Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[JeffB]

In my experience, no rpg supports the game I want to run. So I just choose something that is close, make a few houserules if needed, and run it in whatever setting I've envisioned.

Simply stated, but very important, and over the past oh..6 or 7 years something I've come to accept (begrudgingly).

NO matter what game I've played or run: Brown Books, Moldvay/Cook D&D, 1E, 2E,3.X, C&C, original Traveller, MSPE, T&T, RQ2, RQ3, Stormbringer1E, CoC1,2,5.x, Earthdawn, Lejendary Adventure, Champions 1/2, Espionage, Justice Inc, Top Secret, DragonQuest2E, Rolemaster 1/2,Gamma World 1E, Star Frontiers, and god knows what else I've played/run over the years, I've made some kind of adjustments to them all to suit my personal needs/wants.

They all require some amount of extra work. Some ALOT more than others.

 

[Menexenus]

To OP: You ask a fair question and deserve an honest answer. Here's mine. I was first introduced to D&D back in 1982 with the pink basic set, but I didn't really get into D&D seriously until college, right after 2nd edition was released. So I enjoyed 2nd edition for a good long time - almost for its entire run. However, by the time 3rd edition was announced, 2nd edition had grown stale for me. I just wasn't having as much fun with it as I had in the beginning. So, for me, the advent of 3rd edition was quite welcome. I was very excited about the prospect, actively reading up on all the details I could find. And once I saw the finished product, I was almost instantly won over. My old 2nd edition DM tried to continue his game, but the rest of the group and I just couldn't stand playing 2nd edition any more once we knew what we could be playing. I even remember the exact moment when I realized that I couldn't stand playing 2nd edition any more. I was playing a 12th level cleric and cast a 4th level healing spell on a comrade. I healed a total of 8 points of damage. That was the straw that broke the camel's back - so to speak. I just couldn't keep having fun playing a 2nd edition cleric knowing how many more options I would have if I were playing a 3rd edition cleric.

So what's different this time? Why am I so anti-4th edition? There are two main reasons.

A) 3rd edition just doesn't seem stale or 'played out' to me in the same way that 2nd edition did when a new edition was announced before. I'm still having fun with 3rd edition and expect to continue doing so for a long time to come. I might be ready to try 4th edition when 4.5 is released (i.e. in about 3 years). But for now, I have no plans to switch to 4th edition, to buy the core books, or even to spend precious time reading them.

B) I'm bitter about the fact that WotC didn't give 3rd edition a full 10 year run. I think that cutting 3rd edition off after only 8 years was a decision based on short-term corporate greed rather than what is best for the game in the long-run. I refuse to reward that kind of behavior and have consequently chosen to stop 'feeding the machine'.

I hope this helps you understand the difference in my own mind between the last edition change and this one. I'm not telling anyone else that they should share my opinion. But I wanted to at least explain my opinion to those (like the OP) who asked.

 

[Fobok]

Psion- the reason you are having trouble explaining this to people is:

Many of us do not and have not ever played in the D&D default setting. Because the D&D default setting did not appeal to us, we played in homebrews that contained significant changes to the baseline assumptions about, amongst other things, D&D monsters and classes. Apparently the default D&D setting did appeal to you, but now it does not. I can see how that might feel like a loss. However, from our perspective it just puts you in the same position we've been in for years.

This actually helps me understand where Psion's coming from, actually. Because this is exactly it, in my experience I've never used the default setting. Never used the default cosmology except back in late 2e when I was a Planescape nut. Never used the default gods, the default races, the default art, the default nations, etc.

*Edit to add: I *have* played published-setting-specific games, but always ones that were heavily fleshed out, like Forgotten Realms. Even then, I often changed things here and there.

 

[lvl20dm]

Many of these arguments are the same as far as I can tell. I remember being really excited about 3e and scouring the internet trying to find info. That's how I found Enworld, in fact! But once you hopped onto other forums you saw lots of hate for 3e - it was surprising, because I liked what I was seeing for 3e and everyone I knew who played D&D was excited for the edition change.

As a side note, I think Dryads are still beautiful forest spirits - but they are also tree monsters. I know I read that somewhere.... Here it is from the "Strife, Separation, and Rebirth" article on WotC's site:

"As he walked, the corridors seemed to twist in on themselves, and soon the gleaming crystal walls melted into thickets of briars. He wandered through what had become a labyrinth until dawn began to brighten the sky. Then the two women who had brought him to the lord's audience hall stepped out of the thickets. Their lovely faces and forms vanished in a flash, revealing monstrous creatures of wood and vine, swinging arms like mighty cudgels at him." [emphasis mine]

I take that to mean that Dryads turn into monsters when they want to fight and look like sexy tree nymphs the rest of the time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

3rd Ed was more like a mathematical exercise, great in theory (and on paper), but poor in practice/execution, IMO.

This.

Although there are things which don´t work so well (AC/Saves at higher levels etc...)
And there were certain things which worked great in practise, generally you didn´t use a lot of options, because you had to look everything up - and worse, I often felt oblieged to look anything up, of fear the rules don´t support my ad hoc solution (because the rules are so powerful in 3.5).

4e seems a more physical approach: you know where you want to get, and you use your tools to get there and neglect anything that interferes.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Here is my perspective.

When 3rd edition came out I hadn't played D&D for years. Every time I had for the last five years or so, I had had an extensive list of house rules in order to make the mechanics work. I experimented with playing D&D again a little bit after 3rd edition came out and my immediate experience was "Wow, these are like my house rules but better."

