PDA

View Full Version : First Fallacy of 4e.



TempusCCK
2008-05-30, 11:28 PM
I call it the Founder-Dissassociation Fallacy, or, if we want to associate with a person, the CCK Fallacy (I thought about naming it after the biggest propagator of said fallacy on these boards, but decided that would be too insulting).

The Found-Dissassociation Fallacy is the mistaken belief that when a gaming system goes through a new edition, upgrade, or revision of some sort that this new edition must be judged as a seperate entity form the previous, and judgements or comparisions to the older edition of some game should be set aside.

Why is this a fallacy you ask?

In the case of 3e to 4e D&D, 4e was created to "fix" the issues of 3e, in fact, the only reason to create a new edition of any game is because someone in charge of it has some reason to believe that a new or revised set of rules will be better than the last in some way(perferably a way that will make said someone money).

So, to say that 4e is a completely different thing than 3e, and should not be compared is quite simply silly. If there is no comparison, how are we, as the consumer to know that the money we're paying for said new system any better than the old? In this case, how are we to know that 4th Edition of D&D is worth any amount of money if we don't compare to the established ruleset, in this case 3e? Without such comparision you are just throwing money out the window.


Ready? Set? Discuss!

Ozymandias
2008-05-30, 11:38 PM
I don't understand the point. The system should be judged objectively beside all other systems or versions of systems. The reason people call it a "new game" is because some people tie it to concepts in 3.x that are fundamentally changed - e.g. a shift from simulationism, narrative foci etc.

TempusCCK
2008-05-30, 11:42 PM
The point is that someone on this forum keeps claiming that 4e will be hurt by it being judged against 3e, and they should be judged as completely seperate entities and should not be compared whatsoever, which is just silly. Why have a 4e if it's not going to be in some way superior to 3e, and how do you know that without comparision?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-30, 11:42 PM
I don't understand the point. The system should be judged objectively beside all other systems or versions of systems. The reason people call it a "new game" is because some people tie it to concepts in 3.x that are fundamentally changed - e.g. a shift from simulationism, narrative foci etc.

Simulationism. 3E.


man what

FlyMolo
2008-05-30, 11:44 PM
4e is fundamentally a redesign from the ground up. It's a new game. 3e is like 2e, but way more complex, and with no spell drawbacks, from what I've seen. Never played 2e, sadly.

4e uses different measures, different ideas of what is good, and different ideas on balance and strategy. It is a different game. It is not a revision.

WotC thought that DnD should be taken in a radically different direction. The concept of DnD remains the same, sort of. But the implementation is so different that I would be comfortable calling it a different game.

Ozymandias
2008-05-30, 11:45 PM
Simulationism. 3E.


man what

I didn't say it was effective.

Edit: What I meant was that Fourth Edition has a clearer focus on being an elegant, playable game, while Third Edition felt obligated to have six different types of spear (for example).

RoboticSheeple
2008-05-30, 11:47 PM
Marketing 101 in Two minutes or less
First ask, "Is this product similar to the other?"
then, "Are the markets of these products similar?"

If either is no then you must judge the product on its own forgetting about all previous incarnations, this is re-inventing the line or a revolution, see for example the Nintendo Wii, functionally a videogame system but with a very different market than the gamecube.

If both these questions are yes than you should judge the product against all past incarnations. This is merely progressing the line and can be called evolution. However, the product should fail if it only relies on supporters of the pervious product and so one must also judge how the product stands on its own.

In the end we see that although in many cases the previous product line can not be ignored it is NEVER the sole measure of a products worth.

Bleen
2008-05-31, 12:07 AM
The problem with 4e is that Wizards chose to name a completely new system after an already-existing one that they owned, and call it a "revision", thus immediately associating it with something it shares almost nothing with except in name(s).

As good as 4e is as an actual system, I see this as an utter failure from a marketing standpoint.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-31, 12:25 AM
As good as 4e is as an actual system, I see this as an utter failure from a marketing standpoint.

4E sales say otherwise.

JaxGaret
2008-05-31, 12:28 AM
in fact, the only reason to create a new edition of any game is because someone in charge of it has some reason to believe that a new or revised set of rules will be better than the last in some way

Incorrect. The only reason to create a new edition of any game is because someone in charge of it has some reason to believe that a new or revised set of rules will increase the profit margin of the company.

Period.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's just simple economics.

Maxymiuk
2008-05-31, 12:36 AM
The problem with 4e is that Wizards chose to name a completely new system after an already-existing one that they owned, and call it a "revision", thus immediately associating it with something it shares almost nothing with except in name(s).

As good as 4e is as an actual system, I see this as an utter failure from a marketing standpoint.

I'm afraid I must disagree. D&D is a brand name - at this point practically a household name. If your average shmoe heard anything at all about tabletop, it probably involved the words Dungeons&Dragons. WotC made it into a brand name through advertising and aggressive marketing, and it results in a positive feedback loop - anything bearing the D&D logo is much more likely to draw attention and interest (and boy howdy, does it, if the few past months on this forum are to be judged). Selling their new product as D&D was in fact an excellent marketing decision - at least as far as raising interest in it went.

Furthermore, 4e is not a completely different system. By my (cautious) estimate, there's about as much of a difference between 4e and 3e, as between 3e and 2e, or 2e and 1e. The feel of the mechanics changes, some fiddly bits change, but in the end you're still playing with classes, levels, numeric weapon enhancements, etc. and you're still rolling d20's. The XP fodder you're facing is still kobolds, goblins, orcs, and undead and Pelor is still pimping out the sun.

