Why I really like D&D.

[Tony Vargas]

The evidence is pretty overwhelming - I find it galling that anybody could seriously argue that all the issues we have been quite angrily debating about for years on this site and elsewhere have not, in fact, stemmed from the release of 4e. That's what all the arguments have been about - for or against!

That's an indisputable correlation, yes. Furthermore, it's part of a pattern - every new ed (even half-eds like 3.5) stirred up resentment and nerd rage and lost some fraction of the current fan-base as people stuck with the old edition. The lack of any ongoing support, though, made the hold-out communities less than vibrant.

4e contributed to the edition wars simply by existing. What 4e was didn't matter - that is, the direction it took wasn't the issue, the issue was simply that it wasn't 3.5 (which inevitably enraged some grognards somewhere, as with every rev-roll). The fact that 4e wasn't under the OGL, also contributed (again, the content of 4e was irrelevant, just the fact that it wasn't OGL), because that gave 3pps a stark choice to support one of the other.

Paizo saw the backlash, was able to tap it as a market thanks to the OGL (something that had never before been possible in earlier rev-rolls), and 3.5 holdout community had something to rally behind besides old books.

So, yeah, 4e was part of it, but it wasn't the real cause, just a trigger that was inevitably going to happen eventually.

Those factors led to the division in the community coming out in the edition wars, but they didn't create the division, they just brought it into the open. Two not-too-distinct groups of D&D fans who'd been kinda vaguely putting up with eachother all this time finally had different places to go.

The distinction is one that's hard to characterize in a polite way, but lets just say it's deeper than 'style' or 'preference,' and goes to how players relate to eachother and the role the mechanics of the game play in that relationship. I think the end result is that, in spite of the on-line vitriol, 3.5 fans are happier playing Pathfinder than they were playing 3.5 with 4e-fans-to-be before the split, and 4e fans are happier playing 4e than they were playing 3.5 with Pathfinder-fans-to-be before the split. That is, to the extent that the two factions hadn't already divided themselves group-by-group.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Be careful what you wish for. If D&D isn't a focal point for the rpg community as a whole, as an intro game at least, the balkanizing effect could have repercussions on finding any group to play anything at all.

It's not as if all of D&D's competitors are suddenly hitting mainstream sales in Walmart or whatever. A lot of game companies, and retailers out there are shutting down.

I think you're overestimating the importance of any given brand name. I think if D&D went to hel, PF or some other game would become the 'gateway game' of ttrpgs. Or, a more hopeful thought, maybe multiple gateway games would emerge. I think that'd acclimate gamers to other game styles and ameliorate edition warring more than 5e ever will.

Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've never seen an argument over which game to play. IME, players play whatever the GM wants to run, because the GM is offering to do something that nobody else wants to do. If you turn a game down, you either have to start one yourself or find a different GM; and not many players are willing to do that. So to me all this concern over 'splitting' the fanbase is all much ado about nothing.

As to having fun with any edition, yeah, I can have fun playing anything with the right friends. But all games and editions are not created equal. Say that each one caters to a different play style, or say that some are just better than others. Whatever. I have a definite favorite, because rules do matter...at least somewhat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This has been contentious for years, ever since a foolish article tried to say that Gandalf was just a 5th level wizard. Clearly, the magical system isn't D&D-standard. If D&D's magic conformed to Middle Earth's, wizards would apparently have a lot less to do than they do in D&D. D&D's magic system is much more varied to make a better general fantasy game. But that doesn't mean it can't fit LotR. First, there would need to be a recognition that significant spell-casting draws attention and gives away your location to an overwhelmingly powerful enemy. That can color any magical system, limiting the freedom to blast away.

You mean you basically have a completely different set of limitations on casting than in D&D. Yet it works almost perfectly with AEDU. And I emphatically disagree that D&D's magic makes it a much better general fantasy game - it's strong enough and colourful enough that it makes any fantasy game you try to play using that system into D&D.

I'd argue Frodo isn't reduced to 0 hp by Shelob. He's poisoned by her and poisons can have a wide variety of effects under any edition. Note also that lembas may have some restorative effects. We also know that the orcs have some pastes that apparently restore health and energy - Merry and Pippin benefited from those. Did Frodo in the tower before Sam rescued him? We don't know.