4th edition is coming out now and 3.x is in an entirely different state. I still enjoy playing 3.5 with minimal houseruling. (In fact, I enjoy it with no houseruling).

When I look at 4th edition, I see a lot of changes that I dislike as well as a few that I like.

So that's the difference in my perspective. And it's why I don't anticipate playing 4th edition extensively and strongly suspect that after the initial charm wears off (not too long after first playing the released version of 4th edition), all of the people gushing about 4th edition like a middle school girl about her first boyfriend are going to be disillusioned and looking for other options.

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?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Nah, this isn't what I went through with 3e.

With 3e, I was gung ho. I liked everything they were changing. I thought they kept a bit too much, but everything they changed, I liked. It seemed like they were making the game that was 1e and 2e the way that 1e and 2e were supposed to work, but never really did. Everything they were doing was fixing what was broken, and leaving the rest untouched. They re-built the skeleton, draped the skin over it again, stitched it up, and said "There! Good as new!"

4e seems to be building an entirely new creature. I'm not a fan of purely results-oriented design like they have going on. I'd like for the results to flow naturally from the mechanics and the assumptions of the game, not be forced on it from outside.

For instance, IMO:

PROBLEM: It's annoying if someone uses a human shield every round.
RIGHT SOLUTION: Make it difficult or un-ideal to use a human shield except in very specific circumstances, and even focused characters can't do it all the time. This will mean that people won't use it that often.
WRONG SOLUTION: Say only Bugbear Stranglers can use a human shield.

So, in a word, no, this seems at least slightly different from the complaints we heard with 3e, or, if they are the same complaints, that they are more founded this time around than they were 8 years ago.

 

[Hussar]

So, in a word, no, this seems at least slightly different from the complaints we heard with 3e, or, if they are the same complaints, that they are more founded this time around than they were 8 years ago.

Again, I really wish I could show those threads from PlanetAD&D. "More founded"? Really? The same old video game crap that's been around for almost a decade? The same old "It's not D&D" diatribe we've been hearing for years? Gimme a break.

You state Right solution and wrong solution based SOLELY on your personal preference, which you flat out state above, and then try to claim that the complaints are "more founded" this time around?

No, it's the complaints happen to fit more with your personal tastes is more like it. It's it a Robin Laws quote that conflating personal taste with objective quality is a constant failing? Something like that.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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 it's much the same sort of panic - however, it seems apparant that this time they have actually fractured off a notable percentage of the fanbase as well as publishers. Paizo isn't the only publisher who has chosen to continue to support 3E. They wouldn't make that decision if they didn't have good evidence that there is a significant amount of fans that despite the same lame, tedious rhetoric WILL NOT SWITCH. That is the biggest difference. For 3rd Edition it was just talk, but for this new edition they just did not want it in the first place, don't like the direction it took, and most importantly - they have an older edition of the game that will be ACTIVELY supported (albeit, not by WotC).

 

[Hussar]

It's late and I'm off to bed.

I have zero problem with people making specific complaints about a system. That's never, ever been an issue. Take the 1-2-1 issue. There is a very real issue there - the change really does introduce a greater degree of inaccuracy to the battle map. You can't really argue that because it's true. 1-2-1 is mathematically more correct that 1-1-1. Fine. Now, the arguement comes down to whether or not you can accept the greater level of inaccuracy. That's a personal opinion and no one is really wrong.

But, to stand up and say, "My person preference is X, 4e doesn't support X, therefore 4e is a bad system" is ludicrous. And, unfortunately, it's something we've seen for years. Each and ever edition war is identical in this. Someone says something about an edition and how another edition does/did it better. Then the fight is on.

This is no different. It's edition war with a fake mustache and funny glasses. People keep demanding that their personal playstyles somehow should automatically be catered to without giving the slightest thought to the idea that maybe, just maybe, they are out of step with how most people play.

Take the issue of simulationism vs gamism. That's been bandied about on the boards quite a lot for a while. Yet, in all of that, not once have I seen someone step back and say why gamism gets the nod. The answer's not complicated.

Gamism is less work.

Take a group of six. Two are strongly simulationist, two are on the fence and two are strongly gamist. Now, in any given situation, the sim players want detailed mechanics that will allow the reality of that situation to be played out. The gamists will want mechanics that work and that's about it. The fence sitters don't really care.

Let's take a specific example - naval combat. Two ships, the PC's ship and a pirate ship are at sea and have spotted each other. The sim players will want a system that accounts for all the major variables - wind speed, ship type, weapon types, crew, weather, etc. The gamist players just want to get to the resolution. So, it's up to the fence sitters to pick the system to use.

So, the fence sitters have the choice, spend several hours going through a detailed simulation of a ship battle, or spend fifteen minutes doing a gamist resolution. It's not exactly rocket science to figure out which one they're going to pick. They're going to go for the soft option because it's less work for the same amount of fun.

That's why the rules have shifted to a gamist approach. It's not because they want to cater to the gamist players. It's because the designers realize that it's easier to cater to the fence sitters by not forcing them to do all that extra work.

In KM's strangler example, the fence sitters wouldn't bother trying to use a human shield in either set up. It's too much work to try to go through all the different feats and character options to make a character that can actually use human shields. In the second case, they don't have that option at all.

But, at the end of the day, they don't care. They weren't going to choose it anyway. So, the gamist is happy because he has mechanics that work. The fence sitter is happier because he's not being forced to do extra work. As for the sim players, well, pleasing 2/3rds of your crowd is just good design.

That means that the sim player may be unhappy, but, it doesn't mean that the mechanics are bad.