Hello,
I'm relatively new here though I have been lurking for awhile.
I want to pose a question:
Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?
Let me say upfront that I know WoTC owns the IP called D&D and can create a game similar to chutes and ladders and call it D&D as such is their legal right.
My point isn't the legalese of what D&D is or even a discussion of whether or not 4e is really D&D or not in the sense of its feel and play. There are threads for that.
What I am curious about is the phenomena of brand loyalty in the way that there actually are people compelled through emotional reasons to support their favorite brand despite the failings of the brand. For example, there actually are people who will not drive a brand new top of the line Ford truck but will drive a lesser quality Chevy truck because it is a Chevy. For most, emotion plays a far greater factor in one's choices than objective realities.
So this thread is about brand loyalty and not about edition warfare.
4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.
My thesis is that (and I am not attempting to insult anyone here) if any other company such as Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, etc. created a game with the full panapoly of 4e's new mechanics very, very few people would be dumping 3.5 D&D to play this new system. Oh some may indeed swipe some mechanics for their 3.5 D&D game but for the most part 3.5e would still be king of the hill, not just in sales, but in perception of quality.
I truly believe that the vast majority of D&D players would shrug their shoulders and think, "Cool new game system witrh some nice mechanics but I'll stick with D&D." A relatively small number of gamers would jump onto the new system with both feet having grown tired of 3.5e but we wouldn't be seeing mass sell offs of 3.5e materials on ebay just to play this new game.
Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?
Would the dumping of magical schools, gnomes, high elves (now eladrin), half orcs be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Paizo did it first?
Would the greater emphasis on miniatures, the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, the adoption of MMORPG terms such as striker and controller, the removal of the vast majority of arcane and divine spells, be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Green Ronin did it first?
Would healing surges, at will, per encounter and per day powers, and residuum be more D&D than D&D if Mongoose Publishing did it first?
Chris
I'm willing to go or no depending on whether one goes so far as to concede that 3.x is D&D. Essentially if 3.x is D&D then so is 4E. Now one could very legitimatly say that 3.x is in no way shape or form D&D, Gary Gygax, in fact, did just that, in which case 4E would also not be D&D.
Interesting point, OP. I like where you're going with this. I often thought of this myself. Which proves to me all the more that there are many blind, loyal followers of WotC and that 4E truly is just another "hype" that will die down as quickly as Pokemon did.
I saw this thread on ENWorld and it had many interesting, cogent responses. Thanks, Razz. The flag of the Paizo boards flies proud with you to safeguard it.
Had some other company developed the game and it had a different title, No I don't think many would have taken notice. It would be just another game. The complaints would have been far more minimal and the praises better however. People would have tended to pick out the things they perceived as "good" and really complained very little about the rest. Eventually, when some thread on say a place like Paizo appeared, such as:
"Hey I just bought this game from company (whatever) does anyone play and what do you think of it?"
Only in threads like this would you get a larger response of good and bad.
Just my opinion, doesn't mean it is or isn't a good game. I think the D&D brand name is necessary to sell it to any degree of great success. I think a lot of people are buying it because of the D&D name and those people are owners of previous editions. If another company had put out the same system under a different title, D&D followers of previous editions would impact sales for this game very minimally. Hope this answers the questions the OP asked without upsetting anyone. It's just my opinion and I will say that my opinion matters very little in the scheme of things.
There's never been a very strong link between the brand identity of a game and its contents, I'm afraid. The social nature of RPGs means that the players and play philosophies of a group are much more important to the nature of a game than the system they're using; if you tell me you're playing an Exalted game, that implies several things which may or may not be true, but there's very little I can really determine that will tell me if I'd like your game or not. To make things worse, group variation has always been one of the hallmarks of the Dungeons & Dragons brand identity.
I wish this wasn't true, but it is: the quality of a game system is not the greatest factor in its success or popularity. If 4th edition wasn't branded D&D, it wouldn't be as successful as it is, and if it was created by some small independent publisher, it wouldn't even be as successful as it would be if it had been branded differently but still published by WOTC. I think this is equally true of 3rd edition. Is it a good system? Yes. Would you have played it if it had been published by some guy in Minnesota calling it "Fantysy Adentures"? No, I don't think so. You started playing 3rd edition D&D because it was D&D; you kept playing it because it was a good system.
