On the marketing of 4E

[Hussar]

Well, all I can say is that D&D was able to last for 30 years without a Radical Reboot. They were able to do it in the past with the 2e/3e mix. Considering all the effort that went into building 3e, I don't think there was any reason to make fighters equal to spellcasters in terms of options other than opinion. You're stating that there is an "imbalance", yet fighters had more hitpoints, more feats, and worked within the system.

Hang on a tick here. What?

You're going to tell me that the switch from OD&D to AD&D wasn't radical? Really?

OD&D weighs in at what, a hundred or so pages? AD&D core weights in at almost a thousand. Ten times as much material wasn't a radical change?

But, moving forward a bit. 3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e. I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part. Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on. 4e is very much a d20 derivitative.

 

[pawsplay]

But, moving forward a bit. 3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e. I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part. Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on. 4e is very much a d20 derivitative.

To a large extent you are correct. Indeed, the shift in the damage/hit points relationship is very similar to what happened with AD&D 2e -> D&D 3e. I would agree as far as character abilities and underlying mechanics. However, in terms of subsystems, 4e is a wholly new creature. The 3e fireball is remarkably similar to to the same spell in AD&D, and quite different from the 4e version. Craft (blacksmithing) is similar to AD&D's non-weapon proficiencies, but dissimilar from any equivalent (if there is one... blacksmithing ritual?) in 4e.

And, as pointed out, 4e is the largest shift in assumed world in any edition. And in an RPG, the world is to a great extent the game. You can take any D&D character from OD&D going forward and convert him into an equivalent 3.5 character (allowing for differences between assumed subraces). Converting a 3.5 character, however, often involves changing classes as well as changing the available abilities. The gnome illusionist is the easiest example, but the half-elf fighter-thief-magic-user is another casualty, and many wizards just cannot be easily replicated, even spiritually.

 

[Ariosto]

I agree that 3e in many ways botches the kind of balance that was in the old game. Someone at WotC (Monte Cook?) seemed to "like" spell-casters in a bad way. I suspect (not having tried it) that some of the problems reported at higher levels are really due more, though, to fundamental shifts in approach that would also play significant hob with AD&D or OD&D.

Hussar's "AD&D core" must be something that did not exist in 1979. The MM, PHB and DMG together come to about 480 pages (half in the DMG). The original set plus supplements I-III come to about 300 (half sized) pages. The Advanced books include material from magazines (bards, rangers, illusionists, various monsters and magic items, expanded alignment, planes of existence, random generation tables, etc.) and even from Swords & Spells. They also include a lot more explanatory and descriptive text.

The additional material (apart from some new spells) is mainly in the DMG, and mainly the sort of miscellany and advice of equal utility with Holmes or Moldvay, Mentzer or Cook & Marsh (Expert or 2nd Advanced). Want a table for Potion Miscibility, Reputed Magical Properties of Gems, Intoxication, Insanity, Parasitic Infestation, NPC Facts and Traits, Height and Weight, Aging, Machicolations & Merlons (and Siege Weapons to attack them), Mining, Torture Chamber Furnishings, or Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Vegetables, or ...? It's in there!

NO, the switch from OD&D to AD&D was not (and is not) in my experience "radical"! It is not even necessarily a switch at all.

The really radical change with 4e is in the basic concept of the game. There was a trend through 2e and 3e, but now the complaints the "old school" levied against those seem to me pretty thin gruel. A lot of the "broken" things 4e "fixes" are so only in the sense that, for instance, blue cheese tastes "inedible" to me (whereas it's supposed to be veined with mold and coated with bacteria).

 

[lutecius]

The "imbalance to the degree it becomes a problem" part of D&D was a 3E creation.

Eh, you do realize 3e spellcasters made out like BANDITS with the changeover from 2e to 3e.

Then it should have been possible to rebalance things without breaking the mold, don't you think?

OD&D weighs in at what, a hundred or so pages? AD&D core weights in at almost a thousand. Ten times as much material wasn't a radical change?

Fleshing out doesn't necessarily mean changing radically (just saying. I'm not very familiar with 0D&D but the argument seems flawed)

But, moving forward a bit. 3e is far and away mechanically closer to 4e than it is to 2e. I mean, you can go through the list and, other than the powers and a few odds and sods, 4e IS 3e for the most part. Everything from character creation, the meaning of the stats, on and on. 4e is very much a d20 derivitative.

Uhm... no.
I do think 3e was a huge step forward but 4e is just as much a departure.
First, the power system is an essential part of 4e. Ability scores also work differently. Specific power lists for every class and restrictions on multiclassing make character building quite different. NPCs and monsters now work under completely different assumptions. The nerfing of save-or-die effects and the "extended sweet spot" over 30 levels certainly changed the gaming experience, for good or ill. Those are not "a few odds and sods".


On topic,

I did find the marketing and publishing strategy off-putting. With a different approach I might have bought the first core books but ultimately I don't like 4e's design philosophy (more abstract, less flexible) so it probably wouldn't have made a difference for me (I doubt many are going to admit otherwise anyway, most people like to think of themselves as logical.)

