On the marketing of 4E

[billd91]

I also don't see the changes between 1e and 2e minor at all. Completely changing how the Illusionist and Bard worked, getting rid of classes and races wholesale (something 4e is frequently criticized for) etc.

One major difference: the 1e illusionist and bard still worked just fine within the slightly changed framework of 2e, as did the half-orc, monk, and assassin. Backward compatibility was extensive.

Even if that's true, it's really hard to argue 4e dumped the "traditions" or "history" of D&D, when 3e had already done that.

On that, I disagree. 3e may have overturned some traditions and history, but it still holds much closer to them than 4e.

 

[Mallus]

There, fixed that for you.

--Erik

Thanks! I stand corrected .

Two things though...

1) 2e has its share of cosmological silliness, cf. Ravenloft being expanded into the 'Demi-Plane of Dread'.

2) I'd describe the original AD&D rules as sounding like they were written by someone with Jack Vance's passion for, if not quite his facility with, the English language.

 

[Mallus]

On that, I disagree. 3e may have overturned some traditions and history, but it still holds much closer to them than 4e.

I'd describe both 3e and 4e as radical breaks, just in different directions. My first impression of 3e was "this doesn't sound like D&D at all", particularly the approach to character creation (the 'build' mentality).

However, the more I played 3e, the more I realized that it was just a different set of tools for building the same role-playing game experience I always did. In that way, 3e really helped me refine my idea that the Kingdom of D&D lies within us, not between the pages of a rule book.

 

[Drkfathr1]

On the subject of breaking tradition...

Not to get too off-topic:

It's not the rules changes that bug me so much, its the fluff changes.

Vastly different changes in fluff in 4E vs. previous changeovers. Unfortunately, sometimes those fluff changes influence the rules.

Teleporting Elves, Dwarves that no longer live underground and see in the dark, evil storm giants, non-good metallic dragons, etc., etc.

True, those are minor things that can be hand-waved away, but in the long run, its easier and more comfortable for me to just stick with 3E and move to Pathfinder.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you're proposing it's an irrational reaction due to the other factors you mentioned, I'd accept that.

That is exactly what I am proposing, with the caveat that "best reading" is based upon trust, and it is not irrational to look for hidden meanings in the statements of people you believe have violated your trust (whether they, in fact, have or have not).


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

That is exactly what I am proposing, with the caveat that "best reading" is based upon trust, and it is not irrational to look for hidden meanings in the statements of people you believe have violated your trust (whether they, in fact, have or have not).


RC

If people have "violated your trust", you are likely going to be looking for fault in their words before you even start reading. I'm not sure there's much WotC could have said to people who felt that way, given the substance and business decisions of 4E.

 

[M.L. Martin]

One major difference: the 1e illusionist and bard still worked just fine within the slightly changed framework of 2e, as did the half-orc, monk, and assassin. Backward compatibility was extensive.

If I recall some of the design columns from DRAGON correctly, backwards compatability is the reason we didn't have ascending Armor Classes in 2E.

I'd describe both 3e and 4e as radical breaks, just in different directions. My first impression of 3e was "this doesn't sound like D&D at all", particularly the approach to character creation (the 'build' mentality).

Serious question--did you follow the game during the lead-up and on-release, or were you a later arrival? Because the 'build' mentality, while an early arrival, is something that I seem to remember arising from the community around 3E rather than being highlighted in the books themselves. (Granted, there are 'builds' in the Hero Builder's Guidebook, but even those were designed for concept rather than charop, and were of a type that soon became superseded by Prestige Classes and, as of 3.5, new base classes.)

This is part of a hypothesis I'm developing: For those who were following the 2E/3E changeover and got our first impressions of it that way, there's a greater subjective sense of continuity due to the strong apparent similarities in the texts. Those who joined later or otherwise weren't part of the 'changeover/early adopter' crowd, who came to know the game embedded in a community that had developed new approaches based on the 'emergent properties' of the rules, may have a greater sense of the discontinuity.

 

[Shemeska]

1) 2e has its share of cosmological silliness, cf. Ravenloft being expanded into the 'Demi-Plane of Dread'.

And Ravenloft as hungry, demiplanar sinkhole of evil was so very much more awesome than generic vampire-land module. YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If people have "violated your trust", you are likely going to be looking for fault in their words before you even start reading. I'm not sure there's much WotC could have said to people who felt that way, given the substance and business decisions of 4E.

There is certainly some truth in what you are saying, but, were I WotC, I would have started with "I know it really sucks that we did X, and I'm sorry", followed by "Here's what we're doing to make it up to you....", followed by actually doing whatever you then said.

I think it would work wonders, even at this late date.


RC

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Looking at TheAuldGrump, I gotta wonder, really? That's how thin your skin is? Note, nowhere did he say that you couldn't do "through the fairy ring" campaigns. What he said was that D&D wasn't designed for that.

*Shrug* That was the moment when I became predisposed to dislike 4e.

This was followed by plenty of concrete reasons - with the replacement of the OGL (which I consider a wonderful thing - the smörgåsbord created by the OGL was the best thing I had seen for gaming in many years) with the GSL (which I might use to line the bottom of a bird cage). At no point was I given any good reason to change my mind.

From that point on I was looking for more reasons to dislike 4e, and I found them. Mind you, while those words were what crystallized my dislike, I suspect that I would have eventually decided that the game was not for me in any event, most likely when they announced that the D20 trademark license was being ended. Mr. Wyatt simply pushed me to that decision a trifle sooner. (And I still think that those preview books were an astoundingly bad idea.)

The Auld Grump