The fragmentation of the D&D community... was it inevitable?

[lutecius]

I think it all comes back to not just the killing of D&D sacred cows in 4e, but doing so with literal glee and pride. It was both the content of the changes, and the way in which they were presented that caused an even deeper fracture.

yes, the marketing certainly didn't help.

The problem is twofold. Biggest is the problem of rivalry [...]

rivalry explains edition wars, it's not what makes people pick a side in the first place (ie like or dislike a new edition).

1) The change is rediculously minute, and I mean rediculously. To put it in perspective, Pathfinder changed an absurdly small amount, and is closer to being 3.55 then it is 3.75, and there's still people who hate it for changing too much.

the stated goal of PF was backwards compatibility, that's not the point of a new edition.

3) Make a new edition. Boom, schism.

And that's the second problem: we hate change. […]

oh yeah, resistance to change. I hear that a lot from people who approve some changes and have a hard time accepting that many others don't (not talking about you or even gamers in particular, I've also heard that about vista or work procedures that were eventually abandoned...)

I stopped playing a couple of years after AD&D2's release precisely because it didn't change enough. 3e brought me back because I loved the changes but I was ready for a new, very different edition long before 4e was announced. I just happened to hate the shift toward gamist design.

others probably had different experiences but my point is tastes and the changes themselves are what matters. more often than not, this "resistance to change" marketing/corporate bspeak tells more about its proponents mindset than anything else.

So, to answer all three questions in one go: Yeah, there was going to be a split, a messy one, and I don't think it could be mended, and I don't think it could be avoided.

and I don't think it needed to reach this proportion. the fact that 4e's lead developer acknowledges this rift and all but admits that they did something wrong with 4e only confirms my impression.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anyone who thinks you can seamlessly convert older editions to 3e never encountered a multiclass character.

Seamlessly would not be a word I'd use, no.

But as one who plays multiclass characters 80% of the time and who used the 3Ed Conversion guide to update a campaign active since 1985- containing multiple PCs ranging from 1st to 20th for each player- I'd have to say it's not that big a deal. The PCs still do the same stuff; still have the same play. Some lost classes, to be sure, but only because it was efficient to do so (the lost class' contributions were covered by another class)...and a few gained a class (usually a PrCl).

One of the major reasons we didn't rush to adopt 4Ed, in comparison, was the complete and utter lack of rules supporting PCs with more than 2 classes. For me alone, that meant 50%+ of my PCs were simply not makeable at all.

IOW, adios, 23 years of gaming history! 4Ed don't need you 'round these here parts.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Just looking at 1E -> 4E I see three distinct groups 1E/2E, 3E, and 4E. There are points that can be made for each pair having clear similarities that the other lacks, but all in all, they are distinct.

I very much agree.

That said, beyond multiclassing, 1e/2e does convert over to 3e fairly easily and with published advice from WotC to do so.

One of the major reasons we didn't rush to adopt 4Ed, in comparison, was the complete and utter lack of rules supporting PCs with more than 2 classes. For me alone, that meant 50%+ of my PCs were simply not makeable at all.

IOW, adios, 23 years of gaming history! 4Ed don't need you 'round these here parts.

I very much disagree.

Going from 2e to 3e, what does a Fighter - the most basic class-keep that's the same? I'll use an example of one of my own old, old characters - the ever entertaining dart fighter and his billion attacks each round.

AC changes drastically. To hit changes drastically. Hit points changes drastically. In fact, everything related to your actual stats changes significantly. Your number of attacks changes (In a very painful way). Your saves are completely unrelated. Weapon specialization is altered completely to fit in as feats. Initiative is completely changed. And heck, depending on your experience, your level might change too.

And if you're multiclassing? God, talk about headaches. Multiclass characters weren't half and half completely in line with the other characters, they'd only be two or so levels behind in most cases. So you'd go from a 7/7 priest/fighter to a 4/5 priest fighter. That's a pretty distinct difference.

So what stays the same? No, really, mechanically speaking, what's the same?

The change from 2e to 3e was best done by making a new character and keeping the same name. Unsurprisingly, the same goes for 3e to 4e.

 

[GreyLord]

I haven't seen so many people say that PCs translated over seamlessly. There are a few structural changes scattered about. That said, beyond multiclassing, 1e/2e does convert over to 3e fairly easily and with published advice from WotC to do so. I've found that adventures generally translate over quite well, particularly in the mid levels. The A series works very well without significantly revising encounters.

And as long as you aren't a munchkin with 12 different classes, 6 different races, and 20 different optional profiles picked up in 3.X...I find that converting a 3.X character over to 4e is actually EASIER to do than from an older edition to 3e.

Probably because if you remove the powers of many of the characters, and change their saves to Fort, Ref, Will defenses (which is pretty simple actually) all 4e is, is a revised D20/3.5 edition.

