I realize that this thread might just turn into another thread where people want to post what they "read into" Chris Thomasson's article and how it offended their senses.
That is not my intention.
I don't usually pipe in on these topics, but I felt obligated to defend Mr. Thomasson and his article.
He did NOT say that anyone's game sucks.
He did NOT say that any earlier edition sucked.
He did NOT say that we should drop our games for 4 ed.
He did NOT insult any player of any edition.
He did NOT say that PC decisions don't matter.
He did NOT say that PC decisions don't carry risk.
He did NOT say that the tactical elements of the game are gone.
He did NOT say that they were playtesting storytelling.
He did NOT say that PCs are super heroes or uber-heroes.
He did NOT say anyone was playing any edition of the game "wrong."
He did NOT say he uses previous editions as toilet paper.
He did NOT talk negatively about previous editions.
He did NOT say PCs are protected from anything going wrong.
He did NOT say stupidity is rewarded.
He did NOT say smart players aren't necessary.
He did NOT say any previous edition of the game is a bad system.
He did NOT say they were making up rules as they went along.
He did NOT mention alcholol or drinking.
He did NOT say the game was about winning.
He did NOT say there are no consequences.
He did NOT say they were running ad lib sessions.
He did NOT say PCs are invinsible.
He did NOT mention respawning in any way shape or form.
I guess I could go on, but I hope I made my point.
I hope noone is offended by this post. I respect eveyone in the Paizo community. I accept that there are differences of opinion. That's fine.
I think it is ridiculous that people are making up stuff to complain about, especially from an article such as this, from a person such as Chris Thomasson.
Chris Thomasson is a D&D player. He invented the adventure path idea. (Read his editorial in the front of the SCAP hardcover, if you haven't.) He has not abandonded us, the Paizo community, or the 3.5 players.
He was in position to help make the Dragon and Dungeon magazines (and by extension Paizo) the iconic things that they were at the end of their run.
He is now in position to create great things for 4th ed.
Paizo used to be a place to come to to avoid attacks on game designers, game designs, and the whatnot. The various threads that attack 4e and their designers (who happen to be some of our favorite 3.5 ed designers and writers, by the way) is discouraging.
Good post Big Jake. Seems that we forgot the people that made 3rd Edition great and we want to throttle them now.
It's time for everyone to pour out their haterade. :)
Whew, close one! I thought you were gonna pour something else out for a sec there.
And to Big Jake: well said, dude. Although I can't say I love everything Thomasson has said, he certainly doesn't deserve what he's getting around here. I wish guys would just accept whats happening gracefully. We can all speak with our wallets, right?
It's funny, I went on a little tour through my collection of old Dragon magazines the other day and I was perusing the 3.0/3.5 changeover letters written by fans. It's really amazing how similar the rhetoric to 3.0/3.5 was to the current 4.0 debate, right down to the same words and threats! Now I'm no big 4e booster, but I keep an open mind and I will at least give the new rules a chance when they are published. Anger and vitriol help no one. After all when it is said and done, it is a game. Threatening violence over rules changes and lambasting people who have spent their lives bringing out excellent gaming material is counterproductive and contributes nothing.
|
You're right he didn't specifically say any of those things. Many of them were implied if you take his statements to their logical conclusion. He did make it sound like their would be little risk of serious consequences for doing stupid or rash things. He also made it sound like previous editions didn't allow for characters to do many bold or heroic things and survive. The out of control mine cart and darkmantles going splat on shields do pretty much scream DM fiat to me. There may be rules for this (or more likely helpful guidelines), in 4th edition. If so, he should have had the good sense to mention that since it does seem like nothing more than interesting storytelling.
|
|
My original post got eaten,so here it goes again. You're right. He didn't directly say those things. Some of them were implied, though. He does make it sound like there is little risk of serious consequences for doing stupid things. He also makes it sound like previous editions punished players too harshly for being bold. That may be true to some extent, but I don't think it's fair to blame the system. Bad DMing and meatgrinder modules are more at fault than the specific edition. The out of control mine cart and darkmantles going splat on shields do scream DM fiat to me. If there are rules or guidelines for adjudicating these types of things in 4th edition, he should have had the good sense to mention that. Otherwise, it just sounds like a storytelling session with little mechanics. That's not bad in and of itself, but they are supposed to be playtesting mechanics, not sitting around telling stories.