Having said that, I'm delighted that 4e D&D has been branded as such; I think I can safely say that it's my favorite fantasy roleplaying game system on its own merits, and if it had been released under some other brand, I don't think anybody else would have noticed it, and I wouldn't have anybody to play with.
If another company had produced 4e, it would have one review on RPG.net that refers to it snootily as a "fantasy heartbreaker" and that would be it.
4E truly is just another "hype" that will die down as quickly as Pokemon did.
Uh, Razz . . . hate to break it to ya . . . but the popularity of Pokémon is still striving and hasn't died down in the slightest.
There is a person in my gaming group who used to play a lot of Vampire the Masquerade. We showed him the 3 core books of 4th edition and asked him which was it more similar to. He said it was closer to Vampire than it was to 3.5.
If World of Darkness had come out with it, it would be more competition for GURPS than for 3.5.
Collectable card games are in general running neck and neck with Fantasy Role Playing Games. I still keep hearing about Pokemon, Yugio, and to a lesser degree Magic The Gathering.
|
In the end, I think D&D is whatever version of the game you played first, and this idea has played out any number of times I've asked other people the same question: "What's the first thing you think of when I say 'D&D?'"
My dad played AD&D and I actually remember being with him when he bought a MM at KB Toys in the way-back, and I must have been maybe 7 years old.
Nonetheless, D&D will always and forever be the Red Box.
For me, at least.
I turned 33 a couple weeks ago, and if you say "Dungeons and Dragons" to me, out of the blue, I immediately get an image of Elmore's dragon on the Red Box. You might notice something interesting in what I'm saying: I don't think about rules, or mechanics.
No matter what any of us golden oldies say, the kids who are picking up D&D for the first time today, will always and forever imagine 4e over any other version.
As to whether or not another company could have published the game? I have mentioned before that I think the rules are different enough that it could be published under a completely different brand. Change any D&D iconic names (no Tensers or Bigbys), and I think most people would see it as an alternative to D&D. Had WotC published it as another system (and not a new edition of D&D), I think most people might have said, "This is just D&D with a facelift."
Who knows.
Honestly, if WOTC didn't create it would 3.5 be D&D?
The statement can be used for ANY edition of D&D.
Honestly, if TSR didn't create it would 2e be D&D? The question would keep on going and going all the way to the beginning.
Christopher - The bottom line is the Bottom Line. If you don't like 4E, then don't buy it. It's really the only significant vote we get in influencing the hobby.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There's really no way to "honestly" answer such a loaded question w/o delving into the underlying question of 4e's quality. Thus, I direct you to the 2.6 billion threads on the internet discussing exactly that topic w/o hiding behind some proxy question.
As for brand loyalty, I'd also note that the op is heavily biased in its positioning. The assumption is that brand loyalty is entirely an emotional reaction that allows producers to fob off poor quality products on slavish purchasers. It completely fails to note the positive aspect of brand loyalty, particularly in the realm of highly subjective entertainment products, which is that if a purchaser likes a particular author/producer's past products, they're probably more likely to like that particular author/producer's future products. That's not an "emotional" reaction, it's a rationale means of finding products a person will like.
Am I a Pathfinder subscriber out of blind emotional devotion to Paizo or is it because I've liked their prior products and expect the future products to be of similar quality? Is the ENWorld adventure path a Paizo adventure path produced by a different company? Obviously not, the question doesn't even make any sense. Same here, unless what you're arguing is the worthiness of 4e as a successor to the D&D line, which the op goes to great pains to disclaim.
It seems to me the hidden meaning behind this question is that 4e is not D&D and therefore it sucks. Maybe I am just reading too much into the obvious bias.
In my personal opinion, there have been better systems compared to D&D since basic. Yet D&D in all its incarnations has been the most popular. D&D is largely synonymous with role playing much like Coke is with soda or iPod with mp3 players.