Keeping those two things in mind, of course 4e is going to be judged on the basis of how it compares to 3e. The same exact thing happened when 3e supplanted 2e, only back then we didn't have the Internet to wail and gnash our teeth discuss the transition. We have every right to judge it as such.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 12:40 AM
4e is fundamentally a redesign from the ground up. It's a new game. 3e is like 2e, but way more complex, and with no spell drawbacks, from what I've seen. Never played 2e, sadly.

4e uses different measures, different ideas of what is good, and different ideas on balance and strategy. It is a different game. It is not a revision.

WotC thought that DnD should be taken in a radically different direction. The concept of DnD remains the same, sort of. But the implementation is so different that I would be comfortable calling it a different game.

Actually, the shift from 2e to 3e was huge. SO MANY THINGS changed... losing THAC0 would be an interesting place to start, or maybe the... nah.

Yeah, the rules may be totally different (again), but so what? It's still obviously D&D, and gets treated as such. The big question for any gamer thinking about buying the books will be, "do I like this more than the game I play now?" and how do you determine that if you don't compare them?

For that point, why does it matter whether what you play currently is 3e or Gamma World? You still are deciding whether this new game is superior in some fashion; it's not the only RPG on the market, it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and so it *will be* compared.

skywalker
2008-05-31, 01:04 AM
4e is fundamentally a redesign from the ground up. It's a new game. 3e is like 2e, but way more complex, and with no spell drawbacks, from what I've seen. Never played 2e, sadly.

4e uses different measures, different ideas of what is good, and different ideas on balance and strategy. It is a different game. It is not a revision.

WotC thought that DnD should be taken in a radically different direction. The concept of DnD remains the same, sort of. But the implementation is so different that I would be comfortable calling it a different game.

I can see your point, however, I feel that since one of Wizards' favorite phrases is "It's still D&D!" we should not only consider it as a revision, but we should consider it primarily as a revision. If they called it the "D&D Minis RPG" that would be fine. If they called it Dragons & Dungeons, that would be fine. But since they called it "D&D 4e," it nigh-on must be compared to previous editions.

greenknight
2008-05-31, 01:10 AM
WotC made it into a brand name through advertising and aggressive marketing, and it results in a positive feedback loop - anything bearing the D&D logo is much more likely to draw attention and interest (and boy howdy, does it, if the few past months on this forum are to be judged).

That was TSR, in it's various incarnations. WotC/Hasbro have just continued that policy.


By my (cautious) estimate, there's about as much of a difference between 4e and 3e, as between 3e and 2e, or 2e and 1e.

1st Ed AD&D and 2nd Ed AD&D are really fairly similar to one another. While there are a few significant changes, they're nowhere near the same scale as the change from D&D to (1st Ed) AD&D, or 2nd Ed AD&D to 3e. You can read about the history of the game here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_&_Dragons#Game_history).


The same exact thing happened when 3e supplanted 2e, only back then we didn't have the Internet to wail and gnash our teeth discuss the transition. We have every right to judge it as such.

We didn't??? I remember lots of internet discussion about the changeover. In fact, ENWorld built it's reputation during that period (back then, it was dedicated to finding out info about the "new" edition). In fact, I can point you to at least one website where most of the posters are still wailing and gnashing their teeth over the transition from 1st/2nd Ed AD&D to 3e.

JaxGaret
2008-05-31, 01:13 AM
We didn't??? I remember lots of internet discussion about the changeover.

Indeed. The Internet certainly existed in 2000.

To claim otherwise is quite humorous.

Maxymiuk
2008-05-31, 01:20 AM
*a lot of stuff that I got wrong*

Guilty as charged - didn't do the research/got my dates mixed up. I think I'll just excuse myself now. :smalleek:

its_all_ogre
2008-05-31, 01:22 AM
3e was a total re-write from the ground up, the main things that did not change were the spell names and effects,apart from dropping the drawbacks.

we all saw problems with the 3e magic system as a direct result of this (blasters were weaker than previously for example)

4e is also a total re-write but they have also changed the magic system.

it is still called dungeons and dragons and for that reason alone people will compare it to the previous versions of the game.

its what humans do you know:smallyuk:

Skyserpent
2008-05-31, 01:24 AM
I agree with this. 4e IS an evolution of 3.5, if not entirely positive, I don't think 4e is any WORSE than 3.5 I just think it's fixed some things, and broke some other things, and in general runs a little bit smoother in combat and is a little less complex, which is good for some and not for others...

Jarlax
2008-05-31, 01:33 AM
The point is that someone on this forum keeps claiming that 4e will be hurt by it being judged against 3e, and they should be judged as completely seperate entities and should not be compared whatsoever, which is just silly. Why have a 4e if it's not going to be in some way superior to 3e, and how do you know that without comparision?

i have to agree with this statement. for better or worse 4e must be compared to 3rd, 2nd and 1st editions. as it must also be compated to nWoD, Gurps, Spycraft and every other RPG system out there.

while it is true that 4e introduces some radically different mechanics and structure for classes, races and powers it is still siting on top of the D20 system. the same system that 3rd edition and many other rpg supplements are built upon thanks to the OGL.

i dont consider D&D to be made of elements like vactan casting, or feats or those kinds of mechanical elements. as long as the system has elves, dwarves, humans. includes fighter, mages, clerics and rouges. takes place in a medieval setting designed with dungeon crawls in mind and most of the iconic monsters. then no matter how wizards choose to express these elements mechanically its still D&D to me.

