Your post had a lot wrong
My post had three things in it:
The GSL, the Christmas Layoffs and the marketing campaign that made fun of people who wanted to stick with 3.5.
None of these things are in dispute.
"Wrong" is probably not the word you meant.
I believe it was probably "doesn't agree with ProfessorCirno's opinions".
Actually, I would dispute that "the marketing campaign that made fun of people who wanted to stick with 3.5."
I think they were (understandably) trying to highlight the things they wanted to fix. I do not believe they were motivated by malice.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
4e well some claim it fixed problems, but I still think it was an excuse for a moneygrab.
Marketing has convinced we gamers we need new editions. That is the reason we hope for them.
I'm of the view that one shouldnt ascribe motive to others without knowing them extremely well. It's very difficult to discern motive from an action. As such whether new editions are 'money grabs' (which seems to me to be inherently about motive) is not something I have any clue about.
With regard to your second point though, it may be true for some, it's not true for me. I love buying new RPGs - I have stacks of them, many unplayed. Most of them I went scouring for - I wasnt persuaded by marketing. Furthermore, the desire for new fantasy worlds/conceptions of gaming/etcetera is just part of who I am - I'm fairly difficult to reach as a market and was even less so when my preferences were being formed.
I just enjoy seeing how someone else does it - reading rules systems gives me pleasure, even though when we game we usually ignore most of the rules anyhow. You and the people you know may have no inherent desire for new editions/games but some of us do (and I see a new edition as just another form of 'brand new RPG' - when they dont change substantially, I'm less interested).
I should have rephrased at least to new editions. Not new games. I ahve more games than I can possibly play, because I love statistics. I am all about fixing problems, not shifting paradigms.
If I am playing a particular game, I master it. When a new edition comes out, all that mastery goes out the window.
A new edition that fixed problem like PAthfinder, really was only tweaks. 2nd edition was well it was great for campaign settings. 3rd edition was a change in paradigm. I switched because that was what was supported because I like the support. I still would have rather second edition tweaked at first, but then I realized 3rd edition satisfied something for me that previous incarnations never did. Maybe that would happen with a 5e I don't know.
I object to creating NEW GAMES for a new edition not a fix. 4e was a NEW GAME. If I stuck with 4e, the 5e buildup would mean ANOTHER new game. If I want to switch systems and still follow support products I will do that. I object when the system I like is no longer available, and now I am forced to either switch to a different game, or switch to the New edition which is a new game.
I think ultimately that is what caused a fractured market. 4e was a new game and that meant people would have to switch. I tried it for a good amount of time like I did with 3rd edition. Where 3rd edition filled what I missed in D&D, (much why I also played STORMBRINGER in parralel) 4e seemed to take that away while giving nothing in return. The components that were added, I could not take away. I did not object to a new edition as much as I objected to a new GAME. The 4e release has severely soured my reaction to 'new editions'.
Where initially hearing about 4e made me excited, now hearing about a new edition makes me very skeptical for any game system I already like. I like fixes like 3.5 or Pathfinder, just not rewrites.
I don't think they were motivated by malice, either. I think the campaign was ill-advised, though I won't go so far as to call it stupid.
Obviously some people thought it was a good idea at the time. I found it funny, for the most part.
I don't think I would go as far as stupidity, either, but that is how the saying goes.
If, on the other hand, you're talking about 5e as being the same new game as 4e, I understand your point. It is a different game.
If 5e bridges the gap between 3.5 and 4e, would you consider the switch?
Pathfinder has me quite happy for the fantasy genre. With that said, I have not sworn off WOTC as I still buy products from them like dungeon tiles.
If 5e bridged any gaps, and made a game that worked BETTER than Pathfinder I could consider it. If it worked nice, I most likely would not switch.
When I say switch I mean the games I am willing to DM for. I will play in just about any game, even the White Wolf ones which is a system I generally do not like. If 5e turned out to be equal to or better than Pathfinder I would consider Running a 5e campaign in parallel with Pathfinder.
Switching takes ALOT. I play traveller, but that is until I can get the Mass Effect races all converted to Alternity.
Because that's how this industry works. If you come up with a better business model, you let us know.Cheap shot, Scott. :(
How in the world is that a cheap shot? He asked for reasons why WotC should make something new. I gave him one: the industry survives through the edition cycle; a new edition is released, lots of people buy it to stay current, supplements are gradually released and people buy less and less as time goes on because they reach their various saturation points (where they feel they have enough material), until eventually they're buying so little that an edition change is necessary to revitalize spending.
This is how the industry has worked, traditionally. There are ways to change this (the most obvious being a switch to a fully subscription-based system), but until someone decides to make that gigantic (and dangerous) leap forward, the industry has very good reason to pop out something new.
Oh OK I will be sure to do that. Once again you provide fantastic insight.
The snark isn't appreciated. You asked for a reason, and I gave you the most straightforward one available.
That is fine from a business perspective I get that. That is why I say 4e and 5e if it comes is simply a money grab.
No, it's partially a money grab. It's also a chance to move the game and the industry forward by using that influx of money to fuel changes - for instance, introducing DDI could never have happened were it not for an edition change.
It's unfortunate that you choose to see 4e as "simply a money grab", though, since when viewed through that lens, Pathfinder is a much clearer money grab than 4e. (Note: I'm not saying that Pathfinder was a money grab; I'm only saying that if you choose to see 4e as simply a money grab, in order to be consistent you must view Pathfinder as one as well.)
But if you are a player comfortable with 4e why would you want the new shiny?
