Was 3rd edition fundamentaly flawed?

[Agamon]

If the definition of "fundamentally flawed" is "not perfect", then, yes, 3E was fundamentally flawed. Just like everything else in existance.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If the definition of "fundamentally flawed" is "not perfect", then, yes, 3E was fundamentally flawed. Just like everything else in existance.

I'm taking it to involve "unrecoverable errors." Stuff that can't be fixed via errata or future supplements.

 

[Exen Trik]

I wouldn't say fundamentally flawed in terms of being broken at its core, as some here are reading it. But there were fundamental aspects that were indeed flawed, as in things that go deeper than the build of the classes or design of spells and feats or mechanics like grapple. Off the top of my head, Multiclassed casters, ECL, and the mechanics that caused the 'sweet spot' to exist represent fundamental flaws. One thing they have in common is that they can be avoided if you play with certain conditions or restrictions, but as you get away from those the issues become increasingly worse.

So then, 3e and 3.5e introduced a number of fixes, in the form of epic level rules, hybrid prestige classes like eldritch knight and mystic theurge, and many feats and prestige classes of questionable balance to accomplish the things the game couldn't do very well by itself. What 4e does is build the game around a fundamentally fixed core rules set, while integrating some of the better of the mechanical innovations of the 3e era such as action points and swift actions.

Which is probably the biggest reason I'm looking forward to it, as a fixed core system will be more easily adaptable, and lend itself to the creation of many other inherently well-functioning games. Including ones I make myself.

 

[Li Shenron]

Note, however, that the fighter is carrying around a +5 sword, has feats that improve his to-hit with said sword, a huge Str score, and assorted buffs from various party members. The wizard has none of those things, because he doesn't want to be in combat, and so isn't wasting his resources on things that make him better at smashing stuff with his staff.

It's not a 10 point difference, and it's not really about BAB. Christmas Tree Effect, remember?

Exactly what I meant: not a BAB problem

 

[wingsandsword]

Anyhow back to the topic at hand...Was 3e fundamentaly flawed and WotC knew it and contintued to work with a seriously flawed ruleset...Or is this just the designers trying to convert us to 4e? Or what degree of in-between is there?

Marketing at work.

3e was no more fundamentally flawed than any other game, if it was so flawed why was it so successful?

No one game will satisfy everybody. Some people who hated 3e will love 4e, and vice versa.

 

[Khairn]

Anyhow back to the topic at hand...Was 3e fundamentaly flawed and WotC knew it and continued to work with a seriously flawed ruleset...Or is this just the designers trying to convert us to 4e? Or what degree of in-between is there?

Combination of a few things. There is no doubt that 3E has its blemishes, and there is no doubt that our personal experiences have changed our perception of 3E, and there is no doubt that WotC is promoting 4E by stoking and embellishing the complaints some gamers have expressed about 3E.

Since 3E was launched, our experience has changed, game design theory has changed, but the rules have remained the same.

So was 3E fundamentaly flawed? Absolutely. The exact same way our perceptions of 4E will show it to be fundamentaly flawed in a couple of years.

 

[Anthtriel]

Note, however, that the fighter is carrying around a +5 sword, has feats that improve his to-hit with said sword, a huge Str score, and assorted buffs from various party members. The wizard has none of those things, because he doesn't want to be in combat, and so isn't wasting his resources on things that make him better at smashing stuff with his staff.

It's not a 10 point difference, and it's not really about BAB. Christmas Tree Effect, remember?

Bab contributes to it just as much as the feats and magic items do, that makes it just as much of a problem as they are. Again: Very similar to different Save Progessions that were cut out of Saga for good effect.

And I'm sure Bab would have gotten killed as well, if it weren't for the fact that Saga so deeply ingrained into the system (Feat Requirements for example).

 

[pemerton]

As others have noted, the notion of "fundamental flaw" is capable of different interpretations.

I think that there are five key aspects of 3E that the designers have identified as in need of repair:

*Significant parts of the rules are not being used (or not used with pleasure) by a majority of the players of the game.

This would include (for example) the grappling rules, and the elemental planes.

This sort of problem is not caused by supplements and rules options - in fact, it can be fixed by them.​

*Significant parts of the character build mechanics are hard to use well and/or a prone to misuse or breakage due to unforseen synergies.