Corolinth
2008-05-31, 01:58 AM
The differences between second edition and third edition are not so great as people claim. Much pomp and circumstance surrounds the removal of THAC0 in third edition, but it still exists in third edition. We call it BAB, now. You're just adding your bonuses instead of subtracting them. The actual number you have to roll on a 20-sided die changed very little. Saves underwent a similar change. Instead of subtracting in previous editions, now you add. The magic system remained unchanged, but some numbers were tweaked to adjust for the fact that classes roll hit points + constitution at all levels, rather than receiving a token increase of 1 or 2 starting at level 10 (with no more constitution bonus, either). Clerics were given an extra two levels of spellcasting to bring them up to nine spell levels, equal to wizards. Numerous charts were removed and simplified (most notably the ability scores).

Third edition was simplified a great deal to make the game more playable. The biggest criticism leveled against third edition at the time was that it was "watered down D&D for dummies." The biggest change was in math - you add instead of subtract. The concept of feats is just a hybridization of the weapon and nonweapon proficiencies that nobody really seemed to like about 2nd edition. Skills are just an expansion of the rogue and bard abilities that were given to all classes (it's no coincidence those are the two "skill-based" classes, until 3.5 put rangers on par with bards).

KillianHawkeye
2008-05-31, 06:31 AM
I have to disagree with you. 3e's feats and skill system were a HUGE leap from AD&D 2e's nonweapon proficiencies and Bard/Rogue percentile-based skill system.

Also, 3e completely revolutionized the concept of multi-classing.

You're right about the THAC0 and saving throws, though. Those things were not the biggest changes between 2e and 3e, they were simply two of the most helpful changes.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 07:06 AM
Score! i get a Fallacy named after me.

It's a complete load of BS that you're not going to actually name it after me... or that it even exists to begin with... since... you know... the fundamental game mechanics are different between 3e and 4e.

Also, I've said that its a different edition... once... in one thread. I didn't know that was grounds for a "fallacy"

Take the stick out of your butt and get over the fact that FOURTH EDITION IS DIFFERENT FROM THIRD EDITION WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM SECOND EDITION... etc


The Found-Dissassociation Fallacy is the mistaken belief that when a gaming system goes through a new edition, upgrade, or revision of some sort that this new edition must be judged as a seperate entity form the previous, and judgements or comparisions to the older edition of some game should be set aside.

So when you buy a car, does the 2007 model have to be judged as the same car as say... the 1960 model? Of course not. Its a new car completely with new features that really the only thing in common is that its a car and has the same name.

The same is true for Dungeons and Dragons. All previous editions are tabletop role playing games, you still roll a d20... but the games are different beyond that, and to judge it based on your opinion of third edition (or older) version, you are forming a biased opinion and not being objective.

But hey, its the internet, why should I expect anyone to be objective.


In the case of 3e to 4e D&D, 4e was created to "fix" the issues of 3e, in fact, the only reason to create a new edition of any game is because someone in charge of it has some reason to believe that a new or revised set of rules will be better than the last in some way(perferably a way that will make said someone money).

Or, you know, they wanted to make more money, so they came up with a new edition. They are, after all, a company first.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 07:21 AM
Score! i get a Fallacy named after me.

It's a complete load of BS that you're not going to actually name it after me... or that it even exists to begin with... since... you know... the fundamental game mechanics are different between 3e and 4e.

Take the stick out of your butt and get over the fact that FOURTH EDITION IS DIFFERENT FROM THIRD EDITION WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM SECOND EDITION... etc



So when you buy a car, does the 2007 model have to be judged as the same car as say... the 1960 model? Of course not. Its a new car completely with new features that really the only thing in common is that its a car and has the same name.

The same is true for Dungeons and Dragons. All previous editions are tabletop role playing games, you still roll a d20... but the games are different beyond that, and to judge it based on your opinion of third edition (or older) version, you are forming a biased opinion and not being objective.

But hey, its the internet, why should I expect anyone to be objective.

So, why buy the 2007 instead of the 1960 car? If I'm understanding what you're saying I shouldn't look for improvements in economy, nor engineering quality and upkeep requirements, nor any of the myriad other things that make the two cars different.

I'm not poor, but an RPG system can be a serious investment, and I'm not going to buy it just because it's shiny and new. If I'm going to spend the money on changing over, I want to know that I like it more than what I'm playing now, otherwise I'm not changing. The only way to do that is to compare the two.

If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify for me; I haven't been following the previous discussions which led to this.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 07:23 AM
So, why buy the 2007 instead of the 1960 car? If I'm understanding what you're saying I shouldn't look for improvements in economy, nor engineering quality and upkeep requirements, nor any of the myriad other things that make the two cars different.

I'm not poor, but an RPG system can be a serious investment, and I'm not going to buy it just because it's shiny and new. If I'm going to spend the money on changing over, I want to know that I like it more than what I'm playing now, otherwise I'm not changing. The only way to do that is to compare the two.

If I'm misunderstanding, please clarify for me; I haven't been following the previous discussions which led to this.

That's sort of my point. You're not just going out and buying the 2007 model because its a newer model. You want to look at each to see which has the features you like. Hence... objective judgment.

Solo
2008-05-31, 07:27 AM
If 4e is objectively a good system,then yay. New players will come.

If 4e is a good system and doesn't quite fit in with previous editions of DnD, ten at least the new players will like it and be introduced to DnD.

