Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[ferratus]

That debate has been beat to death and the point wasn't to start it over here.

Then stop bringing it up. I'm responding directly to a post you made.

If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games. Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.

Oh wow. You don't have much respect for people do you? I like the way you phrased your sentence to portray me as a petulant child while you lecture me on being respectful of other people's opinions and play styles. A brief and elegant bit of passive aggressiveness. Rich with irony too.

And, frankly, I don't care which you do. The first is certainly better, but the second offers more fun time for me. So whatever.

Oh, but you do care Bryon. You see, it isn't me that is on every single thread in this forum someone starts talking about "4e Dungeons and Dragons" that immediately jumps up to take a position of whether 4e is D&D or not. That's YOU. Most people will not even recognize me as a regular commentator on the edition wars at all.

So I think you need to thrust yourself on casual commentators who are enjoying talking about their game as a means to talk down to them, as you did to me in that last paragraph. I think that's how you find your fun, and I'm probably just encouraging you by responding to you. I think that you would have considerably less fun if people didn't respond to your provocations at all and simply accepted them, as you suggest I should do.

But, if you choose option two and reject being accepting, you really can't expect to turn around and call for acceptance. Or at least not without being called on it.

Listen, Mercurius simply said that we all have different ways of playing the same game, and that playing different editions is part of the difference in how we play. However, we can all acknowledge that what we play is part of the wider hobby of Dungeons and Dragons. That's a pretty non-controversial statement to everyone but those who want to make the claim that other people don't know how to play D&D properly.

You want to make the claim that you can't have a good ol' D&D experience with 4e... fine. Nobody will gainsay you, including the OP. If you want to say that I am not having a D&D experience, I'll tell you that you just don't have the same perception of the game that I do, and you're being rude in assuming that you are a better arbiter of what is the "spirit" of D&D than I am.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So perhaps a better analogy to D&D and WoTC is to pretend that Microsoft ...

Change the product, and you don't even need to pretend. Microsoft has frequently aliented customers with changes to a software package--in MS Word itself at least two or three times. MS Word 2007 is a big improvement over the prior version in a lot of ways. It's faster, friendlier to true newbies, and more reliable. However, the "rearrange all the menus and hide 3/4 of the features by default" plan still annoys me, and I've been using it for a couple of years now.

Many people think that Vista sucks, but Windows 7 seems to be heavily admired. "All" Windows 7 is, is Vista cleaned up and a few missing parts straightened out, based on a few years experience. That's a lot of "all," though.

There are bugs in Visual Studio 2005 that MS never did fix. They finally just designed around them in 2008 and 2010.

If you liked 3E, didn't like 4E, and are hopeful for 5E--any one of those patterns could apply. Or something different. Just note that in all those cases, MS never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions. They pretty much market everything as "the bestest ever", to constantly rolling eyes. But then, they don't often let their internal tech people speak openly until an old issue is moot.

 

[DaveMage]

I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.

That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.


(Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)

 

[NoWayJose]

If you liked 3E, didn't like 4E, and are hopeful for 5E--any one of those patterns could apply. Or something different. Just note that in all those cases, MS never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions. They pretty much market everything as "the bestest ever", to constantly rolling eyes. But then, they don't often let their internal tech people speak openly until an old issue is moot.

I'm not sure I understand this analogy either. Almost every industry feels the need to market the new version as best ever. Whether this succeeds or not is besides the point.

You wrote that Microsoft 'never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions' which is usually the correct way to market a new product. That's how Essentials vs core 4E was marketed. I don't think that's how 4E to 3E was marketed.

The other difference between Microsoft and WoTC is that Windows XP and Vista are STILL being officially supported.

 

[ferratus]

I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.

Well, no worries for me. It's three years in. I saw the warts with 3e at about this time, and I see the warts with 4e too. I think 3.5 solved some problems but also fixed things that didn't need to be fixed, and I think 4e essentials did the same thing.

So I'm already upset with both 3e and 4e. Whether I am satisfied with 5e will depend on which direction they take it. If it revives the Tolkienish flavour of 2e, makes the use of miniatures optional, and brings in lots of rules for managing a keep and followers... I'll likely be satisfied. If it becomes more about powers and power-ups, miniatures encounters, and a campaign of constant dungeon crawling with goth/new age/metal themes and flavour... I'll probably not be interested.

After all, if I was interested in all those things, I'd be happily playing 4e rather than trying to come up with my "best of D&D" home-made system. So I guess I'm using works rather than just faith alone in the Wizards of the Coast to achieve my gaming salvation.

That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.

The edition wars have largely stopped enough that I can generally name all of the regular instigators on this forum. (You are on that list of names DaveMage but near the bottom).

That pretty much is the same as it was when 3e came out. The accusations that 3e wasn't D&D generally lasted 3 or 4 years before people generally settled down to either accept that new school was here to stay, and/or began organizing an "old school renaissance". In real life, I have to say, I meet just as many people who consider 2e to be the best edition of D&D as 3e... but I meet very few people who actually take the time to play.

(Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)

I don't think anyone really needs to be rescued from 5e hell. You see, 4e doesn't have the OGL, but its design makes it very easy to offer support for without rewriting any rules. The base combat system is pretty much the same as the 3e system, so the OGL applies there. The rest of the rules are delivered through powers. You can simply invent new powers that have a direct effect on how miniatures affect the battlemat.. and there is pretty much nothing WotC can do. As well, since everything is about matching attack to a defense, you can rewrite the rules to be compatible with all of the monsters 4e has created with a completely new rules system. Sure you couldn't actually call it 4e D&D, or put the D&D name on it, but 4e is very, very easy to clone.

 

[Dannager]

I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.

That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.


(Although, unfortunately 4E fans, without the OGL, there will be no Paizo to rescue you from 5E hell.)

Except that quite a lot of the people who are 4e fans are 4e fans in part because they are not the type to get upset by the next iteration of a game, and are, in fact, excited by the idea of the game moving forward.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm not sure I understand this analogy either. Almost every industry feels the need to market the new version as best ever. Whether this succeeds or not is besides the point.

You wrote that Microsoft 'never explicitly said anything negative about prior versions' which is usually the correct way to market a new product. That's how Essentials vs core 4E was marketed. I don't think that's how 4E to 3E was marketed.

The other difference between Microsoft and WoTC is that Windows XP and Vista are STILL being officially supported.

Microsoft clamps down on their message harder than WotC. They probably spend a bit more on marketing, too. My point there is that, after the fact, you can find people from MS who say highly critical things about prior versions. They are the same things they said in closed door meetings, which is what led to the changes in the first place. For why we don't find out about them, see the clamp. So I guess I'm saying that we could get better messaging from WotC if they got themselves a clamp. However, I'd prefer to have the information, rather than nothing but preapproved marketing speak--whatever trouble it causes.

And remember what topic we are in. If we go with what ByronD said earlier, then should not have all those people that got cheesed at WotC's comments simply have shrugged it off as an expression of preferences?

As for officially supported, there is officially supported and then there is "officially supported". MS doesn't have any choice with operating systems--too many units. Visual Studio? Don't make me laugh! I'm working on a project right now in VS 2010--because the components I needed were broken in VS 2005, promised a fix, never fixed, and finally quitely removed from that edition when 2008 arrived. And I just spent the last two days tracking down an "optional" component needed to make a VS 2010 feature work. You can include the feature without that component and it will run. It just won't work.

That's roughly equivalent to WotC deciding that the 3E bard and ranger needed work, promising a fix, including the fluff and headers for the new versions in 3.5, promising to get you the new mechanics any day now, and then when 4E arrives, telling you just to switch to that if you want a working bard or ranger. (Not that the 3E bard and ranger were that bad.)

I think WotC's piracy concerns are vastly inflated beyond reason, especially with the 3.* OGL documents out there anyway, nevermind PF. I'd say it would be worth their while to put some older stuff out there on PDF, just to quit listening to that particular complaint. Or better yet, license someone else to do it, and manage the work. OTOH, they have to wonder what the new complaint would be, once that one was addressed. Sometimes, better to stick with the complaint you have ...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I can't wait for 5E to come out so that the 4E fans can be as upset as the 3E fans were with 4E.

That's when the 3E/4E edition wars will likely stop.

The 2E/3E edition war was finally put to rest when 3.5 arrived and created another tsunami to drown it out. Not that this negates that particular point. But if you are counting on 4E fans to be as upset with 5E as 3E fans were with 4E, you are setting the bar awfully high ...

 

[ferratus]

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 3rd Edition holdouts/Pathfinder players end up more upset with whatever 5th Edition turns out to be than the 4e players do.

I'll imagine that they will be like the supporters of 1e/2e, who simply see 4e as a continuation of 3e. 3e/Pathfinder will largely see 5e as a continuation of designs elements they don't like that 4e introduced.

I do think that there will be some 4e players who are 12-22 who will hate 5e as not being D&D because 4e is the only system that they've ever played. D&D 2e gives the "most authentic" experience of D&D for me because I played it at the age of 12. My friend's son will never associate 2e or 3e with D&D at all. I also think that when you've only played one edition you can lack some perspective. People used to say that 2e wasn't really D&D anymore when it was new too. Now people talk about the two editions as if they are practically twins.

I understand the desire of the old-timers on forums such as Dragonsfoot or blogs such as Grognardia for the D&D experience of their youth. I want to revive some of the themes and experiences that old-school play encouraged too. I do however find it frustrating that they are largely a useless resource when asking for advice on how to fix elements of the mechanics of older editions that you don't like, or even worse adapting rules from later editions into your 1e/2e game. The answer is usually "That rule makes perfect sense and is better than any so-called improvements, so don't bother changing it."

 

[Dannager]

I'll imagine that they will be like the supporters of 1e/2e, who simply see 4e as a continuation of 3e. 3e/Pathfinder will largely see 5e as a continuation of designs elements they don't like that 4e introduced.

I do think that there will be some 4e players who are 12-22 who will hate 5e as not being D&D because 4e is the only system that they've ever played.

Right, I think there will be some current edition players who won't like what ends up changing, but I think what we'll see far more of are previous edition players who, for whatever reason, were hoping that the developers would actually backpedal their design philosophy, and who will end up upset that this is not the case. I can practically guarantee that whatever comes next for D&D will look less like 1e/2e/3e than what we're playing right now. And, frankly, I'm excited that's the case.