I'm not sure what article you're talking about. Do you have a link to where Mr. Thomasson didn't say all of that?
...sitting around telling stories.
Isn't this the whole point of D&D? If the new mechanics are less likely to get in the way of that, isn't that a good thing?
Chris Tomasson shot my dog, stole my wife, and ate all the ice cream in my freezer!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I just read quickly through the thread in question. (I assume the OP is talking about the 'dumb or fearless' thread.) I found a lot of people discussing and debating the merits of different play styles. I didn't find anything offensive. ... The only thing that really ticks me off these days is people telling me that my reaction is innappropriate.
Unless people are making personal attacks or using inappropriate language, I'm cool about them having their own opinions and expressing them ... even when they disagree with me and are therefore clearly wrong.
|
|
...sitting around telling stories.Isn't this the whole point of D&D? If the new mechanics are less likely to get in the way of that, isn't that a good thing?
Like I said, telling stories isn't a bad thing. Playtesting, however, should concentrate on making sure the mechanics run smoothly. Anyone can tell stories. You don't need to play an RPG to do that. Their job is to put out a new edition for thte most popular RPG ever. They should save the storytelling for their home games and published adventures.
|
|
I realize that this thread might just turn into another thread where people want to post what they "read into" Chris Thomasson's article and how it offended their senses.
I hope noone is offended by this post. I respect eveyone in the Paizo community. I accept that there are differences of opinion. That's fine.
The list you just generated attempts to negate the perspective of everyone who read and commented on the article. You seem offended and your tactic here is to negate other opinion. Do you feel people are being unfair on some level?
First let's recognize that it his job is to promote his new product. In so doing, he must make implicit comparisions. For example:
But that's beside the point. Part of the reason Chris came up with so many unique ways to, ahem, challenge his players is that he ran a game full of designers and developers. When given unbridled access to the saucy number of character options out there in 3rd Edition, our characters tended to flex the power curve. Don't get me wrong: I like 3E as much as the next guy, but the unifying math behind the game tended to, well, allow for a range of options, to put it delicately. If you've ever selected the Travel domain with your cleric, or chosen ray of enfeeblement as a 1st-level spell instead of erase (Really? Erase? What were we thinking?!), then you know what I'm talking about here. All that said, there were still places I would draw the line. At low levels, especially, a character's sheer lack of hit points were a liability. Every failed trap save or triggered hazard resulted in a larger percentage of your resources disappearing. At higher levels, the game evolved into the "Don't Roll a 1" game. You could have +42 on your Fort save, but if you roll a 1 against the damn beholder's flesh to stone ray, you're gonna fail (and yes, I'm speaking from first-hand experience).As an argumentative tactic he is saying, here are some serious weaknesses in 3.0/3.5. Here is how I intend to fix them. He does so by pointing out how 3.0/3.5 create some ridiculous moments and serious min-maxing. Directly here, he says, this is how this edition is flawed. Here is how 4.0 addresses that flaw. This offends some people. I am not offended. I am not sold. That is the difference.
Chris maybe a nice person, and that he is willing to take a relatively low paying job in game design tells me he is devoted to the hobby. However, his stance here is to promote product via contrast and then example.
So, all the responses you just listed are a direct result of the stance he chose to deploy in support of his product. Some are reasonable. Some are not. Note, they can be posted here. They would be deleted at Enworld or in Gleemax. Because the discussion and responses are not artificially contained, I think that makes them all the more vociferous.
The list you just generated attempts to negate the perspective of everyone who read and commented on the article. You seem offended and your tactic here is to negate other opinion. Do you feel people are being unfair on some level?