If 4e is a good system and fits in with previous editions of DnD, then everyone wins.

What's the fuss about?

Skyserpent
2008-05-31, 07:30 AM
If 4e is objectively a good system,then yay. New players will come.

If 4e is a good system and doesn't quite fit in with previous editions of DnD, ten at least the new players will like it and be introduced to DnD.

If 4e is a good system and fits in with previous editions of DnD, then everyone wins.

What's the fuss about?

If 4e is a subjectively good system and that subject is the unwashed idiot masses who will ruin D&D for the glorious 3.5 gaming Master Race. :smallwink:

[Insert credit to Zero Punk for phraseology...]

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 07:33 AM
That's sort of my point. You're not just going out and buying the 2007 model because its a newer model. You want to look at each to see which has the features you like. Hence... objective judgment.

:smallconfused:

I understood from your post that you were the vocal proponent the OP mentioned. What confuses me is how you're saying anything different from one another.


The Found-Dissassociation Fallacy is the mistaken belief that when a gaming system goes through a new edition, upgrade, or revision of some sort that this new edition must be judged as a separate entity form the previous, and judgements or comparisons to the older edition of some game should be set aside.


You're not just going out and buying the 2007 model because its a newer model. You want to look at each to see which has the features you like. Hence... objective judgment.

Again I haven't been following this, so the application of either believe may differ wildly from my reading of it. Is there a thread that shows the difference clearly?

Solo
2008-05-31, 07:34 AM
If 4e is a subjectively good system and that subject is the unwashed idiot masses who will ruin D&D for the glorious 3.5 gaming Master Race. :smallwink:

[Insert credit to Zero Punk for phraseology...]

No, the idiots will all go to 4e, meaning that our 3.5e games will be uncontaminated.

We still win.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 07:36 AM
:smallconfused:

Again I haven't been following this, so the application of either believe may differ wildly from my reading of it. Is there a thread that shows the difference clearly?

There isn't. I just said, once, that the system is new and judging it based on 3e is a bad idea.

The key is Tempus is saying that its a "mistaken belief" that you have to judge a new edition as a separate entity. I believe you should look at each new edition of something objectively and weigh its pros and cons separate from the pros and cons of different editions.

Here is exactly what I said in the first few posts of the 4e good and bad thread:


I think half of all 4e viewpoints are going to be skewed by people looking at it as a comparison of 3e. That will cause a lot of downfall... you must look at it as its own entity, completely separate from any previous edition..

Yes, much like everything in life, we as humans like to categorize and organize, and we are going to compare it to other editions that we've played... which is where a lot of confusion is going to come in. I'm trying to read it as though its a brand new system, new rules.

That's all I've ever said on the subject, two posts in a relatively new thread.

Of note, Tempus never bothered to respond to me in that thread. He just went off on his own little rant.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-31, 08:06 AM
I believe you should look at each new edition of something objectively and weigh its pros and cons separate from the pros and cons of different editions.

Yes - but, since we're going to have a great deal of trouble, unless you're a natural law type of Augustinian, to judge 4e on its intrinsic merits. When the question is 'what shall we play', then you've got to compare.


Of note, Tempus never bothered to respond to me in that thread. He just went off on his own little rant.

Glass house, stones, caps lock cruise control, etc.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 08:09 AM
Some days I hate the internet.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-05-31, 08:10 AM
The internet is nothing but one massive INTERNET HATE MACHINE.

However, I seriously doubt that Samuel L. Jackson's standing behind you with a Glock making you post on it, though.

Solo
2008-05-31, 08:11 AM
Some days I hate the internet.

And the Internet hates back.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 08:14 AM
Yes. Yes the internet does hate back.

In all seriousness, I'm just flabbergasted that this deserves an entire thread/fallacy... since I said it once.

And, you know, I was hoping that my first fallacy would be... sexy. :smallbiggrin:

TempusCCK
2008-05-31, 08:50 AM
Well, Sam, there are some things here to consider.


1. If I named a logical fallacy after somebody for being at fault in their logic, it would be fairly insulting to said person, and would be against the rules of the forums here. (And we all know how much you like rules.)

2. Responding directly to your point on that other thread is not an issue I'm concerned with, it was a little off-topic at the time (also against the rules)and I had considerable time to think about the things you said when I was busily at work later on last night, hence my idea about the Founder-Dissassociation Fallacy. (Which belongs in a new thread itself, as per forum rules)

3. I've spent more than my fair share of time exchanging insults and bantering with people around the internet, some of the other folks here have noticed the inconsistencies with things you've said, so I have no need to point them out. I am merely stating that it is logically fallable to assume D&D 4th Edition shouldn't be compared to D&D 3rd Edition because otherwise you might as well just be depositing money into WotC's bank account willy nilly.

4 This is not the SamtheCleric Fallacy, and I'm not propagating that in any way, though you were the inspiration for said fallacy, you're right in being the basis for it, so you can still make a sexy fallacy with your name on it, however, as you are the inspiration for this one, I may or may not have ruined that prospect for you. Sorry.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 08:56 AM
Good for you.

1) I don't see a fault in the logic.

2) If you had an issue with what I said in that thread, you should've responded to it, or PMd me with your issue so that we could debate it, instead of attacking my ideas by creating a new thread.

3) Again, I don't see a fault in the logic. If you look at 4e with "fresh eyes" you can get an idea of its mechanics. Like it or not, by looking at 4e with 3e eyes you are setting 4e up for failure from the start, since you're not being objective.

