I started playing and DMing D&D in 1974. I've played each edition as they came out. I played and DM'd AD&D (1st edition), 2nd Edition AD&D, 3rd Edition D&D and 3.5. I played Basic D&D as well, but never DM'd it. Each edition polished the game. Added to it. But it was recognizably the same game. I never had any great problems adopting my home brew campaign to each new edition. Then came 4E. It didn't seem like the same game. Adapting my campaign would basically mean trashing it out and rebuilding it from the ground up. It seems, to me, that they didn't just make changes to improve the game... they made changes just for the sake of change. To reduce backwards compatibility... or maybe just put their own brand on the name. It might be an OK game, but it's not the same game. I think that's the real problem. people expected some changes / improvements... and they got a different game. If they had hung a different name on it I doubt gamers would have been that upset. It does seen to be oriented towards the "short attention span" crowd. Seems to have deified "balance" in character classes as well, although I'm sure time and splat books will change that. Still, just not my game. I'm moving my game over to Pathfinder. 3.5 with some evolutionary change designed to add to and improve the game. Not just to change it. ymmv.
The Truth About 4th Edition: Part One of Our Exclusive Interview with Wizards of the Coast
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Cain_Zeros said:
Ooh, thanks very much for that, guys. It's very helpful. Haha, the 3rd Edition Unearthed Arcana rules seem hilariously OP'd, but there is a big section on balance which I didn't actually skim. I assume it works okay? I do like this idea of class combinations. Reminds me a little of the way Final Fantasy Tactics works - you pick Jobs, and you can use skills from ONE other Job in addition to your current one. Honestly, I'd love a PnP Final Fantasy Tactics ruleset, too!Alex_P said:
How is it significantly different in terms of core mechanics? The action seems to work the same; it's just they they've streamlined character creation, right? I did play 3.5, but only very briefly, so I'm a little confused as to what you mean. The simplification of ability choices into "powers" is indeed a major overhaul, but it seems more like they've changed the interface for selecting and using abilities rather than overhauling the core mechanic of the game.r_Chance said:
I'd love to hear back with exactly what you mean.
Agreed. 4.0 felt like WoW, while 3.5, even rules heavy, actually gives you the freedom to do ANYTHING. Nice to see I wasn't the only one who sees this. We don't play 4.0, we play 3.5.psrdirector said:
I myself would prefer if they continued supporting 3 and 3.5, and use v4 as a beginner's version for those who would like to step into the game slower. They continue along this line of thinking and D&D will lose its appeal to a lot of people. And on that day I will mourn.
That'd definitely be a topic worth having articles written about. I wish Escapist would try to get someone to explain that, even if it's just their own staff.psrdirector said:
I'd be very tempted to argue that you just need a more creative DM, but it's certainly true that the 3.5/Pathfinder rules do cover more possible situations and circumstances, where the 4th Ed DM has to improvise. I'm not sure if that's good or bad; it means that you can be very badly screwed over in the wrong circumstance unless the DM bends something to help you. It depends how situation-specific you'd want your character to be. But I really find that there's not a huge tradeoff in planning out for a situation which may not happen often.doctorwhofan said:
Haha, that reminds me of my friends and their plan to make a more DnD-esque version of Warhammer 40k. A plan that got scrapped due to sheer laziness. Much like the plan my DM and I had to make a setting based on the Mongol empire.Fenixius said:
What would you have them add to 3.5? It appears to have a staggering amount of supplementary rulebooks. I always considered it to be "done", especially when you factor in the fan-edits like Pathfinder.samsonguy920 said:
The ideas behind 4th Edition are to open it up to newer people. There's nothing wrong with them expanding on that, and evolving the game into something more robust than it is now. 3.5 I just find to be so tedious for character creation. Too many options which are perfect for this one specific kind of fight or situation, and not enough which apply more generically. Does that mean I'm just a noob and I'm not building well enough? Maybe, but why should I have to read two dozen textbooks and experience a half dozen failed characters first, before I can make someone fun and competent?
Honestly, I never played past AD&D, y'know, the one with all the tits in it. But seriously, it just changed to much, I'll happily play NWN but for tabletop, I'll stick with what I know.
Heh, I did look at doing an FFTA-based tabletop game, but there're some problems. I can't reverse-engineer their formulae for combat mechanics and character progression, and it's all PvP which is less interesting for me than a DnD-style game.Cain_Zeros said:
I'm staying way the hell away from the "this version is better than that version" hullaballoo but to say I've been playing D&D since 1981 and have had fun playing no matter which rules version was current. It's about playing and having fun and that's what I've done and will continue to do with D&D or any other game system.
