The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)

[The Little Raven]

No Mourn, don't play victim here.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. He said that pro-4e people edition warred because they felt he was "breaking up the group," and I was pointing out that this is not true of all of the pro-4e edition warriors. I'm saying that people start and I'll get my hands dirty. It's not in my nature to insult people for having different opinions (different strokes and all that), but it's perfectly in my nature to insult people in response to being insulted. Before the moderators really jumped on it, when the edition war was waging its hottest, many anti-4e posts were insulting towards people that actually liked the game (or were looking forward to it, before release), so I would respond in kind. Recently, you'll see my posting has fallen off (holidays, work schedule, and whatnot) and what posting I have been doing has been much less harsh.

 

[Azgulor]

wut? Healing surges don't let you avoid taking damage. They're simply a measure of your total health (25% of your total, normally) that allows healing to scale up as your HP total does. This decouples healing from level-based distinctions and allows, say, a cure light wounds spell to always heal light wounds on the target, regardless of how powerful the target is.

Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage. I said that in video games, once you've gone without taking damage for a period of time, the healing-surge-like effect occurs. Obviously, the mechanics of a video game and a 4e healing surge will not be the same. People have drawn comparisons based on similarities. The similarity lies in that spontaneous healing occurs. While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points. With the healing surge, I can see where the comparison arises. Mechanics like this have caused the video game comparisons. If you don't see the comparisons, that's a valid viewpoint but it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint of those who do see the parallels.

 

[Azgulor]

I'm not doing anything of the sort. He said that pro-4e people edition warred because they felt he was "breaking up the group," and I was pointing out that this is not true of all of the pro-4e edition warriors. I'm saying that people start and I'll get my hands dirty. It's not in my nature to insult people for having different opinions (different strokes and all that), but it's perfectly in my nature to insult people in response to being insulted. Before the moderators really jumped on it, when the edition war was waging its hottest, many anti-4e posts were insulting towards people that actually liked the game (or were looking forward to it, before release), so I would respond in kind. Recently, you'll see my posting has fallen off (holidays, work schedule, and whatnot) and what posting I have been doing has been much less harsh.

On the flip side, many that were not 4e fans were shouted down or driven away by, shall we say, "overenthusiastic" responses by some of the pro-4e crowd. The crap being flung came from both sides of the aisle.

 

[Scribble]

Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage. I said that in video games, once you've gone without taking damage for a period of time, the healing-surge-like effect occurs. Obviously, the mechanics of a video game and a 4e healing surge will not be the same. People have drawn comparisons based on similarities. The similarity lies in that spontaneous healing occurs. While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points. With the healing surge, I can see where the comparison arises. Mechanics like this have caused the video game comparisons. If you don't see the comparisons, that's a valid viewpoint but it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint of those who do see the parallels.

See now this is kind of what I was talking about.

At heart is simply a mechanic for allowing a player to take his licks, and then get back into the action.

If you don't like the mechanic fair enough, but what difference does it make what inspired that mechanic?

What about the fact that it's used in a number of computer games has any relevance whatsoever?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

That 3Ed was as radical a change from 2Ed as 4Ed was from 3Ed I find to be non-controversial.

The differences between the transitions, though, are crucial:

1) WotC tried to make it possible to transition 2Ed PCs and campaigns into 3Ed campaigns with as little pain as possible, even going so far as to publishing a conversion manual (of which I own 2). With 4Ed, we were told conversions were essentially a waste of time, and that starting anew would be preferable. This means that those of us who had campaigns dating back many years (like mine which started in the 1980s) were essentially given a date certain after which those campaigns would no longer be supported by the new version of the game.

2) 3Ed changes were largely mechanical, not fluff, and the mechanical changes were, by and large significantly positive changes to the earlier editions. The math, for instance, became much more intuitive.

3Ed didn't touch the fluff by excising classes or races. It didn't alter the cosmology significantly. Instead, it was about expanding possibilities- hence, the elvish paladins and more open multiclassing structure.

In contrast, the mechanical differences weren't inherently superior, just different. Racial or Class options that existed in the 3Ed PHB were gone. The alignment system was truncated (and in an oddly unbalanced fashion).

3) 3Ed was all about freeing up character options. Within a small set of restrictions, you could have your PC of any race have any combination of any classes...even if it was mechanically sub-optimal. The designers of 3Ed trusted the DMs and players to be able to design fun PCs and campaigns.

4Ed's design favoring a mechanical preference for balance is inherently more restrictive. A sub-optimal PC is much less possible. The 4Ed designers tightening of PC design restrictions (especially in multiclassing) amounts to a lack of trust in player decisions.

IOW, whereas in the 3Ed transition, WotC tried to ensure backwards compatibility, maintained many thematic touchstones of the game's previous incarnations, and expanded options within the Core releases as compared to its predecessor, 4Ed was decidedly NOT backwards compatible, killed or maimed many sacred cows, and reduced Core options as compared to 3Ed.

Obviously, that didn't sit well for many.

This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e. They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.

 

[Scribble]

This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e. They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.

It's a new edition. By not offering a new set of concepts and ideas, they'd be basically just selling me everything I already had. That pissed me off when they did it with 3.5

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This has me scratching my head, so perhaps you can explain. Granted it's been a long time since I've seen a fighting game.

Healing surges are an expansion of a mechanic from SWSE, btw. CRPGs still pretty much use the nonsensical healing model of earlier editions of D&D: healing that comes in set amounts applied to larger and larger HP pools. So, basically the opposite of "videogamey," if your yardstick is computer RPGs, anyway.

In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever). In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.

Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.

Its a simple change, but it radically alters the game dynamics. Parties in previous editions were somewhat like naval carrier groups- each unit type had its unique capabilities, and they depended upon each other to cover each others' weaknesses.

The healing surge somewhat weakens that interdependence.

 

[FireLance]

WOW is similar. When not fighting you gradually regain health. If you sit down the rate of healing increases and if you eat its faster still.

I don't see this as a healing surge though. The amount of health you can regain isn't limted in any way. Its not like you can only regain so much health per hour then thats it. D&D healing surges are a finite resource that can be used up quickly during rests but can eventually run out until the character takes an extended rest. Healing surges are not really videogame-like in this respect although I find them to be a highly gamist concept.

Indeed. That sounds more like a healing rate mechanic, like the 1 hp/level per day of rest (more with total rest and a healer tending to wounds) that was present in 3e.

 

[Spatula]

Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage.

Ah, I see, I misintrepreted your wording. You're mixing up healing surges with 4e's rest mechanics, which confused me.

While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points.

As does 4e, with the caveat that there is non-magical "healing."

 

[FireLance]

This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e. They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.

I think the intention was to start new players and older players on more or less the same footing. It's just another expression of the aim of making 4e more friendly to new players.