|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then by now there should have been a retraction or a correction. In the absence of such, and the high visibility of the conversation, I'll conclude that Mike Mearls said something that could be reasonably interpreted as them paying little attention to playtest results, and Tito reported it in such a way that Mike Mearls feels no need to clarify his intention, suggesting that it is accurate enough to not require clarification.
That seems by far the most likely scenario.
Mohammed al-Fayed has maintained for 15 years that the British Royal Family murdered his son. They have been silent on the matter.
IT MUST BE TRUE!
Or, maybe, just maybe, they consider that responding to such an egregiously self-confessed self-publicist, liar, and criminal (this is a man who took Members of Parliament to court, because he didn't believe he got his money's worth from the bribes he gave them...0_o?) is beneath them, and would not make one blind bit of difference to the conspiracy theorists out there.
In a similar way, you're not going to get game designers with any class getting into a public brawl on the internet. It's a lose-lose situation for them.
You don't have any authority to play the 'no smoke without fire' card.
This is the equivalent of the National Enquirer or Weekly World News declaring that their headlines must be true, since the celebrities don't sue. The reason they don't, is that it's counter-productive. Only fat, idiot trailer trash believe such 'articles', and by tomorrow, they'll have forgotten what they read, and the paper will be fish and chip wrapping. Slapping a writ on them keeps the lies in the public eye.
Unfortunately there are morons out there, who believe silence = confirmation.
Same with groups like Outrage, labelling everyone in the public eye as a closet homosexual.
Silence? HA! I KNEW IT!
Denial? HA! WE GOT HIM RATTLED!
You've chosen to take hearsay, and declare it to be gospel.
Whatever Mearls says, will only strengthen your preconceived stance.
The least you could do is have the integrity to be ashamed of yourself.
I don't think anyone is understanding what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. 4E wasn't successful by whatever metric WotC uses to judge such things, so they released Essentials (a more 1E like 4E). It wasn't successful either, or they wouldn't be announcing a new edition so soon. In what bizzaro world does anyone in their right mind think another go at the 4E rules set with better marketing and a different name will be successful this time? Do you really think they learned so little from the poor reception of 4E that they are going to try to do essentially the same thing for a third time when they know from experience that it does not work?
For what it's worth, I get where you're coming from. It's too soon to just give 4e a "do over", especially since they already did with Essentials. Pathfinder would not have been so widely received if it had popped up 3 years after 3.5 came out.
I don't think D&D Next is going to take completely after any one edition with it's core rules. 4e elements will be present(and I've made peace with this) but so will elements from the other editions. I think a lot of people are overly worrying about "edition preference." I'm hoping it stands as it's own system, and be previous-edition neutral.
|
Unfortunately there are morons out there, who believe silence = confirmation.
Legally silence does not equal assent. Silence does signal that both parties have chosen to agree to disagree and go their separate ways without getting into a big fight where nobody wins except the people who spend all day watching Jerry Springer.
|
For what it's worth, I get where you're coming from. It's too soon to just give 4e a "do over", especially since they already did with Essentials. Pathfinder would not have been so widely received if it had popped up 3 years after 3.5 came out.
The Holmes Basic set popped up 3 years after 0E. It was exceedingly popular, and brought many people into the game.
AD&D popped up only 4 years after 0E, and was undoubtedly the most popular edition of the game to date.
The B/X sets popped up 4 years after the Holmes Basic set.
BECMI popped up only 2 years after the B/X sets.
Oh, and 3.5 popped up only 3 years after 3.0 came out.
|
I don't think anyone is understanding what I'm trying to say, so I'll try again. 4E wasn't successful by whatever metric WotC uses to judge such things, so they released Essentials (a more 1E like 4E). It wasn't successful either, or they wouldn't be announcing a new edition so soon. In what bizzaro world does anyone in their right mind think another go at the 4E rules set with better marketing and a different name will be successful this time? Do you really think they learned so little from the poor reception of 4E that they are going to try to do essentially the same thing for a third time when they know from experience that it does not work?