As far as I am concerned, your system of choice just got ganked out from under you and you now join me bemoaning how your system of choice is “better” while everyone else runs off to play D&D. For me, the irony is just icing on the cake¹.
¹Assuming you do not point out that my own system of choice is coming out with a new edition soon.
4E truly is just another "hype" that will die down as quickly as Pokemon did.
Uh, Razz... the popularity of Pokémon is still striving and hasn't died down in the slightest.
Then I guess Razz is probably right :)
|
Christopher - The bottom line is the Bottom Line. If you don't like 4E, then don't buy it. It's really the only significant vote we get in influencing the hobby.
I don't think the OP was necessarily bad-mouthing 4th Edition (maybe he was, I'm no mindreader). But, there is some merit to the statement, because it also forces those supporting 3.5 to consider why they don't like 4th Edition (is it because 3.5 was published as D&D and therefore we are blind to its problems)?
Now, asking this question on the Paizo boards is another matter, because a great deal of us have said "yes, we will support D&D with a different name - that name is Pathfinder".
Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?
I believe Sebastian pretty much gave the perfect answer to this question, so I will just reiterate. If you like the products of a company so far, you trust the ability of this company of making good products. It's rational, not emotional. Just like if 3E were called "Caverns & Minotaurs" and were made by another company, I wouldn't have played it, and perhaps I wouldn't even known that it existed.
Would the dumping of magical schools, gnomes, high elves (now eladrin), half orcs be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Paizo did it first?
WotC won me with 3E and won me again with 4E. Not because 3E is "more D&D" than OSRIC or because 4E is "more D&D" than Pathfinder RPG. But because both 3E and 4E were innovative system that broke many paradigms of the older systems and were able to provide a new gaming experience. I'm not saying that Pathfinder RPG is bad because of this - it's a great system, but not innovative enough for me.
That's why I don't believe that, if we had the opposite situation, a game exactly like Pathfinder RPG being made by WotC and being called "D&D 4E", it would have been a game as sucessful as 3E. The basic complaint would be "It's too similar to be called a new edition". Many gamers need, sometimes, this "change for the sake of change", or, in a better view, "change to renew the interest on the hobby" that other gamers seem to despise so much.
4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.
And I would argue that you are wrong: D&D is the only roleplaying game that reward experience point for killing things. The basic of D&D is kill the monsters, gain XP and take the magical sword +3 and the wand of fireball... It's completly unrealistic, don't provide any motivation to roleplaying your character, but it's really fun to level your character.
Serously, if I want to play a serious, grim and gritty fantasy, involving investigation and intense roleplaying I will choose Warhammer Fantasy RPG anytime... The adventures are story driven... Your reward is to survive and stop to cultist from releasing a abomination of chaos on the world...In D&D, the adventures are created to level your characters (exactly like a video game)... In other RPG your won't ever see a 20 rooms dungeons added simply to make sure your character will level before the big boss encounter... but you see that all the time in D&D (and the pathfinder modules have there share of filler dungeons level that are absolutly not related to the main plot and are there simply to add a few encounter and a few XP)...
The thrill of D&D players is to gain XP to level and add a nice new ability, power or feat or to gain another magic item to help them kill more things... This is the spirit of D&D and what make it appart from other RPG...
At least, 4E give significant XP for encounters and story goals now...
|
Welcome to the PAIZO boards.
IMHO, wotc no more owns dungeons and dragons than the NFL owns football. Great strides have been made for the open game movement just this past year as former wotc customers are finally taking their business elsewhere, having had enough ivory tower treatment for nearly a decade. For example, as though a veil has been lifted, many loyal customers of PAIZO believe that PAIZO produces high quality or better materials, and the open game movement is just now truly beginning - as 3pps must take a stand, realizing there are serious sides, and serious consequences to this issue. Many have come to understand that there is non such thing as 100% official content anymore! IMHO, fourth edition is an illegitimate edition, that is, it is not a legitimate successor to the historical traidions of the dungeons and dragons mileau (as those familiar with the game for 30+ years would know). 4e, IMHO, is however, a new game, a different game, possibly an okay game, but one that arrives too soon for the consumption of lovers of 3.5, too soon for even those who desire some modifications to 3.5, but otherwise wish to continue this widely embraced and entrenched system. IMHO, 4e is a game deeply touched by the mechanisms of video games, and embodies an internal and external inconsistency when held in the light of previous editions.
