Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[Henry]

Not sure what my handle was then. . . Soulcatcher? Soulmage?

That's you? I remember you from back then! I remember Ruin Explorer, too, back in the days when arguing quasi-political stuff wasn't off-limits...

While ENWorld didn't have as many of those arguments, there was a lot of arguments on both RGFD and on Wizards' newsgroups, back when they had news groups. (Can't find those archived anywhere, unfortunately.) But Synaptic Dragon was a name that flies back to me as one who strongly resisted the change to 2e, for many of the design elements that changed. Even I was very skeptical of hit point totals that hit triple digits, and remember making a "video game" comment on that on WotC's newsgroups. (Having hit dice ALL TWENTY LEVELS!?!?! THAT'S ABSURD!!!)

 

[seskis281]

I have yet to see any sort of D&D expansion for any edition which adds rules that would interfere with DM Fiat. We may however, be using slightly different definitions. I do not think that new classes, races, feats or spells interfere with DM Fiat.

Actually I don't think we're that far off... I agree completely that, as a DM, if I ever say "just because I said so" to a player and claimed DM Fiat it'd be a real bad thing.... continual arbitrary reversal of rules will lead to players having a real bad experience. This, however, was what I was extrapolating with my reference to more complex rule sets - quite simply, the more rules you have (written down on the published page), the less areas are left to the DM to officiate.

If Forgery as a skill did not exist in D&D, then how often would someone try to write up fake documents in an attempt to trick the guards into letting them in? And how often would such a plan have any sort of success under a DM that was caught totally unprepared for it?

This is a great example because this very situation came up just two sessions ago. I had a wizard who wanted to forge the will and legal documents of an apothecary (corrupt) who met his demise at the hands of the party. Now, I play C&C. It doesn't have "Forgery" or skills. My preference is for this type of open system, because I can adjust the rules or the needed check against the circumstances of that particular moment... I asked him how long he was planning to sit and study the handwriting, I then asked him to roll a d20 check (as per the seige mechanic) against his Intelligence and Dex modifiers (he had a +2 Int and no bonus or penalty on Dex). C&C uses a system of primes, of which Int was one of his, and you decide quickly if the skill is something this character would grow in ability with levels. As a wizard, I make the DM Fiat call that "writing" skills (including "forgery") would be something a wizard would advance and get better in. So I set a challenge rating according to my rules:

CR 3 + 12 (its 12 if prime stat involved, 16 if non prime - this was prime). 15 needed to succeed.

He rolled: 9 ... added +2 (Intelligence) and +5 (levels) = 16. He did it. (Had about a 60% chance), so I describe "It takes you a little longer than you anticipated, and at one moment the beads of sweat from your brow almost fall to smudge your careful work, but in the end you produce the documents that will pass most inspections, except by experts."

All of that, by the way, took only about 30 seconds in game time.

Ok, so I know that the counter-argument is that "hey, that's just because you're comfortable house-ruling on the fly... I'm not." - This could lead us back into a whole other thread/argument and I seriously don't want to go there or flame on as far as system/editions go....

I fully appreciate and recognize all those who want a system to be as "complete" "out of the box" as far as rules go.... I just warn that people should be wary that you really will never get there...

For those anticipating 4e I sincerely hope it lives up to the expectations being set.... but be careful when you use terms like "fixing the problems of...." because one person's "problems" are usually another's selling points..... (i.e. unbalanced XP progressions - this is one of the things I LIKED about 1e and not 3.x; ascending AC I LOVE about d20, didn't like in earlier editions - boy, I've been caught between schools on these personal preferences!)


Thanks, BTW, on the sig quote comment -- and hopefully we can keep having good, hard-nosed opinions and discussion about our differences without letting it get too personal.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

That's you? I remember you from back then! I remember Ruin Explorer, too, back in the days when arguing quasi-political stuff wasn't off-limits...

While ENWorld didn't have as many of those arguments, there was a lot of arguments on both RGFD and on Wizards' newsgroups, back when they had news groups. (Can't find those archived anywhere, unfortunately.) But Synaptic Dragon was a name that flies back to me as one who strongly resisted the change to 2e, for many of the design elements that changed. Even I was very skeptical of hit point totals that hit triple digits, and remember making a "video game" comment on that on WotC's newsgroups. (Having hit dice ALL TWENTY LEVELS!?!?! THAT'S ABSURD!!!)

LOL!!! I don't generally remember handles that well. . . but I do remember Synaptic Dragon now that you mention him! The good old Wild West days of the D&D web presence.

 

[pawsplay]

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?

No. There will be some of that, obviously. But AD&D was a dying game, and a lot of people were excited about 3e. 3e brought me back to the D&D, for instance. Because 3e is a pretty solid game (and AD&D was a big ol' mess) I think there expectations are higher this time around. If 4e is not what people want, they have a pretty legitamate reason to be sad, because it means the end of support for a game they enjoy. If 4e wasn't coming out this year, plenty of people would still be playing 3e happily next year.

If you are proudly anti-4E, what can you tell me to convince me that this time you really mean it?