I'm comfortable in the chair I'm sitting in right now. But does that mean I will never find a more comfortable chair? Now, granted, I'm not a chair enthusiast so maybe I don't keep up with the most recent innovations in buttocks support, but I'm sure that those people who are chair enthusiasts are all over the newest and hottest chair products (assuming that sort of person actually exists).
Perhaps though with Paizo finding success with their adventures we can be spared edition money grabs.
Perhaps. It's a new, untested model. Time will tell. Interestingly, if it does prove to break the edition treadmill, it will be because of a strong subscription model keeping the business afloat.
Oh OK I will be sure to do that. Once again you provide fantastic insight.The snark isn't appreciated. You asked for a reason, and I gave you the most straightforward one available.
I apologize for the snark. The first part of your answer was straightforward, the second part however "If you come up with a better way let us know" sounded snarky. Along the lines as when someone answers a post "you do realize... something obvious" (funny enough I like nailing those posts best, because they usually have not thought something through). I misread your post so I apologize.
No, it's partially a money grab. It's also a chance to move the game and the industry forward by using that influx of money to fuel changes - for instance, introducing DDI could never have happened were it not for an edition change.It's unfortunate that you choose to see 4e as "simply a money grab", though, since when viewed through that lens, Pathfinder is a much clearer money grab than 4e. (Note: I'm not saying that Pathfinder was a money grab; I'm only saying that if you choose to see 4e as simply a money grab, in order to be consistent you must view Pathfinder as one as well.)
Pathfinder was certainly a money grab. I do not object to money grabs, since like you I realize that is how the industry works. PAthfinder was a necessary money grab to save the system a portion of the market still wanted filled. I would have been fine with the 4e money grab if they just left 4e as a fix to 3rd editions problems instead of making a whole new design paradigm.
I'm comfortable in the chair I'm sitting in right now. But does that mean I will never find a more comfortable chair? Now, granted, I'm not a chair enthusiast so maybe I don't keep up with the most recent innovations in buttocks support, but I'm sure that those people who are chair enthusiasts are all over the newest and hottest chair products (assuming that sort of person actually exists).
If you want a supported product, and the edition switch changes that product significantly you cannot go back to the previous product and still receive game support. The analogy misses the mark, and I am not convinced you were even trying to make a proper analogy.
Perhaps. It's a new, untested model. Time will tell. Interestingly, if it does prove to break the edition treadmill, it will be because of a strong subscription model keeping the business afloat.
Absolutely.
My objection to the 4e change had absolutely nothing to do with DDI. You can make DDI for OD&D just as easily. i like technology, and I like when technology helps my game. I objected to the 4e change because of the change of game, not change of technology.
DDI is a change of delivery and distribution. Subscription models are the same. I am OK with it all.
If Pathfinder one day became COMPLETELY digital I would not like it but I could deal with it. Just like I could deal wiht comics becoming completely digital if they were willing to destroy the comics retail industry. Completely changing the way the game works, that is entirely different. If I want a new game I will go buy one with a different name.
I should have rephrased at least to new editions. Not new games. I ahve more games than I can possibly play, because I love statistics. I am all about fixing problems, not shifting paradigms.
If I am playing a particular game, I master it. When a new edition comes out, all that mastery goes out the window.A new edition that fixed problem like PAthfinder, really was only tweaks. 2nd edition was well it was great for campaign settings. 3rd edition was a change in paradigm. I switched because that was what was supported because I like the support. I still would have rather second edition tweaked at first, but then I realized 3rd edition satisfied something for me that previous incarnations never did. Maybe that would happen with a 5e I don't know.
I object to creating NEW GAMES for a new edition not a fix. 4e was a NEW GAME. If I stuck with 4e, the 5e buildup would mean ANOTHER new game. If I want to switch systems and still follow support products I will do that. I object when the system I like is no longer available, and now I am forced to either switch to a different game, or switch to the New edition which is a new game.
I think ultimately that is what caused a fractured market. 4e was a new game and that meant people would have to switch. I tried it for a good amount of time like I did with 3rd edition. Where 3rd edition filled what I missed in D&D, (much why I also played STORMBRINGER in parralel) 4e seemed to take that away while giving nothing in return. The components that were added, I could not take away. I did not object to a new edition as much as I objected to a new GAME. The 4e release has severely soured my reaction to 'new editions'.
Where initially hearing about 4e made me excited, now hearing about a new edition makes me very skeptical for any game system I already like. I like fixes like 3.5 or Pathfinder, just not rewrites.
Your preferences are pretty much the opposite of mine and there's no arguing with them. I agree with you that it leads to a fractured market - I see that as a good thing, up to a point).
My only objection was to your comment that marketing was my reason for thinking I need a new edition.
As it happens, I'm just someone who likes new editions (of the new game sort: 3.0 -> 3.5 would have annoyed me far more than 3.5 -> 4.0 did). I'll like it if paizo release a PF2 more than if they release a PF.5
Your preferences are pretty much the opposite of mine and there's no arguing with them. I agree with you that it leads to a fractured market - I see that as a good thing, up to a point).
My only objection was to your comment that marketing was my reason for thinking I need a new edition.
As it happens, I'm just someone who likes new editions (of the new game sort: 3.0 -> 3.5 would have annoyed me far more than 3.5 -> 4.0 did). I'll like it if paizo release a PF2 more than if they release a PF.5
I did not mean to imply that people that like new editions fall for marketing schemes or anything like that.
If they named 3.5 D&D 4th edition would it still have bothered you? Technically the difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 was as much of a difference as between 1st edition AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D. I think enough has changed with Pathfinder to call it a new edition (only reason it has not is because it is PATHFINDER) I do not consider it 3.75 any more than 2nd edition was 1st edition.