Well, there's a difference between a new 5e game incorporating elements of 4e that were considered to work, and just rehashing 4e. A rehash with different marketing probably wouldn't work, so I would agree with you on that. But 2e contained (quite a lot) of elements of 1e, and while 3e was a bigger step it still basically had a lot of elements from that too. 4e actually is very similar to 3e is many ways, especially with the d20 mechanic and a lot of combat. I mean, that's what gets people bent out of shape considering whether something "is" D&D. But you also said (or at least strongly implied) that anything with elements from 4e would be doomed to fail, which I just don't agree with. And I'd be very surprised if nothing of 4e is carried over to 5e.
...to create a rule set that enables players of all types and styles to play a D&D game together by taking the best of each edition and getting at the soul of what D&D is
- Mike Mearls.
Just touching briefly on a previous "scuffle." 5E is not going to be a simpler 4E with give-and-take options. It's not going to be AD&D with give-and-take options. The system will be its own entity. It will provide a means of supporting the PLAYSTYLES of previous editions. I believe that's the snag a lot of people are getting caught up on. How a game plays and that game's system aren't one and the same. Saying "I want this game to be playable in a style that provides a similar experience to 4E" is not the same as saying, "I want the game to support 4E mechanics." There are changes coming to the core of the game. Ability scores are going to matter more directly, progression is going to be flatter, magic items are going to be separate from character progression, etc. I think if you approach an entirely new system with the philosophy of trying to make it fit completely a previous edition, it's going to be doomed to craptastic failure. Then you'll have people like me saying, "If you want something that plays exactly like X edition, why not play X edition?" (exactly being the important word in that question)
There's an entire wealth of information over at EN World that answers a great many questions that could serve to smother any speculation-borne arguments that may creep up.
As to 4E Failure/Sales, I'm not going to comment directly on that. All I can say is that Monte Cook has basically said outright they want to mend the split that 4E caused in their fanbase. They want those fans back. Rehashing 4E yet again is not going to work in that regard. Rehashing 3.x is not going to work in that regard.
If you, or anyone else is going to continue to beat the drum of, “4th edition was a colossal failure”, please support your statement with either the clarifier, “in my opinion” or present data from the accounting department of Hasbro to support that it was, in fact, a product failure. AND remember, being out performed, in certain markets or in certain metrics IS NOT an indication of product failure. Only the measure of investment versus return can show if a certain venture was a failure or not (and of course it can become vastly more complicated when you apply more rigorous review to the performance of a product in the greater concepts of brand recognition, market share, or many other delicate, and mostly misunderstood, by us common game playing folk, factors).
Actually, yeah, it is a relative failure, which is what (most) people are talking about. (Can't talk about "colossal" failure, "huge" failure, "massive" failure, or whatever other adjectives certain people might add.)
Not everything is absolute, as much as the internet would like it to be.
It can be reasonably stated that 4e was, indeed, a failure compared to past editions of D&D. This is based both on the absurdly short lifespan of 4e (the shortest of all editions) combined with public statements made by WotC (many linked to in all these threads), and many stated over time, even when 4e was a going concern (see Mearls' past articles).
I, for one, agree with "relative failure", I'm afraid. Sorry if certain people don't like that.
As to 4E Failure/Sales, I'm not going to comment directly on that. All I can say is that Monte Cook has basically said outright they want to mend the split that 4E caused in their fanbase. They want those fans back. Rehashing 4E yet again is not going to work in that regard. Rehashing 3.x is not going to work in that regard.
This has been the impression I've got too - they're principally looking to repair relationships with the fanbase.
.I dont think 4E was a financial failure (the only comments I've seen about sales are that 4E sold well and essentials was a bigger seller than they expected, the red box in particular). I think it's the fragmentation of the fans and the negativity with which 4E and WoTC are viewed which is the true failure they're trying to rectify.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man walks into a game shop carrying 4e corebooks.
"Hello, I wish to register a complaint."
Guy behind the counter;
- "Sorry we're closing for lunch."
"Never mind about that my lad, I wish to complain about this edition of D&D I purchased not a year and a harf ago from this very FLGS."
- "Oh yeah, 4e, what's wrong wiv it?"
"I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's dead, that's what wrong with it."
