D&D 4E Rant on the 4E "Presentation"

[Crazy Jerome]

You're quoting me, but answering someone else -- someone whom I've quoted.

No, I answered you well enough. The concept that "progress is good" has a meaning consistent with Odhanan's commentary, but not consistent with your definition of the concept as, "change can be for the better". That may be your definition of progress, but it isn't what the term has historically meant, in this context. The historical version is more along the lines of "inevitable progress is good." As such, your version is a strawman answer to what Odhanan had to say. You can play Humpty Dumpty all you want, this being the internet, but you didn't answer his points.

4E will only be a success, any kind of success, to the degree that the designers ignore the historical concept of inevitable progress, but rather work on improving the game in some way that makes sense to them. This will almost assuredly result in a game that is superior, in some fashion, to some people. It is likely to also result in a game that is inferior in some fashion, to some other people. It can't help but do so. The open question is one of degrees. How many people? How superior and inferior? In what ways, and are they important?

I'm always amused by citing the latest things as examples of the superiority of progress (in the historical, inevitable sense, in case there is any confusion on that point). Generally, since the first caveman took rock to cave wall, people have learned to communicate in faster and more efficient ways. This is a net good, I admit. In all that time, however, no one has really come up with a way, when Og writes on the latest sabre tooth tiger evasion techniques, of stopping Gogg from calling Og a booger-brain. To do that, you'd have to change Gogg himself, not his method of communication. I don't see that happening, anymore than I see 4E changing the nature of gamers.

 

[Nifft]

No, I answered you well enough. The concept that "progress is good" has a meaning consistent with Odhanan's commentary, but not consistent with your definition of the concept as, "change can be for the better".

Interesting. I was the one who said "progress is good" at the top of the page, but my later paraphrase was indeed based off of someone else's definition.

Well, whatever. The paraphrase was my own, and I'll take full credit for the mis-statement.

It's true that I do like where 4e seems to be going, since I like the direction implicit in 3e -> 3.5e -> ToB + PHB-II.

4E will only be a success, any kind of success, to the degree that the designers ignore the historical concept of inevitable progress, but rather work on improving the game in some way that makes sense to them. This will almost assuredly result in a game that is superior, in some fashion, to some people. It is likely to also result in a game that is inferior in some fashion, to some other people.

No doubt.

There's another degree, though, which is ease of customization. Even if 4e out-of-the-box is terribly wrong for my needs (thanks to implied setting, races, or whatever), I suspect it'll be more loosely coupled, its base assumptions made more explicit, and its rules made easier to chance without destroying the balance of the game.

3.5e is too tightly coupled to wealth, and to easy magic item acquisition, for example. I've heard it said that 4e breaks with that, and that's an example of how it promises to make me happy.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No doubt.

There's another degree, though, which is ease of customization. Even if 4e out-of-the-box is terribly wrong for my needs (thanks to implied setting, races, or whatever), I suspect it'll be more loosely coupled, its base assumptions made more explicit, and its rules made easier to chance without destroying the balance of the game.

3.5e is too tightly coupled to wealth, and to easy magic item acquisition, for example. I've heard it said that 4e breaks with that, and that's an example of how it promises to make me happy.

Fair enough. I'm pretty sure in a few years, I'd rather have 4E than 3.5. and much for the same reasons. I'm also pretty sure that I'd be happy to play 4E with you, 3E with Odhanan (or more likely, AE), either with my current group, and neither with a whole bunch of people. You'll note that 4E didn't really change that part of the equation very much.

 

[Veander]

I know it doesn't feel that long, but 3.5 came out in July 2003, so it's actually been around for over 4 years. By the time 4e is out, 3.5 will have been out for nearly 5 years, and it will have been nearly 8 years since 3.0. So, comparable with the lifespan of 2nd edition.

3.5 requires you to go out and buy those new books. But 4e is ALL ABOUT getting us to buy more books. If you think it's for some other reason, you have to be in denial. If your average gamer were buying as many accessory books and such as I do, then we wouldn't see this rush to change things after only a few years with the updated 3rd edition game.