4) Its cute that you're creating an entire fallacy off of something I said once. Especially since the place where I said it was a supposed review of 4e, not a comparison of 3e vs 4e. I'm not saying you CANT compare 4e to 3e, you do what you want.

But hey, we all know how much you like to blow things out of proportion... so do what you want.

Ralfarius
2008-05-31, 08:57 AM
Yes. Yes the internet does hate back.

In all seriousness, I'm just flabbergasted that this deserves an entire thread/fallacy... since I said it once.

And, you know, I was hoping that my first fallacy would be... sexy. :smallbiggrin:
LET THE FOLLOWING FALLACY BE HENCEFORTH KNOWN AS THE STC FALLACY:

This fallacy is a mistaken belief that clothing is mandatory.
In truth, clothing is optional, baby!

Jack Zander
2008-05-31, 09:09 AM
3) Again, I don't see a fault in the logic. If you look at 4e with "fresh eyes" you can get an idea of its mechanics. Like it or not, by looking at 4e with 3e eyes you are setting 4e up for failure from the start, since you're not being objective.

So the only way 4th edition is any good is if we don't compare it to 3rd? Why play 4th at all if 3rd is better?

nagora
2008-05-31, 09:09 AM
LET THE FOLLOWING FALLACY BE HENCEFORTH KNOWN AS THE STC FALLACY:

This fallacy is a mistaken belief that clothing is mandatory.
In truth, clothing is optional, baby!

Groovy :smallcool:

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 09:17 AM
So the only way 4th edition is any good is if we don't compare it to 3rd? Why play 4th at all if 3rd is better?

I didn't say that. I'm saying to get an idea of the mechanics of 4e, you need to start from the ground and work your way up.

Then, after you've made a judgment on 4e based on nothing but 4e, see which one you like better and which one you prefer.

And I am saying this from experience. I loved Vampire: the Masquerade. When Requiem came out, I didn't give it a fair chance because I loved V:tM so much. I was unfairly judging Vampire: The Requiem because I wanted it to still be V:tM.


LET THE FOLLOWING FALLACY BE HENCEFORTH KNOWN AS THE STC FALLACY:

This fallacy is a mistaken belief that clothing is mandatory.
In truth, clothing is optional, baby!

Now THATS a fallacy I can get on board with. :smallcool:

TempusCCK
2008-05-31, 09:38 AM
Let's not let this degrade into flaming, I was never intending to insult you, just bringing up topics for discussion. If you feel that it's alright to give money to WotC for a product that was advertised as a revision, but refuse to compare it before you spend the money on it, that's your issue. It's not my dollar.

I however, still feel that a revision cannot be truly judged unless it is set up against its predecessor so that one can give a true opinion on whether or not it's a revision in the right direction. This is a logically sound statement.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 09:41 AM
I didn't say that. I'm saying to get an idea of the mechanics of 4e, you need to start from the ground and work your way up.

Then, after you've made a judgment on 4e based on nothing but 4e, see which one you like better and which one you prefer.


Ah. Now see, that makes lots of sense. It's a much more nuanced stance than was attributed not-to-you in the OP.

Frankly, I think everybody's saying the same thing, and arguing about it. I love I hate English can be incredibly ambiguous.

Jack Zander
2008-05-31, 09:50 AM
You can still compare the two while giving the new one a fair chance. Let's take the minion rules for example.

If you wanted to have minions in 3e, they did not pose a significant threat at all. In 4e, you can't just ignore them anymore. However, the mechanics for minions are disassociated and leave me wondering how these are real people, and not just game mechanics.

From the minion rules we can gather that 3e was a much more consistent system, that worried about how everything worked in and out of combat, while 4e is combat focused to the point where it does not care for much anything outside of combat (but while in combat, the game runs much more smoothly and balanced).

Now whether you like the change or not is completely up to your play style.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 09:54 AM
Ah. Now see, that makes lots of sense. It's a much more nuanced stance than was attributed not-to-you in the OP.



To be fair, I didn't clearly state what I meant... I'm not so good with the words, sometimes.

wodan46
2008-05-31, 09:56 AM
If 3e were a roast beef sandwich with veggies, then 4e would be kentucky fried chicken. Trying to compare their tastes is problematic, as some people like one taste more than the other, and others are just annoyed that the food was changed at all. There isn't even a clear groundwork for deciding how to evaluate which is better anyway.

Trying to compare 2 things when those things are appealing to moderately distinct groups is not particularly doable, especially combined with many many variables.

Signmaker
2008-05-31, 10:24 AM
Hm.

What is so wrong with starting fresh? 4e is, simply put, quite different from earlier editions. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but I believe that the intention of doing so is to offer a 'new' start to potential players. After all, you look at 3.5e with their uberchargers, orb of deathers, spiked chain lockers, and others, and MAN, is the system unraveling. It's obvious from games in general, whether they be tabletop, TCG, or RPG, that supplements, unless monitored carefully, can have profound effects on the game, and possibly ruin the experience.

4e is supposed to be a new experience. Please treat it as such, and let it stand on its own.

Bleen
2008-05-31, 11:16 AM
4E sales say otherwise.
The fact that there is a considerable group of people who do not like 4e for this very reason says otherwise. There's also the fact that WotC is farkin' rich and has enough reputation as it stands to get away with anything it wants to anyway.

Pair this with the fact that WotC practically dominates the pen-and-paper market, with most smaller companies considered niche at best, and the only viable competitors oft looked negatively upon by the people who play their game, which is likely to be the game that will be the first that many, many people will play...