I am not offended by any of the posts from which I drew upon for my non-inclusive list, though perhaps some people are being unfair on some level:
People have assumed things (such as drunkedness or improper playtesting) from an article that was not meant to highlight game mechanics. People have inferred things that Mr. Thomasson may not have meant to imply. People have attacked the character and integrity of the game designers.
I believe that I completely understand each of the items I mentioned, I think I understand the tone that was meant to be used, and I hope I recognized the ones that were meant as satirical allusion. I even laughed at some while agreeing with the writer.
I do not imply through my list that I disagree with any of the posts. I did not wish to negate opinion, preferences of style or play, nor engage in debate on what D&D means to each of us.
I simply wanted to point out that everything in my list was inferred by the readers, and not expressly stated by Mr. Thomasson.
4e might be some rules-light game that closely resembles the experience one gets from playing a computer RPG. Maybe the alternate rules in the most recent Complete series are indicative of things to come.
Or it might be a game that speeds up combat, elimates lengthy game mechanics, and allows a more productive gaming session with smooth play style.
We'll find out in a few more months.
Having said all of that, I have friends I gamed with in the early 90's that still play 2ed. They may have bought an occasional 3.0 or 3.5 book to use in their game, but they didn't leave the game they like.
I myself miss weapon speed, but I'm too lazy to incorporate it in my games and explain it to my youger gaming friends who were introduced to the game in 3.0 or 3.5 editions. I still, after all these years, get nervous shakes when I see how much xp a goblin is worth now. But I use the new xp chart because I've been running the adventure paths that expect PCs to be at a certain level at each point of the AP.
But I think we're all missing a crucial aspect of the impending changes of D&D: how will it impact The Order of the Stick? What if mark of justice doesn't make the transition? What if the new fall mechanics wouldn't have killed Roy?
Honestly... I do respect everyone in this community, but let's be fair to the 4e designers.
Thanks to anyone for ready such a lengthy post.
... I'm cool about them having their own opinions and expressing them ... even when they disagree with me and are therefore clearly wrong .
(Italics added)
LOL.Dude... :)
I think it is ridiculous that people are making up stuff to complain about, especially from an article such as this, from a person such as Chris Thomasson.
Chris Thomasson is a D&D player. He invented the adventure path idea. (Read his editorial in the front of the SCAP hardcover, if you haven't.) He has not...
Great post, Big Jake. I agree wholeheartedly. With all the (mostly) baseless negativity that's been thrown his way, it's a wonder that Chris hasn't changed his name and tried to disappear or something.... ;)
So, all the responses you just listed are a direct result of the stance he chose to deploy in support of his product.
What other "stance" is there, really? Say that 3.5 totally rocks? That wouldn't help sell 4E, would it? I suppose, as someone else suggested, he could just say nothing at all about other editions while pitching 4E, but....
I really think those screaming that Chris and other WotC designers are spewing hate for 3.5 are about as wrong as wrong can be. I think they (the designers) realize that 3.5 set the D&D bar very high and that a new edition would be a tough sell to their mostly-happy consumers, so they concentrated on speeding up, simplifying, or changing those few areas of 3.5 that were a bit clunky. Again, I don't see this as "hate." I just think they're trying to make a great product even better.
Some are reasonable. Some are not. Note, they can be posted here. They would be deleted at Enworld or in Gleemax. Because the discussion and responses are not artificially contained, I think that makes them all the more vociferous.
Agreed. My loyalty is to ENWorld first, the Paizo forums second. There's a point to be made for absolute free speech, and there's a counter-point of noise-to-signal ratio. I think there's a prevalent belief here that ENWorld doesn't allow anti-4E posts. That's BS. What they don't allow is name-calling, assigning motives and intent to other people's posts (like the craziness that's going on in regards to Chris Thomasson's latest Dragon editorial), and non-productive thread-crapping like "Well, 4E's not really D&D." Or suggesting that Chris uses 3.5 materials for toilet paper.
|
|
I myself miss weapon speed, but I'm too lazy to incorporate it in my games and explain it to my youger gaming friends who were introduced to the game in 3.0 or 3.5 editions.
