PDA

View Full Version : Why Did They Switch Editions?



Zeta Kai
2008-11-17, 01:06 AM
Caveat
Alright, so this not intended to disparage/praise any particular edition of any particular game. I am seeking genuine insight into an issue which has recently affected the gaming community at large, in order to put the whole thing in context. As we all know, of course, Wizards of the Coast decided to create a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, releasing 4th Edition (AKA 4E). My opinions on the subject are probably common knowledge, & as such need not be repeated here.

Query & Sub-Queries
My question is this: Why did the developers of a particular game switch to a new edition? Why did 3E give way to 4E? Why did 2E give way to 3E? Why did 1E give way to 2E? Why did Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Edition come out? Why did the Old World of Darkness end & the New World of Darkness begin? Why did these changes take place when the did?

Expansion & Explanation
I realize that change is inevitable, & I'm fine with that. I just want to know how these changes have come about & why they happened when the did. I am honestly not trying to troll or otherwise stir up bad sentiments by this question. I believe it to be a legitimate issue that should be understood by gamers. An answer of "Those people at that company just wanted more of my money" doesn't really solve anything, is partially-untrue, & is partially-irrelevant. I'm looking for the cultural/social/mechanical shifts that occurred for each edition switch, & what caused them.

monty
2008-11-17, 01:10 AM
See, when they release a new edition, everybody has to buy new books (well, most people do, anyway). This means they get more money. And they like money. :smalltongue:

Tengu_temp
2008-11-17, 01:10 AM
The major reasons behind making new editions of RPGs are:
1. Fixes to what was wrong in the previous edition, or at least attempted fixes.
2. New edition = new books for fans to buy = more money!

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-17, 01:16 AM
I'm no expert, but I'd say that part of it is that eventually making little tweaks to the old system gets too complicated and it's easier to basically push the reset button.

The only incarnations of D&D I really got to know before 4e rolled around were 3e and 3.5e. The reason they just made 3.5 instead of tweaking 3e was that they felt the changes were too extensive and complex to just add to the system as is, and made a new system that incorporated the changes to save time and energy both on the part of the players and the developers.

3.5e had a lot, and I mean a LOT of extra material. There were the Core Books, the Core Books II (and even more in the case of the Monster Manual), the Complete series and many more. The Forgotten Realms and Eberron campaign settings could be considered a seperate game with the number of books released for them. And near the end, they released the Rules Compendium, a collection of all the minor tweaks and changes they felt were needed. That they needed a whole book just for errata shows just what a bloated, stagnant beast 3.5e had become, just laboring for breath with each sourcebook. Besides that, some books, like Tome of Battle, introduced very radical changes, which were much more effective than the original stuff in the corebooks.

So by the time the Rules Compendium came out, it was clear that 3.5e was running out of steam and would simply be too complex to modify further, so they started building a newer, more well-balanced game from the bottom up, incorporating what worked well in 3.5 and eliminating things that didn't work so well (I'm looking at you, skill-points!:smallannoyed:).

I'm certain that this isn't all there is to it, and I may be outright wrong, but I feel a certain sense of refreshment with 4e starting fresh.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 01:41 AM
I have thought a lot about this. Especially since I was very against the switch to 4.0 (some of the Wizards forums refugees might remember that...).

Here are the main reasons I believe caused the switch:

Money. Plain and simple. Whatever you think of WotC, money obviously was the biggest part of that decision. I have heard people say that they needed to do it because 3.x was supposedly getting them in the negatives, and I have also heard others like me claim they are just greedy like any business with executives making all the decisions and not fans, but either way it doesn't matter.

I believe each edition reaches a point where there is simply no new material to invent, or at this point redo/copy over. I realized this while reading about those girls in the Book of Exalted Deeds which can transform into swans. They were originally introduced in an older edition, then I believe were published again before being redone again into 3rd edition. Most/a large amount of the stuff you find in the large number of 3.x books already existed in older editions, and was either converted over (example the Tarrasque, the Neogi, ship combat, the drow, all core races and classes, the planes, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc), or if new material did not exist word-for-word in an older edition odds are you can find something very similar in an old 1.0 or 2.0 book if you look hard enough.

This is one of my problems with 4.0. I have only been playing for around two and a half years, and I had just finished amassing a collection of books I was content with when the big news about 4.0 was released. I do not feel like rebuying all those books (which I financially can't right now) just to find most of the same material I already have in 3.x. I already lost a ton on the miniatures games, but that is another issues.

A lot of people felt that 3.x had to be "fixed".

In my personal opinion, I believe you can never make an edition where everyone will be pleased, so the edition "reboot" will go on until pen-and-paper RPGs finally die out (which I feel 4.0 is helping, but again another issue).