Though it is different, the spirit is the same. The chemistry book I always refer to is on its 8th edition. Each time stuff has been taken away or added, but it is generally organized the same.
Game editions seem to be a mix between book editions and software editions.
It is tradition, I suppose, to believe that a fractured market is bad, and that what we really want is a single unifying system that never changes and never has any new editions...so long as that system is the one that poster likes.
I wonder how people here would react if it was decided "Alright, we're going to do that single unifying system and never change from it. It's going to be based on 4e."
I mean heck, you're playing a variant of the third edition. Do you think there weren't people who criticized 3e for fracturing the market? Do you think people aren't even now criticizing Pathfinder for fracturing the 3e market?
I did not mean to imply that people that like new editions fall for marketing schemes or anything like that.
Yeah, this seemed to be an implication, but was probably an inference - no doubt I'm just overly sensitive as a 4E fan on a PF message board. Apologies for that.
If they named 3.5 D&D 4th edition would it still have bothered you?
Yeah - I would have felt quite let down. I quite like PF but, from my a-typical and presumably minority perspective, it was too beholden to maintaining backwards compatibility. I don't think the 3.5 revision would have brought much to our table (without actually having played through it). Regardless of what it was named.
Technically the difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 was as much of a difference as between 1st edition AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D.
Well (assuming thats true since I'm in no way able to express an opinion) then I guess I'm consistent. We dropped DnD when 2E came out - it wasn't a big enough change for us to warrant updating. I wasn't playing DnD when 3.5 came out but, as I said above, from what I've heard I suspect I'd have been annoyed at the minimalist changes.
I think enough has changed with Pathfinder to call it a new edition (only reason it has not is because it is PATHFINDER) I do not consider it 3.75 any more than 2nd edition was 1st edition. Though it is different, the spirit is the same.
I think we agree here. Paizo didn't really have an option given the popular appeal of (and their presumed desire for) keeping their new game consistent with a previous edition of DnD. It was a pretty detail focussed revision rather than a total rebuilding.
I would have preferred the latter approach, but I think it would have been a commercial error. It also seems to me that the people that matter like the 3.5 approach and didn't see any need to move away from the underlying philosophy, even if they probably accepted that some of the mechanics were a bit wonky.
The chemistry book I always refer to is on its 8th edition. Each time stuff has been taken away or added, but it is generally organized the same.
Game editions seem to be a mix between book editions and software editions.
This is an interesting thought. I guess within this paradigm, my view is that I prefer the software approach (taken by WoTC in producing 4E) than the textbook approach (taken by paizo in producing PF). This isn't a huge surprise since, although I don't have a good term for it (system ignoramus maybe?), my group and I exhibit pretty much the opposite of system mastery. As such, a reorganization or clarification of rules we only hazily grasp and pay attention to anyhow is probably a waste of paper to us. A whole new way of doing things, on the other hand, appeals to me - whether I end up playing the game or not.
This isn't a huge surprise since, although I don't have a good term for it (system ignoramus maybe?), my group and I exhibit pretty much the opposite of system mastery. As such, a reorganization or clarification of rules we only hazily grasp and pay attention to anyhow is probably a waste of paper to us. A whole new way of doing things, on the other hand, appeals to me - whether I end up playing the game or not.
See, this lends to the variety of reasons some people welcomed the change to 4E
Me and almost my whole group are HEAVY rules users. We use all the book rules as written, and if we disagree we, as a whole group, discuss how to modify it. We don't get rid of any, or use them only halfway in the spirit of the rule. We use them whole hog, or minor variations in how we think it would implement better for our groups.
As a rules lawyer, I have maybe 5-6 house rules for all of 4E. What my whole group likes with the system is just how clear and cooperative the rules are with one another. They play well together, and are cleaned up and simplified to make the playing more easily the focus.
Because when you get 4-5 rules lawyers at a table, combat DID grind to a halt for rules' sake in our 3.5 games. Every fight involved mutiple people with multiple books open, referencing and cross referencing, the rule and all it applied terms. When 3.0 first came out, the complete rules for Incorporeal could only be found by referencing all three core books. I learned this the hard way taking the RPGA DM test.
I love rules, and even more so I love rules that make the game run smoother without giving up too much. To me, this is what the 4e ruleset does. There are distinct hard set rules, the basis for most of which were carried over from 3.X (Skills, Feats, Ability modifiers, action types, cover and concealment, Fort/Ref/Will instead of the 1 and 2e saves), and they removed the rules that led to bloat and overload (like Turn undead, grapple, trip, disarm). The ones that had to have its own rule just to cover the one action of that type, that didn't correspond to any other rule. PF's best invention in my book is Combat Maneuvers, but it is still a little clunky as far as I'm concerned.
On top of it they added rules in that enhanced the playstyle, (push, pull, slide, and teleport being clearly spelled out, and written in to each power that uses it.)
So, if Monte comes in, tightens up the rules to be even smoother, then I will gladly pay for a new edition. BUT, if they move any more closer to 3.5 like they did with essentials, then they will indeed lose me as I will stay with 4e. There is already a game where the characters just spam basic attacks, and don't balance with the core through all levels, and I left it to play 4e. To me essentials was a step back from the progress they had made, just so they could offer options to the players that didn't enjoy the more dynamic nature of 4e combat, and preferred the irish boxing style of combat that became the norm for 3.X (but that's just how static combat in 3.x felt to me.)
|
If they named 3.5 D&D 4th edition would it still have bothered you? Technically the difference between 3rd edition and 3.5 was as much of a difference as between 1st edition AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D. I think enough has changed with Pathfinder to call it a new edition (only reason it has not is because it is PATHFINDER) I do not consider it 3.75 any more than 2nd edition was 1st edition.