To Sebastian's point (and I understand he's a lawyer), the OP's post sounds biased from the beginning, so I doubt you'll get much discussion in this thread. Because you ask such a question as only your second post on these boards, I will add that my opinions are not meant to argue with others who may disagree, nor are they meant to inflame.
In just a few minutes, if he has not done so, you'll see Crosswired Mind pop in to say that 4e is as much dnd as any other edition, and that corporations are entitled to do as they please and consumers should just bite the pillow (or some such).
IMHO, WOTC did created it, and to me, its still not D&D.
I seek no dicussion on these views today, just responding IMHO to the OP.
Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?
On the one hand, I think your thesis is correct -- 4e will be ultimately accepted as the one and only D&D, primarily because WotC is shoving it down our throats as the one and only D&D. (Prejudicial language? Me??) Much like TSR and WotC did with 2e and 3e.
But the answer affects nothing. We accepted 2e. We accepted 3e. We accepted 3.5 (amidst much ballyhoo from the fans)... We'll accept 4e (currently amidst much ballyhoo from WotC, I might add).
4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e.
For the record, I think 4e is a much more dramatic change. Those that feel 30 years of D&D has been taken away are justified in their opinions. IMO.
Y'know, I hate to say it, but this is a very biased question. I mean failings? Y'know differences might be okay, but right there you're forcing the opinion that 4e is a worse system than 3rd ed. Role playing games don't have things to gauge by, no top speed, no torque, no towing capacity, just how much fun you have.
And no, I'm not some mindless zombie who's just following WOTC's wishes. I've looked through 4e and I've made the conscious decision that I like it much better than 3.5 and Pathfinder. Is there stuff I miss? Of course. Is there stuff I don't like? Yeah, but there's that in every system. Do I think it fails? Hell no!
Edit: I'm not saying that everyone made a conscious decision, I'm sure there's some people out there who are mindless zombies.
Though there's one question that I'm gonna pose to all the arguments against 4e's popularity: Is it possible that maybe, just maybe, people actually think it's a better system?
Hmm as a stubborn AD&D'er I have a slightly different view. For me the question is a bit of a moot point, although I fully understand the idea you are putting forward.
I don't feel that D&D is defined by it's rules or edition - in fact I feel that trying to universally define 'D&D' is not an easy thing to do.
I'll justify this perspective:
The flavour of what my group experiences as D&D is probably different to your own. For one group of friends D&D means pizza, laughter and some fun, for another group it's a hard core tactical exploring challenge, and for another D&D is an environment in which to roleplay many social challenges and/or be part of an epic story - and for many it may be all of the above and others things beside.
A given rule set may possibly favour a certain style of play - but all preferences are valid : )
4E isn't D&D to me. Neither is 3E. Neither is 2E. There is only one D&D. However, I considered 2E and improved system over true D&D. So I adopted it. For a few years I thought 3E was an improvement over 2E, then I decided I was wrong.
Now I play the game that is the best successor to the spirit of D&D according to that strange guy who pretty much created D&D. So I haven't played D&D since 1989. I play what I consider to be the best alternative to it.
Others think 4E is the best alternative.
Others think 3E is the best.
Others think Pathfinder is.
Others think 2E D&D is.
Lets just remember that we are all gamers.
Maybe we won't play 4E together, or 3E, or PF, but I bet there is at least one other RPG that any 4 of us can agree to sit down together and play.
So first and foremost lets remember we are gamers, the game itself is not the most important thing.
The important thing is being able to find a game that we can all agree to sit down and play together.
Getting angry with each other over which edition is "D&D" serves no purpose other than causing rifts in the RPG community.