I also believe that overwhelming amount of material makes it so things can be easily munchkined/optimized and completely broken. This I think adds on to the above train of thought that the edition needs to be "fixed", and I also feel this is why supposedly WotC is not going to do any splatbooks for 4.0 and just do two/three books for each setting (do you guys know if this was confirmed?).

Honestly, I feel this is only an issue if you let it be. In my houserules I clearly state that all non-core material needs to be passed by me, and that I can refuse anything, even if it is core material. Heck, I love 3rd party stuff, and I encourage it to players, yet I believe I have done well so far with not getting overwhelmed.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-17, 01:45 AM
True. Very true. Part of the reason my parents aren't complaining about me sinking money into 4e is that there are less books than in 3.5e, so I don't spend so much.

And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 01:54 AM
True. Very true. Part of the reason my parents aren't complaining about me sinking money into 4e is that there are less books than in 3.5e, so I don't spend so much.

Huh? Which part?

If it's the less/no splatbook part, that is still debatable. I saw something about three separate Draconomicon (three if they do the gems, which I highly doubt), so the no splatbooks part seems very unlikely to me. Plus, the more books you makes means the more money you make, so no big business like WotC can refuse that, at least not for long.



And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

That is debatable. Again, what you like is obviously very different than what I like for pen-and-paper RPGs, as with everybody, so odds are you and others like you might end up being "bitter" "holdouts" like myself when 4.5 or 5.0 comes around. Just a friendly warning. :smallsmile:

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 01:58 AM
Oh, and the fact that Draconomicon even exists (see link below) is proof that there will be splatbooks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draconomicon

JadedDM
2008-11-17, 02:01 AM
Haha. I remember when 3E came out, people kept saying one of it's selling points was there were only three books. Nothing else!

It seems terribly laughable now, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 02:05 AM
Haha. I remember when 3E came out, people kept saying one of it's selling points was there were only three books. Nothing else!

It seems terribly laughable now, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Haha. :smallbiggrin:

I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

JadedDM
2008-11-17, 02:06 AM
Indeed. I felt the same way when 3E came out. "One day you'll get yours!" I shouted, but they all laughed. Who's laughing now?

Wow, we're awfully bitter about this, aren't we? :smalleek:

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 02:14 AM
Indeed. I felt the same way when 3E came out. "One day you'll get yours!" I shouted, but they all laughed. Who's laughing now?

Wow, we're awfully bitter about this, aren't we? :smalleek:

Yeah, perhaps, but after dumping so much money into our preferred systems I feel we have a right to be.

But at least now you gave me proof that I have something to look forward to!


But then again, that means I am the ones you laughed at/get revenge on? Huh, oh well, I guess we are all on the same crossed-by-WotC boat now, so it's all cool. :smallbiggrin:

I wonder if there will be room left when the 4.0 guys want to come aboard....

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-17, 02:50 AM
To be fair, businesses exist to make money. If you run a business based around producing a product, you're going to want to keep producing more of said product to make a living to support yourself. And if that product isn't profitable enough, you're going to want to make more of it.

The level of streamlining is a pretty clear indication as to what they wanted to do. They were trying to make the game a lot simpler and fix the balance issues that plagued 3e, as well as finally divorcing themselves from old "sacred cows" that can often be the death knell of enjoyment. As was stated, with all these changes, a full reboot was much easier than tweaking the existing system into incomprehensibility.

KKL
2008-11-17, 02:53 AM
I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

Of course history's going to repeat itself. WotC needs to make money, so they'll make splats. It's inevitable, and anyone who believes elsewise is a fool.

Also what's with the use of the word kid?

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 02:59 AM
Of course history's going to repeat itself. WotC needs to make money, so they'll make splats. It's inevitable, and anyone who believes elsewise is a fool.

Also what's with the use of the word kid?

Well, it is no secret that WotC is targeting the younger crowd with 4.0. From the oversimplification to make it "simpler" and "easier" for younger and undevoted players, to the whole WoW in paper thing, to the art, to the fact that it is much harder to ever die, to the changing the tieflings fluff, etc.

Sure there will be older people playing, but that is not the targeted crowd.

turkishproverb
2008-11-17, 03:03 AM
Haha. :smallbiggrin:

I have heard that from old-timers. Oh, I can't wait to see the disappointment in the 4.0 kids faces in a few years when history repeats itself, and I can say "Called it!".

Already happened, expanded definition of core anyone?

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 03:06 AM
Already happened, expanded definition of core anyone?

Say what?

Please explain.