A couple of Sword & Sorcery's books introduced a kind of 'Weapon Speed.'
Medium weapons tended to be average speed.
Light weapons (daggers, short swords, etc) tended to be 'fast' weapons, and instead of modifying Initiative, the rule was to give them Iterative attacks at +4 instead of +5.
Heavy weapons (polearms, greatswords) were 'slow' weapons, and gained Iterative attacks at +6 instead of +5.
So, using that 'Weapon Speed' system, a 10th level Fighter would get the following Base Attacks;
Greatsword +10 / +4
Longsword +10 / +5
Short Sword +10 / +6 / +2
He'd still never get more than five attacks, but he'd be able to swing faster with that short sword, and hit a little better with his iterative attacks with the lighter, easier-to-swing weapons. It was a pretty neat concept.
I suppose, as someone else suggested, he could just say nothing at all about other editions while pitching 4E, but....
And there we go. Thanks for coming out!
There is no "but" here, of course, because it's not like ignoring previous products is anything new in marketing (in fact, that's the normal state of affairs).
(For the longest time I didn't put any stock in the poor marketing by WotC re: 4e and the comparisons to 3e... but now it's just creepy [though that article was a little better than others].)
What other "stance" is there, really? Say that 3.5 totally rocks? That wouldn't help sell 4E, would it? I suppose, as someone else suggested, he could just say nothing at all about other editions while pitching 4E, but....
I disagree with you completely. Time and time again the party line from WOTC regarding the new edition has been to put down the previous edition and then immediately counterpoint this with a statement of how much better and cooler the new edition will be. Mind you, actual examples of how 4th edition will "improve" on 3.5 are few and far between, but nevertheless we paying customers should nevertheless put our faith (and dollars) behind this great, improved edition WOTC will provide us. Talk about signal to noise ratio...
Don't be surprised that those gamers with critical thinking skills are less than impressed by this approach. And here on the Paizo forums we are free, with reason, to state our beliefs. Chris Thomasson is doing a job. I have no problem with those who state the belief he is performing this job in a poor manner.
I think they (the designers) realize that 3.5 set the D&D bar very high and that a new edition would be a tough sell to their mostly-happy consumers, so they concentrated on speeding up, simplifying, or changing those few areas of 3.5 that were a bit clunky. Again, I don't see this as "hate." I just think they're trying to make a great product even better.
How many of their changes are being made in the name of improvement and how many are being done to create a product legally different enough from 3.5 that it can be released under a new, more restrictive GSL aimed specifically at reducing competition and increasing profitability. Spare me the "altruistic designer speech"...4E may or may not improve the game, but it is most certainly all about increasing profits for WOTC and their parent corporation.
There's a point to be made for absolute free speech, and there's a counter-point of noise-to-signal ratio...
I'm certain party members of various dictatorships around the world would agree with you wholeheartedly on this point...
I suppose, as someone else suggested, he could just say nothing at all about other editions while pitching 4E, but....And there we go. Thanks for coming out!
There is no "but" here, of course, because it's not like ignoring previous products is anything new in marketing (in fact, that's the normal state of affairs).
(For the longest time I didn't put any stock in the poor marketing by WotC re: 4e and the comparisons to 3e... but now it's just creepy [though that article was a little better than others].)
OK...I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Should WotC be pretending that 3.5 doesn't exist?
And "creepy?" How so?
He did NOT say that any earlier edition sucked.
.
He did NOT talk negatively about previous editions.
Snipped a bunch of quite true stuff for the sake of discussion of these two points for Big Jake, Profession Smith, and anyone else who isn't seeing what some of the others are seeing in terms of negative spin of previous editions of D&D.
Here's a quote from the article
"I've learned to shake off the ghosts of previous editions..."