Some restorative effects != full blown healing potion.

In AD&D, that was certainly possible with moderate levels and not at all impossible in 3e. If most of those orcs were 1st level warriors, and Gimli was, say 7th, he could quite reasonably go to town.
Also, his chain shirt may not have been mithril, but it could certainly be treated in D&D as being magical.

+2 chain would give Gimli an AC of 3. (I seriously doubt that he has more than +2 or a dex of 15.) Which means that with an orc's THAC0 of 19, 1 in 4 attacks would be a hit. Assume that each gets one swing off at Gimli except the first two - Gimli's slaughtering them but they get to engage and attack to fill the gap in the line. That's 40 attacks on Gimli or an average of 45 points of damage. I'd call that pretty banged up myself.

In 3.X it's even worse. Gimli's AC is still in the 17-18 range. But the orcs have a +4 attack rather than a +1. And do at least an extra 3 points of damage per attack.

His rapid shooting and accuracy work pretty well from AD&D and 3e too. A high Dex fighter with a magical bow like Legolas is going to have a pretty good accuracy.

What doesn't work is his mobility. He shoots in melee. And cuts through zones of control like a hot knife through butter. You can make a very lethal stand-and-shoot archer in 2e with Weapon Specialisation/Weapon Mastery - and the 3e equivalent can fire into melee without penalty.

And if you run a 3e campaign in which the vast majority of the opponents are martial-based (like they are in LotR), you similarly don't need a lot of magical support to take them on. Fighter-based war campaigns have been a staple of D&D for a long time.

They've been a staple, sure. But that doesn't mean that D&D does them well.

 

[TrippyHippy]

No. I argued that it was better than previous editions of D&D to this end. Which I stand by. I am not arguing that it is better than e.g. The One Ring for simulating Lord of the Rings. I am arguing that it is better than previous editions of D&D. Although it's closer to movie-LotR than it is to book-LotR.

I'd say it has been demonstrably worse, but then I'm not really into debating that on this thread.

All your lampooning demonstrated is that you are enough of an out and out edition warrior to make up stuff that does not happen at 4e tables. And would not happen in any group roleplaying in good faith. Seriously. Running = Moving three squares, then asking for XP for it? And mocking 4e by claiming that fighters are nerfed in 4e?

Well, i've played 4e, so I don't need many lectures on how it is played. The mechanics of nerfed 4e Fighters isn't being mocked - the attitude that they are always nerfed in favor of Wizards is.

If you claim to not want edition wars then perhaps you would care to avoid ludicrous lampoons that show nothing more than that you do not get how 4e works.

As stated, I have played 4e. And actually, I claimed the 'wars' were hilarious, but that is by the by. The major themes I have against 4e, specifically, are:

1) The 4e fans on this forum (and possibly elsewhere) have got themselves entrenched in an attitude that is oversensitive to slights against 'their' game - to the point that progress in the development of 5e is becoming seriously compromised. I could point out a number of comments on this forum that have had zero offense value, but have nevertheless been taken as insults and angrily responded to.

2) The denial that 4e has been divisive for the D&D community. It has.

I could be critical, and have been, about 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder too. On this forum, however, the main aggression (including passive aggression) have truthfully been coming from 4e fans who feel threatened, and don't realise that there isn't actually a war on. I guess the 3e/Pathfinder fans are mainly hanging out on other forums saying negative things too.

Like I say, 3e/Pathfinder isn't any tonic for me either - but I think the 5e has shown some rudimentary elements of promise. Most notably in the actual goals of the game - at least the designers at Wizards seem to acknowledge that 4e has been divisive, even if the fans can't admit it.

 

[Dannager]

The major themes I have against 4e, specifically, are:

1) The 4e fans on this forum (and possibly elsewhere) have got themselves entrenched in an attitude that is oversensitive to slights against 'their' game - to the point that progress in the development of 5e is becoming seriously compromised. I could point out a number of comments on this forum that have had zero offense value, but have nevertheless been taken as insults and angrily responded to.