KKL
2008-11-17, 03:10 AM
Well, it is no secret that WotC is targeting the younger crowd with 4.0. From the oversimplification to make it "simpler" and "easier" for younger and undevoted players, to the whole WoW in paper thing, to the art, to the fact that it is much harder to ever die, to the changing the tieflings fluff, etc.

Sure there will be older people playing, but that is not the targeted crowd.{Scrubbed}

2.) Dying in 4e is actually rather easy. You just have to screw up, or have the opponent get lucky, unlike the previous edition where save or dies existed, which is pretty much the antithesis of remotely good design.

3.) Tiefling fluff? {Scrubbed} Fluff in D&D has always been not great to begin with.

4.) Nobody enjoys an overcomplex mishmash of crap rules. Not even the "older and more hardcore" players, as you'd like to put it.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 03:25 AM
{Scrubbed}


[QUOTE=KKL;5310309]3.) Tiefling fluff?{Scrubbed} Fluff in D&D has always been not great to begin with.

{Scrubbed}




4.) Nobody enjoys an overcomplex mishmash of crap rules. Not even the "older and more hardcore" players, as you'd like to put it.

Really? That is so odd. I was actually sure that I enjoyed the mechanics of my 3.0/3.5 collection. I was also sure that I enjoyed the mechanics of my small (but growing) 2.0 books. Damn, I guess I really didn't since you clearly said so...

chronoplasm
2008-11-17, 03:27 AM
I love the changes for 4E personally.
Chargen in 3.5 sucked. It was like doing taxes and it took hours. With 4E, it only took my group a half an hour to create their characters whereas it would take an entire evening for the previous edition.
You also get a lot more options for creating your characters without having to dig through mountains of splat books. Just the PHB for 4E is a mountain of information with powers and whatnot.
Powers are a great idea and the Fighter is vastly improved because of it. I remember playing a Fighter in 3.5. That really blowed. {Scrubbed} Oh, I'm sorry, was it because I was just playing the game wrong? Well I seem to be playing the game pretty right with 4E, and I am having a lot of fun doing it!

Xefas
2008-11-17, 03:44 AM
New editions come along when there's nothing left to add to old editions. I'm sure adding new splats to 3.5 would have been easier than making a whole new edition (and a book in either edition would still make money), but the fact is there was very little left to cover without simply retreading old ground (Neutral Gem Dragons?).

So, they went in a different direction. Overall, I'm on the fence as to which one is better, because both are great fun for entirely different reasons. It's a shame that I can't find many people who agree with me on this, though. Anyone on my college campus that plays one edition has only snide comments and mean looks for me because I like both.

You'd think we were discussing the pros and cons of racial genocide instead of the hobbies we choose to spend time having fun with.

I sort of wonder if every hobby has divides like this. "Only children build 17th century ships in bottles. 16th century ships are where it's really at. Everything else is just a WoW clone."

KKL
2008-11-17, 03:49 AM
Look at me, I'm so utterly correct because I said so and he isn't kissing ass!
Whatever you say, chief.

PS: I'm not an interent tough guy.


You'd think we were discussing the pros and cons of racial genocide instead of the hobbies we choose to spend time having fun with.
Roleplaying games are serious business. If possible, a giant chunk of 3.5e and 4e's fanbase would spontaneously begin manifesting psionic abilities and begin tearing at each other violently.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 04:17 AM
Roleplaying games are serious business. If possible, a giant chunk of 3.5e and 4e's fanbase would spontaneously begin manifesting psionic abilities and begin tearing at each other violently.

As much as I dislike agreeing with people like him, he has a valid point here.

Anything people feel passionate about in large numbers will potentially cause conflict, especially when there is a divide in said group.

It's instinctual I guess. For example, I saw a documentary on the "dark side" of chimps. When a group/family divides, the two sides will fight in well organized raids against each other, and when they catch a now "enemy" they abuse and torture it to death, and repeat this until only one side remains.

Look at human history for what happens when nations separate, or when religions break from each other. But then time goes on, and eventually you end up with a new group/problem and the old enemies now side together (has the 3.x crowd ever been on such good terms with the older edition guys/gals?).

pjackson
2008-11-17, 04:29 AM
And 4e finally gave paladins the overhaul they so desperately needed.

They were gutted of everything that made them special, distinct and interesting leaving a very bleah class that does not deserve the name and does not come close to fulfilling the original role of the class - allowing you to play a character like the protagonist of Three Hearts and Three Lions.


The level of streamlining is a pretty clear indication as to what they wanted to do. They were trying to make the game a lot simpler and fix the balance issues that plagued 3e,

That was their aim, but it was a bad one. In all editions including 4e balance has to be sorted out by the players and the DM. How the players play has more effect than the rules. Sure the martial classes needed a bit of a boost and magic needed toning down a little, but making the martial classes much more complex whilst gutting the magic ones so that they all come out about the same was not a good result.