Examples of the first would include multi-classing with spellcasters. Examples of the second would include CoDzilla (though maybe some of that was foreseen, and offered as a carrot to have people play the healer). The role of magic items and "Christmas trees" in character build also fall under this heading.

Supplements can exacerbate this problem (by creating more unforseen synergies) or ameliorate it to an extent (by giving us more Mystic Theurges and Practiced Spellcasters, or new options for items as in the Magic Items Compendium). But in many ways it is better tackled from the ground up (eg the way that Conan tackles the magic item issue with its stat gain rules).​

*Significant parts of the rules lead, due to the overall design logic, to an unsatisfactory play experience.

Examples include those part of the spell rules that lead either to players of wizards frequently doing nothing, or to nova-ing and overshadowing non-spell-users.

As far as I can see, this does go to the fundamentals of 3E mechanics. Solving it requires either:

(i) Changing the overall design logic by going back to 1st-ed assumptions about play - in particular, that the crux of the play experience will involve operational planning and GM-mediated solutions to non-mechanically expressed challenges; or,

(ii) Changing the suites of class abilities so that they work better with the present design logic - in particular, that the crux of the play experience will involve character build mechanics, and the overcoming of mechanically-expressed challenges by clever applicaiton of the action resolution mechanics​

Of RPGs that I'm familiar with, AD&D is the only one in which option (i) has ever been prominent, and the general trend of the game over the past 25 years has been away from it and towards (ii). Solution (ii) also has the advantage of addressing the second point above.

The problem doesn't arise from supplements, and it can't be solved by them either. Fundamental change is needed.​

*The game is very hard to GM, especially for high level play, because of the complexity of monster and NPC build rules (eg skill points) and the complexity of monster and NPC action resolution rules (eg the many spell-like abilities that high level monsters often have).

Common build rules for PCs and NPCs/monsters is pretty fundamental to 3E, and is a flaw: what GMs are looking for in their play experience is quite different from what players are looking for (eg complexity of PC build is a plus for many players, but complexity of NPC/monster build is a minus for many GMs). Fixing these rules is not something that can be done via options and supplements.​

*Currently, some aspects of trope and flavour are seen as impediments to easy uptake of the game, and particularly to easy GMing.

These include sometimes obscure distinctions between monsters (eg demons and devils), and the perceived need to detail a world before the PCs can interact with it. The 4e designers are therefore changing those things (eg succubi become devils, "points of light" becomes the default setting).

These are pretty clearly not fundamental flaws.​

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[Jhaelen]

At its core, the game system is just that....a system. And all systems are abstractions of reality, and as such, are flawed.


I learned this lesson well in school. Take a quick lesson from astronomy. I'm sure many people have heard about Gallileo and the Earth-centric vs Sun-centric theory of the solar system.

People are taught that the sun-centric theory was proven "true" and the earth-centric one "false", but that's not really the case.

What happened was there were certain events in the solar system that required a LOT of complicated math by the earth-centric theorists to explain correctly. But they did explain them. Its not like earth-centric people lived in some kind of cosmic blackhole of ignorance. Their equations did the job they needed them to do.

However, along comes sun-centric, and suddenly equations that took blackboards on top of blackboards to complete could now be done in a few lines. The model was cleaner and smoother, so eventually it was chosen as a better tool for the solar system, not because it was truely more "correct" but it was more "convenient". Keep in mind, the original solar-centric theory wasn't perfect, it had plenty of problems of its own. But these were less severe than the earth-centric ones.


Dnd is the same. 3e is a fine system, but we all know there are a few cases with those blackboards full of headaches it causes. However, we've all gamed with it for years so its obviously done its job. However, if 4e provides a cleaner, better way of providing this enjoyment, then its a good next step and we should adopt it.

I'm not sure it's 100% applicable but it's certainly a nice comparison!

 

[olshanski]

A new edition is a way to incorporate these new things into the game in a more integrated, better working (less broken), less book intensive way.

Ha!

Are you saying they will not try to sell as many supplements* as they did in 3.5 edition?

(By supplements I mean Core Rules2 (2009), Core rules3 (2010), Core Rules4 (2011) etcetera.