- "No, no, it's a great success, din' ya know, being outperformed in certain markets is no indicator of failure induced death."
"Look my lad, I know a failed edition when I see one and I'm looking at one right now."
- "No, no, remarkable edition 4e ain't it? Got beautiful balance 'int it?"
"The balance don't enter into it ... it's stone dead."
- "No, no, it's quite normal for editions to be renewed within 3 or 4 years - look at -erm- some wargames."
"Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this, this edition is definitely deceased ... and when I bought this edition not a year and a harf ago, you assured me it's lack of movement from the shelves was just anecdotal evidence and therefore meaningless."
- "Nah, wotc are just trying to expand it's success, by -erm- broadening it's appeal."
"Broadening it's appeal? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat at the table the moment I got it home."
- "Yer 4e's made for a slower pace of game, beautiful edition, lovely balance ain't it?"
"Look matey, this edition is. No. More. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet it's maker. This is a late edition. It's a stiff. Bereft of live, it rests in peace. If you hadn't propped it up on the shelf it'd be pushing up daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-edition."
- "Well ... I suppose I'd better replace it then."
"To get anything done in this field you have to complain till you're blue in the face."
Oh Snap!
It's probable that you broke some rules with that post, but by God it was necessary and well said. I applaud you.
FICTION
You may want to look that up.
Also, speaking repeatedly does not make a statement true.
It can be reasonably stated that 4e was, indeed, a failure compared to past editions of D&D. This is based both on the absurdly short lifespan of 4e (the shortest of all editions) combined with public statements made by WotC (many linked to in all these threads), and many stated over time, even when 4e was a going concern (see Mearls' past articles).
Also, also, 4E has lasted longer than 3.0, and will be around at least as long as 3.5. If you'll recall, WotC made many public statements about the specific failures of 3.5, many more statements in fact than they've made about 4E. I doubt they consider 4E any more of a failure than they consider 3.5. Unless you count that unfortunate OGL business.
4E was a failure financially to me because it did not appeal to me enough to spend money on it, even though I have books for the previous 3 editions. The only reason we even have the two 4E Player's Handbooks in the house is because my teenage stepson wanted them and thought he could get someone to play, which he hasn't except at a couple of conventions. Neither his mother nor I liked the system after looking at it, even though we have each been into gaming for 20+ years, with both of us feeling it was too different from previous editions and way too much like playing an MMORPG.
I also do not believe 5E will just be a rehash of 4E rules that are specific to that edition or there would not be a playtest for it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would be awesome? If we split a few more hairs and argue some more about whether 4E was a failure. I'm sure both someone in this thread is just that close to proving forever that his opinion is the correct one...
@Rockheimer: Yes incoporating your point into a Monty Python sketch makes your point true... No wait?
@Jerry wright: really WOTC bring out new editions and then don't support the older ones!! This can't be true!
@Enevour Aldarion: Yes it a video game... I agree that 5e/ DND next will be a new system, I'm really looking forward to being involved in the playtest.
@bugleyman... ROFL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Rockheimer: Yes incoporating your point into a Monty Python sketch makes your point true... No wait?
And there was me trying to make with the funny. Let normal *very serious business* resume.
You know what would be awesome? If we split a few more hairs and argue some more about whether 4E was a failure. I'm sure both someone in this thread is just that close to proving forever that his opinion is the correct one...
Now you're getting with the program. ;-)
|
Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition was as successful as Hasbro needed it to be, and a revision of the game is not derived from its perceived success or failure, but for reason most of us only guess at.
Well quite frankly, I don't see any reason why a corporation would do something as costly and controversial as making yet another edition of D&D unless the current edition isn't making enough money to meet whatever goals they set for it. Do you really think they are going to make a new edition just because the designers feel like it or because a lot of people like that new Pathfinder game? That's just not going to happen. 4E split the community and cost them a lot of customers. They have to bring in enough customers that left (and maybe some new ones) to make D&D a big enough seller to meet Hasbro's goal for the brand or it's goodbye official D&D as a roelplaying game, and hello D&D shelved and mined for IP.