I love the changes for 4E personally.
Chargen in 3.5 sucked. It was like doing taxes and it took hours. With 4E, it only took my group a half an hour to create their characters whereas it would take an entire evening for the previous edition.


"Chargen" in 3.5 was fun. The 4e PHB makes all the classes unappealing and makes it hard to envisage interesting characters. It took me several evenings to come up with an idea for one I might be willing to play.


You also get a lot more options for creating your characters without having to dig through mountains of splat books. Just the PHB for 4E is a mountain of information with powers and whatnot.

The 3e mountain is bigger than the 4e mountain, but 4e is growing fast. But it is designed into 4e that characters be much less varied for the sake of balance. Non combatants such as a face character or a specialist healer are outside what is trying to do. As is the illusionist whose spells do not do damage but are very flexible and can trick opponents. Or the conjurer who summons creatures.


Powers are a great idea
For a super hero game.
Having magic and melee use the same system takes away the mystery of magic.
Encounter and daily powers/exploits do not feel right for a fighter.
(By the way, the best way to fight a beholder was with long range archery and in 3.5 fighters were one of the best classes for that).

Evil DM Mark3
2008-11-17, 04:30 AM
The following (to greater or lesser extent) are at the heart of edition changes in EVERYTHING.
Money.
Repairing/improving the system.
Refocusing the system to meet new expectations.
Revitialise the system by removing a lot of dead wood and overlapping mechanics.
An inability to further develop the system.
Implamentation of new and better mechanics.

Flame of Anor
2008-11-17, 04:31 AM
This thread is totally heading for infractions and lockage. Calm down.

Edit: Not referring to you, EvilDMMk3 or PJackson.
Edit: @V: I am referring to you, though, KKL! Cool it! :smallmad:

KKL
2008-11-17, 04:40 AM
In all editions including 4e balance has to be sorted out by the players and the DM.

Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 04:48 AM
Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

Some of us feel just the opposite.

I respect people who prefer 4.0's opinion, but you seem to have the mentality that your point of view is the only right one period.

KKL
2008-11-17, 04:52 AM
I respect people who prefer 4.0's opinion, but you seem to have the mentality that your point of view is the only right one period.
My mentality is that I am correct and you are wrong, and I feel that way because _______, not that my view is the only correct one and you should feel ashamed for thinking elsewise.

There's a marked difference.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 04:55 AM
My mentality is that I am correct and you are wrong, and I feel that way because _______, not that my view is the only correct one and you should feel ashamed for thinking elsewise.

There's a marked difference.

Like telling someone they are an "idiot", or that they "need a backbone" for thinking otherwise than your opinion?

Paramour Pink
2008-11-17, 05:00 AM
A lot of people mentioned money when the opening post askes that that obvious answer be overlooked. At any rate, I'm not sure why. I'm new to 3.5 so I can't tell you.

Although the only person that seems to be taking this whole topic too seriously is KLL. It's hard to think otherwise when he's being belligerent.

BobVosh
2008-11-17, 05:01 AM
Hmm. 14 responses before version bashing, 3 more responses until personal insults.

I'm impressed playground, that is practically a record for these forums. /sarcasm

That said I like 3.x better than 4th, but I swore one thing when I first met the hardcore old 2nd ed players. I will never become like them bashing a new system simply because it is new and holding onto bizarre concepts like THAC0.

I find this conflicting, simply because I miss BAB and hate 4th for the most part (enjoyed warlock for 1 session so far)

That said 3 big reasons for them to do a new edition:
1. Fix Rules
2. Try a better or at least different mechanic
3. Cash-cash dollas

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-17, 05:02 AM
My question is this: Why did the developers of a particular game switch to a new edition? Why did 3E give way to 4E? Why did 2E give way to 3E? Why did 1E give way to 2E? ... Why did the Old World of Darkness end & the New World of Darkness begin? Why did these changes take place when the did?

Because you have to make new products to make money, and usually making a new edition is better. This seems a difficult point for many, but this is actually not evil and immoral and money-grubbing - it's basic capitalism and business. Either they come up with new products - of which new editions are among the best - or they go out of business and publish nothing at all.

As a RuneQuest fan since shortly after it went out of print for a good 15 years, I can tell you that actually having your favored game in print is pretty nice.

Incidentally, companies where fans make the decisions - like Issaries, Inc. - do really badly, financially. Issaries, Inc. basically relies on fan donations - not sales - to publish anything. That's terrible business. (Edit: Big surprise, they haven't put out new products in a year or so, and even glorantha.com seems to have gone unupdated for ages. /Edit)


Why did Mutants & Masterminds 2nd Edition come out?