Though it is different, the spirit is the same. The chemistry book I always refer to is on its 8th edition. Each time stuff has been taken away or added, but it is generally organized the same.
Game editions seem to be a mix between book editions and software editions.
I think it's fair enough for PF to be called a separate edition. However, it is also backward-compatible with 3.0 and 3.5. 2e is fairly backwards compatible with 1e. 4e isn't backward-compatible, however, suggesting a more substantive change.
I think it's fair enough for PF to be called a separate edition. However, it is also backward-compatible with 3.0 and 3.5. 2e is fairly backwards compatible with 1e. 4e isn't backward-compatible, however, suggesting a more substantive change.
Right that was pretty much what I was saying and that is my preference. That is why I brought up how I like 'printed book' new editions over software editions.
New editions of books, primarily text books, are organized the same chapter wise, but have things omitted or added as the knowledge base increases. Sometimes chapters are added, but the organization remains the same.
Software is often a new verison. It used to jar me when 3rd edition was called 3.0 or 3.5, just because I am a purist and it isn't software. Not a big deal but the same jarring I get when someone says irregardless instead of regardless.
I didn't mind the 1st edition to second edition changes (In hindsight I do because it looks like a move to block Gygax royalties). I did mind the 2nd to 3rd changes, but then 3rd edition grew on me after a couple of months of playing. 3.5 was a very nice tweak I thought, and Pathfinder good from there. I like tweaks to the rules I know, not rewriting wholesale.
One reason I do not like game rewrites, is I have a very long campaign running. It seemed easier for me to convert my campaign from AD&D ( I always played a 1st/2nd hybrid)to 3rd edition, than from 3rd edition to 4e. I prefer a new edition which allows you to continue with the characters you had previously. I actually found 3rd edition converted AD&D characters rather nicely. It seemed additive. Converting from 3rd edition to 4e seemed subtractive. It felt like I had to make characters LOSE something to fit in the 4e ruleset. Powers were new and added a new aspect, but the characters would all play much differently from the way they were in third edition.
Other than combat being a bit more tactical in 3rd edition, I did not find that to be the case moving from AD&D to 3rd.
|
|
One reason I do not like game rewrites, is I have a very long campaign running. It seemed easier for me to convert my campaign from AD&D ( I always played a 1st/2nd hybrid)to 3rd edition, than from 3rd edition to 4e. I prefer a new edition which allows you to continue with the characters you had previously. I actually found 3rd edition converted AD&D characters rather nicely. It seemed additive. Converting from 3rd edition to 4e seemed subtractive. It felt like I had to make characters LOSE something to fit in the 4e ruleset. Powers were new and added a new aspect, but the characters would all play much differently from the way they were in third edition.
Fair enough. 4e is a highly readical departure from previous versions. Particularly when there weren't that many races and classes available it wouldn't have been very appropriate to convert a long-running campaign to.
Actually, I've found it to be pretty fun and easy to convert 3E stuff to 4E (spells, items, prestige classes to paragon paths) and make it work well. I converted quite a few characters over from 3E to 4E and they've often worked the same or better in what I had intended them to do.
At release it was a bit harder but really, the whole point wasn't to convert your old stuff to new but to create whole new stuff to try. Gain an understanding on how the system works. What's changed from 3E or stayed the same. How classes no differentiate and how their mechanics help immerse you into the game. Once that's done, hopefully with brand new characters and such, you can have an easier time converting previous characters into 4E. Additional supplements are helpful as 4 other classes (Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer) didn't make it into the 1st PHB but "dems da breaks" as they say.
Actually, I've found it to be pretty fun and easy to convert 3E stuff to 4E (spells, items, prestige classes to paragon paths) and make it work well. I converted quite a few characters over from 3E to 4E and they've often worked the same or better in what I had intended them to do.
At release it was a bit harder but really, the whole point wasn't to convert your old stuff to new but to create whole new stuff to try. Gain an understanding on how the system works. What's changed from 3E or stayed the same. How classes no differentiate and how their mechanics help immerse you into the game. Once that's done, hopefully with brand new characters and such, you can have an easier time converting previous characters into 4E. Additional supplements are helpful as 4 other classes (Bard, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer) didn't make it into the 1st PHB but "dems da breaks" as they say.
I understand what you mean. They had no problem helping players convert to third edition though.
My point is why SHOULD I try launching a new campaign. I already have one. It is more fun for me to start new characters in a world affected by the older ones whether they were active in AD&D or 4e. If I wanted to start a new campaign I would start it with another game in another world.
I actually think the advice "we encourage you to make NEW campaigns instead of continuing the old" was one of the bits that made some people skeptical.
The Point was to begin anew, but if I have a Dungeons and Dragons campaign then I should be able to convert it to the new edition of Dungeons and Dragons. I was willing to work with it a bit, then they released 4e Realms which said, NO REALLY we meant it start something new.
I get the point was to start something new. If I wanted to start a new campaign I would have bought another system, or just have run in a new campaign world. It was one objection I had to 4e. If SOMETHING could have fallen in place I could have worked with it. As it turned out, 4e turned out to be everything I did not want.
As an example, I had a STAR WARS campaign taking place inbetween Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars. It was originally d20. Saga came out, and with tweaking, there was no problem. 4e was a tsunami that came that carried the message, time to scrap the old and start NEW.
No thank you. I can make that decision for myself.
I understand what you mean. They had no problem helping players convert to third edition though.