For what it's worth, I get where you're coming from. It's too soon to just give 4e a "do over", especially since they already did with Essentials. Pathfinder would not have been so widely received if it had popped up 3 years after 3.5 came out.The Holmes Basic set popped up 3 years after 0E. It was exceedingly popular, and brought many people into the game.
AD&D popped up only 4 years after 0E, and was undoubtedly the most popular edition of the game to date.
The B/X sets popped up 4 years after the Holmes Basic set.
BECMI popped up only 2 years after the B/X sets.
Oh, and 3.5 popped up only 3 years after 3.0 came out.
Wait, so I'm wrong? Sweeet! Thanks man, don't know how I would have got through the day without knowing those details. Here's your trophy for table-top gaming data retention.
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?
My bad, I was an infant when the early versions of D&D were out. The cute part of 3.0 and 3.5 is they both have that little "3" in the front. Funny that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well quite frankly, I don't see any reason why a corporation would do something as costly and controversial as making yet another edition of D&D unless the current edition isn't making enough money to meet whatever goals they set for it. Do you really think they are going to make a new edition just because the designers feel like it or because a lot of people like that new Pathfinder game? That's just not going to happen. 4E split the community and cost them a lot of customers. They have to bring in enough customers that left (and maybe some new ones) to make D&D a big enough seller to meet Hasbro's goal for the brand or it's goodbye official D&D as a roelplaying game, and hello D&D shelved and mined for IP.
New editions are part of the cycle of the gaming industry - it forces people to buy new product if they want to get with the new thing. This happens in plenty of other games too. I'll admit, this seems a bit fast, though not necessarily incredibly so. And I also agree that healing the split (also known as stealing back Paizo's customers) is probably on their agenda too - it's been said as such. But we don't know what Hasbro's or WotC's goals are for the brand, or whether it has hit them.
|
|
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?
Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.
|
|
As someone who doesn't play 4E, I'm talking out of my a$!@+!%* here, but it's my impression that Essentials basically jst introduced alternate versions of some of the classes. Much like the APG did for Pathfinder (via archtypes). And I don't think anyone here seriously considers the APG to be Pathfinder 2E.
I still find all the claims by posters here that 4E killed their puppy fairly amusing.
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.
Not a new edition per se(or even a .5), but it did serve as a "do-over" in my opinion for 4e. That's why I don't think 5e is going to be purposely built to resemble 4e, since they already tried a new approach with that specific system very recently.
I still hold my opinion that it's not going to built to resemble any one edition at all, although fans of particular edition will find the parts inspired by their favorite edition more noticeable. I truly hope it does come out as "edition neutral" with the fiddly bits all being secondary modules.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.
Now we're down to parsing editions?
"3.5 isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 3.x brought out earlier, only a few elements were redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 2nd Ed to 3.x change introduced more changes that [sic] 3.5 did to 3.0"
Seriously. I expect 5e to contain elements of 4.x as well as previous editions. I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.As someone who doesn't play 4E, I'm talking out of my a!+*~#@* here, but it's my impression that Essentials basically jst introduced alternate versions of some of the classes. Much like the APG did for Pathfinder (via archtypes). And I don't think anyone here seriously considers the APG to be Pathfinder 2E.
I still find all the claims by posters here that 4E killed their puppy fairly amusing.
Good thing I didn't make any claims about my puppies in particular. Hell, I've been talking in support of 4e for a while here, so take your bemusing elsewhere.
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.Now we're down to parsing editions?
"3.5 isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 3.x brought out earlier, only a few elements were redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 2nd Ed to 3.x change introduced more changes that [sic] 3.5 did to 3.0"
Seriously. I expect 5e to contain elements of 4.x as well as previous editions. I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
Apparently we're counting every revision, errata, and printing as completely separate editions now. I have to keep a notepad handy to keep the dates straight(and I still fail).
Not sure that it's fair to consider 3.5 a new "edition." At worst, I think you could just call it a money grab.
|
|
I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
It is gonna be bigger than what we have seen in the past I imagine, but not Pathfinder sized. They have said that every class that was in a first PHB for any edition will be in the 5e PHB 1 so it will be big. However, I am also fairly certain there will be a separate DMG which will prevent it from reaching the prodigious size of the Pathfinder core rule tome.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
All IMHO of course.
