The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[Imaro]

First, your point that it wasn't creative or imaginitive doesn't have to coincide with wrapping campaigns up. At all. You're arguing from a biased belief, not an objective view of things. Wrapping things up with a *BANG* is the goal. A climax with the feeling "Wow, we've done it all now" would be the preferred way to "end" 3.5.

What exactly is the "objective" view... You either like or don't like the end products, right? I mean how do you measure creativity or imagination... objectively? IMHO, a big book of creatures to fight in and blow up your campaign world is not original (I would argue it's the end-plot for 85% of the console rpg's out there.) and not what people wanted, in fact I would argue the majority of D&D players don't play epic level campaigns either...so it was even more niche than the product I suggested (plus how many times are you going to end the campaign if you're moving to 4e, so do you really need a whole book of "Elder Evils"?). I didn't know I had to put a disclaimer in my posts that this is how I feel....but yeah.

You feel like everything that could have been done with 3e was...I don't, any example I give of another product (as I did earlier) will be torn apart by you in a subjective manner to prove your position. So really what's the point of this, as long as there are people making new and interesting products with the OGL, I feel that it was possible for WotC to do the same, where is your proof that "everything" has been done? I also find it ironic that with 4e they have decided to do multiple settings... something else that could have been done for 3e, maybe in one off books.

 

[Lacyon]

But that's the thing ... they didn't miss with "a few," as far as I'm concerned. If they were even still facing the dartboard, they must've been throwing backwards over their shoulder.

Sticking with your analogy, doesn't it seem odd that in "adjusting their aim" -- given that everything they threw hit the target before -- absolutely nothing hit the target this time? That's not "aim adjustment." That's switching to the pub down the street. Or it's really, really bad aim. Right?

I find it hard to believe that nothing in the new edition hit your dartboard at all. But if you say it did, ok.

To me, it's not that much of an aim adjustment.

Perhaps your dartboard is a lot smaller than mine?

 

[Mallus]

Or if it has to be cats and dogs, D&D is a dog. D&D 3E and 4E are both dogs, but different types - maybe one is a sheppard dog and the other is a Chihuahua, and the Chihuahua showed you how much more you liked big dogs over small dogs, or how much easier it is with a small dog in your apartment...

How about this...

OD&D was a small dog.

AD&D was a larger dog with a worse temperament.

2e was a spayed dog with a better temperament. Despite that, some people felt he lacked the personality of AD&D.

3e was sold as a dog, but it was really a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. Eventually the pig became quite large, and some people began to miss the smaller, cuter pig.

4e is being sold as a dog, too. As to whether it is... that's sparked some debate. It clearly has both dog and pig-like qualities, as well as a bit of cat and turtle. I think it makes a fine pet.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that's the thing ... they didn't miss with "a few," as far as I'm concerned. If they were even still facing the dartboard, they must've been throwing backwards over their shoulder.

Sticking with your analogy, doesn't it seem odd that in "adjusting their aim" -- given that everything they threw hit the target before -- absolutely nothing hit the target this time? That's not "aim adjustment." That's switching to the pub down the street. Or it's really, really bad aim. Right?

Yes, it is odd. But maybe it's just a very big dartboard they are hitting at? And they learned how to hit triple 20s and no longer try aiming for 19?

Statistics don't "explain" why you rolled 3 1s in a row. But they don't forbid it either.

PS:
What actually might be more important: You didn't like the core rules? How likely is it you still really find something in the other books and would find this notable enough to buy? Imagine you didn't like the 3E PHB because it was somewhat different (maybe it didn't have Gnomes, Druids, Barbarians, but Warlocks and Warlords, and 2 Elven races) - but the rest stayed the same? Would you still have bought all the books?)

What I am saying is that maybe one miss might be enough to lose you.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How about this...

OD&D was a small dog.

AD&D was a larger dog with a worse temperament.

2e was a spayed dog with a better temperament. Despite that, some people felt he lacked the personality of AD&D.

3e was sold as a dog, but it was really a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. Eventually the pig became quite large, and some people began to miss the smaller, cuter pig.

4e is being sold as a dog, too. As to whether it is... that's sparked some debate. It clearly has both dog and pig-like qualities, as well as a bit of cat and turtle. I think it makes a fine pet.

I don't know, I don't like the "loadedness" inherent to the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. Maybe it was a dog that looked to you like that, but it was still a dog.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What I am saying is that maybe one miss might be enough to lose you.

I think that's definitely true.

But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5. Tome of Battle, and so forth. Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Nah, this analogy just sucks.

Fine. It sucks. Analogies are unnecessary anyway.

You can give the holdouts what they want; you can try to convince the holdouts to want what you're selling; or you can move forward without the holdouts because they are no longer part of your market.

I think those three strategies pretty much describe the differences between Mike Mearls' job, Scott Rouse's job, and Bill Slavicsek's job.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think that's definitely true.

But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5. Tome of Battle, and so forth. Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?

But they still are significant previews of 4E! The concepts of powers (Tome of Battle), the concept of skills (Star Wars Saga Edition). But maybe you saw Tome of Battle more as an "alternative spellcasting system for fighters" while it was actually a preview for a "general character ability system for all classes". Or maybe you saw "Talents are a way to distinguish classes and characters" while it was actually "you get something new every level and something class-specific every other level". (I am not sure the latter is a good description for what talents are. In a way, talents are "powers" light, in another way they are "class feats" ...)

You can give the holdouts what they want; you can try to convince the holdouts to want what you're selling; or you can move forward without the holdouts because they are no longer part of your market.

I think those three strategies pretty much describe the differences between Mike Mearls' job, Scott Rouse's job, and Bill Slavicsek's job.

Of course, sometimes the borders are fluent. For example, Mike might point you out that a certain rule is actually what you wanted, you just didn't notice it yet (or he communicated it badly).

 

[Brown Jenkin]

The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions.

By the way this may be a cat, but certain people may think it is a turtle.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions.

You are probably right, but this is just why the analogy is so bad. To have so different views on how far the editions are apart, we must have been unable to "see" the previous editions clearly enough.

By the way this may be a cat, but certain people may think it is a turtle.
View attachment 38444

It certainly looks terribly creepy, damnit!