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

[TheAuldGrump]

I'm pretty sure current management at WotC views those drawbacks as strengths.

And that is why I consider WotC to be the biggest drawback for 4e....

I may not like the 4e rules set, but I really do not like the GSL, nor the mentality that spawned it.

The Auld Grump, the counterpoint is that I liked 3.X, but really liked the OGL.

Back on the original topic - the OGL allowed folks to not only create house rules, but publish them. Saying that 2e, a closed system, did more to promote originality just seems silly. Even the GSL allows more freedom in that regard than 2e did.

*EDIT* It may also be worth noting that I liked 2e, but began to really dislike the splatbooks.... Compete Elf - I am looking at you!

 

[BryonD]

Saying that 2e, a closed system, did more to promote originality just seems silly.

"Seems"? "Seems"? chuckle
You amuse me.

 

[cattoy]

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

Because WoTC wants to parcel it out one PHB and/or X_Power book at a time, duh.

Giving DMs and players the ability to create these things for themselves cuts off the revenue stream.

 

[cattoy]

Oh, and something 3e and 4e lost that 2e had:

Vorpal and I forget what the other was called, but extremity severing enchantments are gone, gone, gone.

Now everyone has a full complement of limbs all the time. D&D never went into disadvantages for chargen at all, but it used to be possible to get crippled in game up until you got access to sufficient magic to undo it.

 

[celloshane]

Well it looks like I'm late to the water cooler as usual...

My two cents: Any game can be customized, but the writing of the game is a key factor in informing the culture that surrounds that game, and the culture of the game does a lot to encourage or discourage things like customization, tinkering and house-ruling among groups.

2E had a culture generally amenable to such customization, probably due to a confluence of factors--the vast array of options produced that were often mutually contradictory, the tone of the books, the inconsistency of the system and the need (both real and perceived) to fix or stretch it.

3E, though I have less familiarity with its culture, seems to place more emphasis on sticking to the books--not necessarily so much within the game itself as within the larger game culture. This is the edition, after all, where RAW became a catchphrase.

I agree, for the most part. Unlike many of the previous posters I started my D&D path with 3e, although I have read a fair chunk of older material I've stumbled across. 3e may not have explicitly encouraged customization and houseruling, but it was widely acknowledged that if some part of the rules wasn't working for you or if your game needed different/additional rules that you should feel free to make changes. It was also acknowledged that you tinkered at your own risk because a lot of houserules came with unintended consequences.

With 4e though, it's become common, if not popular, to tell DMs they shouldn't make houserules. I've seen countless threads where the OP mentions a problem with a certain aspect of 4e only to be told they should find a different game because they clearly don't want to play D&D. DMs who want to create a unique campaign that's significantly different from the average, default 4e experience are left with little to no support. Sure you can change Monsters/Skill Challenges/Powers as much as you like to get a tailored encounter as long as you don't alter anything that effects the entire game. It's become implied that houseruling is bad - it's implied in the language the fans use to discuss the game; 'solid foundation', 'good balance', 'DMs are free to design encounters'. For myself, reflavoring is not a sufficient tool to customize my 4e experiences.

As for whether the OGL encouraged customization - I think it did, just indirectly. With so many alternative rules from 3pp, it precluded the need to create personal houserules for some groups and I don't think that was a problem. If a group found a set of (presumably playtested) rules in a 3rd party book that enhanced their game, so much the better. For those that didn't find perfect rules already created, I'm sure much of the material served as a jumping off point for many people. The GSL, on the other hand, restricts those opportunities greatly. Wotc is the only ones who can tweak 4e mechanics, which means no 3rd parties assisting niche groups looking for something different. I've also heard speculation that Wotc has no intention of ever offering tweaks and alternatives because it goes against their 'everything is core' policy. I'm disappointed that such speculation seems entirely plausible. A 4e Unearthed Arcarna is the most likely book to get me excited about running a campaign, but it would be relatively useless in the current Living Campaign designed market.

 

[Mercurius]

The real explanation is that they make more money by selling you a truckload of pre-made variants than by selling you a single DIY formula.

If Jesus had any economic sense he would never have taught you how to fish, he would simply keep on selling you fish instead. (Or something like that )

Because WoTC wants to parcel it out one PHB and/or X_Power book at a time, duh.

Giving DMs and players the ability to create these things for themselves cuts off the revenue stream.

Well I thought this but didn't want to say it. But I don't necessarily think that it is true that providing a design toolkit and revealing the "hidden game engine code" would necessarily inhibit revenue because most folks aren't going to want to make their own feats and classes, or at least only in addition to using the canon ones.

I feel that this decision, whether conscious or not, to provide endless supplements with more classes, feats, powers, races, and at the same time not "revealing the code" and giving a toolkit represents both a lack of creative thinking on WotC's part, and an encouragement not to customize the game, to play "by the book" (RAW).

Don't get me wrong: I like 4E and overall think that there has been a positive evolution to the game, at least in terms of the rules (not liking some of the flavor elements in the new edition). But I also feel there has been a correlative "devolution", from the freeform simplicity of OD&D to the clunky heapism of AD&D to the ridiculous complications and reliance on rules mastery of 3E (encouraging munchkinism) to a kind of inflexibility of customization with 4E.

I don't see why we can't combine the best of all worlds: The freeform simplicity of OD&D, the joyous arcana of 1E, the richness of the 2E settings, the options of 3E, and the smooth system of 4E, including tools like Character Builder.

Hmm...maybe I should fiddle around with something that does this?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see why we can't combine the best of all worlds: The freeform simplicity of OD&D, the joyous arcana of 1E, the richness of the 2E settings, the options of 3E, and the smooth system of 4E

Try RCFG

, including tools like Character Builder.

d'oh!

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just to be clear, are you saying that the problem with 3e and 4e is that you can't customize them because the rules don't tell you that you're allowed to customize them? But that earlier editions are less set in stone because the books tell you that you're allowed to customize them?

I'm not saying it makes any edition better or worse, nor affects any inidividuals freedom or ability to customize. But if one game constantly refers your questions only to official rules and the other at least occasionally tells you to just make it up yourself then it's clear to me that these two games want you to approach the game is rather significantly different ways. Each endeavors to give the individual maximum entertainment but by emphasizing rather different approaches - and THAT might be the loss that is felt between editions.

 

[Scribble]

I feel that this decision, whether conscious or not, to provide endless supplements with more classes, feats, powers, races, and at the same time not "revealing the code" and giving a toolkit represents both a lack of creative thinking on WotC's part, and an encouragement not to customize the game, to play "by the book" (RAW).

I don't know... Maybe? But I guess I'm not one to believe the "They do iot so we buy more power books" idea. I mean they sell monster books too, so why then did they give us the tools to build monsters?

I've seen the developers mention that power building tends to be a little more "art" then hard coded numbers. I think the real reason we haven't seen it yet is similar to the post about the unique magic items.

If they release the tools, and give us the science, a lot of people will complain when they forgo the art, and build unbalanced powers. "But I followed the numbers WoTC! You put out garbage! This game is BROKENZ!"

That said, I kind of get the feeling they will release some guidelines later on down the road, and probably as part of the adventure tools.

 

[malraux]

I'm not saying it makes any edition better or worse, nor affects any inidividuals freedom or ability to customize. But if one game constantly refers your questions only to official rules and the other at least occasionally tells you to just make it up yourself then it's clear to me that these two games want you to approach the game is rather significantly different ways. Each endeavors to give the individual maximum entertainment but by emphasizing rather different approaches - and THAT might be the loss that is felt between editions.

Every DMG I've seen has a section on house rules/rules creation. I really think you're seeing something that isn't there.