I don't mind 'revised' systems, which is what 3.5 is to 3.9 (and apparently essentials is to 4.0) Vampire got better (to me) with each 'revision') (Though it's now called 3rd on drivethrurpg)
Major changes in mechanics rate more the 'edition' change to me. BECMI to AD&D is an 'edition' 2e to 3e is an 'edition' 3e to 4e is an 'edition' If Pathfinder 2 is just cleaning and clarification of rules it's a 'revision' if it's new mechanics, it's an edition.
I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?It is gonna be bigger than what we have seen in the past I imagine, but not Pathfinder sized. They have said that every class that was in a first PHB for any edition will be in the 5e PHB 1 so it will be big. However, I am also fairly certain there will be a separate DMG which will prevent it from reaching the prodigious size of the Pathfinder core rule tome.
Hopefully. If they pull this PHB1, PHB2, PHB3 crap again, I think they're gonna hamstring themselves.
Apparently we're counting every revision, errata, and printing as completely separate editions now. I have to keep a notepad handy to keep the dates straight(and I still fail).And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.Now we're down to parsing editions?
"3.5 isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 3.x brought out earlier, only a few elements were redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 2nd Ed to 3.x change introduced more changes that [sic] 3.5 did to 3.0"
Seriously. I expect 5e to contain elements of 4.x as well as previous editions. I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
It'll get really scary when you add in all of the innumerable houserules many gamers, if not all, throw int to add flavor. That would mean that the number of editions are so mind boggling as to defy reason!
What I see is coming is same game, new mechanics, same b!!&#es and gripes made with every new edition released.
As for the OP, I will say that I am immensely intrigued by the idea of the ability to have "super detail rules' running side by side with 'rules light' rules.
|
|
And besides that, didn't Essentials just come out a year or two ago?Essentials isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 4e brought out earlier, only a few of the character classes are redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 3.0 to 3.5 change introduced more changes that Essentials did to 4e.Now we're down to parsing editions?
"3.5 isn't a new edition. It's fully compatible with the version of 3.x brought out earlier, only a few elements were redesigned. So there's less than meets the eye to that, especially considering the 2nd Ed to 3.x change introduced more changes that [sic] 3.5 did to 3.0"
Seriously. I expect 5e to contain elements of 4.x as well as previous editions. I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
3.5 is not fully compatible with 3.0. For example, spell effects with the same name in 3.5 work differently to 3.0. Character classes with the same name work differently. There are multiple ways in which 3.5 differs from 3.0. Essentials, on the other hand, uses exactly the same rules as the 4e issued from the start. The difference is that some classes have been amended, but even these are strictly speaking new character classes rather than changes to the old ones (which still exist, and have not been superseded). The character generator has both sets of classes, Essentials and non-Essentials, in it and they work seamlessly together. Unlike with 3.0 and 3.5. And 3.5 is hardly errata to 3.0 - you don't normally have to re-buy rulebooks to get the errata.
|
|
All IMHO of course.
I don't mind 'revised' systems, which is what 3.5 is to 3.9 (and apparently essentials is to 4.0) Vampire got better (to me) with each 'revision') (Though it's now called 3rd on drivethrurpg)
Major changes in mechanics rate more the 'edition' change to me. BECMI to AD&D is an 'edition' 2e to 3e is an 'edition' 3e to 4e is an 'edition' If Pathfinder 2 is just cleaning and clarification of rules it's a 'revision' if it's new mechanics, it's an edition.
Does it really matter? If you've got to buy a new rulebook, you've still spent the money irrespective of any definitional niceties.
Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?
Argh, I hope not. Don't get me wrong, having a comprehensive PHB would be awesome, but the CRB is a bit much. In hindsight I really wish Paizo had gone with the traditional three-book setup used by D&D.
|
|
Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?Argh, I hope not. Don't get me wrong, having a comprehensive PHB would be awesome, but the CRB is a bit much. In hindsight I really wish Paizo had gone with the traditional three-book setup used by D&D.