My point is why SHOULD I try launching a new campaign. I already have one. It is more fun for me to start new characters in a world affected by the older ones whether they were active in AD&D or 4e. If I wanted to start a new campaign I would start it with another game in another world.
I actually think the advice "we encourage you to make NEW campaigns instead of continuing the old" was one of the bits that made some people skeptical.
The Point was to begin anew, but if I have a Dungeons and Dragons campaign then I should be able to convert it to the new edition of Dungeons and Dragons. I was willing to work with it a bit, then they released 4e Realms which said, NO REALLY we meant it start something new.
I get the point was to start something new. If I wanted to start a new campaign I would have bought another system, or just have run in a new campaign world. It was one objection I had to 4e. If SOMETHING could have fallen in place I could have worked with it. As it turned out, 4e turned out to be everything I did not want.
As an example, I had a STAR WARS campaign taking place inbetween Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars. It was originally d20. Saga came out, and with tweaking, there was no problem. 4e was a tsunami that came that carried the message, time to scrap the old and start NEW.
No thank you. I can make that decision for myself.
I have a long standing homebrew that goes back to 1st edition myself and whether or not it is difficult to convert must depend a great deal on the various elements within ones homebrew a I found the conversion from 2nd to 3rd very difficult and the conversion from 3rd to 4th very easy.
What got me hung up on the conversion from 2nd to 3rd is that its really 3rd edition that we see a shift in the demographics that undrlie the system and the kinds of stories being told take a shift as well. In 1st edition the stories of worlds like Greyhawk are very human centric. History is about massive migrations, old empires, raiding barbarians etc. But 3rd edition is an edition where half vampires and teiflings are a dime a dozen. The very idea that the Fruztii Barbarians raid south into the Great Kingdom every year completely fade in importance...in fact almost don't make since in a world that so heavily emphasizes demographics full of half vampires. The stories one tells in such a system are not ones so much about holding off or participating in such an annual raiding event but more about the interactions of all these diverse peoples like Aasimar and half Angels.
I found that quite difficult to implement but once I had done so then converting to 4E was a breeze because it, fundamentally, has the same underlying demographic and plot elements as 3rd edition and I had to do relatively little to update my 4E campaign world. Some difficulties in certain campaign specific classes mainly due to how hard it is to write ones own class in 4E but that was pretty much it.
I note that the 4E players that choose to play in Golorion don't seem to have much of an issue doing so nor did Eberron have any real trouble converting. None of this surprises me as these are really 3rd edition campaign worlds and at the most fundamental level of history and culture as well as the kinds of stories being told both 3rd and 4th are pretty much the same and I see both as a significant departure from 1st edition with its worlds that emphasized the same sorts of things that shaped our own history.
+1 Jeremy
For myself, I converted my group (v3.5) to a 4E campaign as soon as it came out. Most were no-brainers as our Cleric of Lathander went to the Cleric of Amaunator and was much better at what he was designed for (healing and buffing with mild melee). My wife's character (sun-elf wizard) was also easy to convert as she became an Eladrin Wizard (wand speciality). My character had a bit harder time. In v3.5 he was a knight 5/ Cleric 2/ Prestige Paladin 2 and it was hard to decide if I wanted to go Fighter or Paladin. In the end I went with a Strength-based paladin.
The hardest one was my friend who was a half-elf Rogue/Swordsage. At that time there was nothing really that worked like what he was doing. He fought with two weapons and was all Dex-based. The rogue was sorta on track but with the Two-Weapon Fighting aspects solely the Ranger track, he had to live with fighting with two weapons 1/encounter by using his Hal-elf racial ability for Twin Strike.
Most of our characters have changed since then as our Cleric changed to a Warpriest (Essentials), my wife's wizard became an Enchanter Mage (essentials), I became the classic Knight (Essentials), and our half-elf rogue/swordsage became an Executioner-Assassin (Essentials). They fit the flavor of our classes pretty well and we're having a blast with the system now. I wish they would've started out with the Essentials products and ramped up to the more power-based classes but what's done is done.
What got me hung up on the conversion from 2nd to 3rd is that its really 3rd edition that we see a shift in the demographics that undrlie the system and the kinds of stories being told take a shift as well. In 1st edition the stories of worlds like Greyhawk are very human centric. History is about massive migrations, old empires, raiding barbarians etc. But 3rd edition is an edition where half vampires and teiflings are a dime a dozen. The very idea that the Fruztii Barbarians raid south into the Great Kingdom every year completely fade in importance...in fact almost don't make since in a world that so heavily emphasizes demographics full of half vampires. The stories one tells in such a system are not ones so much about holding off or participating in such an annual raiding event but more about the interactions of all these diverse peoples like Aasimar and half Angels.
I don't think the demographic shift was nearly as strong as you think it was. I don't think I ever encountered or used a half-vampire in all my years of playing 3.X. The core player races in 3.X are pretty much the same as in 2E.
So certainly you can make a world that has more tieflings and aasimar running around. But you can just as easily run the more human centric game using 3.X if you want. I guess I just don't see where the emphasis shift happened.
I was never able to convert players from 2e to 3e. The guide was utterly useless and in the end, the characters were simply too radically different for it to really work (especially multiclass characters; they were entirely unsalvagable). As far as I was concerned, 3e meant remaking and starting over.
|
As an example, I had a STAR WARS campaign taking place inbetween Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars. It was originally d20. Saga came out, and with tweaking, there was no problem. 4e was a tsunami that came that carried the message, time to scrap the old and start NEW.
