The real flaw of 3E/3.5E/OGL

[MichaelSomething]

Wait a minute! Did I touch a nerve or something? The tools/game thing may not be a great divide at all but there is a difference.

Since 3rd Edition can be used to create whatever game you want, it can be considered a bunch of tools since you take a bunch of different things and use them to create the type of game you want. That appeals to all sorts of people. In fact, this modability is becoming the new thing. Look at things like wikipedia or all the computer games that come with built in editors that allow people to use the tools that the developers used to create their own levels/games/etc. Of course, you can still play and enjoy the game if you just want to do that.

4th Edition is all about focusing on creating the "funist" game possible. It's designed so you can spend less time preparing to play and more time playing. You can consider it more of a game since you can play it as is and expect to have a fun time. This appeals to all sorts of people as well. You can simply play the game and enjoy it with out having to do all sorts of work. It's like enjoying a nice meal cooked by a famous chef instead of cooking it yourself. Of course, 4th Edition can be modified as well. Your sure to find some nice 4th Edition houserules/modificaitons if you look around a bit.

The reason modability is so important to some people is that some (or many or few depending on your opinion of WOTC) people have a view of "fun" that is different from WOTC's view. It doesn't matter how well WOTC does something if that thing is something you loath. The best peanut butter in the world is still poison to a person that is allergic to peanuts. Lots of people hate 4th Edition because it’s not what they wanted or feel it’s too constricting. Another reason is that some people just enjoy changing the system to see what happens or to create a whole new thing in general. It seems that everyone is an aspiring designer.

Sometimes, making something a better game can make it a worse tool (or making something a better tool makes it a worse game). You can do both, but it requires carefulness among other things.

 

[ProfessorPain]

Wait a minute! Did I touch a nerve or something? The tools/game thing may not be a great divide at all but there is a difference.

Since 3rd Edition can be used to create whatever game you want, it can be considered a bunch of tools since you take a bunch of different things and use them to create the type of game you want. That appeals to all sorts of people. In fact, this modability is becoming the new thing. Look at things like wikipedia or all the computer games that come with built in editors that allow people to use the tools that the developers used to create their own levels/games/etc. Of course, you can still play and enjoy the game if you just want to do that.

4th Edition is all about focusing on creating the "funist" game possible. It's designed so you can spend less time preparing to play and more time playing. You can consider it more of a game since you can play it as is and expect to have a fun time. This appeals to all sorts of people as well. You can simply play the game and enjoy it with out having to do all sorts of work. It's like enjoying a nice meal cooked by a famous chef instead of cooking it yourself. Of course, 4th Edition can be modified as well. Your sure to find some nice 4th Edition houserules/modificaitons if you look around a bit.

The reason modability is so important to some people is that some (or many or few depending on your opinion of WOTC) people have a view of "fun" that is different from WOTC's view. It doesn't matter how well WOTC does something if that thing is something you loath. The best peanut butter in the world is still poison to a person that is allergic to peanuts. Lots of people hate 4th Edition because it’s not what they wanted or feel it’s too constricting. Another reason is that some people just enjoy changing the system to see what happens or to create a whole new thing in general. It seems that everyone is an aspiring designer.

Sometimes, making something a better game can make it a worse tool (or making something a better tool makes it a worse game). You can do both, but it requires carefulness among other things.

Fun and better are both really subjective terms. I don't think either 3E or 4E can be said to be objectively more fun or a better system.

both are designed with fun as the end goal. and both were trying to make a better game. But each took a different approach. What you are describing is streamlined V. complex. 4E is a streamlined game that keeps mechanical considerations to a minimum. So people can focus on the game. This doesn't mean it is more fun for everyone though. Some people don't have fun with streamlined systems. 3E is designed to be more invovled and customizable. That doesn't mean it is less fun than 4E. It is just more complicated. Which one is fun, depends on what style system you prefer. people who go for streamline, probably find 4E more fun. People who go for cusomizable and invovled, probably find 3E more fun. But I know plenty of people who go for streamlined who have more fun with 3E and people who prefer involved who have more fun with 4E because of flavor issues.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

3rd Edition is all about focusing on creating the "funnest" game possible. It's designed so you can spend less time preparing to play and more time playing. You can consider it more of a game since you can play it as is and expect to have an fun time. This appeals to all sorts of people as well. You can simply play the game and enjoy it with out having to do all sorts of work. It's like enjoying a nice meal cooked by a famous chef instead of cooking it yourself. Of course, 3rd Edition can be modified as well. Your sure to find some nice 3rd Edition houserules/modificaitons if you look around a bit.