Because first edition was the most awful d20 abomination ever - it was just "D&D 3.X superheroes" - and second edition is the most elegant, amazing, innovative d20 game ever created, and one of the best superhero RPGs.

Well, okay, it's still probably the above. The fact that they improved on the old edition hundredfold is just good fortune.


Haha. I remember when 3E came out, people kept saying one of it's selling points was there were only three books. Nothing else!

It seems terribly laughable now, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Obviously idiots will be idiots no matter what the edition. I can't think of a single RPG that only has the core books (at least one that is not simply a one-off product put out as an aside by a company focusing on something else; even Kobolds Ate My Baby has multiple booklets), and you'd have to be pretty ignorant of the field to think such a game will exist, especially when it's the flagship line of a big company. What kind of business would that be, anyway? Invent an entire new RPG system every time you want to publish a new product? Yeah, that will improve your profit margins.

KKL
2008-11-17, 05:04 AM
Like telling someone they are an "idiot", or that they "need a backbone" for thinking otherwise than your opinion?
It's flavor text, dear.

Although the only person that seems to be taking this whole topic too seriously is KLL. It's hard to think otherwise when he's being belligerent.
I'm belligerant now? Where?

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-17, 05:08 AM
Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

That's my thinking right there. I'm developing a tabletop system at the moment myself, and I can see what goes into it and there's a lot of work to be done. Take what you will from my opinion, but there are a number of things I feel are examples of "good" game design and others I feel are examples of "bad" game design.

I was able to get reasonable balance in a 3e game by messing with the group dynamic and specifically working one-on-one with all six of my players. Even then, there were definite issues, and with my school work I don't REALLY have the time to be doing that on top of planning an adventure. That, to me, is bad game design. I'm trying to create a game where all my players can feel important, but am unable to without extensive work on my part. Considering I paid quite a bit of money for a framework that should do this for me already, I don't see this as a good thing.

In 4e, I've had none of these issues. I agree that I'd like a few more options, but I'm confident this will happen when splatbooks are released (one of the biggest things I want is more magical items, and there's a book out already to meet that need, I just need the money to procure it). It makes my life a hell of a lot easier, and I'm able to focus on other things like how to make the game fun and engaging instead of worrying about how I'm going to get the Monk/Cleric to not suck but still let the player work with the concept they want.

Also, quick houseruling in 4e just feels easier to me. I was no slouch in 3e rule knowledge, but I still find I'm able to come up with an appropriate solution to a proposed player action at least as fast, if not faster.

I'm not saying 3e is all bad, and there are aspects I liked about 3e quite a bit, but I do say that especially at the end of it's life it has a lot of functional failings that you, as the DM, had to make a lot of effort to fix. I've had no such problems in 4e.

pjackson
2008-11-17, 05:11 AM
Yes houserules are good, but to quote a good friend of mine, "The ability to houserule a game is no excuse for piss poor game design." In this regard, 4e pulls ahead more than 3.5e.

I would agree that 4e is ahead in terms of "piss poor game design" :smallsmile:, but you missed my point which was nothing to do with house rules.

A smart player can have their character be more effective in combat even when playing a class that is weaker. You can not make all characters equally effective in combat by changing the rules (book or house). You can only make them equally effective when played in the same way.

Now I disagree that all characters should be equally effective in combat, but that is what one of the 4e designers wrote was one of their aims.

It is a good aim for a minitures wargame that is aimed at testing the players skill, but for a roleplaying game it is not. One player might be playing a veteran fighter who is a master of tactics, whilst another might be playing a power crazed wizard who likes blasting things with fire. In 3.5 they might well be balanced - the fighter being played to the hilt, whilst the wizard would be using a relatively weak (but not wrong) choice of spells. If the classes are balanced in terms of combat potential then the player who uses that potential better will have their character be more effective in combat, and will tend to dominate that part of the game.
That may not be a problem depending on the players, but that is my point - balance depends on the players not the rules.

Paramour Pink
2008-11-17, 05:12 AM
I'm belligerant now? Where?

When you call someone an idiot and tell them to grow a backbone, especially when it's not difficult to avoid insulting, you are being belligerent. Your point really wouldn't have been lost if you had left those things out. Instead, you just come across as hostile and lose credibility for points you're trying to make because you have to fall back on "flavour" that's doesn't help you appear persuassive.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 05:15 AM
It's flavor text, dear.

Flavor text?

OK...sure. Let's both just leave it at that then. :smallconfused:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-11-17, 05:21 AM
It's been hinted at in this thread, but it's worth noting again that there seems to be a predictable cycle of Simple(r) Edition --> Codex Creep --> Resimplify with new Simple Edition --> New Codex Creep... Granted 3e was pretty complex from core, but there's no arguing that it got more complex the more books were released.