You can make a catastrophic failure and still be able to sell well if you have a reputation that's been going for 10 years and are basically the only known option on the market.

My point being, until there's serious enough competition to make WotC pick their act up, they could (metaphorically) crap in a basket, call it "Dungeons and Dragons - Fifth Edition!" and it would sell.

Fhaolan
2008-05-31, 12:05 PM
I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled by this whole discussion.

Of course I'm going to compare 4e to 3.x. I'm also going to compare it to 2e, 1e, OD&D, GURPS, Paladium, Rolemaster, Warhammer PG, Earthdawn, Torg, and the other score or so RPG systems I've played over the last thirty years.

I can't just ignore my previous RPG experience when reviewing a new game system. That would be... weird.

Occasional Sage
2008-05-31, 12:16 PM
I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled by this whole discussion.

Of course I'm going to compare 4e to 3.x. I'm also going to compare it to 2e, 1e, OD&D, GURPS, Paladium, Rolemaster, Warhammer PG, Earthdawn, Torg, and the other score or so RPG systems I've played over the last thirty years.

I can't just ignore my previous RPG experience when reviewing a new game system. That would be... weird.

Ooo, Torg. There's a name I haven't heard in a while!

Ralfarius
2008-05-31, 12:20 PM
I have to admit to being somewhat puzzled by this whole discussion.

Of course I'm going to compare 4e to 3.x. I'm also going to compare it to 2e, 1e, OD&D, GURPS, Paladium, Rolemaster, Warhammer PG, Earthdawn, Torg, and the other score or so RPG systems I've played over the last thirty years.

I can't just ignore my previous RPG experience when reviewing a new game system. That would be... weird.
See, this discussion seems to stem from a simple misunderstanding. The idea that SamTheCleric was putting forward was to evaluate 4e as objectively as possible, by looking at the system itself, before you start to gauge it in comparison to other systems. Not to not compare it at all, but it give it the first look unfettered by comparison. Afterwards, it's not only safe, but well advised to compare it to other systems. That way, you can decide not only whether you like it, but if you like it more (or less) than the other options available.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-31, 12:41 PM
See, this discussion seems to stem from a simple misunderstanding. The idea that SamTheCleric was putting forward was to evaluate 4e as objectively as possible, by looking at the system itself, before you start to gauge it in comparison to other systems. Not to not compare it at all, but it give it the first look unfettered by comparison. Afterwards, it's not only safe, but well advised to compare it to other systems. That way, you can decide not only whether you like it, but if you like it more (or less) than the other options available.

Replace everything I said with that. That's what I've been meaning to say.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-31, 12:54 PM
No, the idiots will all go to 4e, meaning that our 3.5e games will be uncontaminated.

We still win.
Agreed:
See logic would dictate that that would be hapy for 4E people instead of angry. But than who on the internet is logical these days.

JaxGaret
2008-05-31, 01:10 PM
But than who on the internet is logical these days.

Some of us at least attempt it.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-31, 02:01 PM
Simulationism. 3E.


man what

I know. rofl


4e will be hurt by it being judged against 3e

What kind of crackheads post in the 4E threads? (I don't read them past the first two pages because they get repetitive, stupid, stupidly repetive, and repetitively stupid.)

I don't think I've ever played a game that would compare unfavorably to 3E.

I guess the point those people are trying to make may be "4E isn't trying to be 3E or 2E or 1E, so stop saying it doesn't line up with older editions" - which is plain common sense. Paradigms have been shifted. Of course wizards in 4E aren't like wizards in 3E - the whole freaking point was to make the classes about equally fun to play.

KBF
2008-05-31, 07:51 PM
It seems to me that several people have came and argued against and occasional few have flamed against the ambiguous character the OP has portrayed, while the actual character has come in and explained that the OP has understood his argument incorrectly, and people continue to attack and debate against the original argument set by the OP, who objects to it.

Strawman.

Bitzeralisis
2008-05-31, 08:00 PM
I'm not really planning to immediately convert to 4e anyways. Seems like too much trouble for something that I have no idea about. I'm going to wait, see what people think about it, and then decide if it's worth it getting 4e.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-31, 08:04 PM
I'm not really planning to immediately convert to 4e anyways. Seems like too much trouble for something that I have no idea about. I'm going to wait, see what people think about it, and then decide if it's worth it getting 4e.

Most people are apparently going to give an opinion like this:

The Combat system is awesome. It's simple, fun, and takes a bit less time than 3.5 combat, while giving meleers more options.

Balance is much better. Batman Wizards exist no more, for example.

Skill get better uses. Skill challenges make Skillmonkeys shine much more than they did.

Fluff sucks, though. There are many good things that got mauled, raped, and eviscerated. Look at the alignment, for example!

That's the gist of it, more or less.

Trauco
2008-05-31, 08:35 PM
Disclaimer: what i'm about to say has no foundation in reality because i havent played 3ed nor 4ed, so if i say that one system is "narrativist" and the other "simulationist", i'm just doing it so to make a point, because i'm unnaware of the properties of each ouvre.


Why play 4th at all if 3rd is better?

I firmly believe that theres nothing better than something else, we just judge what properties we like the best.

Going with the 2007 car and 1960 car example:

the newer car may be safer, more economic, all pimped with lcd screens.

the older car may be a collectors classic, a rarity, the car your dad owned.

So the newer car has "better" tech, and if that is all you look for, that's the car for you.

The older car has better "sentimental value", and if that is all you look for, that's the car for you



So the only way 4th edition is any good is if we don't compare it to 3rd?