2) The denial that 4e has been divisive for the D&D community. It has.

Neither of these are criticisms of the game. They are criticisms of the community, perhaps, but even then they're myopic.

By the way, blaming 4e fans for being oversensitive? Really? You're talking about a group of people who checked out 4e and thought, "Hey, this is rad!" only to show up on the internet and have 3.5 adherents tell them that they weren't actually roleplaying for the next two years.

Most notably in the actual goals of the game - at least the designers at Wizards seem to acknowledge that 4e has been divisive, even if the fans can't admit it.

No one is going to argue with the idea that a lot of people decided not to play 4e. But arguing that 4e caused division (other than superficial division that only deserves to be brought up if you're actively edition-warring) is silly. The gaming community was already divided - hopelessly so, I would argue. Some people thought that 3.5 was what D&D ought to be. Some other people thought 4e was what D&D ought to be. It's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to create a game that both groups believe is what D&D ought to be.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Neither of these are criticisms of the game. They are criticisms of the community, perhaps, but even then they're myopic.

By the way, blaming 4e fans for being oversensitive? Really? You're talking about a group of people who checked out 4e and thought, "Hey, this is rad!" only to show up on the internet and have 3.5 adherents tell them that they weren't actually roleplaying for the next two years.

Well, yes it is about the 4e community specifically. And more specifically, the fans on this forum. Myopic? Perhaps, but I still see myself as an outsider - who has only recently started posting on this forum in the wake of the announced 5e.

So, from my myopic perspective, what I continually see is a group of 4e fans fighting a battle that was only relevant 2 years ago (as I say, I guess the 3e fans are doing the same on some other forum). The game has moved on.

No one is going to argue with the idea that a lot of people decided not to play 4e. But arguing that 4e caused division (other than superficial division that only deserves to be brought up if you're actively edition-warring) is silly. The gaming community was already divided - hopelessly so, I would argue. Some people thought that 3.5 was what D&D ought to be. Some other people thought 4e was what D&D ought to be. It's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to create a game that both groups believe is what D&D ought to be.

The release of 4e caused a division in the D&D community. The 'sides of the argument' were inspired by the 4e. The design goals of 5e are explicit in acknowledging the fan base has been split since the release of 4e and highlighted some of the reasons why the designers think some gamers were put off by it. None of this is controversial, nor offensive.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, i've played 4e, so I don't need many lectures on how it is played. The mechanics of nerfed 4e Fighters isn't being mocked - the attitude that they are always nerfed in favor of Wizards is.

No, that's a common complaint about 3E and sometimes earlier editions. It is specifically not a common complaint about 4E. In fact, for those who are very concerned about fighter vs wizard balance, they'll often cite 4E as the edition that did it best, and are concerned that 5E will go "backward" in that regard.

1) The 4e fans on this forum (and possibly elsewhere) have got themselves entrenched in an attitude that is oversensitive to slights against 'their' game - to the point that progress in the development of 5e is becoming seriously compromised.

Like "you're not actually playing an RPG, you're playing a boardgame?"

2) The denial that 4e has been divisive for the D&D community. It has.

The responses to this assertion have been detailed and extensive. That you continue to pretend that no one has provided any argument against it, and continue to state it as an incontrovertible fact that applies only to 4E is baffling.

Well, yes it is about the 4e community specifically. And more specifically, the fans on this forum.

Perhaps it's a function of the boards you frequent, then. There is a fairly high ratio of 4E players here, so they're more visible. Go to theRPGsite and mention the slightest favour towards 4E, though, and you'll be dogpiled and called an idiot. And it's not the only place. Many self-styled old-schoolers take pains to defend their preferred editions with vitriol, they're just not here.

The release of 4e caused a division in the D&D community. The 'sides of the argument' were inspired by the 4e. The design goals of 5e are explicit in acknowledging the fan base has been split since the release of 4e and highlighted some of the reasons why the designers think some gamers were put off by it. None of this is controversial...

This must be why so many people disagree and have provided reasoned arguments against it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd say it has been demonstrably worse, but then I'm not really into debating that on this thread.

