Was there a real need for a fourth ed.? Or would tweaking 3.5 have done it for you?

[rounser]

Of course 3E needed replacing. The fact that creating NPCs requires a computer program in order to do it in a reasonable timeframe is reason enough.

The 4E we got, however, is no replacement. They couldn't even provide a decent implied setting, let alone a game I can suspend disbelief for and want to invest time in. For D&D, that's an impressive achievement - I wanted to like it, and have liked every edition prior.

I can understand exactly how this happened, as it looks passingly similar to a D&D replacement I tried to design in the 90s - the same elegance of design using one system of powers across the board and balance of classes, come hell or high water, flavour as afterthought, gimmicky little game artifacts in an attempt to provide interest. My "D&D, but bettah!" clone also kind of sucked in terms of making me want to play it.

4E is that turned up to eleven. I'm certain it plays great, but it doesn't make me want to believe in it's world or invest time in it, so it may as well be chess for all that matters.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Of course 3E needed replacing. The fact that creating NPCs requires a computer program in order to do it in a reasonable timeframe is reason enough.

How can that be a "fact" when I am able to create 3E NPCs in a reasonable timeframe without the use of a computer program?

 

[rounser]

How can that be a "fact" when I am able to create 3E NPCs in a reasonable timeframe without the use of a computer program?

Well, what is reasonable may differ from person to person, I suppose. For me, 3E stat blocks are unreasonable. Just look at how much space they take up - it takes a while to type out that much text alone, let alone look up the rules to make it.

When one of the designers of the game thanks the existence of a computer program for easing the burden of generating stats, it might hint that there's a smidgen of an issue there.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, if there hadn't been a 4E, I would probably still play 3E, as long as there was a DM in my group wanting to. As long as we had adventure paths, that was basically guaranteed.
But possibly not DM it anymore, instead going to Iron Heroes. But I am not sure that would have satisfied me for long, either, and I might have gone to another system as a DM. (Shadowrun, perhaps?) I really don't know.

But all the flaws I found in 3E (and some of them, like the fundamental math, stayed in Iron Heroes or Arcana Evolved) would still have been there. Anything to rework that requires a redesign, and that's something I'd never be able to do on my own.

4E is a solution to the flaws I saw, and it makes DMing even without adventuring paths looking easier again...

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I don't even think the original question is really about what would be fine with YOU when it comes to the next edition. But rather what would be the best process of making a new edition/continuing the D&D line.

So, say you were completely edition-neutral. Would a simple tweaking of a previous ruleset (in this case the previous ruleset was 3.5) is the proper method of making a new edition/continuing the line. Or, is making major overhauls the proper way to make a new edition.

Thus my original response, that even without my own consideration of my approval of 4e I believe a reworking of the game is important because it means that the game can become more diverse and essentially be more likely to be the edition for someone, it is healthy both for the community and RPGs in general that new editions come out so more people can find the ruleset that works for them. So simply tweaking a ruleset I personally don't think is far-enough.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't even think the original question is really about what would be fine with YOU when it comes to the next edition. But rather what would be the best process of making a new edition/continuing the D&D line.

That very statement - "what would be the best process" - assumes there is a need for a new edition or major overhaul at all, and that's a big assumption. Yes, 3.x was a bloated disaster by the end, as was 2e...and 4e (judging by the shelves at my FLGS) is already showing signs of ballooning and we're only half a year in.

There has yet to be a need for a new edition other than to trim bloat, and bloat is not the fault of the players/consumers.

So, say you were completely edition-neutral. Would a simple tweaking of a previous ruleset (in this case the previous ruleset was 3.5) is the proper method of making a new edition/continuing the line. Or, is making major overhauls the proper way to make a new edition.

No, it's the proper way to make a new *game*, distinct and different than before and with a different name to go with it. How's this:

0e - Dungeons and Dragons
1e - Amped-up Dungeons and Dragons
2e - Swords and Settings
3e - Rules and Robots
4e - Grids and Goblins

Thus my original response, that even without my own consideration of my approval of 4e I believe a reworking of the game is important because it means that the game can become more diverse and essentially be more likely to be the edition for someone, it is healthy both for the community and RPGs in general that new editions come out so more people can find the ruleset that works for them. So simply tweaking a ruleset I personally don't think is far-enough.

