The Really Interesting Hypothetical (RE: 3e/4e/5e)

[innerdude]

It's hard to say what might have happened, but for me, I think it would have been much easier but much less rewarding. I had a hard time with the 3.5-4e shift. I really just didn't want things to change, regardless of what that change was. Hating 4e for it being different led me to look at other systems and really branch out, which led me to have the breadth of experience to look closer at what a game can offer, what I do and don't like about it, rather than just throwing out close-minded insults. It took awhile of trying different stuff, and of trying old stuff again, but it was actually quite formative for me, as a gamer.

This is eerily similar to my own sort of "journey," aided greatly by the fact that after a decade of being a player, I finally "peeked behind the curtain" and started GM-ing.

And what a revelation that was.

As a player, I had never cared much about class "balance," "casters being overpowered*," etc. I simply played the characters I wanted to play.

And even as a GM, they weren't as a big a concern as I discovered them to be......but they were still a concern. Suddenly, I had to start thinking of "the game" in totally different terms.

As I quickly discovered, even with much of the streamlining/fixes in place with Pathfinder, 3.x is still a very "heavy" system. There's some ways that's good, but one of them isn't in ease of GM prep, though I've found that by hoarding high-level NPC statblocks, you can judiciously avoid the most agonizing part.

However--I'm not nearly as passionate about Pathfinder now as I was at its inception. Not because it's not a great treatment of the 3.x ruleset (if I'm ever going to run ANYTHING 3.x, it'll be Pathfinder, Arcana Evolved, or nothing), but because I'm not nearly as enthused about the entire 3.x branch of D&D after trying other stuff.

4e was definitely not the direction I wanted to go ("narrativist" gameplay style runs nearly counter to my sensibilities), but even with my "branching out" the last 18 months still in its nascence, I'm certain that there's a better RPG system out there for the types of games I like to run that isn't derived from D&D at all. Savage Worlds is about 85% there, but the 15% that isn't makes it hard for me to be totally gung-ho about it, so I still have a high incentive to try other things.



*The caster/mundane class disparity is, in my experience, almost entirely a function of playstyle/GM/group dynamics, but in the hands of the wrong group could certainly be problematic.

 

[TwinBahamut]

If 4e was what Pathfinder is now, I would have been very angry. By the end of 3e, I was mostly interested in a lot of the new concepts that were being throw around in the later books, rather than the original game material. I liked the Warlock. I loved the Tome of Battle. I enjoyed the revised psionics. I thought Incarnum was a pretty cool idea that just needed some more work.

Pathfinder dropped all of that in favor of appealing to the people who thought it was important to make a distinction between "core classes' and "base classes". For me, it would have been nothing more than a regression back to the side of 3e that I'd long since abandoned. I was already on my way out from that type of game since long before 4e was announced. For me, and I imagine for many people who also enjoyed those later books, a "Pathfinder 4e" would have just been alienating, an abandonment of the creativity and experimentation that made late-era 3e rather fun.

It really would not have sold me any books. I've got no idea what would happen to Paizo, but considering that they are rather notably of a conservative bent when it comes to D&D playstyles and rules, I doubt they would have filled the gap of creativity and attracted disillusioned fans like me as well as they have attracted the 3e loyalists with Pathfinder.

 

[pemerton]

Would many of the current 4e fans turned their noses up at it and gone back to playing retroclones/Runequest/HERO/anything else? Or would it have "fixed" enough of the problems with 3.x to bring some of them back?

I have played very little 3E. I migrated to 4e after more than 15 years of GMing Rolemaster. If WotC had produce a 3E/PF variant in place of the actual 4e, I certainly wouldn't have been interested. I'd probably be GMing ICE's HARP instead.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would probably have switched to another system. Not sure what, Wharhammer 3e or savage worlds, porbably tried both. I would not have moved to the new edition. For D&D I had enough 3e stuff and would most likely stuck with that.

 

[TwoSix]

If 4e was what Pathfinder is now, I would have been very angry. By the end of 3e, I was mostly interested in a lot of the new concepts that were being throw around in the later books, rather than the original game material. I liked the Warlock. I loved the Tome of Battle. I enjoyed the revised psionics. I thought Incarnum was a pretty cool idea that just needed some more work.

This. I wish 4e had been built on the following concepts:

1) The class design ideas of 2005-2007 3.5e. Warriors with cool abilities, non-Vancian magic, and casters with focused areas of expertise (beguiler, dread necromancer).

2) Redone the math. Ideally, 70% success rate in proficient areas, 40-50% success rate in non-proficient areas at level 1. At max level, 85% success rate at proficient areas, 25-30% at non-proficient areas. Leave room for increasing success so number increases aren't as much of a "treadmill".

3) NPC creation separate from PC creation. The best "advance" of 4e was to ditch this 3e anomaly.

4) Character building software upfront, and purchasable content for the software. Granted, this is more obvious in a post App Store world.

 

[billd91]

If 4e had been more evolutionary like PF, I'd still be a WotC customer. I don't think there's much more I can say for certain. It would be a lot more like making the transition from 1e to 2e - easier, more backward compatibility of the adventure materials, yet still a step forward in rule development.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I loved playing 3.x despite my issues with it but Pathfinder didn't improve anything so I didn't buy any Pathfinder books. So if WotC's 4th Edition was like Pathfinder I imagine I'd be in the same spot I am today regarding 3.x and Pathfinder. I'd have my 3.x books in case I get in a 3.x game but wouldn't have bought any of the hypothetical Pathfinder-like 4th Edition books.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I use 3.5's children as productive mines of ideas, so I usually buy the basic "PHB" for most of the better ones.

 

[MortonStromgal]

if 4e had been OGL still I doubt Pathfinder would exist. Instead you would have 4e variant players handbooks and retro clones. 3e had a ton of great 3rd party support by the end of it and it was easy to get new players into because they could live with the SRD and not forced into buying anything. Eventually they would buy books but it was at their pace. There would also be a better clean up and optional rules for 4e. Moving to the GSL was the biggest problem with 4e in my mind.

 

[samursus]

Like many say its tough to say with certainty in a "what if" situation, but....

Personally, I left D&D shortly after 3.5 came out, for various reasons. One of the key ones was I just didn't have the time to run the game as it was. I found the rules imbalances too much effort to deal with, especially with one of my power-gamer players.

So to answer the question, I highly doubt a new edition that hadn't made the drastic changes 4e had, would have even brought me back.