So lets just accept that a certain number of people accept 4E as the best version to play.
Others still think 3E is. Others are becoming convinced Pathfinder is. Believe it or not there are still people who think 2E, 1E, or OD&D is. I, and a whole group of other people think a different game is.
So lets accept that we may not be able to sit together and play the same edition/version of D&D together, but we likely can find something. Lets be glad of that.
Ah Pax... so much frothing over a game. use your passion to go into politics or social reform. The world needs people with your drive to make it a better place. But... this is like you creating a political movement to make sure no-on ever tinkers with Connect 4...
|
I think the OP's question is fairly silly, though I appreciate it was intended to be provocative. What is D&D? What feels like D&D? Like I know definitavely - it is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't play much 1e and 2e, so 3e is probably my real long-term intro to the game. I've got the 4e books and it looks like a solid game to me. There are marked similarities to 3e (e.g. combat basics feel pretty intuitive to someone versed in 3e, albeit that some terminology has changed, and skills are similar if condensed and with a slightly different way of calculating your bonus) and some marked dissimilarities (e.g. character classes are very different, spells and powers for all, attack rolls on all spells). You can quite clearly see the antecendence of 4e in 3e most of the time, so it doesn't feel like I stopped playing 3e and started playing RQ or something. Based on memory, 3e seemed like a more radical departure from 2e than 4e is from 3e, but that is just my view.
Personally, I can't be bothered to worry about "Is this D&D?". What I worry about is "Will I and my fellow players have fun playing this?" to which the answer is probably yes. Will I throw out 3.5 or 3P? The jury is out (though I cannot see me ending my Pathfinder AP and modules subscriptions come what may, due to the quality - I'm about to run RotRL for a group in 4e). But philosophical questions on this matter are a waste of people's brainpower.
I think one of the big issues here is the idea of choosing, as in not playing the one game and always playing the other. I really kind of deal with 4e like it's another game...at least in the sense that I play both. I don't feel any need to choose between them. I think the nicest thing, in fact, about the two editions is how incredibly different they are. 3.0 for good or ill, was very much the same game as 2nd edition. It was enough so that it felt like a replacement. You either "upgrade" to the new rules or you don't.
With 4e it feels like so much of a different animal that I'm happy to play and run 4e games while continuing 3rd edition games and starting new ones.
So in some ways I'd say that yeah, 4e does kind of work like a whole new game instead of a continuation of the old. On the other hand, it's still really D&D. Some things I really like. Some things I really object to. Each game works better for different things and I love it. They can coexist. For me, that's great!
When the leading manufacturer of role-playing games announces a change to their flagship product, it is natural to take note. When Microsoft announces a new version of Windows, the world hiccups. This is the same thing, on a smaller scale. Like it or not, their market presence makes the launch of 4.0 something you cannot just ignore if you are interested in role-playing games. It changes the standard. If successful, it might even change the paradigm.
WotC has more resources than any other company. When they put these resources into a new version of their main title, this is interesting. They could have called it Demons & Doghouses; as long as it was a replacement of their main title it would still have been interesting.
But when the 4.0 furor first launched, WotC said that this would be an "evolutionary change", implying that the difference would be less than that between 2.0 and 3.0. This is howash. 4.0 uses familiar terms from earlier editions, but gave those terms new meaning. In many ways a Role Master fighter has more in common with a 3.5 fighter than a 4.0 fighter has. The changes to the system are revolutionary.
Hopefully, this is good, but the jury is still out. If it isn't good, then it will be bad the whole hobby, as a good flagship system helps draw new people and revitalize the hobby. And this is another reason to be interested, to try to work the kinks out and if possible make 4.0 palatable to the old RPG audience - a common denominator is good for the hobby to rally around. We don't all need to have 4.0 as out main system, but it would be great if most of us at least knew it and could take part in demonstration games and introduce new players to it. Because this is how you bring new people into the hobby.
|
|
Ah Pax... so much frothing over a game. use your passion to go into politics or social reform. The world needs people with your drive to make it a better place. But... this is like you creating a political movement to make sure no-on ever tinkers with Connect 4...