Are you starting to see the issue here?

3e can be played in the exact same way that 4e can. It just has extra buttons and knobs to go with it.

 

[DracoSuave]

The flaw with 3E was the thought that it could be marketed as the -uber-system, that it could be altered or otherwise patched to fit any kind of roleplaying that you want.

It's good for a certain collection of styles of roleplay, but there's certain applications it just doesn't work well with. Superheroic roleplay? Sure! Great! (altho 4e is actually better suited to that style). Post-apocolyptic Mad-Max Cars and Guns play? Awesome! Star-Wars adventure? Nice!

But some things, not so good. Call of Cthulhu D20? Meh. Rokugan D20? Meh. Some games are just better with their own proprietary systems with their intrinsic design philosophies.

Altho, kudos to D20 for trying to do what GURPS tried to do with more commercial success.

 

[ProfessorPain]

The flaw with 3E was the thought that it could be marketed as the -uber-system, that it could be altered or otherwise patched to fit any kind of roleplaying that you want.

It's good for a certain collection of styles of roleplay, but there's certain applications it just doesn't work well with. Superheroic roleplay? Sure! Great! (altho 4e is actually better suited to that style). Post-apocolyptic Mad-Max Cars and Guns play? Awesome! Star-Wars adventure? Nice!

But some things, not so good. Call of Cthulhu D20? Meh. Rokugan D20? Meh. Some games are just better with their own proprietary systems with their intrinsic design philosophies.

Altho, kudos to D20 for trying to do what GURPS tried to do with more commercial success.

I think you are right, but I don't see this as a flaw with the game, so much as expectations. 3E/d20 worked very well for a number of games. But there are genres is has trouble with (Cthulu being an example--though to be fair I have d20 Cthulu and was suprised how well it worked. It just didn't work as well as the system that was designed around Cthulu). Every generic system falls short on certain genres, and systems built around a genre will almost always be better. But as a flexible system that enables you to shift from one genre to another without having to learn a whole new set of rules, d20 rocks. This is one reason I think it will be around for a while. It covers a lot of genres without the headache of a system like GURPS (and I am a big fan of GURPS, but they definitely had an issue with rules presentation in that game). Any game system that can handle, fantasy, post apoc., and star wars, is pretty well rounded. It even handled some styles of modern well (though I do think d20 modern tried to do too many things).

 

[Greg K]

The flaw with 3E was the thought that it could be marketed as the -uber-system, that it could be altered or otherwise patched to fit any kind of roleplaying that you want.

Are you limiting to core or are you taking into account the d20STL *and* OGL?

It's good for a certain collection of styles of roleplay, but there's certain applications it just doesn't work well with. Superheroic roleplay? Sure! Great!

If we are talking into account OGL games (I.e, Mutants and Masterminds), I agree that it does supers well. Otherwise, I disagree, but it comes down to personal taste.

(altho 4e is actually better suited to that style).

Completely disagree. I think it is just as bad as standard d20.

Post-apocolyptic Mad-Max Cars and Guns play? Awesome! Star-Wars adventure? Nice!

Agree

But some things, not so good. Call of Cthulhu D20? Meh. Rokugan D20? Meh. Some games are just better with their own proprietary systems with their intrinsic design philosophies.

Again, if we are taking into account the d20STL and OGL licenses, I disagree. The implementation that we were given may not be as good, but with productls like Unearthed Arcana, d20 Modern, and various third pary d20 and OGL mechanics, you can do a very good job. You just have to strip the d20 mechanics down to its core and build back up as was done with M&M. That the designers did not do it speaks about the design choices of the particular designers of those games not the OGL.

 

[BryonD]

w00t. False dichotomy ftw.

Sometimes, making something a better game can make it a worse tool (or making something a better tool makes it a worse game). You can do both, but it requires carefulness among other things.

On a streak here....

 

[MichaelSomething]

On a streak here....

I'm not sure what you're sayin' here.


Listen. I thought that I said that I agree with the fact that an RPG can be both a game and a toolbox. I thought I said that. Did I not say that? Am I unclear on my agreement with this issue? Am I saying it in a way that causes people to not notice that I said that?