I do too. Then maybe the covers would not have fallen off my copy.
|
|
This is what Monte Cooke said on the subject.Hopefully. If they pull this PHB1, PHB2, PHB3 crap again, I think they're gonna hamstring themselves.I'll be curious to see a) how big the PHB is and b) how much it is. Will it be a Pathfinder sized tome?It is gonna be bigger than what we have seen in the past I imagine, but not Pathfinder sized. They have said that every class that was in a first PHB for any edition will be in the 5e PHB 1 so it will be big. However, I am also fairly certain there will be a separate DMG which will prevent it from reaching the prodigious size of the Pathfinder core rule tome.
To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.
|
They're replacing it. It MUST be a financial failure. Just like 3.5, 3.0, 2E, BECMI, B/X, AD&D, Holmes Basic, and Original D&D were all replaced.
Here's sort of the difference. The OD&D to Rules Cyclopedia (1974 - 199?) were pretty much continuations and refurbishments of the same game. 1E to 3.5 (1977 - 2008) were pretty much continuations and refurbishments of the same game (and, yeah, 3x is a lot different than 1e, but is similar in a lot of ways to 2e with skills and powers). And it was relatively easy to convert from one edition to the next.
4e breaks both of those chains. WotC pretty much told everyone to just start over. They never offered a handy conversion guide like they did with 2e to 3x. Part of this was because the mechanics are too dissimilar to really emulate a 3x character in 4e terms. But I'm pretty sure part of it was to erase a lot of backward compatibility and OGL issues.
My long running 1e campaign was fairly easy to convert to 3x. Spell casters more or less worked the same, rogues, rangers and druids just had to update their class features to skills and feats for the most part, fighters and paladins were weakened but not difficult to convert, clerics were pretty much the same but got more powerful, sorcerers and bards were new, but not a problem, monks still sucked but I rarely used them anyway, so no biggie. I mean, seriously, and I've heard this a lot from some old schoolers, 3x just codified a bunch of stuff we were already doing anyway.
I would have had to completely redo my whole campaign world to fit 4e assumptions and, as I'm not some dude in his teens or twenties with a bunch of free time and little social life, I didn't feel like the time investment to do so was worth any benefit that may have come from it. So, all I ever did was play it on occasion, but never fully embraced the system.
So, they may not have kicked a puppy, but they did kick my homebrew in the balls, and it kept me away, for the most part.
|
|
1E to 3.5 (1977 - 2008) were pretty much continuations and refurbishments of the same game
No. 2E was a continuation / refurbishment of 1E. 3E was in most ways a completely new animal. It was at least as different from 1E/2E as 4E is from 3.X. To imply otherwise is you marginalizing away differences for the sole purpose of supporting your argument.
|
|
3E was in most ways a completely new animal. It was at least as different from 1E/2E as 4E is from 3.X.
Totally agree. In fact I boycotted 3.0 entirely and spent a few years boycotting 3.5 because of the vast differences between 2E and 3E. AC had been turned bassakward, THAC0 was gone, what were these things called feats, skills were now an integral part of the game, etc. In fact it was the experience of being so wrong with my boycott of 3.0 that made me decide to try 4E despite the changes. While 4e did not become my edition of choice, I still prefer Pathfinder, I do enjoy playing 4E. Change is not a four letter word people. Besides 4E is going the way of Star Frontiers, so lets stop rehashing the same old arguments and give D&D Next a chance.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To say that 3x is "as different from 1/2e as 4e is from everything" smacks of a statement from someone who didn't start playing in '79 and didn't convert a 15 year old homebrew with little difficulty to 3x. They changed the rules, but they didn't change many of the assumptions, other than wizards became too powerful.
4e is nothing like earlier iterations. Almost no character builds can be directly converted. They use some of the same terms, but the concepts are a radical departure from anything that came before.
Dude, stop. You are just picking a fight now, and, frankly, it's getting old. Because, you know, a bunch of older gamers happen to agree with my assessment, which is why a bunch of 1e players came back after rejecting the dumbed down, image friendly crap that was 2e. 3x brought back the spirit of the game we cut our teeth on, even if it did change a few of the mechanics.
It was at least as different from 1E/2E as 4E is from 3.X. To imply otherwise is you marginalizing away differences for the sole purpose of supporting your argument.