*grins* Thanks Fabes, you made me laugh this morning. [humor] But hey, somebody has to do it! I mean it just won't be connect 4 if they're not using checkers, or if it takes 5 to win! Those who have enjoyed coherancy over the past 30 years won't appreciate them trying to sell a different game under the name "Connect 4". [/humor]
Connect 4 Turbo Edition - now with motorised drop action. :D
...
As for brand loyalty, I'd also note that the op is heavily biased in its positioning. The assumption is that brand loyalty is entirely an emotional reaction that allows producers to fob off poor quality products on slavish purchasers. It completely fails to note the positive aspect of brand loyalty, particularly in the realm of highly subjective entertainment products, which is that if a purchaser likes a particular author/producer's past products, they're probably more likely to like that particular author/producer's future products. That's not an "emotional" reaction, it's a rationale means of finding products a person will like...
QFT. 4e, whatever your thoughts on it, IS D&D now. It has the brand developed over 35 years behind it, no matter what mechanics changes have been wrought. Although I am firmly in the Pathfinder camp, you can never discount the power of a well-maintained brand. It's what marketing folks spend billions of dollars yearly developing, maintaining and protecting.
That being said, there is always the danger of capitalizing on a formerly lustrous brand name to sell inferior products (note the current Polaroid camera lines when the company is functionally dead). I don't think that 4e is an example of this, but I will always put my dollars where the love and quality is, and in my opinion, that's Paizo.
It's a moot point anyway, beacause if we are playing PRPG now, it is now a totally SEPARATE brand than D&D, and cannot even legally BE D&D anymore. But as Billy S. once said:
"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet."
If, in the basement of Gary Gygax's house we found these same rules (co-written by Dave Arneson even) would they be D&D if Wotc didnt publish them?
But as Billy S. once said:"What’s in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet."
(humor) Names dont smell. If yours does you might want to have that checked out by a cleric (/humor)
|
|
As it stands, though, if there was an anthropology of game systems, it would be acknowledged that the evolutionary process inherent in the D&D family stops at 3E. 4E is a sport, an evolutionary misfit. It has more in common with other games (of the MMO variety) than it does with 3E, AD&D or even OD&D.
Oooh. That's a great word to encapsule a whole lot of meaning... anthropology of game systems. Yes - that's akin to what many of my players are saying when they say PRPG is the true next incarnation of 3.5., and of the D&D family of editions as a whole. (That said, many of my players agree that the entrance of the d20 system mechanic was a needed improvement to the game system, even though it made 3rd edition look much different.) For my players, its not the "different" aspects of 4e that we rail against most, but rather the lack of backward compatibility, where a true successor of the game would have "evolved" the sophisticated 3.5 game to an even higher level of quality (working out the bugs, etc., rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater as the new edition seems to do.) We're happiest calling PRPG dungeons and dragons, because - it is. And damn the brand copyright. PRPG is dungeons and dragons. Its where the dungeons and dragons anthropology truly continues.
I think there is a bit of poisoning the well going on in regard to my question. "The OP is biased or silly" ergo the question itself is invalid. IMO the question is valid.
I am actually stunned to see that folks have sold off their 3.5e books en mass on ebay or just tossed them out with the unveiling of a new system of D&D. There are only 3 books available so far for Christ's sake. Did 3.5e suck that badly or is there so much brand loyalty that no matter what 4e looked like it is defacto a better product because it is the newest shiny thing created by WoTC? That is the gist of my OP.
I don't have a horse in this race so to speak because I gave up on 3.5e after getting into True20 and Runequest (though I am still a friend of the 3.5e variant Conan) because these systems allow me to more easily tell the stories I wish to tell and provide mechanics closer to my sensibilities as a DM. I am going to give Pathfinder a chance and may use the system if Eric and Company can make high level campaigning less (far less) of a DM's nightmare.