I play 4e because it's slim pickin's around here and the good players play 4e, and while it's okay, I like 3e more. I liked it more because, in a party of reasonably-optimized characters, my spellcaster had a delicious number of options. Because I'm a good sport (read: I have a little bit decency), none of those options broke the game, but my character always had the right tool for the job, and searching for that tool round by round made combat glorious. I thrived on 3e's seemingly endless complexity.

4e, at least at Heroic Tier, is "Okay, I scorching burst the minions again. Nice, got three out of four." Perhaps that's hyperbolic, but it's still much simpler than 3e. Do I fret? No. Do I complain? Only occasionally. Because I know, from what I said before, all I have to do is wait. Soon enough, I will have my expanded power set with more three-dimensional options. Soon enough, I will grab Unearthed Arcana 4e, which will inevitably have optional rules for "higher powered" characters with an increased number of known powers, and I will cackle with glee and say "My lovely spellcaster has returned."

Unfortunately, shortly after that, everyone will switch to 5e, praising it for its simplicity...

pjackson
2008-11-17, 05:22 AM
In 4e, I've had none of these issues. I agree that I'd like a few more options, but I'm confident this will happen when splatbooks are released (one of the biggest things I want is more magical items, and there's a book out already to meet that need, I just need the money to procure it). It makes my life a hell of a lot easier, and I'm able to focus on other things like how to make the game fun and engaging instead of worrying about how I'm going to get the Monk/Cleric to not suck but still let the player work with the concept they want.


Well 4e's solution so far is to not allow that type of character, which is a very poor one IMO.

I have actually been playing a Monk/Cleric in 3e in our latest campaign. It is true she was weak in combat (though my putting her lowest stat of 7 in Str was a large part of that), but she contributed to the party as the main healer, and through diplomacy (she had the highest Cha - her second highest stat). She was an interesting character, which 4e does not support creating. Nor does it support my enlightened fist, nor my conjurer/cleric nor my rogue/illusionist.

KKL
2008-11-17, 05:22 AM
I would agree that 4e is ahead in terms of "piss poor game design" :smallsmile:, but you missed my point which was nothing to do with house rules.
What? Don't just jumble my posts around to throw half-assed insults. If you're going to insult 4e then at least insult something legitimate.


A smart player can have their character be more effective in combat even when playing a class that is weaker.
An intelligent Fighter 20 can not and will not be able to beat an intelligent Wizard 15. Or 14. In fact, I'm not sure how far down the Wizard can be so that the Fighter is boned in every way.

You can not make all characters equally effective in combat by changing the rules (book or house). You can only make them equally effective when played in the same way.
What?

Now I disagree that all characters should be equally effective in combat, but that is what one of the 4e designers wrote was one of their aims.
So you prefer it when...the spellcasters rule the day so utterly bad, that they can invalidate every other person in the party by being intelligent?


It is a good aim for a minitures wargame that is aimed at testing the players skill, but for a roleplaying game it is not.
No, wait, what? Tell me how 3.5 does better at roleplaying than 4e? Or how 4e discourages roleplaying by having a better combat system?


One player might be playing a veteran fighter who is a master of tactics, whilst another might be playing a power crazed wizard who likes blasting things with fire. In 3.5 they might well be balanced - the fighter being played to the hilt, whilst the wizard would be using a relatively weak (but not wrong) choice of spells. If the classes are balanced in terms of combat potential then the player who uses that potential better will have their character be more effective in combat, and will tend to dominate that part of the game.
That may not be a problem depending on the players, but that is my point - balance depends on the players not the rules.
That's really just dumb.

Okay, okay, cut me some slack here.

{Scrubbed}

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 05:24 AM
When you call someone an idiot and tell them to grow a backbone, especially when it's not difficult to avoid insulting, you are being belligerent. Your point really wouldn't have been lost if you had left those things out. Instead, you just come across as hostile and lose credibility for points you're trying to make because you have to fall back on "flavour" that's doesn't help you appear persuassive.

Thank you Paramour Pink. Although, I obviously contributed to this problem.

I have simply never reacted well to the "though" bully types, and I never let them walk over me, even when it meant getting the daylight beaten out of me, so I do not simply back down and shut up for such behaviors/attitudes.

celestialkin
2008-11-17, 05:27 AM
edit:
Oops. Double post.

BobVosh
2008-11-17, 05:30 AM
Obviously idiots will be idiots no matter what the edition. I can't think of a single RPG that only has the core books (at least one that is not simply a one-off product put out as an aside by a company focusing on something else; even Kobolds Ate My Baby has multiple booklets), and you'd have to be pretty ignorant of the field to think such a game will exist, especially when it's the flagship line of a big company. What kind of business would that be, anyway? Invent an entire new RPG system every time you want to publish a new product? Yeah, that will improve your profit margins.

