Why won't you switch?

[Wolfspider]

Feeling touchy or getting offended or personally insulted by the fact that the designers think they've made improvements to the game doesn't make any sense to me. If they didn't think that, how else could they justify trying to foist a new edition on the customers? Of course they think they've improved the game. It wouldn't make any sense if they didn't believe that.

If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?

Sure, people can learn from experience. It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process....

Eh.

I'm not really personally offended, by the way. It is a minor irritation in my life, something I only think about when I read a developer's blog or come to these boards. I don't lose sleep over 4e.

After all, I need good rest so I can run fun games of v3.5.

 

[The Little Raven]

Eh.

You sigged me!

I'm not sure whether to dance a jig or put on my tinfoil hat.

 

[billd91]

If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?

Sure, people can learn from experience. It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process....

I don't see any problem with this, frankly, because people often do improve their work by revisiting it with new and fresh ideas they've gathered. DaVinci's Mona Lisa took 17 years to complete, with 3 revisions of the initial work. But you're right in that continued work on a piece doesn't guarantee it gets better (as Star Wars fans, myself included, can tell you ad nauseum).

I'm currently not really leaning toward switching at all. As I said in another thread, unlike 3E which I was skeptical of at first but became more accepting the more I read about it, I am getting more skeptical of 4E the more I hear about it. I think that's because more and more of the changes seem less oriented on what I consider to be necessary fixes and improvement to the core game and more oriented around presenting a totally different core that I'm not sure I want to have. That said, I'll give it a try no matter what. I've already ordered the PHB and DMG via Amazon so I can evaluate how the game will fit into my long term gaming plans.

 

[Mallus]

If the last edition of D&D--3.5, released not so long ago--was so deeply flawed in certain aspects, what makes the people at WotC so certain that they have got it right this time?

So the act of revision is impossible if you don't get it exactly right the first time?

 

[Wolfspider]

So the act of revision is impossible if you don't get it exactly right the first time?

No, because that would be a ludicrous claim.

Which is why I said earlier:

"Sure, people can learn from experience. It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process...."

Imagine a car commercial.

Announcer: "Sure, our 2007 model had some flaws...faulty brakes...gas leaks...cheap electronics. But this time we've got it right. Trust us! This car is cool, and driving it is intuitive."

Sales would be amazing, I'm sure.

 

[Wolfspider]

You sigged me!

I'm not sure whether to dance a jig or put on my tinfoil hat.

Why not do both, just in case?

 

[BryonD]

I honestly don't think anyone's pursuing a "your edition suxx0rz" marketing strategy. They're simply highlighting the fact that they think they've provided some nifty solutions to problems that they saw.

:shrug: I didn't think it was any secret that the 3.5 rules had a few wonky aspects to them. The fact that they seemed to do a pretty good job of identifying what I thought were problems with the rules actually gave me some initial enthusiasm.

Subsequent preview material have indicated to me that not all the solutions are going to be to my taste, and simply identifying problems correctly while not necessarily fixing them to my satisfaction isn't going to cut it for me. I also think that in many ways the design direction was in the opposite direction I would have gone, so... yeah, my enthusiasm has waned considerably to almost nothing.

Feeling touchy or getting offended or personally insulted by the fact that the designers think they've made improvements to the game doesn't make any sense to me. If they didn't think that, how else could they justify trying to foist a new edition on the customers? Of course they think they've improved the game. It wouldn't make any sense if they didn't believe that.

I'm pretty much in line with you. If I thought 3X was perfect I never would have been excited about 4E when it was announced.

I'm far from offended by 3X slams (though I do think they have been more harsh than you seem to). But to me that approach just makes it all the more clear that I should stay far away from 4e.

I also think that certain design parameters have very likely been forced on them for better or for worse. I think these changes are for three reasons: Create justifications for a new edition even if it isn't truly needed, build a game that translates better into a generally accepted MMORPG*, and the theory that a lower effort requirement (simplification) will result in a wider player base.


* - I am not saying they are making D&D into a computer game. I don't buy that. But there is a difference between making P&P play like online and making a ruleset that is easier to translate into an established successful online model.

 

[Mallus]

It just seems odd for the developers to be talking so much about the previous edition's flaws and how they've fixed them with 4e when many of the same people involved in writing the rules for v3.5 are still involved in this process...."

I write software for a (very) small IT company. I make my living fixing the 'previous edition's flaws' that I am, in fact, responsible for...

 

[billd91]

As for SKR's rants against 2nd edition, I guess the reason why I wasn't annoyed was that I agreed with his assertions. The infravision/ultravision split always had me scratching my head and the self-destructing drow equipment just seemed like a screw-bot to me... you fought drow who were equipped to the gills and, when you managed to defeat them, the loot that helped them to beat the crap out of your party went "poof".

Actually, I loved the self-destructing Drow gear. You could load the NPCs up with the stuff, the PCs could loot and use the gear as long as they stayed engaged with the Drow campaign, and you didn't have to worry about long-term campaign imbalance because of it. Fantastic! Tidy!

Plus, it contributed to the explanation why the Drow, growing as mighty as they were, preferred to use indirect methods to mess up the surface rather than conduct their own raiding.

I approached this, perhaps obviously, from the viewpoint of the DM because I DMed the D series in my home game. But those brittle weapons were a fun, useful, and safe tool.

 

[wingsandsword]

Getting back to the topic, why I'm not switching, and other people aren't switching, could be summed up like this:

Why should we switch? We were happy with 3.5, and it might not be perfect but it was pretty good. WotC has to convince us that 4e is better than what we have now, not just present a product and assume we will buy it because it's the new edition of D&D. They haven't convinced many of us to switch. In fact, their marketing/previews have convinced some of us to steer clear instead of switching over.

It's clear that WotC has designed 4e with a very specific set of design goals and preferences in mind, and if you don't like those ideas then 4e is probably not for you.