-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Why Changes were made in 4e
- Thread starter Majoru Oakheart
- Start date
Nifft
Penguin Herder
I'm with AllisterH on this one. Coding all the interrupt powers would be a major pain.
Encounters are a narrative construct, well suited to actual play by people, but poorly suited to simulation via computer. Tracking time-based durations? Much easier for a computer.
4e is a VERY turn-based, human-centric game.
Cheers, -- N
Encounters are a narrative construct, well suited to actual play by people, but poorly suited to simulation via computer. Tracking time-based durations? Much easier for a computer.
4e is a VERY turn-based, human-centric game.
Cheers, -- N
I very much agree with this. People keep comparing 4e to WoW, but it's actually much closer to Japanese tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. The only reason people compare 4e to WoW is because there's probably like 1000 WoW player for every JTRPG player.
I also think Celebrim is wrong on the computer porting issue, I think he has a point on the OGL issue and personally I also think that they had decided on DDI very early and felt it would not really fly without the VTT and intregated DM tools.
In that case and OGL compendium would allow any third party to beat them on the VTT game and the subscription model. So they needed an non OGL game for that to work.
In that case and OGL compendium would allow any third party to beat them on the VTT game and the subscription model. So they needed an non OGL game for that to work.
Remathilis
Legend
Heh, easiness of porting rules. Umm, Baldur's Gate? Icewind Dale? Neverwinter Nights?
Yup, 3e was virtually impossible to import into computers.
In his defense, BG, IWD, and NWN all played a bit "fast-and-loose" with their D&D rulesets. Stealth, for example, was a one-click button which sent you into stealth mode that had little to do with how HS/MS worked. The same was true of weapon proficiencies in BGII. And NWN really had to rework the skills and feats of D&D 3.0 to make them fit their Aurora Engine (Parry skill anyone?).
and none of them let you fly, climb, swim or jump.
Granted, all these problems could (and might) exist in 4e game as well. (esp the Z-axis issues).
Heh, easiness of porting rules. Umm, Baldur's Gate? Icewind Dale? Neverwinter Nights?
Yup, 3e was virtually impossible to import into computers.
baldur's gate and icewind dale used 2 edition rule sets.
IMO, the vancian magic system of AD&D --- 3e was a fundamental part of the feel of D&D. Magic was mysterious and different. Those that wielded it were set apart from the grunts rolling d8 every round of combat. 4e makes magic users fundamentally like every other class. I think that was WOTC’s intention and the reason they changed the system. Using the same basic system for magic as other combat makes it easier to balance the classes. It also gives wizards the same consistency across levels as the other classes. I don’t want to sound like a crotchety old man but the current crop of 12 year olds is at least 3 generations removed from the progenitors of D&D. They were born into a different world. They are used to instant gratification and simply won’t accept that their low level wizard can’t do the same things as everyone else. The exponential power curve for 1e AD&D simply doesn't appeal to them. Removing vancian magic is just a way to try and make their product more appealing to their target audience. I know that is a generalization but I think there is more truth there than not.
IMO, they removed alignments because they added unintended complications to the game. My understanding it alignments were intended to identify what was a valid target and what was not, in addition to adding extra challenges and making certain magic items unusable to PCs. In practice it didn’t work that way and too much time was spent arguing moral issues.
While I personally miss vancian magic and alignments, I understand why they removed theses things and probably would do the same if I was trying to sell games.
IMO, they removed alignments because they added unintended complications to the game. My understanding it alignments were intended to identify what was a valid target and what was not, in addition to adding extra challenges and making certain magic items unusable to PCs. In practice it didn’t work that way and too much time was spent arguing moral issues.
While I personally miss vancian magic and alignments, I understand why they removed theses things and probably would do the same if I was trying to sell games.
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I'd say that the changes in 4E were made to address issues the designers had with the previous canon, going all the way back to the beginning in some cases. Most of the changes that we're talking about here (alignment, planes) were to streamline the game and remove options that weren't used that often, were only there for purposes of being complete, or actually made the game worse (in my opinion, YMMV).
For alignment, what did we really get out of those 9 alignments? From my experience, we had arguments over what a particular member of an alignment would do (e.g., paladins and LG) and had alignments that were more trouble than they were worth (CN). I cringed every time I played in a game with a CN character, since I KNEW they'd being doing some annoying stuff in the name of "playing in character." It was as if the chaotic neutral alignment was specifically put into the game to allow people to play insane jerks. Do I miss it? Not a bit. In fact, I think the game is much better for it's loss.
Now here's the thing: I know that some folks loved that old system, and were/are greatly upset that it's gone. I respect that. On the other hand, the fact that the designers removed it made me like 4E much more as a result...I saw why they made the change and I approve.
Ditto the removal of the "great wheel" system. I know people loved it, but that wasn't me: it meant I would never buy a book on the planes for example, since it was going to have a lot of stuff in it I thought was beyond useless. The current cosmology is a lot more interesting to me, and I've purchased products as a result. It meant we got rid of the quasi elemental plane of salt and the neutral good heaven, but to me those were features and not bugs.
I could go on, and if anyone really cares I will (yep, I know that's doubtful), but the point is that there were real reasons for the changes that were made, and customers who were asking for those changes. If you don't like what's changed, I can certainly understand that: I pretty much stopped playing D&D with second edition and came back to it for third.
The point is that we have a new generation of designers trying to make D&D their own...is that part of an evil corporate vision? I don't think so at all, but I also understand why it's left some of the old guard feeling left behind. All I would say about that is there were reasons for the changes, just not ones everyone liked. The edition wars will end when people realize that the changes that get made each edition are not meant to be an affront to the old guard, they're just part of a different vision for the product.
--Steve
For alignment, what did we really get out of those 9 alignments? From my experience, we had arguments over what a particular member of an alignment would do (e.g., paladins and LG) and had alignments that were more trouble than they were worth (CN). I cringed every time I played in a game with a CN character, since I KNEW they'd being doing some annoying stuff in the name of "playing in character." It was as if the chaotic neutral alignment was specifically put into the game to allow people to play insane jerks. Do I miss it? Not a bit. In fact, I think the game is much better for it's loss.
Now here's the thing: I know that some folks loved that old system, and were/are greatly upset that it's gone. I respect that. On the other hand, the fact that the designers removed it made me like 4E much more as a result...I saw why they made the change and I approve.
Ditto the removal of the "great wheel" system. I know people loved it, but that wasn't me: it meant I would never buy a book on the planes for example, since it was going to have a lot of stuff in it I thought was beyond useless. The current cosmology is a lot more interesting to me, and I've purchased products as a result. It meant we got rid of the quasi elemental plane of salt and the neutral good heaven, but to me those were features and not bugs.
I could go on, and if anyone really cares I will (yep, I know that's doubtful), but the point is that there were real reasons for the changes that were made, and customers who were asking for those changes. If you don't like what's changed, I can certainly understand that: I pretty much stopped playing D&D with second edition and came back to it for third.
The point is that we have a new generation of designers trying to make D&D their own...is that part of an evil corporate vision? I don't think so at all, but I also understand why it's left some of the old guard feeling left behind. All I would say about that is there were reasons for the changes, just not ones everyone liked. The edition wars will end when people realize that the changes that get made each edition are not meant to be an affront to the old guard, they're just part of a different vision for the product.
--Steve
Similar Threads
