Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Glyfair]

No, the drawback is not the character generator - it is the inability to add custom or third party content - and that is a drawback. A small drawback to mainstream players, a larger one to folks who like third party material, and a huge one for the third party publishers.

I have said since at least the early Code Monkey days of eTools that the only way to have a stable character generator would be to limit the ways it can be customized. Look at all the work that eTools and PCGen needed to update to handle many of the popular additions to 3.X. Look at how badly it worked for at least a few iterations after they added the updates.

4E does allow customization. It probably could allow some more. However, if it came as close as some wanted, it would be an unstable mess and not very usable by the masses.

There are two "real" interrelated problems here, though. The first, is the inability of some players to create a character without a character generator to use 3rd party classes, items, etc. (or the unwillingness to use the customizable elements of the existing generator when it can handle the task). The second, which feeds the first, is the complexity of existing systems that so many players feel the need to use a computer character generator to create a character.

Some might say that is a new problem, but I disagree. I have wanted it at least since I started playing AD&D in the late 70s. Only a handful of RPG systems had encumbrance systems that I didn't want a computer to handle.

In my experience, every RPG that I have any attraction towards had some sort of trade off. A lot of today's trade-offs happen to revolve around added complexity vs. the need for a computer to handle that complexity. The relative lack of complexity is one of the reasons I am attracted to Heroquest as a system.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The OGL called; it says you are exactly wrong. Seriously, the OGL move in 3e directly gives a framework for not just making up your own rules but for releasing them.

The OGL is as meaningless to my 3rd Edition game as it would be for running my 1E game. Which is to say, utterly irrelevant. The OGL is not a framework for players to use in making up rules - it is permission for publishers to use the rules in certain ways for their own purposes. It does nothing for enabling me to create new rules for my own game any more than the rules as written.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

While I agree with your sentiment, can you realistically imagine the outrage of people who wrote in for rules clarification and received a response of "Do what you want?"

Well I can imagine the rather significantly different mindset in answering such a question with, "The rules unfortunately do not cover this possibility, but what we SUGGEST is..."

Anyone inclined to simply do what they wanted would not bother to write in, and I can only imagine the nerdrage on these very forums if that was an officially posted WotC response.

Nerdrage is enabled by the approach of never simply acknowledging that the rules don't - CAN'T - cover all eventualities and occasionally phrasing responses as suggestions and not always as a newly written official rule. As I noted before, the game developed and became popular under the vague notion that it was expected for the rules to be altered for each individual campaign. While a lot of basic mechanics noise needed to be (and was) cleared up by 3e it also endeavored to undermine the DM as a driving, creative force and place it into the hands of the players.

It is reasonable for them to attempt to clarify or patch any perceived "rules holes", just as it is reasonable for a DM to tell his home game "Here is how I interpret this."

It is, but as noted a lot of the drive for DM's to exercise creative freedom under previous editions is eliminated when there is ALWAYS an official rule or response and never an indication that the official rules don't count for everything, always, but the DM's rules do.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I guess putting Rule 0 in the 3e PHB doesn't count as official, eh?

Not as much as it should have. Specifically, in the printing of the 3.0 PH it is listed NOT as a general principle for the entire game but as the first of 10 STEPS under the heading "Character Creation Basics". That is, it's presented only as a warning that for CREATING a character a player should be sure the DM isn't doing something different. It is not a general suggestion to DM's that they can or should do things differently if they desire to do so. In the 3.5 PH (and perhaps even in later printings of the 3.0 PH) it is NOT listed even with a "0." but as simply one of an unnumbered list of steps - and again it's only under the subject heading of "Character Creation".

While internet discussion established that it SHOULD be called "Rule 0" that is NOT how it is ACTUALLY presented. Even if you think it IS, it is not an idea that recieves a whit of reinforcement in the rules. Players receive no further warning that not ALL rules might be RAW. DM's recieve no indication that in former editions it was understood (and admittedly unsaid) that DM's make changes to suit themselves and their individual game, and no suggestion that the rules do not cover all eventualities; that they should not EXPECT to have official answers for everything. Whereas _I_ would have noted that part of their job as DM's is to exercise their own best judgement rather than constantly seek official support all I see in the DMG is reinforcement of the idea that they are arbiters of the rules as written more than customizers creating the game they want to play with rules and alterations of their own.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Frankly, 3E was about the OGL. 1E went after Role Aids and 2E was the era of fan site cease and desists. Both system mechanically and company behavior historically the reality is the opposite of image you create.