Now, please tell me exactly how often shaking off the ghosts of anything refers to the ghosts in a pleasant, positive light. Does anyone shake off the ghosts of great beer, fabulous sex, or outstanding movies? I'm afraid that no matter which way you parse what Mr. Thomasson has said, those two statements are typical of the sort of writing coming out of the WOTC Editorials regarding 4E.
It may be subtle (and I'm certain it isn't deserving of quite the level of vitriol that SOME and ONLY SOME of the posters here are injecting), but you can't tell me that this isn't at least a little disparaging of what for many is a perfectly valid play-style, which holds just as true today as it did back in 1E with the trappers, lethal poisons, save or die effects, lurkers above, etc.
If you don't mean to cast negative aspersions on something, don't refer to them as something that must be shaken off like a ghost, okay? ;-)
Just sayin' is all....
Cheers,
Colin
Most of the 3E designers have done one of three things:
1) Laid off (a lot)
2) Quit (quite a number of them)
3) Got sucked up by corporate politics (what's left of them now)
Seriously, had the original TSR and 3.0E team been on this, you wouldn't see 4th Edition for about another 5 years AND it wouldn't be so drastically different that it's not even remotely the same to any edition previous to it.
He did not say that he didn't eat babies.
:)
Here's a quote from the article
"I've learned to shake off the ghosts of previous editions..."
Great quote. This is exactly the kind of thing that leaves me shaking my head. I read the above words as a fancified way of saying "I've learned to think of things in different (4E) terms and not the way they worked in other editions."
"Ghost" can mean many things. For some, ghosts are scary and malevolent. Some people think ghosts don't exist. I think the second example is likely what CT was referring to: the way things worked in older editions no longer always applies to how they work in 4E.
Now, please tell me exactly how often shaking off the ghosts of anything refers to the ghosts in a pleasant, positive light. Does anyone shake off the ghosts of great beer, fabulous sex, or outstanding movies? I'm afraid that no matter which way you parse what Mr. Thomasson has said, those two statements are typical of the sort of writing coming out of the WOTC Editorials regarding 4E.
If you're dead-set that "ghost" has only a negative connotation, I'll concede the point. But I'll counter and ask how you know that your definitions of "great beer, fabulous sex, and outstanding movies" will never change, especially if you're content to stick with "ghosts" from your past or present?
As an example, Heineken was my "great beer." I drank it as often as I could afford it. Then one day I tried a Sam Adams. Then one day a bit later I tried a Black & Sam's. I no longer drink Heineken. It's become something of a "ghost" beer for me--I recall pleasant memories of it but no longer see it in my fridge. Heineken doesn't bring up any negative connotation to me--I just tried something different that I now like more. If someone offered me a Heineken today, I would gladly accept it.
It may be subtle (and I'm certain it isn't deserving of quite the level of vitriol that SOME and ONLY SOME of the posters here are injecting), but you can't tell me that this isn't at least a little disparaging of what for many is a perfectly valid play-style, which holds just as true today as it did back in 1E with the trappers, lethal poisons, save or die effects, lurkers above, etc.
Yeah, it's so subtle that I believe you have to be actively trying to read something negative into the words to actually take offense to them. To twist "shake off the ghosts of previous editions" into saying that Chris Thomasson uses 3.5 materials for toilet paper is ludicrous.
If you insist that "ghost" has a negative connotation, then Yes--I can see how you might take that as disparaging of older editions...IF you read the word that way. Shooting back that PCs in 4E can't die or can act stupidly without consequence is disparaging no matter how you read it.
Long story short: I think Chris was simply saying that some things work differently in 4E, and expecting things to be the same as they were in 3.5 isn't always the best way to go.
Mountains out of molehills:
1. Of course they are going to compare 4e to 3.5. Everyone knows 3.5, and, apparently, according to WotC's research there are somethings that people houserule/streamline/don't like about 3.5 -- hence they mention things like grapple and encounters per day and say 4e does them better. How is that poor marketing?