Unlike others here, I didn't expect backward compatibility and really wanted significant changes (that's the point of a new edition.) For me 3e definitely had balance issue, I was never a fan of Vancian casting, I found the old alignment and cosmology awkward and couldn't care less about the gnome. Actually, many of the announced changes sounded good to me (at first)

And yet, even before I realised I wouldn't like the "fixes", I found WotC's attitude really arrogant (peremptory statements about what is fun/cool and what isn't, unnecessarily aggravating cartoons, designer jokes that could be funny for those who like a particular change but come off as rubbing it in to those who don't, imprudent ddi announcements, overpriced previews…)

 

[Ariosto]

I was never a fan of Vancian casting, I found the old alignment and cosmology awkward and couldn't care less about the gnome. Actually, many of the announced changes sounded good to me (at first)

Someone else was never a fan of character classes and levels, finds armor classes and hit points awkward, and couldn't care less about experience points for treasure. Every change sounds good to someone. "D&D would be so much better if it were so much less like D&D and more like [fill in the blank]!"

Me, I'll just play [fill in the blank] instead. WotC is like the guy who advertises a D&D game -- but when you show up to play it turns out actually to be Rob's and Jim's Arcane House-rules (RAJAHtm).

 

[lutecius]

Someone else was never a fan of character classes and levels, finds armor classes and hit points awkward, and couldn't care less about experience points for treasure. Every change sounds good to someone. "D&D would be so much better if it were so much less like D&D and more like [fill in the blank]!"

Me, I'll just play [fill in the blank] instead. WotC is like the guy who advertises a D&D game -- but when you show up to play it turns out actually to be Rob's and Jim's Arcane House-rules (RAJAHtm).

err... experience points for treasure? I'm afraid it's a bit too late for them.

I see your point? though. The flipside of your argument is that if you don't want anything to change, you don't really need a new edition. Many thing have changed since OD&D. The alignments, cosmology and gnomes didn't exist to begin with and others things were probably quite different. The trick is to implement changes a majority of players like without alienating too many others.

Whether 4e did that is another debate. My point was that even though I didn't mind these changes in principle, I found the way they were advertised arrogant.

 

[Azgulor]

Hey if they can get a gorehound like me to watch a bible movie, they got to be doing something right.

And it did more than fine. It kicked the **** out of ALL other R rated movies. Ever.

Domestic: $370,782,930
+ Foreign: $241,116,490
= Worldwide: $611,899,420

Psst. You posted stats on The Passion of the Christ, not The Last Temptation of Christ...

...which I can't help but notice isn't in that top 10 list.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Then it should have been possible to rebalance things without breaking the mold, don't you think?

The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance. So, no, it couldn't have been.

In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was: The weapon they were using, their stats(of which only really strength and con mattered at all), their magic items, and whether they were specialized or not.

This meant that the difference in damage between 2 fighters was, at most, 16 points(25 if you count hit percentage). The difference between 1d4 and 1d12+12. And that's assuming a fighter using a +5 weapon of the biggest kind he can find with an 18/00 strength who is specialized in it vs a fighter with 10 strength who uses a dagger. Most enemies, even at high levels didn't have much more than 60 or 70 hitpoints. Even with a 10 strength fighter with a +5 dagger was going to kill any any they fought, solo, in about 10 rounds.

In 3e, the difference between a 10 strength fighter who avoids any feats that increase his damage or hit percentage, doesn't find any magic items, and doesn't put any points into his strength vs the one that started with a 20 strength, gets every magic item and feat he can to increase his strength, hit chance, and damage is approximately 51(102 if you factor in hit percentage). This means the difference between killing a 200 hitpoint dragon in 2 rounds vs 100 rounds.

And that is just a comparison of fighters. If you take something like a weak Rogue vs a power Cleric or Druid and the numbers skyrocket to 200 or 300 points of damage different between them.

The mold of 3e was a design of customization. It was "You can choose how powerful you want to be". More customization = more imbalance. It's just the way things work. The ONLY way to reign in imbalance is to reign in customization.

 

[Hussar]

Ariosto, appologies about the page count. Got a bit carried away there.

Although, the point still stands. There are pretty significant differences between AD&D and OD&D. Three classes to ten (twelve, my memory is hazy here), race and class changes, thief abilities, armor class changes, combat rule changes, spell changes, on and on. These were pretty different games. Heck, we even went from using d6 for all weapons to individual damages.

I will agree with lutecius about the flavor changes though. 4e is a big departure from the flavor of earlier editions. No argument from me on that. But mechanically? 3e and 4e are very, very close. Ability stats (Strength and whatnot) use the same mechanics. Unified xp tables. Any race/class combo with no limitations. Skills work pretty much exactly the same between 3e and 4e. Unified d20 mechanics. On and on.

 

[lutecius]

The thing is, the mold was causing the imbalance. So, no, it couldn't have been.

In a game using just the 2e PHB, the difference between any two fighters was [...]

The mold of 3e was a design of customization. It was "You can choose how powerful you want to be". More customization = more imbalance. It's just the way things work. The ONLY way to reign in imbalance is to reign in customization.

I think you missed the point.

I was specifically asking those who felt the imbalance between spellcasters and non-casters only appeared with 3e, whether they thought breaking the mold (i.e. a radical departure from the way these classes worked in all the previous editions, not just 3e) was necessary.

I was referring to 4e's power system, not the customization or lack thereof.