WotC "dumbs-down" stuff? What's bad with it?

[MerricB]

I don't mind having more details. However the format seems to make the writers very stupid as we have just as many, if not more, errors now than we've had since the begining. A new format the encourages math errors is not a step up. The new format should be more like say a Hero character sheet where all the math is put out./QUOTE]

Err... I think this is untrue. MMIII is a case in point. That's the old format, and, boy, did it have errors. MMIV has errors, but John Cooper notes that they're much less severe than MMIII.

Cheers!

 

[iwatt]

Maybe you don't like it, but your statement that the experiment was an overall failure is countered by the grand sales fo the products. If it really stank, people wouldn't be still buying it seven years later.

Prepare for the Quality v/s Quantity argument.

 

[billd91]

The implication that this attitude is inherent to anyone who doesn't like simplifying the rules seems to me to be a broad brush dipped in an ugly color. A great number of folks in RPGs like complex rules not due to elitism, but merely because they like playing with complex rules.

Let's say you liked the New York Times crossword puzzle. It is a hard one, especially by the end of the week. You'd react similarly if they decided to "make the puzzle more accessible" by using simpler and more common words. It would remove much of the reason you did the puzzle. For some folks, elitism may play a part. But for many, it is only because it actually makes the game less fun.

Different people like different things. There is a point at which making a game accessible removes elements that someone likes. There's no crime in being annoyed at that.

Perhaps, but a lot of people do seem to bring a pretty elitist attitude. As far as I'm concerned, anyone using the actual term "dumbing down" as a criticism is waving that elitism flag pretty strongly. There are ways to make a critique about over-simplification or the removal of figurative prose without making implications about intelligence.

 

[Korgoth]

Failed who? I mean you and who else? :\

all the problems constantly being hashed out here about balance, simplicity, bloat, power creep, screwy PrCs, endless errata, etc. are a direct result of 3E's design philosophy and approach.

That's how I'm defining failure. The older versions never had these kinds of problems, except maybe 2e toward the end.

I'm not talking about moving units in the short term. I'm talking about something that's going to keep people playing for 25 more years. That's what I think has not been delivered on account of moving away from a proven design philosophy for one based on more 'modern' principles... of niche games that have never been as popular as D&D.

 

[hong]

I'm not talking about moving units in the short term. I'm talking about something that's going to keep people playing for 25 more years.

It got me back into the game!

 

[Shade]

I don't mind simplification if it isn't at the expense of options or at the expense of other parts of the game.

For instance, I dislike the new design philosophy of simplifying the abilities of monsters to one or two abilities, even at high CRs. It's OK to have "one trick ponies", but not every one needs to follow this design. Some of the iconic fiends have been stripped of some of their spell-like abilities for the sake of simplification...couldn't it be just as "simple" to present them, and allow DMs looking for simplicity to simply not use them all? Many of the newer monsters in MMIV have very well-developed flavor...but the monsters themselves are very vanilla, with a single unique ability.

 

[Korgoth]

It got me back into the game!

I think 3E did get a number of people playing D&D again who had moved on for whatever reason, and on that account I'd say it was a great success. I wouldn't want to take that away from it. My concern, though, is whether it will be able to keep those players. I guess what it boils down to, and my allusions to PunPun and so on are directed to this: is this design philosophy sustainable, either in general or for D&D in particular.

While I'm of the opinion now, some years later, that 3E was actually a huge shift in approach, I didn't realize it at first. I came to this conclusion after playing in two campaigns and DMing another (plus assorted shorter games).

 

[iwatt]

That's how I'm defining failure. The older versions never had these kinds of problems, except maybe 2e toward the end.

UA (1e) had no problems?

 

[hong]

For instance, I dislike the new design philosophy of simplifying the abilities of monsters to one or two abilities, even at high CRs. It's OK to have "one trick ponies", but not every one needs to follow this design.

Huh? Examples please?

 

[diaglo]

Surveys of this forum (the premier 3e fansite) regularly reveals that most of the forumites have been playing since 1e. I suspect your observation may be a factor of grognards you know.

i play the newest edition, but my hat of d02 know no limits.

playing it doesn't mean i like it. i just like the group with which i play.

just sayin'