2. Read the designer's blogs. You will find liberal uses of phrases such as - "we still play 3.5", "3.5 was great for . . ." and so on -- these people do not hate 3.5, they are just excited for what they see as a natural evolution of the game.
3. How is 4e so dramatically different from the previous editions. Hell, that is like arguing that 3.5 is a different game than AD&D, because on some level it is (whole new mechanics for example!) 4e is the SAME MECHANICS AS 3.5 -- that alone blows the whole it is a different game theory to pieces. And the it doesn't feel like D&D anymore because of second wind and new dying rules, etc. Are you telling me that those kind of changes make the game not D&D? Despite the fact it uses the same mechanics, you fight dragons (often times in dungeons), there wizards, rogues, fighters, and clerics, characters still face the threat of death (read the blogs), spells are still cast, gods are still worshipped, orcs are still killed, reds still breathe fire, beholders still have eyestalks . . .
3. How is 4e so dramatically different from the previous editions. Hell, that is like arguing that 3.5 is a different game than AD&D, because on some level it is (whole new mechanics for example!) 4e is the SAME MECHANICS AS 3.5 -- that alone blows the whole it is a different game theory to pieces.
Completely disagree. Yes the very basic mechanics are the same, but there are significant changes. Iterative attacks, AOO, magic system, major reworks to worlds, etc. By your logic I could say "D&D and GURPS are the same game because you sit down at a table, use a character sheet, and roll dice!".
And if as you say the game is the same, then why are they releasing a new edition? Either 4E has major changes - either it's new and improved (or a step back, depending on perspective) OR for all intents and purposes the same game. If the latter, then why even release it (other than more $$$ and less competition). You can't have it both ways.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And if as you say the game is the same, then why are they releasing a new edition? Either 4E has major changes - either it's new and improved (or a step back, depending on perspective) OR for all intents and purposes the same game. If the latter, then why even release it (other than more $$$ and less competition). You can't have it both ways.
You mean like 3.5? How'd that go for you? I hope you took the moral stand and are still playing 3.0 rather than having spent a ton of $$$ on a new edition you didn't need...
Nowhere near as big as the difference between 2E and 3E. So if 4E is no longer D&D because of mechanics changes, then 3E was never D&D either.
Irrelevant. The discussion at hand is the differences between 3.5 and 4.
Agreed. My loyalty is to ENWorld first, the Paizo forums second. There's a point to be made for absolute free speech, and there's a counter-point of noise-to-signal ratio. I think there's a prevalent belief here that ENWorld doesn't allow anti-4E posts. That's BS. What they don't allow is name-calling, assigning motives and intent to other people's posts (like the craziness that's going on in regards to Chris Thomasson's latest Dragon editorial), and non-productive thread-crapping like "Well, 4E's not really D&D." Or suggesting that Chris uses 3.5 materials for toilet paper.
Yes and no. Enworld was bad for a while. For a while every forum with any news of 4e started with how great a change it is, added with attacks on anyone who doesn't like it. As opposed to these boards where it seemed the reverse happened. Think both sites are improving, but each have posters that wont change.
The difference between the core mechanic of 3E and the core mechanic of 4E appears to be minuscule. Nowhere near as big as the difference between 2E and 3E. So if 4E is no longer D&D because of mechanics changes, then 3E was never D&D either.
Not surprisingly, Rambling Scribe has made my point better than me. I am arguing that if you say 4e is a different game than D&D because of mechanics, LOGIC says you must say the same thing about 3e and so on. That is why arguing this doesn't hold water.
You mean like 3.5? How'd that go for you? I hope you took the moral stand and are still playing 3.0 rather than having spent a ton of $$$ on a new edition you didn't need...
Great. The changes between 3.0 and 3.5 were minor (not major as in 3.5 to 4) and easily convertible between editions. In fact, all campaigns in progress were converted from 3.0 to 3.5 without a hitch.
