What If....4E had been a modular option sub-set for 3.5?

[pemerton]

The profound lack of visual description for monsters in the book

I think they may have taken the (not unreasonable) view that a picture is worth 1000 words.

As for the comparison to 2nd ed and 3E, a thread a year or two ago compared a range of entries in the 4e MM to the 2nd ed Monstrous Manual - I remember at least hook horrors, goblins, galeb duhrs and vampires being compared - and found no significant difference (my recollection is that the 4e MM had a richer goblin description, much the same for hook horrors and galeb duhrs, and marginallly less for vampires).

I'm curious as to which 3E MM entries are noticeably richer in lore than the correpsonding 4e ones. Certainly not any of the planar entries (demons, devils, githyanki or githzerai).

The only field of description in which 4e is noticeably lacking is demographic data. I regard that as a virtue. Obviously there are others who don't.

 

[Argyle King]

Conversely, what attracted me to 4E was the fact that the rules were integrated, clear and coordinated as a set of rules, in stark contrast to what I had seen in D&D hitherto. If the lore and background changes had not been even attempted I would, I think, have had almost the identical reaction to 4E as I did - "thank the gods we finally have a coherent rule set!"

Adding options to 3.x would not have achieved this; the "features" of AEDU and so on being bolted onto 3.x basic systems would not have engaged me in anywhere near the same way. In fact, had 4E been written with the coherent, integrated systems it has but without AEDU I think I would still have liked it better than 3.x (though maybe not so much as to actually get me running a full campaign - I'd have stuck with other systems for that).

In my case, I didn't find 4E to be coherent at all. The mechanics seemed (in my opinion) to be very much at odds with the picture that the fluff and background information was trying to paint in both the preview books and the early 4E books. Mechanically, Grappling/Grab was so poor of an option that it was a better tactic against many monsters to stay inside of their mouths than to use actions escaping; it was so poor that I found myself wishing for the 3E Grappling rules back. If we're talking coherent just from a mechanical perspective; from a pure game perspective, and only from the perspective of PCs being measured against each other, I might agree with you, but not completely. It was (and still is) possible to break 4E; it's just done differently than it was in 3rd. Still, if we're talking strictly rules and nothing else, I would agree that 4E is a coherently designed game. If we're talking coherent for a rpg overall, I disagree. In the beginning, back when I felt as negative as I did toward 4E, I found myself wondering why the group I was with didn't just play Descent and add some roleplaying.

Now, I am someone who enjoys 4E. As I've said other places, I've learned the strengths and weaknesses of the game, and I've learned what it's meant for and what it isn't meant for. I've also added other rpgs to my library, so, when I want something outside of 4E's scope, I have games available to me to have fun with instead of getting frustrated trying to make 4E into something it isn't. That allows, for me, for 4E to have its own place and be enjoyed for what it is. I do find that I enjoy the more balanced approach to 4E classes; even the worst ones are close enough to the same general ballpark to still possibly be fun. In contrast, I'm not sure if I could ever play a non-caster in 3E again -even if I wanted to.

I'm not someone who is heavily tied to balance, but I think at least some balance is necessary. I don't mind playing a character who isn't the best or most optimized, but I shouldn't constantly feel like I'm tricked by a game into playing DC's Robin or Marvel's Maggot while everyone else is getting to play the part of Superman, Hulk, and Thor. There are times when 3E (and even Pathfinder) can feel that way. A lot of options are presented as being valid options, but, in truth, they really aren't... at least not beyond a certain level.

 

[Balesir]

In my case, I didn't find 4E to be coherent at all. The mechanics seemed (in my opinion) to be very much at odds with the picture that the fluff and background information was trying to paint in both the preview books and the early 4E books.

Well, I tried to word my post to make clear that I was talking about rules consistency and coherence *as a set of rules*. What you are talking about here is coherency between the rule set and the game world, which I agree is a different thing (and I don't think that this was well done in early 4E, FWIW).

Still, if we're talking strictly rules and nothing else, I would agree that 4E is a coherently designed game.

Yes, internal coherency in the rules is exactly what I'm talking about. I think it's important because, for me, if the rules themselves aren't coherent I don't even get as far as worrying about the coherency they have with the game world. It's like someone saying "here is a world where the physics as defined don't work out"; the fact that the people in the world seem to be assuming a different set of physics again is secondary, to me - I get stuck at the "this world's physics don't work" stage!

For me, then, internal rules consistency comes first. That is NOT to say that it's the only important thing, but its what is required as a precondition for the rest to be worth tackling. And I find the rest (fitting the world to the rules effects, fitting the characters' expectations to the world "realities" and so on) to be relatively easy to fix once I have a coherent rule set.

Now, I am someone who enjoys 4E. As I've said other places, I've learned the strengths and weaknesses of the game, and I've learned what it's meant for and what it isn't meant for. I've also added other rpgs to my library, so, when I want something outside of 4E's scope, I have games available to me to have fun with instead of getting frustrated trying to make 4E into something it isn't.

I think I maybe had a head start in this area, because I moved from running D&D to other RPGs around 1980 or so because of the trouble I was having with rules incoherency and D&D not doing what I wanted out of an RPG at that time*. As a result I tried many systems and started to discover that systems are often better when they set out to do one thing well; find that one thing and you can generally enjoy the system. Try to bend the system for what it's not designed for and it often falls short. What it seemed to me many D&D players were doing was making up their own systems - from rulings and house rules - that fitted what they wanted to do. The downside with that is that it is much harder for the players (as opposed to the GM) to learn the system when it's not written down. As an aside, I think this is one reason many players dislike the idea of learning new rules sets - they have the expectation that reading the rules will not be what is required to learn the rules and that, in a sense, reading the rules is only a (partially misleading) preliminary to "really learning the rules" that will come from "learning the DM". Rebellion against this same "feature" might factor into the phenomenon of "rules lawyers", as well.