The biggest change really is the Vancian magic differences...but then they changed that from older editions to 3e anyways. The spellcasting tables were completely different, and the spells themselves were different most of the time.

There are more differences overall between the shift of AD&D to 3e, then there are from 3e to 4e.

Edit: I want to add I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (and I know many of you would counter with personal experience) that 3e characters are actually relatively simple to transfer to 4e. In fact, utilizing C&C I have actually run games where people have both 3.5 characters and 4e characters. The hardest part is combat with the monsters...where if you use 4e monsters...all damage from 3.5 characters at lower levels has to be multiplied by 2 (or3 depending on my mood), or if you use 3.5 monsters all damage from 4e character has to be taken to base damage (wpn for aw) OR, allow once per combat that one of their specials can do up to 15 damage max...just depending on which creature.

Tactics and other things actually can flow quite nicely from 3.5 to 4e...since they both were basically based on miniatures on a board/mat of squares for tactical concerns.

AD&D can also be used with C&C for a 3.X mixture of a campaign just as easily...but recently most of it's been done with 3.X and 4e.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So what stays the same? No, really, mechanically speaking, what's the same?

The in-game results.

My Drow Druid/Ranger/Magic-User still slings lightning bolts for similar effectiveness; shapechanges into the same stuff; still does TWF. He still contributes to the game in essentially the same ways with essentially the same results as his 1Ed or 2Ed versions.

Sure, some PCs lost attacks per round- like my Drow Ftr/M-U/Th who could get up to double-digit Att/rd for short stretches- but her efficacy didn't change because her accuracy and damage/Att went up...and she still had more Att/rd than anyone else in the party.

AC changed, sure, as did Str bonuses and Att/rd. End result: warriors have fewer attacks, but hit harder.

Yes, some items and spells simply didn't get converted...but if they're crucial to your PC, that's annoying but not fatal: you can make your own HR versions of them.

And yes, some things simply disappeared. High-Level Warriors no longer were able to treat extremely frail foes like wet TP simply by virtue of their level, but Feats like Great Cleave means that some still could.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Edit: I want to add I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE (and I know many of you would counter with personal experience) that 3e characters are actually relatively simple to transfer to 4e.

I want to counter I know from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that 3.X characters are NOT relatively simple to transfer to 4e.

Besides the issue of multiclassing I pointed out above, many powers have been shifted away from the levels & classes of the 3.X PCs I'd like to convert. IOW, the design decision of "To have power X, you must be class ____" means that PCs who have powers A, B, C, aaaaand X as one class in 3.X may find those powers dispersed over 2 or more classes.

A Sorc of mine would actually have to be a Sorc/Wizard in 4Ed to do what he does now...and would still lose certain abilities while gaining others that have nothing to do with his concept.

And multiclassed PCs get übershafted by this: good luck having your fireball-slinging, shapechanging, backstabbing Aasimar PC In 4Ed.

Now, in all fairness, some of this is because 4Ed is young, yet. But there are options within 3.X which are highly unlikely to ever appear in 4Ed.

 

[Ourph]

Who is to blame? Is it the reactionaries who refused to switch to a more modern game system? Or the designers who came along and tried to cram a radically different system down everyone's throats?

Neither. It is the fault of the small percentage of fans who took the edition change as an excuse to belittle, insult and root against one side or the other at every opportunity. If they had chosen instead to simply play the game they like and, likewise, to wish their fellow gamers well playing their own games of choice, the community could have remained intact; despite whatever changes might have been taking place in the games themselves.

 

[BryonD]

Neither. It is the fault of the small percentage of fans who took the edition change as an excuse to belittle, insult and root against one side or the other at every opportunity. If they had chosen instead to simply play the game they like and, likewise, to wish their fellow gamers well playing their own games of choice, the community could have remained intact; despite whatever changes might have been taking place in the games themselves.

You are talking about two different things.

A fractured market is less desirable regardless of whether or not there are edition wars. If the fragments started ignoring each other tomorrow they would be no less fragmented.

 

[Bluenose]

The in-game results.

Have you tested it?

Take a 1e/2e module, use the pregenerated characters from it (or another one of the right level), and run through it. Record which character does what, record the dice rolls, how the enemies respond, what the traps do, record the outcome of the fight.

Then convert to 3e, use the same characters, attempt the same actions with the same die rolls, and see whether the results are the same.

You may find the results aren't actually the same after all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Have you tested it?

Yes.

The aforementioned 1Ed campaign in 1985 got updated to 2Ed and kept chugging.

When 3Ed hit the shelves, the conversion began. It took time- the accretion of PCs since the campaign's inception meant here was much work to do- but since completion, there has hardly been a hiccup. That campaign is still alive & well.