What's really at stake in the Edition Wars

[ProfessorCirno]

4e material is no less backward compatible than 3e material is with 2e. 2e didn't contain a true skill system, feats, or tons of other things that were central to the 3e rules. You either had to make that stuff up from whole cloth when using 2e material with 3e rules or ignore it entirely. The same thing holds true when using 3e material with 4e rules.

Eh...

It's true that 3e had a lot of stuff that 2e didn't, but the reverse is not true. Backwards compatibility isn't rated on what you add, it's what you take away.

A 2e wizard moving into 3e saw changes, but they were all additions. "Your class, plus this." The same with a 2e fighter. Yes, there were huge changes between 2e and 3e, but - at least so far as I was concerned - you could pretty damn easily convert between the two.

4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting. Not gonna work."

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Eh...

It's true that 3e had a lot of stuff that 2e didn't, but the reverse is not true. Backwards compatibility isn't rated on what you add, it's what you take away.

3E took away 1E/2E multiclassing. It took away 2E kits. It took away exceptional Strength. It took away specialty priests. It took away enough that my players felt they would rather start anew than try to convert.

A 2e wizard moving into 3e saw changes, but they were all additions. "Your class, plus this." The same with a 2e fighter. Yes, there were huge changes between 2e and 3e, but - at least so far as I was concerned - you could pretty damn easily convert between the two.

Even your simple examples had stuff taken away.

4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting. Not gonna work."

It depends on what you wanted out of the conversion. If you wanted your concept to stay true you could convert much more easily. If you wanted to convert minutiae then you were in the same boat as my 2E->3E players.

There were even articles on how to convert some mechanical concepts to 4E that did not exist. Like the Monk conversion involving modifying the Ranger.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Exactly Professor Cirno.

I'll agree it would be probably be harder to convert 3e stuff back to 2e...for the same reason. Material was added.

But, yeah, there were conversion guides from 2e to 3e. Wotc staff themselves have said in posts that it just isn't worth making a 3e to 4e conversion guide because it would be too different.

They said that...and then they tried, IF I recall correctly. And the forums seemed (for once) to be fairly unanimous that they stop trying. I'm only partly remembering this (it was in the form of Dragon articles circa release -maybe just before or just after).



Separately, when they changed the edition, they changed canon. I liked being able to use my 2e stuff (like those great planecape boxes...I love planescape).

But for 4e the planes were revamped and changed so utterly that I simply can't use those other things along with what they release going forward. SURE, I can use the fluff from 2e and 3e with 4e rules, but there will not be new fluff that fits with the old.


Along with rebooting the rules, they rebooted the minutia... the stories...the very world we play in. That is another separate issue to mere "conversion".

 

[Garthanos]

Eh...


4e just said "Yeah, don't even bother converting. Not gonna work."

Funny part is one of favorite characters named Garthan.. go figure.Originally created in AD&D... I have converted in to dozens of game systems and found various provided differing ways of expressing that character some allowed differing aspects of the character to come to life... but really 4e does a very interesting job and makes him pretty fun to play. He kind of rocked in the Stormbringer campaign too but he was doing dimension travel and the context was sufficiently different. (Different abilities - which were indeed part of the original character concept but suppresed were awakened because he was isolated from his power source).

There is a bit of a learning curve for converting characters and now that they have hybrids and many more classes (and feats too) it is much easier now than when it was initially released... to create very satisfying characters. I wasn't around trying to do this when it first launched it might indeed have been frustrating.

 

[Henry]

But, yeah, there were conversion guides from 2e to 3e. Wotc staff themselves have said in posts that it just isn't worth making a 3e to 4e conversion guide because it would be too different.

I remember those 2e-3e conversion guides, and there's a reason they said it wasn't worth doing again; anyone convert their multi-class characters using those rules? You wound up with a character who had anywhere from 2 to 7 levels over his compatriots once conversion was done, and stat bonuses that were definitely not equivalent to what they had before. My level 6 cleric, rolled under unearthed arcana's rather munchy stat system, had a 17 STR. Combined with the BAB progression, he was easily 15 to 20% more likely to hit in combat -- against monsters that were about the same AC, percentage-wise. My level 9/11/11 F/M-U/Thief wound up a level 17 character! Kick-butt!

In every case, our group didn't convert, we just started brand-new 3E campaigns. For my own fun, I converted several of my favorite 1E and 2E characters by solely eyeballing the stats, and doing what "felt right." My level 6 cleric had a 13 STR; my multi-classer was more like level 13, to be more "fair," because his buddies would have been about that level. In the end, I personally just didn't see much use in that conversion book; for me, it was a waste of time, and thankfully it was free to me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

3E took away 1E/2E multiclassing.

There were rules for multiclassing at first level, and after first level, your multiclass options -- no matter your race -- were expanded exponentially. You could have your elven fighter/wizard, even right out of the gate.