An RPG can be both a game and a toolbox! I agree with this point! If you believe I do not agree with the first sentence of this paragraph; amend your belief from "MichaelSomething does not believe an RPG can ever be both a toolbox and a game" to "MichaelSomething believes an RPG can be both a game and a toolbox at the same time."

To repeat this point in the event you do not understand what I am saying. I am in agreement that it is possilbe for an RPG to be both a fun enjoyable game and a highly moddable series of tools a person can use to construct the game that suits their personal taste. RPGs can do both!

AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR ON THIS!?!

The point I am now trying to get across is that a "game" and a "toolbox" are different things with different needs! Finaly Fantasy 7 is different from RPG Maker. A frozen pizza is different from a hunk of pizza dough and a bunch of toppings. I can go to Apple store to buy a computer or I can buy a bunch of computer parts and put together my own computer. I can go buy a poster or I can buy some paper and paint and create my own picture to hang on my wall.

I am also willing to admit that the difference between a "game" and a "toolbox" may not a huge divide after all. Warcraft 3 comes with several campaigns you can play through as well a editor that allow you create yoru own maps. I can buy a Dell computer and then cutomize it with my own computer parts. I can buy a poster and then alter it to suite my tastes.

Are you starting to see the issue here?

3e can be played in the exact same way that 4e can. It just has extra buttons and knobs to go with it.

So are you also saying that 4e is also a highly cutomizable system that I can change to create the game I want to play? If I'm mistaken, why?

 

[Beginning of the End]

The problem with 3E/3.5E, especially combined with the OGL is that it is not one single game. What I mean by this, is that different groups could use the system to play games that could be wholly different than the games played by other groups. 3E/3.5E D&D was flexible, both in terms of flavor and gameplay, that it lacked a clear and consistent identity in either. With the amount of customizability in the game, and the almost infinite power disparity inherent in character creation, it was possible for players to be playing different games at the same table in the same campaign. While this can be a beneficial quality in the game, D&D is a brand name. For RPGs, D&D is THE brand name. While this versatility can be a boon from a certain viewpoint, it does hurt the brand name. It makes the game less portable, as I can't join a different group in my home town, move to a different state and find a new group, or play a game at a convention and expect to find a similar experience as the games I am used to playing with my regular group.

So from 1974-2008, the brand was being hurt by its versatility, customizability, and the ability to appeal to many different types of gamers... and then 4th Edition came along and "fixed" that?

I'm not even a fan of 4th Edition and I feel insulted on its behalf.

(And, yeah, I'm rejecting your position that G1, S1, the Dragonlance modules, and RA3 all played the same. Even OD&D had several distinct styles of play, and that was just talking about the original boxed set.)

A player playing an optimized Druid of Death and a player who builds a Bard to maximize an aesthetic concept with no regard for gameplay consequences aren't really playing the same game, even if they are playing IN the same game. Committed powergamers who know the system and play to win and a newbie just off the street aren't playing the same game either.

Your contention is that 3rd Edition invented power gamers? And that they went away in 2008?

C'mon.

This brings us to organized(RPGA or otherwise), tournament and convention play. WotC has stated in plain language that organized/tournament/convention D&D is important to the brand, and it is certainly the play that they are most personally involved in from a participation and feedback standpoint.

Which is hugely problematic, frankly.

4E, love it or hate it, does have a loud and recognizable core identity, and one that is hard to ignore or forget.

While I agree with you, this is oddly one point where the 4th Edition designers won't agree with you (publicly, anyway). Mearls' blog has recently been explicitly denying it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

For the rest of us, the true flaw of 3E was and remains its boggling complexity at high levels. This is a show stopper that simply makes the game un-DM-able, at least for me.

And I'm not sure I've seen a single 3E descendant fix (or even approach) this problem; not 3.5E, not Pathfinder.

In this critical area at least Fourth Edition is really a revolutionary step forward.

I get that. But it's also important to acknowledge that they accomplished that by eliminating high level play.

Yes, in 4th Edition the numbers keep getting bigger. But the actual abilities that defined high level play in all previous editions of the game were simply removed.

4th Edition took a narrow range of the gameplay available in previous editions, called it the "sweet spot", and then spread it out over 30 levels. And, hey, if that was your one-and-only sweet spot, then that's fantastic.

If it wasn't, then you're screwed.