In short you created a strawman to mock but when your incorrect assertions are challenged you claim you aren't interested in debating. Right. If you say it's demonstrably worse, you should be able to demonstrate that. I've shown how I consider it demonstrably better.

Well, i've played 4e, so I don't need many lectures on how it is played. The mechanics of nerfed 4e Fighters isn't being mocked - the attitude that they are always nerfed in favor of Wizards is.

And given that that isn't the argument from anyone I don't know where it came from. As far as I know no one thinks that 4e fighters are nerfed. The argument is that in 3.X fighters always get the short end of the straw and don't get nice stuff. For you to suddenly try to apply it to the edition that this doesn't happen in merely shows that you are trying to lampoon without understanding the actual argument. It's not just a straw man - it's a straw man facing the wrong way and with his head upside down.

As stated, I have played 4e. And actually, I claimed the 'wars' were hilarious, but that is by the by. The major themes I have against 4e, specifically, are:

The wars may be hilarious. But that doesn't mean you should be contributing to them. And you demonstrably are.

1) The 4e fans on this forum (and possibly elsewhere) have got themselves entrenched in an attitude that is oversensitive to slights against 'their' game - to the point that progress in the development of 5e is becoming seriously compromised. I could point out a number of comments on this forum that have had zero offense value, but have nevertheless been taken as insults and angrily responded to.

There are two things that in my experience cause 4e fans to respond angrily en masse.

1: Any claim that 4e is not an RPG.
2: Spreading false information with the intent of running down 4e. And it's the false information part that triggers the angry response.

And yes, the first, the accusation that 4e players are not actual roleplayers and don't deserve to be counted with roleplayers is extremely offensive.

2) The denial that 4e has been divisive for the D&D community. It has.

Where is this denial? Every edition has been divisive. There were 1e/2e edition wars - just ask Dragonsfoot. There were certainly 2e/3e edition wars with the term 3tard flying around. And I've quoted the RPGPundit who is far more hostile than anything I've ever seen in the 3e/4e edition wars..

Who is denying changing editions is divisive? Give me links. It has been divisive every time it has happened.

XKCD says it better than I can.

And this is what I see from D&D Next. An attempt to create a new standard to unite the existing standards. It's doomed to failure on that count. This is not a goal that can produce a good or a successful game in my view.

I could be critical, and have been, about 3e, 3.5e and Pathfinder too. On this forum, however, the main aggression (including passive aggression) have truthfully been coming from 4e fans who feel threatened, and don't realise that there isn't actually a war on.

Says the person who has deliberately been running down 4e, lampooning it, and criticising it for things that are not in fact true. And then, when challenged, refusing to back up your assertions. And 4e fans getting told 4e is not an RPG is routine.

You are seeing aggression from 4e fans because we return fire. If you want less aggression from us, stop shooting.

 

[Fifth Element]

You are seeing aggression from 4e fans because we return fire. If you want less aggression from us, stop shooting.

Good point. If you feel that 4E fans are the only ones shooting at you, maybe it's because you're only shooting at them?

 

[Campbell]

While I can't speak for other fans of 4e who might have very different preferences all I can say is that when talking about D&D Next all I have ever done is talk about my preferences and what it would take for 5e to spur economic action on my part. I don't see what's so problematic about that. My motivations are selfish, but we're talking about a luxury good that provides recreational value here - not a matter of life and death.

I'm honestly not entirely sure what to make of this thread. Should I change my preferences for the good of the community? Why are we still arguing if 4e should have been released? It happened and people bought it or didn't buy it. Play it or don't play it. Since choice reveals value we can safely assume that a significant portion of the market has a preference for 4e over previous editions. Just as a significant portion of the market does not. We are weighing a sunk cost here. 4e cannot be unmade.

For someone with preferences like mine you either need to provide a superior substitute good or provide a non-rival good that appeals to my sensibilities. Perhaps I might be able to consider an edition that provides me with a different play experience that I do not currently have access to. The wrong way to approach gaining my economic intentions is to tell me that my preferences are bad for the game, couch process simulation in narrative language, and defining the games I like out of the hobby I've been involved for half my life. It might help to recover lapsed 3e players, but that's not my concern. I do not make economic decisions based on the utility someone else receives from a good.