My personal choice to buy or not has nothing to do with morality. I merely point out that improving the game system may very well not be the driving reason behind many changes. And if changes are being made for business reasons, I think it reasonable to seriously question their effect on the game.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You mean like 3.5? How'd that go for you? I hope you took the moral stand and are still playing 3.0 rather than having spent a ton of $$$ on a new edition you didn't need...Great. The changes between 3.0 and 3.5 were minor (not major as in 3.5 to 4) and easily convertible between editions. In fact, all campaigns in progress were converted from 3.0 to 3.5 without a hitch.
My personal choice to buy or not has nothing to do with morality. I merely point out that improving the game system may very well not be the driving reason behind many changes. And if changes are being made for business reasons, I think it reasonable to seriously question their effect on the game.
So, 3.5 was made solely for the purpose of improving the game and not business reasons?
Huh.
The difference between the core mechanic of 3E and the core mechanic of 4E appears to be minuscule. Nowhere near as big as the difference between 2E and 3E. So if 4E is no longer D&D because of mechanics changes, then 3E was never D&D either.Not surprisingly, Rambling Scribe has made my point better than me. I am arguing that if you say 4e is a different game than D&D because of mechanics, LOGIC says you must say the same thing about 3e and so on. That is why arguing this doesn't hold water.
My argument has nothing to do with what does or doesn't embody the concept of D&D. My argument has to do with actual differences between the current system of 3.5 and the impending system of 4.0 and how that will affect my gaming experience. And I continue to hold the belief that (1) the systems will be substantially different and (2) I will not enjoy gaming in the new system. The first is objective the second subjective. I don't think the changes being made are good changes, and the reason for this is partially that they are being driven by business concerns. Others my disagree. To each his own. But I reject any argument that changes are minor or insignificant.
So, 3.5 was made solely for the purpose of improving the game and not business reasons?Huh.
I believe so. Maybe it wasn't. But I enjoy 3.5 more than 3.0, and I continue to use a lot of my 3.0 supplements regularly in games. Like I said, small changes and easy to convert. And for the folks who disagreed on a moral ground (there were a few in my groups), they just printed the relevant portions of the SRD. It's my understanding that will be impossible under the GSL. If that changes, my opinion will shift.
Contributor
|
I merely point out that improving the game system may very well not be the driving reason behind many changes. And if changes are being made for business reasons, I think it reasonable to seriously question their effect on the game.
Interesting. My take is different. I fully concede that WotC probably has other reasons than improving the game for making an edition change. I just find this fact irrelevant to whether or not the game actually improves. Even if their reason is economic, it is in WotC's best interests if the game does improve, and that they know that.
Therefore, regardless of why they decided to create a new edition, they are going to make changes that they feel are improvements to the game. You may not like those changes yourself (and maybe I won't either), but I'm not going to dismiss them out of hand just because WotC is trying to run a business.
OK...I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.
Clearly, due to your confusion regarding standard marketing practices.
Should WotC be pretending that 3.5 doesn't exist?
Of course, in all marketing-specific communications. (Again, that's the normal state of affairs for marketing endeavors.) Marketing communications are more effective when one does not make any mention of past products (i.e. those that are being "improved" upon). You learn this in later marketing courses.
I merely point out that improving the game system may very well not be the driving reason behind many changes. And if changes are being made for business reasons, I think it reasonable to seriously question their effect on the game.Therefore, regardless of why they decided to create a new edition, they are going to make changes that they feel are improvements to the game. You may not like those changes yourself (and maybe I won't either), but I'm not going to dismiss them out of hand just because WotC is trying to run a business.
I'm not dismissing them. My exact words were "...seriously question". Changing the system to make it better is one thing, changing it to make it different is another. I've spent a good deal of time online reading the information coming out about 4E. Many of the main goals for 4E sounded great when I read them. But I didn't like how the changes being implemented.
The analogy that comes to mind is not liking the cabinets in your kitchen, but instead of changing them you take a wrecking ball to the entire house to start from scratch, when plenty of the rooms in the house were just fine.