Not exactly, first you've got to do a objective analisis of the ouvre, and throw away all prejudice. So you can be able to see what is there, and what isn't there.

Then you get a list of properties;4ed is more simple, more useful for narrativist style of playing, rogues rock, paladins suck, etc..

Then, once you got that list of properties, you got to compare it with the list of properties from the other ouvre: 3ed has more complicated combat, rogues suck, paladins rock, more useful for simulationist style of playing, etc...

Then you do a list of all the stuff you are looking for, and THEN you compare.

So then you can say that 4ed is better or worse, compared to 3ed (or any other system for that matter), for some property you are looking for.

So if you like "narrativism" go for 4ed (or World of darkness), and if you like simulationism go for 3ed. (remember the disclaimer :-p i haven't played either of those games). It will be just different, nor bad nor good, generally speaking. And then for each consumer it will be better or worse based on whatever it is that they are looking for.

hamishspence
2008-06-01, 11:11 AM
when you judge things, you do so against a baseline: All cars are made todo one thing: drive people around.

Within that, there will be many nuances: speed, fuel efficiency, maintenance requirements, durability. And old make of car may break down more often than a new one, even if both have been driven the same amount. But, it may be more powerful.

In that sence, 4th ed needs to be judged against its baseline: does it make for fun dungeon-crawling?

At least, thats the impression I get, that WoTC is setting the dugeon-crawl as the baseline against which the setting is to be judged.

Now all editions have allowed you to do things other than dungeon-crawling. But they are secondary. So in that sense, if dungeon-crawling from low to high level is much more fun, but less traditional forms are a bit less fun, 4th ed will probably be seen as a success.

The big question is, how secondary are the other styles of gaing. If they were much more common than dungeon-crawling, and if 4th ed fails badly it these, it will be a failure for most players, even if it is seen as a success by WotC.

If dungeon crawling itself is poorly realised, 4th ed most objectively be deemed a failure by any standard, since in WoTCs manifesto for it, they said it was "back to the dungeon" in style.

So, first judge its ability to make for good dungeon crawling against previous editions, and only then, judge its performing in other styles of gaming.

Friv
2008-06-01, 12:57 PM
I don't think I've ever played a game that would compare unfavorably to 3E.

Not only have I played such games, I own several of them.

Advanced Fighting Fantasy.
James Bond: Roleplaying In Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Scion.

GolemsVoice
2008-06-01, 01:14 PM
What you should do with the new edition, and what you should do when you compare it to ANY other game, is this:

You list all the things you liked about the old game.
You look at how the new game manages them.
You decide which approach you like better (after all, just because a thing was good in 3.X doesn't mean it can't be done even better in 4E)
You look at the things you disliked in the old game.
You look at how the new game manages them.
And, again, you pick the approach that suits you best.
You look at what new features are introduced in the new game, and whether you like them or not
You decide, based on you plus and minus points for each game, which game you pick.


I said game here because I think it can be done with any game, but it works best for D&D, I think.
In this way you simultaneously jugde the new edition by the old edition (it wouldn't make much sense buying 4E if you prefer 3.X), and you objectively look at 4E (what did it do right, what do I like about it). It's simple like that, and if either edition does it for you, stick with it or move on.

Indon
2008-06-01, 01:56 PM
I don't understand the point. The system should be judged objectively beside all other systems or versions of systems. The reason people call it a "new game" is because some people tie it to concepts in 3.x that are fundamentally changed - e.g. a shift from simulationism, narrative foci etc.

If Wizards wants us to upgrade from 3.x, they better be able to convince us that their new game is better than what we're upgrading from. How is that not objective, and more importantly, simply practical?

And, furthermore, if any RPG is judged against the pandaemonium that is 3.x D&D and found wanting, shouldn't that be indicative of something?


3) Again, I don't see a fault in the logic. If you look at 4e with "fresh eyes" you can get an idea of its mechanics. Like it or not, by looking at 4e with 3e eyes you are setting 4e up for failure from the start, since you're not being objective.
Look. If 4'th edition isn't definitively better than 3'rd edition, then it has failed. Objectively. Why? Because the intent of 4'th edition is to replace 3'rd edition. If I made updates for software which weren't clear improvements, I will have failed at improving that software.

I'm not saying that 4'th edition is a failure of a system. I haven't played it yet. But when I do, I'm going to compare it directly with the systems I play because I could be playing those systems instead.


And I think you people are throwing around the word 'fallacy' way too easily. Pretty much none of the named "fallacies" thrown about on these boards are actual fallacies. For instance, the so-called "Stormwind Fallacy", is just a non-sequitur (and even then, it's only partially fallacious, and really nothing more than a strawman for an actual, well-termed statement about prioritization between story and mechanics).

This claim that 4'th edition should be judged as an independent product not only is not a fallacy, but it isn't even an argument, so it can't even contain a fallacy. It's just an opinion (which is, by my points above, not a practical position, either).

hamishspence
2008-06-01, 02:02 PM
I'd say that "you shouldn't judge it by prior editons" does not make sense: what else are you going to judge it by? We judge judge things be comparision to other things.

What I would say is, it should be judged firstly by what it is designed to do: dungeon crawling, before comparing it to other styles of gaming. Only if it is actually worse a playing dungeon crawls than previous editions, should we describe it as a complete failure. If it is better at dungeon crawls but worse at everything else, it is only a partial failure.