I do find that I enjoy the more balanced approach to 4E classes; even the worst ones are close enough to the same general ballpark to still possibly be fun. In contrast, I'm not sure if I could ever play a non-caster in 3E again -even if I wanted to.

I'm not someone who is heavily tied to balance, but I think at least some balance is necessary. I don't mind playing a character who isn't the best or most optimized, but I shouldn't constantly feel like I'm tricked by a game into playing DC's Robin or Marvel's Maggot while everyone else is getting to play the part of Superman, Hulk, and Thor. There are times when 3E (and even Pathfinder) can feel that way. A lot of options are presented as being valid options, but, in truth, they really aren't... at least not beyond a certain level.

I don't want to risk turning this into another long and rambling thread full of tired old (non-)arguments and ad hominem attacks like a certain other hereabouts, but I agree 100% with all of this.

*: I didn't see the issues clearly then, I should say. I thought in terms of "realism" being needed and looked for what, in retrospect, I recognise as coherency in game world physics through making them the same as real world physics. When I eventually realised that sufficient understanding of the real world to fully model it was functionally impossible, I moved on to realise that what was important was working, coherent game world "physics", not a rule set that closely modelled the real world. If I talk of "my philosophy" for roleplaying games I think it gives the impression that I have a static, unchanging "philosophy"; I don't, but what I have now has evolved slowly over a great many years (and is almost certainly evolving still).

 

[dd.stevenson]

The only field of description in which 4e is noticeably lacking is demographic data. I regard that as a virtue. Obviously there are others who don't.

It's a virtue if you think D&D should only support certain playstyles.

 

[Bluenose]

It's a virtue if you think D&D should only support certain playstyles.

There's a part of me that would like to see the DMG include serious discussion on different types of society, and the implications this has in all sorts of areas. That's a subject large enough to have several books written about it (Expeditious Retreat Press did exactly that) and I'm not sure the DMG has that much space. Then there's also the argument that it's the sort of information that belongs in setting books rather than the DMG. But a trivial approach to a complex subject that has often been presented really doesn't seem to add very much.

 

[pemerton]

It's a virtue if you think D&D should only support certain playstyles.

The presence of the demographic data puts a limit on playstyles too - it tends to push play towards a sort of pseudo-emulation of real-world geography and sociology. (I say "pseudo" because no fantasy fiction I am familiar with - both within RPGs and beyond them - has any significant connection to actual (human) geography or sociology.)

 

[Mercurius]

Some good discussion here - I apologize for starting the thread and then disappearing; my wife and I went out of town for a couple days and I forgot about this thread until just now!

Anyhow, after reading through the thread I'm convinced that 4E needed its own edition - it really is different enough that a "patch sub-system" wouldn't have fully worked.

That said, I'm intrigued by the idea of variant "sub-editions" within the broader purview of the game, so am hoping that WotC explores this with modular options.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In another thread I had the thought: What if Wizards of the Coast had published 4E as an alternate rules sub-set, or modular option, for 3.5? It would have focused on the AEDU power system and emphasized more "gonzo" play. I'm thinking something along the lines of Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, and the 3E version of Unearthed Arcana, but as its own distinct line of products (Warlords and Dragonborn? Powers and Surges?). The key difference, though, is that this would have been under the umbrella of 3.5 rather than replacing it. 3.5 would have been the default, core game - but this variant would have been a line within D&D, not unlike the mega-settings of the 2E era.

...

Of course this is entirely speculative, but what do you think? What could have been?

It would have been about as influential as Tome of Battle and wouldn't have been able to match 4e at being 4e. You needed to rebuild from the ground up to create the 4e DMing tools like the monster design.

 

[dd.stevenson]

There's a part of me that would like to see the DMG include serious discussion on different types of society, and the implications this has in all sorts of areas. That's a subject large enough to have several books written about it (Expeditious Retreat Press did exactly that) and I'm not sure the DMG has that much space. Then there's also the argument that it's the sort of information that belongs in setting books rather than the DMG. But a trivial approach to a complex subject that has often been presented really doesn't seem to add very much.

The playstyle I was thinking of was the traditional 2E sandbox, which wants enough rough demographic/sociological data to construct a simulacrum of how monstrous societies will respond when PCs come rocking up to their doorstep. Of course it's a trivial approach to a complex subject--but that's hardly a first for a gamey game like D&D.

I agree that this info should ideally be in setting books; but I have yet to see a flavorful MM entry that doesn't come packed with an implied setting, and 5E promises to reinforce that trend.

The presence of the demographic data puts a limit on playstyles too - it tends to push play towards a sort of pseudo-emulation of real-world geography and sociology.

Boy, I couldn't disagree with you more.

Happy gaming!

 

[pemerton]

There's a part of me that would like to see the DMG include serious discussion on different types of society, and the implications this has in all sorts of areas.

Have you ever seen Rolemaster Comanion VI (from the early 90s)? It was written by Lev Anderson, who I'm pretty sure is the same guy who posts as Lev Lafeyette on RPGnet, and has some interesting and intelligent social theoretic discussion of various fantasy/sci-fi setting/world styles.

It was part of what convinced me that anything but a veneer of sociological and historical plausibility is not worth aiming for in fantasy gaming.