As was the 2e to 3e. Sure as noted there was the conversion guide - but your character didn't really work as it did anymore. The mechanics were vastly different. Same situation as we have 3e to 4e. But unlike when they went 2e --> 3e, I decided to play the new game before forming an opinion. As many have said, if you play 4e D&D like 3e you will have issues, play 4e like 4e and its not a bad wee game. I found the same thing when we played 3e like we played 1e/2e - 3e sucked too. Time and experience changed our minds, except at levels 16+ where 3.5e blew apart and was not fun at all (our experience at any rate).
DMing a 4e Essentials only game,
S.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As was the 2e to 3e. Sure as noted there was the conversion guide - but your character didn't really work as it did anymore. The mechanics were vastly different. Same situation as we have 3e to 4e. But unlike when they went 2e --> 3e, I decided to play the new game before forming an opinion. As many have said, if you play 4e D&D like 3e you will have issues, play 4e like 4e and its not a bad wee game. I found the same thing when we played 3e like we played 1e/2e - 3e sucked too. Time and experience changed our minds, except at levels 16+ where 3.5e blew apart and was not fun at all (our experience at any rate).
DMing a 4e Essentials only game,
S.
I originally played this horrible hybrid between AD&D and 3rd edition. Your right it worked terribly, so I knew the rules system well enough I could convert the campaign over rather easily.
I felt 4e was too much of a departure for me to do that. I was quite familiar with the rules by the time I made the decision that 4e did not play right for me. I occasionally play the game, but even if 4e was under a different name than D&D I would play it as casually as I do now. To Most members of my group it felt to much like a skirmish game, and we would either stick with 3rd edition or just find another game to play and leave D&D behind.
People have different experiences, but I felt 3rd edition though it stressed combat more than previous iterations was much closer to the D&D I knew.
FOR ME, 4e did not play the way I was used to playing D&D. 3rd edition even after I shifted from 2nd did. That is the big difference. I was able to make 3rd edition work smoothly even being resistant to the shift. I was unable to make 4e work even while being excited about it. It proved to be very disappointing.
I think one thing that mattered is the classes just changed far to much for my liking. Archer pigeon holed to Ranger (with no spells), Rogue now being a scrapper, everyone with powers like the wizard. It was not the D&D I knew, and I could not get it to work. True, I probably approached it from a 3rd edition percepective. That is the way I found fun to play, and for that 4e did not work. For me since it cannot meet the way I play, it failed. Like WHite Wolf failed for me which has many many players, many of whom I gamed with. I felt more like we were having our confrontation tournaments instead of our RPG sessions.
I am a very story heavy DM, but I also like the game part, that is why I do not direct plays. 4e system did not allow me to tell the stories I wnated to tell.
What got me hung up on the conversion from 2nd to 3rd is that its really 3rd edition that we see a shift in the demographics that undrlie the system and the kinds of stories being told take a shift as well. In 1st edition the stories of worlds like Greyhawk are very human centric. History is about massive migrations, old empires, raiding barbarians etc. But 3rd edition is an edition where half vampires and teiflings are a dime a dozen. The very idea that the Fruztii Barbarians raid south into the Great Kingdom every year completely fade in importance...in fact almost don't make since in a world that so heavily emphasizes demographics full of half vampires. The stories one tells in such a system are not ones so much about holding off or participating in such an annual raiding event but more about the interactions of all these diverse peoples like Aasimar and half Angels.I don't think the demographic shift was nearly as strong as you think it was. I don't think I ever encountered or used a half-vampire in all my years of playing 3.X. The core player races in 3.X are pretty much the same as in 2E.
So certainly you can make a world that has more tieflings and aasimar running around. But you can just as easily run the more human centric game using 3.X if you want. I guess I just don't see where the emphasis shift happened.
I could keep the demographics in 3rd in the same way as its possible to keep the demographics in 4th. Restrict the races allowed in play heavily and don't use material you don't create yourself. I was not willing to do that and if you where to pick up material for Greyhawk written by Paizo in the 3rd edition era it quickly becomes apparent that Paizo presumed such a demographic shift had taken place. The cities being described are chalk full of just such race and class combinations. The people of importance often are in the same boat and the stories being told are not ones about the effects of ancient migrations or the interactions between different ethnic groups.
In fact with the advent of 3rd edition we stop even seeing references to the ethnic background of the peoples in the modules. One does not know if their Flan or Baklunish or what and none of that even matters. The art itself completely ignores ethnicity making almost everyone some kind of generic fantasy white person. In Greyhawk unless your purebred Suloise your not lilly white (and purebreds are practically limited to the Scarlet Brotherhood).
So sure I can make the game support this but it does not come out of the box that way nor can I do so and easily use the material that was being published since that material does not care about ethnicity or the history entwined around ethnicity to the point where it actively ignores such material and, instead, emphasizes the kind of cosmopolitan race and class mixes that became the norm with 3rd and which continues in 4th though its toned down a little as there are no level adjustments in 4th so not as many different racial options and the draw to be half/X for ones character build is not as strong.
|
|
I felt 4e was too much of a departure for me to do that.4e system did not allow me to tell the stories I wnated to tell.
That is your call for sure. But I could just as easily sight things like FORT, REF, WILL saves being too much a departure from 'saving throws', that by having armor start at 10 and go UP, as too much of a departure, removing racial class/level limits, and the list goes on. I guess we all draw our lines in the sand. Could be where you started also - I started on 1e, there will be new people starting with 4e who won't understand at all what a 'saving throw' is.
You state you like 'gamist' side of things and I get that. I don't like the new Warhammer 40k rules, but really liked the 2e rules for this game - same background (at the core) but the 'mechanics' lost me.
