didn't "feel" like Jazz to me.