And frankly, they were well within their rights to do so. The 1E rules were NOT open content. It was IP that was owned and thus deserved and NEEDED to be protected from unauthorized republication. Did they go too far? Maybe. But that was nonetheless a different situation.

Then still we have the OP trying to pin down what it was that was lost with 3E and beyond... And again, you're talking about how things were different for PUBLISHERS. I'm talking (I hope) about how the core rules themselves and WotC's own general approach to them were quite different than TSR's had been prior for players.

I can't deny, however, that excellent counter-arguments to my position have been offered.

 

[Jhaelen]

My implied question, maybe a tad rhetorical, is: Why doesn't 4E have class/race/feat/power design rules?

Because design rules can never be balanced.

All design rules can be too easily abused to create 'broken' classes/races/feats/powers. The best you can do is offer _guidelines_.

My favorite example is the Elder Scrolls CRPG series: They allow the player to design their own races, classes, and spells. It was always possible to create these in a way to be strictly more powerful than the pre-configured choices.
Imho, it's one of the reasons the game doesn't have multiplayer-support. It would be impossible to balance without getting rid of such a high degree of customization.

Another reason is that creating a new class in 4E is simply too much work. A 4e class simply requires too much baggage to be considered 'complete'.

 

[The Little Raven]

Another reason is that creating a new class in 4E is simply too much work.

It's only too much work if you believe that each level needs entirely new powers, rather than ones that scale ala power swap feat powers. I've designed two classes so far for a Final Fantasy game I'm running, and I didn't create the dozens of powers one would find in standard classes, just a few base ones that scaled as you swapped out the lower level version for the higher level one.

 

[N0Man]

The loss of 2 pages of rules that the general consensus here feel were unsatisfactory seems to pale in comparison to 4E's emphasis on encouraging treating the rules and mechanics as a framework to reflavor and customize.

4E has a good balance between races and classes, in their respective roles, that makes it pretty easy to tinker, substitute, reflavor and even rebuild classes and races. There might only be "official" rules for building monsters and monster roles, but a lot of that is analogous to players.

Building a race would be pretty trivial in 4E, even without hand holding. Building a class would be slightly more involved, but that's largely due to the fact that unlike pre-4E versions, every class has it's own unique list of powers. However, given the number of versions of Bards, Monks, and Barbarians on these forums before they were officially released, it's not exactly rocket science. Clearly defining roles for classes helps make it easier to design a class, once you decide its role.

 

[DracoSuave]

The OGL is as meaningless to my 3rd Edition game as it would be for running my 1E game. Which is to say, utterly irrelevant. The OGL is not a framework for players to use in making up rules - it is permission for publishers to use the rules in certain ways for their own purposes. It does nothing for enabling me to create new rules for my own game any more than the rules as written.

I have trouble supporting the '3rd edition sucks for making and redesigning my own house rules/classes/cool stuff' when they put out an entire hardcover book, Unearthed Arcana, which covers all that.

Go. See Unearthed Arcana 3.5, and see that what you want is in there.

 

[Ariosto]

Well I can imagine the rather significantly different mindset in answering such a question with, "The rules unfortunately do not cover this possibility, but what we SUGGEST is..."

"Sage Advice" from Jean Wells (The Dragon #32, December 1979)

Before I get into this month’s questions and answers, there is an issue that I would like to discuss, hopefully for the last time. The subject is dwarven women and whether or not they have beards. ... One thing that everyone who has taken sides in this issue fails to remember is that Gary Gygax wrote the Dungeon Masters Guide and it is his book. He can say whatever he wants to. You can agree with him or side with me, but either way, the person who has final say in his or her campaign is the DM.

Question: I have been playing Dungeons and Dragons for several months, to the point where I have challenged Asmodeus and won! Is Asmodeus in a lemure state now, until he can regain his former status, or is Baalzebul in charge?
Answer: WHEW! Either way, I’d say you are in trouble. There are varying views on this question. One side agrees with you when you say that he is in a lemure state, while others say Asmodeus is just banished from the plane you defeated him on. Others go so far as to say that Asmodeus is not dead, but just waiting to get you when you least expect it. Any way you look at it, you, my friend, are in trouble. ...

Question: I have a female character who has gotten herself pregnant. How should I handle this?
Answer: I don’t really want to answer this question now, but since your letter is not the only one presenting me with this problem, I will say this much. Stop fighting, practicing magic and doing other things that cause stress. ...

Question: I am having a romance with a god, but he won’t have anything to do with me until I divorce my present husband. How do I go about divorcing my husband?
Answer: I was kidding when I told my mom I was going to be the Dear Abby of D&D players. Oh, little did I realize . . .