Valid points, though I humbly suggest people can and will find the ruleset that works for them if they are given a basic framework and encouraged to, in effect, build their own.

Lanefan

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Perfect timing for me! Some time in 2007 I was starting to look more closely at other game systems and building chains of arguments to convince my very traditional player to diverge into a new direction: I was rather fed up with 3.5, the chore/fun ratio steadily rising. For the next few years, I'll happily run 4e.

Furthermore, 3.5 clearly showed its age from a design point of view. We were either offered new Feats and Prestige Classes ("Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce to you the 5,000th Prestige Class: the One-eyed Master Beggar of Baldur's Gate!") or completely new subsystems.

The great thing of 3.X as compared to former editions had been the systematization of the game. Instead of obscure rules for specific situations we now had a basic system you could use to easily improvise nearly any situation. This clean design, which strangely didn't encompass magic, became more and more "polluted" with special systems glued to its structure.

Adding new parts to a well-running machine may add new features, but it doesn't necessarily make it better.

One could also ask whether an approach like True20, Pathfinder, Arcana Unearthed, let's call it 3.75, would be better. Economical realities aside, it wouldn't have won over me.

If I could handle it using perturbation theory (Pathfinder), it wouldn't solve the problem of the chore/fun ration, hence being no alternative at all.

If its deviation from the 3.5 standard is greater (True20), it is essentially a new system. As I mentioned at the beginning of this reply, I was entertaining thoughts of exchanging D&D for something else, so such a beast would be eligible. But then the differences are too few/insignificant for me to change trains. I was rather looking at Savage Worlds, e.g.

In the middle of the road we have things like Unearthed Arcana, which takes the 3.5 system, exchanges several parts and re-interprets a lot of things, races and classes, e.g. This might have worked fopr me, bt not for my players. From their point of view it's not D&D.

I think all these variations of the 3.5 system and all these tweaked versions are fine for players and game masters who play or run four campaigns per year. We run two parallel campaigns with different players in five years...

As you can see, 4e is a good thing for me, regardless of its quality. Maybe my players clamor for the return to 3.5 next year, maybe I want to do or run something that will be impossible with 4e (which I highly doubt). I don't think 4e is perfect, maybe I'm fed up with it. I'll surely be fed up with 4e at some time in the future and start looking for alternatives, just as I'd done in the past.

I'm looking forward to 5e in several years. I'm anxious to see the coming interpretation of the elusive D&D. Maybe I find some future edition bland, childish, not to my tastes. But then I can easily dust off the books of some other editions and play what I want.

Keep those editions coming!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That very statement - "what would be the best process" - assumes there is a need for a new edition or major overhaul at all, and that's a big assumption. Yes, 3.x was a bloated disaster by the end, as was 2e...and 4e (judging by the shelves at my FLGS) is already showing signs of ballooning and we're only half a year in.

Well given the initial question it would mean that there is some need (whatever that need may be depends on the game, like my own personal view is that new editions should occur say... every 5-10 years, to allow the game to try out new directions, etc. like stated in my previous post).

As such it is less a issue of, whether or not there should be, but what be the best process of going around doing so.

As for the "creating a new game", I don't really view games that are part of a lineage as ones that need a new name, as long as the ideals, concepts, etc. of the game continues. This has been the case with D&D, each game has its dragons, its dungeons, its beholders and wizards, etc. Just like say how WoD in both editions has its vampires, its mages and its werewolves.

 

[delericho]

I think a 4th was needed, but not this one.

That would be my thought, too, except that I'd add the word 'necessarily' between 'not' and 'this one'.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How can that be a "fact" when I am able to create 3E NPCs in a reasonable timeframe without the use of a computer program?

It all depends on your definition of reasonable timeframe. I suspect rounsers might be different from yours. And it might also be a question of how "fine-tuned" you create NPCs and how much you are willing to wing...