Utter nonsense.
|
|
To say that 3x is "as different from 1/2e as 4e is from everything" smacks of a statement from someone who didn't start playing in '79 and didn't convert a 15 year old homebrew with little difficulty to 3x. They changed the rules, but they didn't change many of the assumptions, other than wizards became too powerful.
4e is nothing like earlier iterations. Almost no character builds can be directly converted. They use some of the same terms, but the concepts are a radical departure from anything that came before.
Dude, stop. You are just picking a fight now, and, frankly, it's getting old. Because, you know, a bunch of older gamers happen to agree with my assessment, which is why a bunch of 1e players came back after rejecting the dumbed down, image friendly crap that was 2e. 3x brought back the spirit of the game we cut our teeth on, even if it did change a few of the mechanics.
I agree with Houstonderek on this one. Only thing that got a little difficult in conversion from AD&D 1 and 2 to D&D 3 were some of the multi-classed characters, and even that was reasonably doable, without changing the feel of the character too much. D&D 3.5, required some updates and minor changes to existing characters in 3.0-- and retirement of a couple of characters whose concept/build got "nerfed" by some of the changes. I don't remember doing any direct conversions of characters from original D&D to AD&D 1, but I still look at the books, remember some of the games played-- and it seems to me that original D&D still stands in play and feel with the lineage from OD&D up through D&D 3.5.
However, couldn't convert anything to 4E and have it retain the same "feel" as it had in editions going all the way back to AD&D 1E. I realize some people's experiences may be different, but mine was that it was a completely different game. I played D&D going all the way back to Original D&D-- and the "feel" of the game remained more or less on a common thread (although not necessarily identical) up through D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder-- but not 4E. 4E feels like a completely different game to me (even though mechanically, there are some similarities that some folks have pointed out-- don't restart the flames on that, please).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game preference is just that...a preference. Arguing about it is a waste of time. Even if there were some value in trying to decide whether 4E was a failure, the first thing one would have to do is to define precisely what one means by "failure." Sales projections? Customer preference? Project strategy? Pointless.
I would love to see 5E be a fantastic success. I'd love to see Pathfinder continue to be one. Seeking validation in the failure of one or the other is just sad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the record, I'll be picking up 5E. I'll also be picking up Pathfinder 2E, whenever it arrives. I love RPGs, and want the industry to thrive.
3E was in most ways a completely new animal. It was at least as different from 1E/2E as 4E is from 3.X.Totally agree. In fact I boycotted 3.0 entirely and spent a few years boycotting 3.5 because of the vast differences between 2E and 3E. AC had been turned bassakward, THAC0 was gone
Converting 2E -> 3E was an easy undertaking. The only "pieces don't fit" scenario were the old dual/multi-class rules vs. the 3.x multi-class rules. When I say this, I mean a 14 Fighter / 16 Mage / 19 Cleric was nowhere near the same power level going from 2nd to 3rd. That's actually one of the things I missed most about 2E and disliked about 3E. I'm not saying 2E's system was perfect, but it had a much higher ceiling, which meant longer lasting characters (especially given the highly volatile nature of high level range play in 3rd).
As to the AC/THAC0 comment, it irks me. They changed it from subtraction to addition. That's it. No earth-shattering change, no system-breaking departure. See that 10 AC? Add to it instead of subtracting. By the same token, I want to beat my head off a desk when people complain about "how complicated" THAC0 was. IT'S SUBTRACTION! SUUUBTRACTION! Lordamighty.
Game preference is just that...a preference. Arguing about it is a waste of time. Even if there were some value in trying to decide whether 4E was a failure, the first thing one would have to do is to define precisely what one means by "failure." Sales projections? Customer preference? Project strategy? Pointless.
I would love to see 5E be a fantastic success. I'd love to see Pathfinder continue to be one. Seeking validation in the failure of one or the other is just sad.
I concur! Competition breeds success breeds competition breeds success. 5E being a wild success will only push Paizo to churn out another awesome product in the future. Being at the top of the food chain with no real challenge will result in stagnation a lot of times. I'd rather have a lively market of equally viable choices.