One thing I'll never understand, and what you said was also said by a Paizo staff memeber, was that 4e couldn't tell the stories you want to tell. This perplexes me as a story is sort of rules independent. I have put players through the adventure Ravenloft (I5) using 1e, 2e, 3.5e, 4e, True20, Warhammer Fantasy RP 1e & 2e, Chaosium's BRP, Chill, Kult (2e) and Savage Worlds. I told the same story in each game, the only ting was the style of the game changed according to system. But both PF & 4e are HP heavy heroic systems where no one ever runs - for me both are from a story telling point of view identical.
Musings (yet again),
S.
PS: Yes I like Ravenloft...
I felt 4e was too much of a departure for me to do that.4e system did not allow me to tell the stories I wnated to tell.
That is your call for sure. But I could just as easily sight things like FORT, REF, WILL saves being too much a departure from 'saving throws', that by having armor start at 10 and go UP, as too much of a departure, removing racial class/level limits, and the list goes on. I guess we all draw our lines in the sand. Could be where you started also - I started on 1e, there will be new people starting with 4e who won't understand at all what a 'saving throw' is.
You state you like 'gamist' side of things and I get that. I don't like the new Warhammer 40k rules, but really liked the 2e rules for this game - same background (at the core) but the 'mechanics' lost me.
One thing I'll never understand, and what you said was also said by a Paizo staff memeber, was that 4e couldn't tell the stories you want to tell. This perplexes me as a story is sort of rules independent. I have put players through the adventure Ravenloft (I5) using 1e, 2e, 3.5e, 4e, True20, Warhammer Fantasy RP 1e & 2e, Chaosium's BRP, Chill, Kult (2e) and Savage Worlds. I told the same story in each game, the only ting was the style of the game changed according to system. But both PF & 4e are HP heavy heroic systems where no one ever runs - for me both are from a story telling point of view identical.
Musings (yet again),
S.PS: Yes I like Ravenloft...
By Gamist I didn't mean in the sense of the three competing game theories. I actually find 4e perfect for the 'gamist' pigeon hole. I fall on the Simulationist hole. If you view the rules as the 'way the world' works like I do, the 4e world is much different than 3rd edition. To me the world feels much different than AD&D as well.
I can tell the story of King Arthur in any edition of D&D but the WAY i tell it, the way the characters work, the way the conflict work has to be consistent with the rules. I cannot tell the stories I want because the way the 4e world works, does not work for my background, the metaplot. Magic works different. Rangers are divine casters. Many things about it just didn't work.
I simply was not willing to change the way I play, to the play style for which 4e was designed. That is ultimately what did not work.
|
|
Magic works different.
That's where I disagree about 3e being close to 'D&D'. 4e magic (rituals I'm talking here) work far more like 1e AD&D. In 1e the chances of a caster getting a spell off in melee was slim when faced with a armed person. Rituals this is true due to time casting and in 1e it happened because you were defenseless and one hit and the spell was gone. Fair enough that you can't even try to get a ritual off during a battle (well may be). Still the '6-gun shooter cowboy wizard' of 3e is, as you put it, a completely different feel to AD&D.
If you had a specific case where you felt that 4e couldn't do what 3e could I would be interested. I'm not attempting to 'trap' you - but I will see if I can't present a 4e based answer (if you like of course).
S.
Magic works different.That's where I disagree about 3e being close to 'D&D'. 4e magic (rituals I'm talking here) work far more like 1e AD&D. In 1e the chances of a caster getting a spell off in melee was slim when faced with a armed person. Rituals this is true due to time casting and in 1e it happened because you were defenseless and one hit and the spell was gone. Fair enough that you can't even try to get a ritual off during a battle (well may be). Still the '6-gun shooter cowboy wizard' of 3e is, as you put it, a completely different feel to AD&D.
If you had a specific case where you felt that 4e couldn't do what 3e could I would be interested. I'm not attempting to 'trap' you - but I will see if I can't present a 4e based answer (if you like of course).
S.
I agree that 3rd edition magic isn't perfect, but it can do a lot that 4E magic can't even think about doing, and much of what it can do is carried over from earlier editions. The spell lists are far more expansive than what the powers and rituals in 4E cover. Personally, while I understand that 3rd edition magic could use some tweaking as the overall system was designed when rounds were measured in minutes, not seconds, I don't think 4E is really the best solution; it goes too far the other way. There has to be something in between the two that would work just fine.
I agree that 3rd edition magic isn't perfect, but it can do a lot that 4E magic can't even think about doing, and much of what it can do is carried over from earlier editions. The spell lists are far more expansive than what the powers and rituals in 4E cover.
Carried over doesn't mean "same as" though. As someone playing a wizard in a 2e game right now, I can tell you straight out that the class plays radically different then it does in 3e. Small changes can make for incredible differences.
I agree that 3rd edition magic isn't perfect, but it can do a lot that 4E magic can't even think about doing, and much of what it can do is carried over from earlier editions. The spell lists are far more expansive than what the powers and rituals in 4E cover.Carried over doesn't mean "same as" though. As someone playing a wizard in a 2e game right now, I can tell you straight out that the class plays radically different then it does in 3e. Small changes can make for incredible differences.
I agree, but the overall feel of the class was still there, even if the details were different. I have also played a 2nd edition wizard, so I can state this from experience. The spell lists, and other class features, were tweaked from one edition to the other, but not so much that a 2nd edition wizard is entirely unrecognizable from a 3rd edition wizard, which is exactly what happened from 3rd edition to 4th edition for pretty much every single class. Even if they had the same name, a 4E character has nothing in common with a 3rd edition counterpart of the same class. From 2nd edition to 3rd edition, you could at least see that they were somehow related to each other.
