Is this what you went through with 3rd Edition?

[SilverAgent]

I can't really comment on forums, as honestly I tend to be fairly hit and miss with forums -- monitor them closely for a bit, disappear, and return a year later.

I can say, however, that on Usenet, back in the day, when 3E was announced? There was a -lot- of gnashing of teeth and wailing, and people insisting that they were never going to change, as well as 1E fans telling the 2E fans 'now you know how we feel!' and so on.

Like everyone else's opinion, this is entirely anecdotal, but I /do/ remember /lots/ of complaints when 3E came out.

I'm not going to get into the insults flying back and forth. Just my 2c.

-Silver Agent

 

[Wormwood]

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

*raises hand*

My 3.5 days are over---there are simply too many other games out there that are simply more fun.

4e made me interested in D&D again.

 

[The Little Raven]

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).

Actually, many of them are exactly the same. We get the same complaints about "too much healing" and "unkillable PCs," how the game will "kill roleplaying" or "remove the DM from the equation." The game is "becoming a war/board/card/video game." The game will become "collectible." Then we get tons of situations that are framed by a distinct lack of common sense on the part of the hypothetical DM and players in them as "proof" that there is something wrong with the game.

The only thing that has really changed about the complaints is the edition's number.

 

[seskis281]

Every edition moves us closer to a better game

This is really the only thing I truly disagree with (with all due respect to the fine people at Necromancer games)....

Better for some, yes. Better for others, no.

The only reality is that it is different, and be self-admission seeks to change the paradigm again. There IS a distinct difference between certain editions, and less between others, which heats the debate on what "is" D&D, since each edition still bears the name.

OD&D --> B/X and AD&D = no paradigm shift; this already occurred when OD&D was developed as distinct from Chainmail (the "role-playing" aspect became central paradigm).

AD&D 1e --> 2e = a major shift, but not a completely new paradigm; the major issues were with the restrictions and limitations the company of TSR at the time chose to throw over the game.

2e -- > 3e = Major paradigm shift, primarily in the concept of "equalization" of classes - major detractors emerge when it becomes clear that the goal of equalized progression isn't quite there.

3e -- > 3.5 = Actually a fairly major shift given the concept of ".5" - really adapted the idea of "a rule for every situation."

3.5 --> 4e = Major paradigm shift - seeks to retain the power concepts of abilities beginning at low levels, quick progressions (equalized), yet also seeks to return to a gamist philosophy of quicker action.

So, is each one "better" than the earlier? No, just different. When you start to use words like "better," and, as I've said a lot lately, "fixes the problems," you open a whole can of worms because, essentially, the assumption gets made that everyone sees the same things as problems, or wants the same experience in RPGing.

So just remember - "better" is just a frame of mind, an opinion like anything I or anyone else posts here.

My 2 cents.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

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.)

Take a look here. Those go back to September of '99.

I think the list archives pre-Oracle went the way of the dodo, though. I've been trying to find the pre-September '99 Mystara archives for a while.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

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.

One of the big differences between then and now that I recall is that, prior to the release of 3E we had actual playtesters who would weigh in on things and give some reassurances or at least their take on how things worked. Not as much now, certainly not in any concrete way. It's more of a "When you see the whole thing, it will be good. Trust me."

 

[drjones]

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.

Sure I'm saying the same things I used to say, the difference is this time I'm right.

 

[MacMathan]

Oh I get nostalgaic too.

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. We are adults who should be able to interact with each other in a civil and friendly manner. But I'm seeing this conflict bring out ugly, snarky sides of posters I thought I knew and who are surprising me with their persistent rudeness. I know the conflict is unavoidable, but still...

So...uh Mr. Noah how about ....starting a 4 e site?...*ducks*

 

[Hussar]

It's hard to argue something so vague and subjective, usually, so those complaints rarely stick.

But take a look at the "like a card game" observations this time around, and I think you can see something that is drawing a truth, here. The nature of powers is that your character will build a "deck" of powers, play some every turn, play some once per battle, and play others once per day. The request for "power cards" is already out there, and I bet that it's going to be one of the first non-rulebook supplements that we see for 4e.

In 3e, there was little to pin this on, no more than there really was in earlier editions. In 4e, this appears to be a little more accurate.

Are you kidding?

Fiery Dragon's Battlebox. Spell cards. TOGC's got a ton of cards. Cards for conditions. Good grief, 3e had bazillions of cards.

What you are claiming as "building a deck" is EXACTLY what every spell caster has done for 30 years. But, suddenly now it's card gaming? That's what I'm getting at. The criticisms are not any more valid now. If the criticism can be applied to every other edition, then how is it a criticism of 4e?

/snip
The "more founded" was more for examples like "like a card game." Even, to an extent, "like a video game" is more founded this time around. Again, not necessarily a negative thing, but more true now than it was 8 years ago.

It's two separate points. One of which is that 4e makes some descisions that are wrong for me. The other is that certain arguments against 3e make a bit more sense when levied against 4e.

Video gamey is such an incredibly vague, obscure term that it can be applied to just about any edition or any concept. It makes no more sense now than it did before.

Or, can you explain how 4e is somehow closer to Mario Kart?

Actually, that would be true if I was saying 4e is somehow an objectively bad edition.

I'm not.

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.

How is that not saying that 4e is an objectively bad edition? You are flat out stating that this is the WRONG SOLUTION.

I'm just saying some of the criticisms from 8 years ago have a bit more truth to them this time around, because the game is moving (and choosing to move) in a direction that is similar to the philosophies behind these other games.

In my mind, this is some of the good stuff.

And that's really separate from my position that some of the moves 4e is making are wrong for me.

Game theory and gaming philosophy is not created in a vacuum. They continuously feed back and forth. This is precisely what we saw in the Anime thread in my sig. People would point to something and say, "THAT'S ANIME" and then, when you scratch the surface a bit, suddenly the grandfathering is nowhere near that clear. The art is influenced by anime, of course - anime is popular and people are doing popular art. But, since there is a back and forth, constantly, you cannot really state empirically which informs the other.

The same works for game theory. Concepts that are developed for board games get ported into video games, then back to tabletop RPG's all the while being seasoned by something else. It's not that 4e is somehow more video gamey or card gamey or anything else. Not unless you reverse the statement as well. Video games are becoming more D&D'y.

 

[FadedC]

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.

I was around back then although under a different name. I actually remember getting into long arguments with ruin explorer about things related to 3E although for the life of me I can't remember what they were actually about.

Either way I also remember I was one of the main defenders that 3e wasn't turning into a hack and slash game with no roleplaying. There were a TON of people saying that (though ruin was not necesarily one of them). The argument was that the more detailed rules on combat and game balance was turning it into a pure combat game. The defenders said it was the DM not the rules that determined that. It was almost exactly the same thing as you see now.

In the end though I did think 3e was a bit more of a shift towards combat. Certainly I did think the published modules and adventures had less focus on interesting situations and more focus on interesting battles. Not a huge deal but for me at least a noticable one. I still thought 3e was the far better system of course.