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

[Lanefan]

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).

Fair enough.

The corollary questions, however, are a) whether with each new edition all support should be immediately cut off for prior editions (I can't say NO loudly enough); and b) should there be a significant measure of backwards-forwards compatibility between the various editions (I say yes).

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.

Don't know about WoD, but for the D+D editions if they're not compatible with each other in basic things like character generation, relative powers, class abilities, and at-table play, then ask yourself: *are* they the same game?

Lanefan

 

[wedgeski]

I was still having fun with 3.5 when 4E was announced, but I was immediately pumped for the new edition, which tells me everything I need to know about whether I was ready for it. I'll be continuing an old 3.5 campaign this weekend, and I'm sure we'll have a good time, but for me 4E made so many necessary changes that I can't help but feel relieved that my regular gaming is now of the new edition.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Fair enough.

The corollary questions, however, are a) whether with each new edition all support should be immediately cut off for prior editions (I can't say NO loudly enough);

I agree, it would be better for players. Unfortunately, it's not so great for the publisher.

and b) should there be a significant measure of backwards-forwards compatibility between the various editions (I say yes).

I say no. Backwards Compatibility speaks to me as "Revision", not a new edition. Revisions are all fine and dandy, but an edition should bring me really new concepts and stuff.

Don't know about WoD, but for the D+D editions if they're not compatible with each other in basic things like character generation, relative powers, class abilities, and at-table play, then ask yourself: *are* they the same game?

They are not the same game. I wouldn't want them to. If I wanted the same game, I would play that game, not buying it again.

 

[Pinotage]

Well, to sit on the fence a little, every game needs tweaking. I don't think there's anybody here who can deny that 3.5e could've used a tweak, or that 4e won't need it in 5 years time when it has similar levels of material to 3.5e.

Reworking 3.5e? No, I don't think so. I, and everybody on these boards, happily played it for years. Or I think at least more years than people have been grumbling about it. You adapt, change what you need to, play where you feel comfortable.

 

[pemerton]

Reworking 3.5e? No, I don't think so. I, and everybody on these boards, happily played it for years.

I didn't.

 

[avin]

I started with AD&D and never like it.

Loved 3.0 and 3.5... I'll eventually buy Pathfinder but, except for the fluff, haven't seen something that makes me "hooray" again.

Have been DMing 4E and like it a lot so far.

I'll be open for 5E.

 

[Betote]

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...

It's the 90% rule

Essentialy, you can create a NPC/monster for 3.5 in about 3-5 minutes with an 90% accuracy. The other 10% is what takes the 1/2-1 hour to complete.

The same reasoning serves for conversions. I can take the 4e Monster Manual and use its monsters as-is without any problems 90% of the time. For the other 10%, I can wing it or spend 1/2-1 hour per monster.

 

[Stogoe]

Complete overhaul for me. I hacked apart 3e and stitched its parts back together in
'05 and '06 (and still wasn't completely satisfied) and finally abandoned 3e completely a year before 4e was even announced. 4e was what pulled me back into D&D.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I voted "Tweak".

There really wasn't all that much wrong with 3.5 that couldn't be fixed with additional "Options" books such as a Unearthed Arcana 2, 3, etc. Keep the framework, just tweak it. As an example Combat & Tactics in 2E introduced a lot of the concepts of 3E combat to 2E players before 3E was even published. The whole Players Option line in 2E allowed you to change the game completely to suit your taste without requiring the publishing of a whole new edition.

Personally I believe the new edition was primarily done to generate revenue for WOTC and Hasbro. Whenever a new edition is published pretty much every player out there will fork over the money for a new PHB, DMG, and MM. Compare that instead to an "optional" single tweak book like a new Unearthed Arcana and the difference in revenue is HUGE.

Never forget that WOTC and Hasbro are businesses and that they are in business to MAKE MONEY.

 

[DaveMage]

I'd say tweaking, but I'm curious to see how Pathfinder pans out once it's finalized.

One of the things I would have liked from a fourth edition is the options & fluff of 3.5 with the speed of 1E.

That didn't happen in either case, so the 4th edition that was created remains a huge disappointment to me.