Rangers are divine casters.Not in OD&D. And they had wizard spells in AD&D, come to think of it. And of course they're not divine casters in 4th edition - though arguably they could/should have been a primal class.
Also, I'd suggest if you want to tell the King Arthur story in the way it's told in the medieval romances then you'd be better of trying Pendragon. Much more simulationist of those stories than any version of D&D. That is what it's designed to simulate. I'd tend to think most versions of D&D would give far too much access to magic.
I used King Arthur as an example. I have played Pendragon heavily.
I should have properly labeled the Ranger as a casting class, but now I treat them as divine.
As to arguing how close 4e rituals are to 2nd edition spells, they do not seem to me to have the same effects as those spells from 2nd ediiton. I don't know enough about rituals to make a proper analysis because I have not cracked open the 4e PHB since 2009. The rituals though, appear to depart too far from anything but spirit wrack to be an accurate analogy.
Yes casters can be interrupted in casting in 2nd edition, but I do not think Ritual spells are for combat.
...the overall feel of the class was still there, even if the details were different.
It appears that you're trying to argue that the "feel" of the class was objectively different...
Surely ("feel" + "objective" = DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.)?
Edit: It seems self-evident that the "feel" of a class cannot be objectively measured or compared.
...the overall feel of the class was still there, even if the details were different.It appears that you're trying to argue that the "feel" of the class was objectively different...
Surely ("feel" + "objective" = DOES. NOT. COMPUTE.)?
A 2E wizard and a 3E wizard could for the most part do the same things. They used slightly different spells to do so, but assuming you took the time to convert the spells appropriately you could convert a 2E wizard to a 3E wizard and still maintain the overall capabilities. Certain specific builds wouldn't work, but overall, the class remained the same in what it did and how it did it. Same goes for the majority of classes. Going to 4E was a whole different ball game. Casters got shredded, and even the martial classes underwent significant fundamental changes to what they were designed to do and how. Conceptually, it is a completely different game because it makes completely different assumptions at very basic levels. So in this case it is possible to say objectively the feel of the game changed; it did so because the underlying assumptions changed, and with those changes, everything else followed. Going from 2E from 3E, the changes were less conceptual and more surface mechanics.
I've seen plenty of folks who felt that the changes made from 2E to 3E had plenty of impact on how classes were played and the 'feel' of the game.
That I won't dispute, but the classes themselves were not radically changed. The way the classes ultimately interacted with the world, yes, but the classes themselves remained conceptually the same, aside from multiclassing issues. A wizard still had the same overall capabilities, as did the fighter, cleric, and rogue. Because of the changes in other systems, like the multiclassing, feats, tweaking of spells, crafting, and magic items in general, individual builds were positively or negatively impacted, but the overall purpose(s) and role(s) of the four basic classes remained unchanged. The same cannot be said for the switch to 4E.
...So in this case it is possible to say objectively the feel of the game changed...
With all due respect, that is patently nonsensical. "Feel" is by definition subjective.
...So in this case it is possible to say objectively the feel of the game changed...With all due respect, that is patently nonsensical. "Feel" is by definition subjective.
In that case, put whatever word you want in it's place, and try to not focus on a single word, but rather the argument as a whole.
In that case, put whatever word you want in it's place, and try to not focus on a single word, but rather the argument as a whole.
Can you explicitly state the argument using a different word? Because I'm truly unclear on exactly what it is you're trying to say.
It seems like you're trying to argue that 4E "isn't D&D" because it represented an unprecedented mechanical break from all previous editions. And my response to that is "liar, liar, pants on fire!" :P
On the other hand, if you're saying that you prefer pre-4E versions because 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you, then you don't need to make an argument at all -- you're entitled to your opinion.
But "argument" implies objectivity, which is where I'm losing you.
Can you explicitly state the argument using a different word? Because I'm truly unclear on exactly what it is you're trying to say.
It seems like you're trying to argue that 4E "isn't D&D" because it represented an unprecedented mechanical break from all previous editions. And my response to that is "liar, liar, pants on fire!" :P
Why do you automatically assume that mechanically different has to equal "not D&D" in someone else's mind. I will admit that the thought crossed my mind, but "a different branch of D&D" would be far more accurate of a description of what my views have arrived at. By redefining the classes themselves, it set itself on a different trajectory than it's two immediate predecessors. This is by itself a neutral fact. Personally, it's not a trajectory that I want to see as the only trajectory, but I don't wish to see it killed either. I also believe that for WotC to have continued success with it and any future editions, they need to recognize that it is a new trajectory and going back to the old one at this point would be mostly counterproductive.
Why do you automatically assume that mechanically different has to equal "not D&D" in someone else's mind. I will admit that the thought crossed my mind, but "a different branch of D&D" would be far more accurate of a description of what my views have arrived at. By redefining the classes themselves, it set itself on a different trajectory than it's two immediate predecessors. This is by itself a neutral fact. Personally, it's not a trajectory that I want to see as the only trajectory, but I don't wish to see it killed either. I also believe that for WotC to have continued success with it and any future editions, they need to recognize that it is a new trajectory and going back to the old one at this point would be mostly counterproductive.
Did I not open my post by asking what you meant?
"Can you explicitly state the argument using a different word? Because I'm truly unclear on exactly what it is you're trying to say."
Frankly, I'm still wondering what you're trying to say. You keep using words like "fact" and "objective," but all I see is your opinion.
Edit: Perhaps you would find this useful.