What 3rd edition got to with anything?

[Wolfspider]

I've got a bit of a pet peeve.

I get irked whenver someone responds to a perfectly valid criticism of 4e by saying something like, "Well, something similar to what you're complaining about in 4e existed in 3e. You were able to live with it in 3e. What's the problem now?"

I thought that 4th edition was supposed to fix the problems that were discovered after many years of playing 3rd edition, not mimic them.

Why do people keep bringing up 3rd edition in this way?

It certainly wouldn't make sense to respond to a criticism of a faulty new car design by saying "Well, the 2007 model had the same poor handling, and you still drove it. What's the problem now?"

 

[Cadfan]

If someone argues that 4e sucks because of X, but that person also has expressed a love for 3e, and 3e also has X, then apparently X is not something that makes a game system suck.

Also, if someone argues that the presence of X in 4e is going to have certain drawbacks, but 3e had X and had none of those drawbacks, then that undercuts the critic's reasoning.

If someone is just making the general argument "I hate X, and 4e has it. I wish it didn't." then that's fine, and comments about 3e are not relevant. If someone is arguing that "I hate X, and 4e has it. I guess I'll stick with 3e even though it has X, because having failed to fix X I don't see a reason to switch." then that's fine.

But references to 3e aren't always irrelevant.

 

[FourthBear]

It's a fair point. I think that there are several reasons for it:

1) Many criticisms of 4e in the past have been placed in the clear context of competition with 3e. "Why should I switch from 3e?" "Why do they complain about the way 3e does it?" "In 3e, I was able to do X, I don't think 4e will allow X." These comparisons occur not only in the initial criticisms, but often in the discussions afterwards. This does lead to some sloppy generalizations that all criticisms of 4e are coming from the point of view of a 3e fan.

2) Most of the people discussing this on ENWorld are familiar with how 3e does things and were often fans. This makes it a clear touchstone for discussions on RPG games and D&D in general. It is often easier to make points in reference to another system, as opposed to speculating on an incomplete picture of 4e. I would guess that broader discussions of 4e in terms of games and RPGs will be more frequent post-publication.

3) In the design space of RPG development, especially D&D development, there are likely to be many design constraints between open-ended class creation, game balance, complexity and many other factors. This will inevitably lead to compromises in design, since no perfect solution is likely possible. I think often invoking 3e is used to emphasize this by invoking the last iteration of the system. It is very easy to be critical of any system, when comparing it to a completely hypothetical, perfect system. By citing the way 3e does things, it can serve to ground the conversation by noting that no previous system has ever been perfect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I get irked whenver someone responds to a perfectly valid criticism of 4e by saying something like, "Well, something similar to what you're complaining about in 4e existed in 3e. You were able to live with it in 3e. What's the problem now?"

I thought that 4th edition was supposed to fix the problems that were discovered after many years of playing 3rd edition, not mimic them.

Why do people keep bringing up 3rd edition in this way?

+1.

The sins of previous editions don't excuse the sins of the next.

 

[maggot]

Agreed. Also many times people point out flaws in 3E to justify greater problems in 4E. For example, "the 3E rogue is role limited, so the 4E can be more so."

 

[Silvergriffon]

You must understand
That the tone of your stand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of grognard meeting shill
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that

[Chorus]
Oh whats third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a second hand edition
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build
When a build can be broken

It may seem to you
That my diagonal move
Makes me move too fast
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
Fireball's a square blast

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me

[Chorus]

I`ve been thinking of a new edition
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a grognard's devotion
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build when a build can be broken

 

[AllisterH]

I've got a bit of a pet peeve.

I get irked whenver someone responds to a perfectly valid criticism of 4e by saying something like, "Well, something similar to what you're complaining about in 4e existed in 3e. You were able to live with it in 3e. What's the problem now?"

I thought that 4th edition was supposed to fix the problems that were discovered after many years of playing 3rd edition, not mimic them.

Why do people keep bringing up 3rd edition in this way?

It certainly wouldn't make sense to respond to a criticism of a faulty new car design by saying "Well, the 2007 model had the same poor handling, and you still drove it. What's the problem now?"

Actually, the problem is "defining what is a problem in 3.x"?

Take for example the 4E's rogue's restriction on light blades. Was it a problem that in 3E, you could easily use sneak attack with ANY weapon which resulted in many players simply taking 1 level of figter?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

You must understand
That the tone of your stand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of grognard meeting shill
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that

[Chorus]
Oh whats third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a second hand edition
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build
When a build can be broken

It may seem to you
That my diagonal move
Makes me move too fast
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
Fireball's a square blast

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me

[Chorus]

I`ve been thinking of a new edition
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a grognard's devotion
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build when a build can be broken

Nice.

 

[Wolfspider]

You must understand
That the tone of your stand
Makes my pulse react
That it`s only the thrill
Of grognard meeting shill
Opposites attract

It`s physical
Only logical
You must try to ignore
That it means more than that

[Chorus]
Oh whats third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a second hand edition
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build
When a build can be broken

It may seem to you
That my diagonal move
Makes me move too fast
If i tend to look dazed
I`ve read it someplace
Fireball's a square blast

There`s a name for it
There`s a phrase that fits
But whatever the reason
You do it for me

[Chorus]

I`ve been thinking of a new edition
But i have to say
I`ve been thinking about my own protection
It scares me to feel this way

What`s third got to do, got to do with it
What`s third but a grognard's devotion
What`s third got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a build when a build can be broken

It's a love song for Wormwood and me!

 

[Lord Xtheth]

If someone argues that 4e sucks because of X, but that person also has expressed a love for 3e, and 3e also has X, then apparently X is not something that makes a game system suck.

Also, if someone argues that the presence of X in 4e is going to have certain drawbacks, but 3e had X and had none of those drawbacks, then that undercuts the critic's reasoning.

If someone is just making the general argument "I hate X, and 4e has it. I wish it didn't." then that's fine, and comments about 3e are not relevant. If someone is arguing that "I hate X, and 4e has it. I guess I'll stick with 3e even though it has X, because having failed to fix X I don't see a reason to switch." then that's fine.

But references to 3e aren't always irrelevant.

What about when X worked perfectly in 3.whatever, but now their changing it to Y in 4th for no good reason... on top of that Y doesn't sound like such a good replacement for X either.

Thats a valid argument too