I'm not proudly anti-4e, I am sadly anti-4e. It is very easy to promise not to switch to a game that makes me very sad every time I think too much about it.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

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?

In my opinion, opposition to 3e was a little more ferocious back in 2000 than opposition to 4e today. On this board, anyway. That's how I remember it.

And yes, I believe it will die down swiftly. I expect that this Paizo / Pathfinder deal will fail miserably in the long term (Meaning that by 2010 that line of product is dead, mark my words).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't happen to remember your name from the 1999 era either. Either you weren't here, or just weren't very memorable.

This is probably my fourth or fifth account on here. (Keep having various issues over the years that just make it easier to create a new account.) I joined Eric Noah's forums prior to the release of 3E. Not sure what my handle was then. . . Soulcatcher? Soulmage? I'm on dozens of forums all over the net, it gets difficult to keep track after a while.

If you don't remember me, you either joined just before 3E came out, or weren't around much. I'm not boasting but there were times when I had posts in every thread on the page. Oh well

I remember a Soulmage or Soulcatcher, who I think I was usually on the same side of on most discussions. Interesting.

So in short. . . the OP was right on target when he discusses the kind of complaints people have. Those of us who have been around a while just kinda roll our eyes at those comments as coming from a bunch of chicken littles.

This just seems rude and inflammatory, and I know inflammatory. People who don't like 4E are a "bunch of chicken littles."? Hardly. Most of the concerns and dislikes about 4E seem a lot better formed than those about 3E (primarily because we're all 8 years older, I'd imagine).

He wasn't "on-target" about ENWorld, as you seem to admit yourself. I'm sure other places had those arguments, but this place didn't see much of them. Plus, I've "been around a while" and I don't find all of those comments to be "eye-roll inducing", so saying that experience automatically equals some sort smug superiority to the "chicken littles" seems a bit off.

Henry - Yeah, I remember I posted at ENWorld for a couple of reasons. First of my registration to the Wizards stuff wouldn't go through, and when it finally did, I found the level of discussion to be, er, less than stellar. ENWorld was a lot more interesting and erudite, frankly, and I find the suggestion that, y'know, just about half the people who post here are "chicken littles" (which is what the OP and Soulmage seem be suggestng) to be somewhat offensive.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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..." <SNIP>

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.

Hmm... weird. I agree totally with you that 3.5 went WAY to far in the rules department, effectively castrating the DM.

However, as far as I can see 4E is doing a good job of bringing DM power BACK, not getting rid of the DM. I seem to recall Mike Mearls mentioning this as one of the goals of 4E design.

Maybe it's the fact that I don't HAVE all the rules, but the games I've run of 4E sure felt like the good old days of DMing to me.

Fitz

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If 4e wasn't coming out this year, plenty of people would still be playing 3e happily next year.

And plenty of people would NOT be playind D&D at all, who WILL be now that 4E will be out.

Technically I don't see why those people can still happily play 3E if that is what they want.

Fitz

 

[FourthBear]

In my opinion, opposition to 3e was a little more ferocious back in 2000 than opposition to 4e today. On this board, anyway. That's how I remember it.

I was reading ENWorld from the early days (mostly for the news leaks on 3e), but I rarely posted and have only recently created a new login after the 4e announcement. I did read the forum pretty often. I will say that ENWorld was overall one of the most positive areas of the net for 3e, but I also recall a *lot* of fighting and negativity on the release of almost every bit of data. On rec.games.frp.dnd? Forget about it! The primary difference, as I recall, was that ENWorld was one of the few places I found that had a core of steady 3e hopefuls. I'd have to say that overall I agree with Mal that opposition to 3e in those days seemed a lot more fierce, even on ENWorld. Even though there are some posters who disagree and are disappointed with what we've seen of 4e so far, I don't think we've got nearly as many "true haters" as back then. I think I even remember regular threads on worries about 3e being too encouraging to evil, since they brought back demons, devils and half-orcs. Ah, those were the days.

 

[seskis281]

Hmm... weird. I agree totally with you that 3.5 went WAY to far in the rules department, effectively castrating the DM.

However, as far as I can see 4E is doing a good job of bringing DM power BACK, not getting rid of the DM. I seem to recall Mike Mearls mentioning this as one of the goals of 4E design.

Maybe it's the fact that I don't HAVE all the rules, but the games I've run of 4E sure felt like the good old days of DMing to me.

Fitz

If my fears about that are wrong, I'll be the 1st to say I'm glad to see that I am.

There are still other issues I have with the core paradigm of 4e, but I certainly don't intend to disparage it incorrectly about the DM's place in the system. I still would worry, however, that the same issues that led 3.0 to quickly go to 3.5 will come into play again....

When you say "I don't have ALL the rules," the question that begs is... will we ever have "ALL" the rules? Unless I really heard wrong, it's the stated gameplan of 4e to continue to release a new set of core books each year, aside from all supplementary releases. To me, that means in 2-3 years it will once again drift towards rules-bloat.

Again, just my own opinion - but the "business" model being followed here seems to almost require whatever 4e starts as to continually expand and change in the coming years in order to keep selling the product.