Alternity has relativily few books, and I wanted to say paranoia. However, looking at it, only 5th edition had few books and that is because most people say it was terrible.

Evil DM Mark3
2008-11-17, 05:46 AM
Alternity has relativily few books, and I wanted to say paranoia.

Paranoia is the only Fun game. Fall height damage tables are only Fun if they include Orbital hieghts, and use them in published adventures!

The Computer your Fiend!

pjackson
2008-11-17, 05:49 AM
What? Don't just jumble my posts around to throw half-assed insults. If you're going to insult 4e then at least insult something legitimate.

You can't recognize a joke even when it is flagged with a smillie?
But I do think 4e was badly designed and that is a legitimate opinion.


An intelligent Fighter 20 can not and will not be able to beat an intelligent Wizard 15. Or 14. In fact, I'm not sure how far down the Wizard can be so that the Fighter is boned in every way.

I wrote smart player - nothing to do with the character's INT.



So you prefer it when...the spellcasters rule the day so utterly bad, that they can invalidate every other person in the party by being intelligent?


That only happens when the players play that way. In the 3e games I have played it has not happened because the people playing the spell casters (often but not always me) have not chosen to spoil the other player's fun.


No, wait, what? Tell me how 3.5 does better at roleplaying than 4e? Or how 4e discourages roleplaying by having a better combat system?

I don't know If I can make what I wrote any simpler.
I'd agree that 4e has a better combat system for a minitures game. As written it looks worse for roleplaying as the book encourages the players to use the options given by the rules rather than pretend they are their characters and say what they want to do leaving it to the DM to translate that into the rules.


That's really just dumb.

Okay, okay, cut me some slack here.


I seen no reason why you deserve any,{Scrubbed}


You're saying that...Fighters can be good...if the Wizard plays like a shortbus?

No. I am saying that is the player of the wizard is considerate he will not spoil the game for the player of the fighter. Remember the aim of a RPG is not for one person to win. It is for everyone to have fun together.
{Scrubbed}

Evil DM Mark3
2008-11-17, 06:07 AM
No. I am saying that is the player of the wizard is considerate he will not spoil the game for the player of the fighter. Remember the aim of a RPG is not for one person to win. It is for everyone to have fun together.

Whilst I agree with most of what you say and the general thrust of your argument this point is horrificily flawed.

I am awesome. Due to the design of the Bob is less awesome. Therefore I must become less awesome.

No. This leads to everyone being unawesome and having no fun because they are aware of how awesome they could be.

I am awesome. Due to the design of the Bob is less awesome. Therefore the game is less than optimaly designed.

BobVosh
2008-11-17, 06:12 AM
Whilst I agree with most of what you say and the general thrust of your argument this point is horrificily flawed.

I am awesome. Due to the design of the Bob is less awesome. Therefore I must become less awesome.

No. This leads to everyone being unawesome and having no fun because they are aware of how awesome they could be.

I am awesome. Due to the design of the Bob is less awesome. Therefore the game is less than optimaly designed.

I would rather have to nerf a class a bit than make up entirely new things to make the people awesome. Right now it is

I am not awesome. Bob is equal unawesome. Let us be sucky together in equally boring mechanic ways.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-17, 06:21 AM
Alternity has relativily few books, and I wanted to say paranoia. However, looking at it, only 5th edition had few books and that is because most people say it was terrible.

Alternity was in print for, what, two years? Even if it only had the core books (which, I take it, is not true?), it'd be a poor example, since the scarcity of books is caused by the fact it was cancelled soon after its inception.


I wrote smart player - nothing to do with the character's INT.

Where did KKL mention character INT? He (she?) was referring to levels. A level 20 fighter will never beat a level 14 or 15 wizard that is played remotely cleverly, no matter what sort of tactical genius the fighter is. (Unless, of course, the fighter is enough of a tactical genius to get some spellcasters to help, in which case it's the spellcasters defeating the spellcaster.)


No. I am saying that is the player of the wizard is considerate he will not spoil the game for the player of the fighter. Remember the aim of a RPG is not for one person to win. It is for everyone to have fun together.