At first, my reaction to Paizo's choice to stick with 3.5e in the form of Pathfinder was rather negative because I really liked the previews WoTC was sharing with us prior to 4e's release. With 4e's release (and it noxious GSL)I have made a 180 degree turn around and am 1000% behind Paizo's decision and hope that others like Green Ronin and Mongoose keep 3.5 alive in some form or create for themselves some excellent open license games. Green Ronin's Song of Ice and Fire RPG looks promising and I hope that 3rd party publishers don't feel the need to dump their OGL games even if they choose to produce some 4e materials.
I am not immune to kneejerk loyalty or antipathy myself. I am instinctively counterculture and find that I would be inclined to tell WoTC to piss off even if I liked the 4e mechanics (which I do not) just on the merits of the GSL.
I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?
I suspect that brand loyalty is at the root of such decisions. IN other words, if WoTC doesn't create it, it isn't worth looking at. This is IMO a preposterous position, but position that I have seen in a few gamers I know.
We're happiest calling PRPG dungeons and dragons, because - it is. And damn the brand copyright. PRPG is dungeons and dragons. Its where the dungeons and dragons anthropology truly continues.
Except, well...it just isn't. Pathfinder is 3.5 with a few rules tweaks, whatever is called Dungeons and Dragons IS Dungeons and Dragons, therefore, Pathfinder is most certainly not Dungeons and Dragons.
"Anthropology"?
To quote a certain Spanish swordsman - "I do not think that means what you think it means..."
As it stands, though, if there was an anthropology of game systems, it would be acknowledged that the evolutionary process inherent in the D&D family stops at 3E. 4E is a sport, an evolutionary misfit. It has more in common with other games (of the MMO variety) than it does with 3E, AD&D or even OD&D.
Really? More in common with MMOs which evolved from D&D?
... We're happiest calling PRPG dungeons and dragons, because - it is. And damn the brand copyright. PRPG is dungeons and dragons. Its where the dungeons and dragons anthropology truly continues.
But you see this is the brand mentality rearing its ugly head. Why does PRPG have to be associated with D&D? It just leads to acrimonius debates. We don't call a dog a wolf even though the dog descended from wolven ancestors. We are not monkeys 2.0, we are humans.
Let WotC make the D&D brand into what they will and let the rest of us not following into 4e concentrate on the PRRG and making it a brand that can become the next true open platform for pen and paper. We have the d20 mechanics and OGL to strenghthen us. The open possibilities allow for a cross-fertilization of ideas that a restrictive system won't be able to match. I believe that PRPG will remain nimble and evolve into the leading light of the OGL community. Let's not get hung up on semantics :)
...I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?...
For many (including myself) 4E IS a continuation of the ideas and practices pioneered in 3E. We see in 4E the next step of the design process that gave us 3E.
And if we're not going to play 3E anymore, why do we need the books for it? (Personally, as an RPG collector, I own shelves full of RPG books I'll likely never play, so I won't be selling mine, but I do understand the PoV of those ditching theirs ... I unfortunately canceled Pathfinder when 4E was announced, since I knew at the time there was no way my group would clear our backlog of 3E modules ... it is the same idea.)
Cheers! :)
When D&D 3.0 came out, I think what a lot of people didn't realize (and I have to say that I didn't, at the time) was that 3E isn't the third edition of AD&D. Its the third edition of OD&D, a different and separate line in the D&D family of games. The progression from OD&D through the Cyclopedia to 3E is clear, and involves only a few contributions and changes incorporating certain AD&D concepts.
I hadn't considered it that way. On the surface that makes some sense.
That said, to answer the same question about 4E...
Consider that 4e follows from 1E, in the same way that 3E follows from the OD&D through the Cyclopedia. It incorporates some MMO elements. But 3E incorporated some elements from other games as well, (cough*Hero*cough) it's a contaminated culture as well.
There's limited character creation options, the excitement comes from having tactical options in gameplay. There's limited skills, designed to foster adventuring. You're character background is what you make of it, rather than something you spend points on. There's limited universe background information, that's mostly revealed through the modules (so far) just like the old Greyhawk days. Heck, the monsters in the MM are set at the levels where approximately you'd run into them in the 1E days (Kuo-toa are 11ish level)
4E incorporates some of the 3E elements, but it's 1E's child in the same way that 3E is 0D&D's child.