Kompera
2008-06-02, 05:25 AM
In that sence, 4th ed needs to be judged against its baseline: does it make for fun dungeon-crawling?

I would argue that the question is instead: Does 4e make for fun role playing?

I've played every version of D&D except 4e, and I've enjoyed campaigns under each system to date. The rules don't make the game, the people sitting around the table make the game. That said, I was excited about 3e because as I read the rules and compared it to AD&D I saw that there was a greater amount of character customization possible due to a broader range of playable classes and using Feats to select areas of focus or specialization. I like that, it allows for two Fighters to stand next to each other and be almost completely different in flavor.

We have a good example of the flexibility of character design in the 3.5 campaign in which I'm currently playing. There is a Fighter who is a leather armor wearing archer specialist who dual wields short swords if he is forced into hand to hand combat (his shtick is that he is a coward), while I am playing a spiked chain wielding Barbarian/Fighter who charges gleefully into hand to hand. Completely different concepts and play style, which AD&D did not offer. Every fighter in AD&D tried to pile on as much armor as possible and the only real difference might be in weapon choice,. If it was one handed the Longsword was the most superior weapon, and if it was two handed the 2-handed sword got a lot of play. And every round was the same: "I swing *roll* Do I hit?"

I have enjoyed the expansions to the rules sets previously, so I'm fairly sure that I'll enjoy 4e, even though my group has voted to remain in 3.5 land.

Duke of URL
2008-06-02, 07:52 AM
It's simple me to me -- since the designers use the name "Dungeons & Dragons" in the product, comparing it to all prior editions of that title is fair game.

If WotC had released the same system under a different name, then there might be a point in saying "don't compare it to D&D", but I find even that a tenuous argument -- using other games as a comparison benchmark is a reasonable approach. People talk about GURPS or Exalted, or Mutants and Masterminds all the time in comparison with D&D and each other.

Telonius
2008-06-02, 08:04 AM
Seems to me that there's a false choice being presented here - judging it on its own merits and judging it with regards to other games.

Isn't it possible to judge 4E both as a gaming system, and as an example of D&D? The one doesn't logically preclude the other, though the criteria for judgment will be different for each analysis.

Kurald Galain
2008-06-02, 08:05 AM
It's simple me to me -- since the designers use the name "Dungeons & Dragons" in the product, comparing it to all prior editions of that title is fair game.

Precisely.

A couple of years ago, White Wolf ran into the exact same problem. From what I've heard, people who play Vampire: the Requiem consider it an excellent game; however, many people who have played its predecessor (Vampire: the Masquerade) feel the Requiem is a step backwards. So yeah, the game appears to suffer in comparison to its earlier edition - and arguably, VtR to VtM is just as big a change as 3E to 4E

SamTheCleric
2008-06-02, 08:07 AM
Again, as has been stated many times in this thread...

I did not mean for people to not compare them. I meant that you must first evaluate the system itself, and once you understand the new system prestented, you then move on to comparing it others to find out your preference.

I know I like a nice medium rare steak from a certain restaurant. I go to a new restaurant with a different chef, different cuts of meat... I order the medium rare steak. It'd be unfair of me to immediately say "Well, its not the steak I like, but I guess its ok." I should value it for what it is, not for what it isn't.


So yeah, the game appears to suffer in comparison to its earlier edition - and arguably, VtR to VtM is just as big a change as 3E to 4E

That is actually my basis for this argument.

Jayabalard
2008-06-02, 08:49 AM
4e was created to "fix" the issues of 3e, in fact, the only reason to create a new edition of any game is because someone in charge of it has some reason to believe that a new or revised set of rules will be better than the last in some way(perferably a way that will make said someone money).Not so; 4ed was created to make money; it has nothing to do with making the rules better.

RukiTanuki
2008-06-02, 03:43 PM
Not so; 4ed was created to make money; it has nothing to do with making the rules better.

I find it hard to believe that not a single person at Wizards felt any desire (nor tried at all) to make 4e better than 3e, especially given that the one argument that seemingly cannot be laid at the feet of 4e is that it's a mere retread of 3e (which would have been the easiest way to, as it's so often written on the internet, "force everyone to buy the books again"). I like discussing the subject openly, but this kind of response does make it difficult to have an honest discourse.

---

At any rate, regarding the OP: compare the two, for certain. However, take into account that (as detailed in the Wizards Presents books) the design team behind 4e made of list of defining traits that they felt reflected the heart of the Dungeons and Dragons experience. Everything outside of that list was inherently up for grabs, and could potentially be changed if the result achieved the core objectives better.

The result is not a revision to 3e's rules; it is a new ruleset. The best way I see to look at is is to judge whether its core ideals were the best set of ideals for D&D, and how well it achieved those ideals. It should be compared to 3e to the extent that 1) 3e pursued the same ideals, and 2) 3e achieved those ideals (or its ideals where it differed).

I think the greatest problems come when individual elements of 4e are scrutinized in a 3e context, analyzed with regard to how they would interact with 3e's rules. Worse, yet, the occasional look at 4e seems to contend that a 3e mechanic would achieve a 3e design goal better than the 4e mechanic achieves that same goal (as opposed to its own).

In short, it takes an acknowledgement that 4e and 3e share certain core design goals, but deliberately differ in others, in order to compare and contrast (and ultimately, choose which works best for you).

Skyserpent
2008-06-02, 03:55 PM
Not so; 4ed was created to make money; it has nothing to do with making the rules better.

Convenient then that the combat rules actually HAVE been imrpoved eh? Happy accident I guess...