This old argument never becomes less bull****. So people are obligated to not use half the spells in core and to generally play their characters ineffectively and stupidly so that the characters with worse mechanical design aren't completely overshadowed, only partly? (A wizard just using blasting will still outperform the fighter, especially if you stick to core.)

potatocubed
2008-11-17, 06:26 AM
The way I see it, the problem lies not so much in a power gap between different classes - a little bit of variation doesn't seem to bother most people - but in the width (depth? height?) of that gap. In 3.5, the problem isn't so much that wizards are better than fighters, it's that wizards are so much better than fighters that fighters are almost completely pointless.*

Contrast with 4e, where the design has been to bring everything close to one level of power - which, it could be argued, is going too far in the opposite direction.

*Replace 'wizard' and 'fighter' with whatever classes are awesome/lame. You get the general idea.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2008-11-17, 07:15 AM
In my experience I found that, at least before the very high (15ish) levels, non-ToB martial characters are a little more useful in 3e than they're made out to be on these boards. Sure, an optimized mid-level spellcaster can obsolete anything that any particular fighter of equal level can do, but why would the caster waste his time doing this when he could make use of his ally and hence make better use of his limited resources? In the case of the Cleric and the Fighter, we all think of DMM Persist Clerics making the Fighter redundant, but doesn't the existence of a well-built Fighter in the party make the Cleric's use of DMM Persisted Divine Power and Righteous Might itself redundant?*

Your fighter buddy isn't yet a liability before the very high levels (unless he's a Frenzied TPKer, ugh), and he in fact becomes a considerable asset with the right set of buffs and feat chains and class features (and, to be honest, maneuvers and stances). Group optimization encourages the wizard to 'weaken' the theoretical power of his spell selection in order to make his particular party as a concrete whole more powerful and more importantly more versatile.

Not that I would actually play a straight-classed barbarian or anything like that. They make 4e characters look like 3e wizards in terms of tactical options.

*Well, in many cases it's not redundant for the Cleric to have all that jazz persisted no matter what, but in those cases nothing is being made wholly redundant, anyway.

Matthew
2008-11-17, 07:41 AM
The two main reasons for Dungeons & Dragons edition change are money and to stamp your own version of the game onto the franchise. The desire to create a "better" edition is probably high in the designers' priorities, but it is secondary to whatever is believed will generate a greater number of sales.

Starbuck_II
2008-11-17, 07:51 AM
The way I see it, the problem lies not so much in a power gap between different classes - a little bit of variation doesn't seem to bother most people - but in the width (depth? height?) of that gap. In 3.5, the problem isn't so much that wizards are better than fighters, it's that wizards are so much better than fighters that fighters are almost completely pointless.*

I can agree with that, but if that is the problem...why does no one who is making more 3.5 fixing it?
Pathfinder made Spellcasters stronger...





Contrast with 4e, where the design has been to bring everything close to one level of power - which, it could be argued, is going too far in the opposite direction.

Even that is arguable.
There aren't just one power level but as mosiac of power level. There be moments when Figthters seem more powerful than Wizards and vice versa.

The difference is in 3rd this was level based, but in 4th this will be situartional based.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-11-17, 08:05 AM
The way I see it, the problem lies not so much in a power gap between different classes - a little bit of variation doesn't seem to bother most people - but in the width (depth? height?) of that gap. In 3.5, the problem isn't so much that wizards are better than fighters, it's that wizards are so much better than fighters that fighters are almost completely pointless.*

This is pretty much the point of it, yes. Spellcasters and noncasters are not even on the same playing field. The noncasters are playing volleyball in the school gym, while the spellcasters are racing F1s on the Imola circuit.

Using the same mechanics for everyone is a good way to ensure relative equality - the fact that the casters used an entirely different mechanic was a big part of the inequality in 3.X. This is not, however, the only way - many other games achieve relative balance without going this far.

(For instance, playing a wizard in Warhammer FRP is not the "win button," because being a wizard is dangerous, and gets more dangerous the more powerful you are; you also don't want to use your magic at all, if possible. In many other games, there's no arbitrary line between casters and non-casters; anyone can assign resources to magic.)


The difference is in 3rd this was level based, but in 4th this will be situartional based.

That's the way to go in any game, pretty much. In a party-oriented game, each character should have a specialty that makes them the most powerful party member in a specific kind of situation (although, preferrably, the others should be able to perform in those situations, or support the main performer).

Weezer
2008-11-17, 08:15 AM
Using the same mechanics for everyone is a good way to ensure relative equality - the fact that the casters used an entirely different mechanic was a big part of the inequality in 3.X.
The thing that I loved about 3.X was the variety of mechanics for different characters, I was able to always find a class, or combination of classes that fit what I wanted my character to be. Now in 4E the characters use all the same mechanics and the differences between the classes is primarily fluff driven, not mechanics driven.

Roland St. Jude
2008-11-17, 08:41 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: In less than two pages of posting, this thread is already largely flaming and trolling. I'm going to leave this locked because I don't see it suddenly becoming more civil.