I'm not questioning the changes because I think WOTC is running a busniness. I just plaing don't like a lot of the changes. And when I wondered why a change was made, I kept seeing change for difference sake as opposed to change for improvement sake.
[threadjack]
Big Jake? I just looked at your profile. You're in Korea. Which base are you stationed at?I spent 8 years in the country -- as an English teacher.
[/threadjack]
[threadjack]Apparently he's my neighbor.[/threadjack]
Oh, great, vitriol. I am totally not reading the posts on this thread anymore.
|
|
[Not surprisingly, Rambling Scribe has made my point better than me. I am arguing that if you say 4e is a different game than D&D because of mechanics, LOGIC says you must say the same thing about 3e and so on. That is why arguing this doesn't hold water.
4.0 is organized and designed around a different principle than 3.0/3.5. 4.0 is focused on simplifying the rules set and speeding up play. 3.0/3.5 were focused on keeping continuity back to AD&D while revising the rules. Go back and review the writings of the 3.0 deisgners, epspecially Monte Cook. Compare that to the new crew (who are about 3-4 years away from having their ideas stripped mined and then being pitched to the curve also) and you'll see a marked difference.
That difference breeds a different approach in design and in the ultimate rules set.
It seems to me that the current crop of designers think they need to convince us 4.0 is better. They sound scared. I discuss that in my 4.0 marketing thread. Concerns become objections to be overcome, or silenced.
The analogy that comes to mind is not liking the cabinets in your kitchen, but instead of changing them you take a wrecking ball to the entire house to start from scratch, when plenty of the rooms in the house were just fine.This is a fallacious analogy. This might have been more appropriate in the 2nd-edition -> 3rd edition transition, but not now.
A more appropriate analogy is "you don't like your kitchen cabinets, so you get new ones from a professional cabinetmaker."
No, I think it's dead on. The house *is* changing. The fundamental structure of characters is changing. Look at healing. Clerics aren't big healers anymore, now warlords are the go to guys for hit points. Now characters have a second wind mechanic. These are big changes, and just one example. What about the Pit Fiend? Used to have tons of spell like abilities and powers, but now is stripped down to a handful. Spell resistance is gone. Are you really arguing these aren't major, fundamental changes?
|
|
[threadjack]
Big Jake? I just looked at your profile. You're in Korea. Which base are you stationed at?I spent 8 years in the country -- as an English teacher.
[/threadjack][threadjack]Apparently he's my neighbor.[/threadjack]
Oh, great, vitriol. I am totally not reading the posts on this thread anymore.
I'm with you. Hitting my off switch.
|
|
My argument has nothing to do with what does or doesn't embody the concept of D&D. My argument has to do with actual differences between the current system of 3.5 and the impending system of 4.0 and how that will affect my gaming experience. And I continue to hold the belief that (1) the systems will be substantially different and (2) I will not enjoy gaming in the new system. The first is objective the second subjective. I don't think the changes being made are good changes, and the reason for this is partially that they are being driven by business concerns. Others my disagree. To each his own. But I reject any argument that changes are minor or insignificant.The difference between the core mechanic of 3E and the core mechanic of 4E appears to be minuscule. Nowhere near as big as the difference between 2E and 3E. So if 4E is no longer D&D because of mechanics changes, then 3E was never D&D either.Not surprisingly, Rambling Scribe has made my point better than me. I am arguing that if you say 4e is a different game than D&D because of mechanics, LOGIC says you must say the same thing about 3e and so on. That is why arguing this doesn't hold water.
Agreed. If they were similar you should be able to convert between them easily. The designers have said time and time again that conversions are so difficult that you shouldn't even try it. Either they are lying, or 3.5 and 4E are very different from each other.
Agreed. If they were similar you should be able to convert between them easily. The designers have said time and time again that conversions are so difficult that you shouldn't even try it. Either they are lying, or 3.5 and 4E are very different from each other.
Uh, I thought what they said was that a conversion guide would be difficult to impossible, not conversions.