It took away 2E kits.

Kits were an optional subsystem, and there were rules for prestige classes and feats that replicated the effects of most 2e kits. Though this was an imperfect overlap.

It took away exceptional Strength.

It got rid of 18/% Strength. Instead, you just had a 20 Strength. Same effect (bonuses to attack and damage), different notation.

It took away specialty priests.

Domains.

It took away enough that my players felt they would rather start anew than try to convert.

Probably true for most groups. Which is why I don't fault 4e at all for saying "Just start over." It's the best advice.

However, 3e made a conscious effort to retain the elements of 2e and simply shepherd them into a more elegant system.

4e made no real effort to retain any of the elements of any previous edition (unless the concept had "traction," which is essentially a marketing term).

That gave it a particular freedom, but it did mean that people who had a particular favorite or interesting character concept might not be supported anymore.

Which is probably the more problematic thing. "We don't care that much about making sure you can play a gnome illusionist" hits a bit harder than "We want you to keep playing your gnome illusionist, and have better options."

 

[jdrakeh]

Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.

 

[ggroy]

Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.

Some of the last few 3.5E books released in 2007 after the announcement of 4E (at Gencon 2007), were officially converted over to 4E stats by WotC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Anyhow. . . the assertion was that 4e makes 3x books "obsolete" or "worthless," neither of which is true. As has been stated, you can still use your 3x books to play D&D 3x or as fluff sourcebooks for 4e. Plenty of people do both.

True, within certain limits.

I can use my 3e Oathbound book no problem. Just like using a 2e book, it's mostly flavor anyway. The few mechanical elements have fairly smooth translations (prestige classes become paragon paths, prestige races perhaps become feats).

Using my 3e Tome of Horrors is more problematic. Unlike the 2e MM's, the 3e monster books had a lot of stats and abilities in them. I can translate them, but it takes work, and I'll probably loose some of the detail that the ToH originally put in.

My 3e Savage Species book is fairly worthless.

My 3e Tome of Magic book also isn't going to be doing anyone any good in 4e.

My 3e Complete Divine book doesn't work so well, either. Though that does have a 4e update of sorts in Divine Power, the books don't really cover the same territory.

My DM resources will be easier to use than player resources, in general. Still, even some of those are a little broken. My 3e Draconomicon isn't very useful, though I'm getting two books I can buy to update it.

It's also a little harder using my 2e books in 4e. For example, Angels and Archons and Devas and Aasimar are so different, any of my 2e Planescape books that reference conflicts with celestial beings is going to require major DM investment in making these things make sense again.

But certainly 4e doesn't invalidate 3e's and 2e's entire library. I do see it as tougher to integrate with older stuff, though, largely because of how drastically meanings changed in 4e.

In 2e to 3e, a gnome was a gnome was a gnome. Halflings had a bit of a facelift (though they still had "Hobbit" roots, it was assumed adventuring halflings weren't hobbits), but elves were the same, and angels were the same, and demons were the same, and dragons were the same, etc., etc.

3e to 4e, we now have a new concept of what a dragon is. That doesn't invalidate everything 2e and 3e ever wrote about dragons, but it certainly makes it more difficult to integrate.

 

[BryonD]

I played AD&D over 20 years ago and really no D&D in between then and 4e and I am used to games like Runequest / Stormbringer or Fuzion or Fantasy HERO or Fate or an improvisationally done diceless roleplay for that matter I am used to a "different" game being different and consider the Arcanum or Palladium to have been D&D with the numbers filed off.

I think the distinction you are missing is right here. And, to be clear, I'm with you; 4E *IS* D&D as far as I am concerned. But, that said, I 100% understand how some people don't at all see it as "D&D".

I've zero loyalty to the name D&D. I've said that before.
I played 1E because it was THE one and only fantasy roleplaying game I knew of. I played 2E because it was the new shiny version of the one and only fantasy roleplaying game I new of. I dropped 2E like a bad habit once I discovered better fantasy roleplaying games. I switched to 3E because I found it to be a very good fantasy roleplaying game. I didn't switch to 4E because I'm aware of much better fantasy roleplaying games.

To me, I'm interested in great fantasy roleplaying games and "D&D" is meaningless detail.
To you, fantasy roleplaying games and "D&D" are defacto synonyms, like making a Xerox on a Ricoh copier. (Not putting words in your mouth, just expressing what the above quote says to me. No offense.)
Honestly, I will readily use the term "D&D" when referencing other games if I'm talking to non-gamers. It isn't a stretch.
But, to a lot of gamers, it is a very important difference.
In D&D a succubus is a devil, magic missiles always hit, the great wheel defines the cosmos, Vancian magic is king, the blood war spans planes, etc...
4E is fantasy roleplaying, but it is not "D&D with these key elements".