I sure hope they do right by the game and don't simply make changes that help and hurt, thus forcing us to spend money for no other reason other than to allow certain gamers to stay in business. If this is what we have to deal with over the future of the game (updates every 4-5 years that require us to redo all previous books) then you can see me becoming one of those folks who hangs on to one edition for as long as possible (meaning until my friends are all switched up). Even if the new editions are simpler or more streamlined, I'm tired of wasting the resources (time, money) on the new stuff.

I'm wasn't expecting the company with the D&D license to keep 3.5 around forever. It would be kind of nice if it was all somehow backward compatible, but I guess that's just the nature of this game. When I met my wife ten yearsago we played Scrabble and a few other boardgames and we still play them now using the exact same rules. They never came out with the New Scrabble and put away the old one. Now I know a boardgame doesn't compare with our D&D (or else I'd likely not play it so much), but can't we get a decade under our belt before having to go out and buy new books?

 

[JoeGKushner]

I know it doesn't feel that long, but 3.5 came out in July 2003, so it's actually been around for over 4 years. By the time 4e is out, 3.5 will have been out for nearly 5 years, and it will have been nearly 8 years since 3.0. So, comparable with the lifespan of 2nd edition.

If the players option books became core, I'd agree.

The lifespan of 2nd ed far outstrips either 3.0 or 3.5.

While the two are smiliar, they're as similiar as 1st and 2nd.

If we're saying they're of one lifespan, 3.5 and 3.0, then we must assume that 1st and 2nd are of one lifespan which completely blows 3.0 out of the water.

 

[DaveMage]

If we're saying they're of one lifespan, 3.5 and 3.0, then we must assume that 1st and 2nd are of one lifespan which completely blows 3.0 out of the water.

QFT

 

[Odhanan]

Joe has the right of it.

 

[Vigilance]

If the players option books became core, I'd agree.

The lifespan of 2nd ed far outstrips either 3.0 or 3.5.

While the two are smiliar, they're as similiar as 1st and 2nd.

If we're saying they're of one lifespan, 3.5 and 3.0, then we must assume that 1st and 2nd are of one lifespan which completely blows 3.0 out of the water.

I totally disagree with this assessment. 2e was much more different from 1e than 3.5 is from 3e.

Did any core classes completely disappear in 3.5?

Illusionist, Monk and Assassin were core in 1e. Totally gone in 2e.

Any core races?

Again, the half-orc was in 1e, but not 2e.

Did the way clerics get their spells totally change in 3.5? Did some priests no longer have the ability to cast healing spells at all?

So yes, the editions got a little closer together, but let's not distort the issue entirely shall we? If you want to talk about editions going from 11 years (2e to 3e) to 8 years (3.* to 4) I'm ok with that, that's a discussion worth having.

But if you want to muddy the waters and claim that 1e and 2e were the same game, while 3.0 and 3.5 are different games, that's where you go off the rails.

We haven't gone from 20 years to 4 years between editions.

Having played every edition of D&D since 1e, I know an edition when I see one. 2e was a new edition, 3.5 was not.

That people TREATED it like it was, and dropped 3.0 books like they were hot rocks, is more a question of consumer psychology than rules.

Chuck

 

[Veander]

But who plays 3.5 with 3.0 books? I had a couple players try it and it was simply annoying to them and the rest of the group. Too many times they'd have some rule problem simply because they didn't know there was a change in that area. I ended up buying a PHB for one of them. The reality is you have to buy 4e and it's only been a couple years since we had to buy new books for 3.5. I'm not so sure why that's an uncomfortable subject to some. I mean we're the buyers and the gamers, so if it smells wrong, there's nothing wrong with saying it.

 

[Vigilance]

But who plays 3.5 with 3.0 books? I had a couple players try it and it was simply annoying to them and the rest of the group. Too many times they'd have some rule problem simply because they didn't know there was a change in that area. I ended up buying a PHB for one of them. The reality is you have to buy 4e and it's only been a couple years since we had to buy new books for 3.5. I'm not so sure why that's an uncomfortable subject to some. I mean we're the buyers and the gamers, so if it smells wrong, there's nothing wrong with saying it.

"Minor differences some find annoying" =/= "new edition on a scale of difference to be equated with 2e to 3e or 3e to 4e".

Yes, it was different. I was marked as an incremental edition.

Yes, trying to play 3.5 with 3.0 will lend one to notice that the books are, indeed, different.

Being able to notice the difference does not mean 3.5 was a new edition.

That's the point I was making.

Chuck