I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?
But a lot of us did indeed check out other RPG... I think a lot of 4E fan (it' my case) have lost interest in 3.5E a year or two ago and want to try the new edition to see if they change enough stuff to make it enjoyable and playable at all level...
I will give a chance to 4E and if it's fail, I will play something else (True20 Shadow of Cthulhu, Mutant & Masterminds, Conan, Starwars Saga, Dark Heresy, Warhammer Fantasy, WoD to name a few game that share an equal interest in my RPG library)... Most of us are not influence by a brand but by good RPG...
I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?
First, I appreciate that you are being educated. So many people who talk about their opinions about 4E are a lot more emotive and end up a bit agressive.
I can make a list with at least fifty reasons for me to like 4E. I said lots of them on the last months, and now that I'm actually playing 4E, I don't think it's necessary anymore.
4E is out. Pathfinder RPG will soon be out too. Why we don't stop complaining about other people's tastes - and just play the game we like?
Heck, I like 4E because I like it. You like True20 because you like it. Wouln't be very annoying if someone comes to you and ask "How can you like this @#$% True20 system? Is there something wrong with you?"
If you are genuinelly interested on knowing what the 4E fans find good about it, maybe to try it in the future, then we can talk about that. If that's not the case, then I'd rather not feed this kind of discussion.
I am not claiming to be superior in my opinions, just someone who is curious as to the motivation of 4e fans as to their choices in regards to abandoning 3.5e. If 3.5e was so bad, why didn't those who find 3.5e so broken check out True20, Runequest, Elric, Conan, etc. a year or two ago?
I tried running 3.x. I found it tedious at best, mind splittingly annoying at worst.
I like playing 3.x, because all the nifty, ever expanding character options made my evil little munchkin heart happy.
I tried the other d20 options, and while I thought Blue Rose was pretty shiny, I don't think it made things easier enough to learn a new system when it was turned into True20.
Since I already had the system, if I was going to run, and do all the work anyways, I'll pull out my Hero system and go with that. It's not any harder and I had more control over everything. So, in that regard, I'm not quite your target audience.
So, 4e's announced. And they say it's simpler to play and run. And turns out it is. I enjoy running 4e in a way I didn't enjoy running 3E or any of the other d20 variants. It's simple on the surface, but fights are tactically complex, with pushing and sliding, and resource management. Character creation's simple, yet somehow interesting, giving some options and flexibility while keeping things managable. But then again, we played for many years with AD&D, where the only difference between fighters was personality, and maybe a weapon, so not being able to differentiate down to the micropoint level seems ok to us.
In short, not only do I enjoy Playing 4E, I'm enjoying Running 4E, which is something I could never get behind with 3.x.
Personnel/company situations don't fit much into considerations. No matter how much DS pisses me off, I still buy Hero stuff, when they put out something I want.
Well obviously not, if there is no THACO then you are not playing dnd and anyone who says you are is a gibbering lunatic, impotent and a communist.
I was going to fully respond to the original post when it occurred to me that I might as well open my office window and breathe some fresh air as it will probably be much more satisfying.
Ah.
Hiya.
Short answere: No. 4e isn't D&D to me. Then again, I find calling 3.x "D&D" a pretty long stretch too. IMHO, D&D was about making a character that had a place in a party of adventurers. It was about strengths and weaknesses; about the fighter being totally hosed if alone trying to fight a flying wizard...and about a wizard being totally hosed if alone and face to face with a pissed off fighter. Where the thief could sneak, spy and steal, and the cleric was a defender of his god/dess, spreading the word and living as an example of the power of his god/dess.
Again, IMHO, 3.x took all that away by pretty much blowing the flood gates off their hinges and letting anyone choose any class, in any combination. You didn't *need* a "well balanced party"...you just needed one or two guys who had all the 'game stuff'.
Looking at 4e, some of the concepts of AD&D seem to be there, but they fall flat when taken as a whole and placed in a campaign that is primarily role-playing with very little combat.