In relation to the article, I was stoked to not only hear the virtual tabletop brought up (I asked a couple of WotC guys about it at PAX'09 and didn't get any real info) and have WotC hint that it still exists and could maybe see the light of day in some format. While I'd rather play face-to-faces at an actual table I think playing against folks worldwide would only add to the roleplaying fun.
In relation to the article, I was stoked to not only hear the virtual tabletop brought up (I asked a couple of WotC guys about it at PAX'09 and didn't get any real info) and have WotC hint that it still exists and could maybe see the light of day in some format. While I'd rather play face-to-faces at an actual table I think playing against folks worldwide would only add to the roleplaying fun.
I'd loooove a virtual tabletop, especially if one were to be distributed under an open source license or a GPL. Ideally, I just want a server program, a set of DM tools to make tokens and give them stats, and to be able to draw lines and move tokens around on a tabletop. Oh, and roll me some dice, of course! Everything I've found is too complicated for the simple needs of lazy DM, and most of it was expensive to boot.TraumaHound said:
Yeah, I think the reverse engineering and tweaking so heavily that it would work in a DnD-style game is a large part of what killed the 40k conversion.Fenixius said:
You know, over everything, I personally like what Paizo did with 3.5 with Pathfinder. It took most of what I like from 4th (even though I do not like 4th as a whole, I will agree that there are some parts that exceeded 3.5) and took the good things from 3.5, put them together and then streamlined a lot of it. It honestly seems like the best of both worlds so I'm completely happy that WotC dropped 3.5 because it means Paizo was able to make it into a better system imo.
I only played a bit with 4th edition and I think it is fine for one-off games but I don't see running a campaign with it.
They were right that 3rd edition DMing is like doing really boring homework, if you go by the rules. And each supplement adds a level of complexity so even a great project like PCGEN [link]http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcgen/[/link] can't make a good UI for it. If Wizards was committed to an electronic product (and not quarter-assing it like with e-tools) then DMing would be much less of a chore. I love writing the fluff but but fitting the crunch into the my fluff was just too much work.
3rd edition kept to the spirit of the old versions while creating a level of rules consistency across the whole system. 4th edition throws everything out the window. The system doesn't respect the 40+ years of PnP history that come with the name; the alignment system, the unnecessary symmetry, the gygagx grudge monsters and the Tolkien ripoffs. To put it another way the guys at Wizards started with their money making motive as directed by their corporate overlords, and built the system around that. And that fact was perfectly clear to anyone who had been with DND since Wizards first released it.
That isn't to say some of the 4th edition ideas aren't good. Like taking the "character" of the monsters and codifying that as a power. And the whole solo monster concept is pretty sharp. But those things could just as easily be added in 3rd edition supplements instead of a whole new system (though that would make less money).
They were right that 3rd edition DMing is like doing really boring homework, if you go by the rules. And each supplement adds a level of complexity so even a great project like PCGEN [link]http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcgen/[/link] can't make a good UI for it. If Wizards was committed to an electronic product (and not quarter-assing it like with e-tools) then DMing would be much less of a chore. I love writing the fluff but but fitting the crunch into the my fluff was just too much work.
3rd edition kept to the spirit of the old versions while creating a level of rules consistency across the whole system. 4th edition throws everything out the window. The system doesn't respect the 40+ years of PnP history that come with the name; the alignment system, the unnecessary symmetry, the gygagx grudge monsters and the Tolkien ripoffs. To put it another way the guys at Wizards started with their money making motive as directed by their corporate overlords, and built the system around that. And that fact was perfectly clear to anyone who had been with DND since Wizards first released it.
That isn't to say some of the 4th edition ideas aren't good. Like taking the "character" of the monsters and codifying that as a power. And the whole solo monster concept is pretty sharp. But those things could just as easily be added in 3rd edition supplements instead of a whole new system (though that would make less money).
They don't necessarily need to add anything to 3.5, just keep those books up for sale. As I said, v4 can be for those who prefer a more basic approach, because they are beginning or just don't have the time to invest in really digging into D&D. I don't prefer v4, in fact I would just as soon use 2nd Ed., but not everybody I know will even have access to those materials. v3-3.5 is a good compromise, and still hangs onto many things that I grew up with in D&D.Fenixius said:
One thing that hasn't really been stressed, even by Wizards though that doesnt surprise me, is that D&D can differ in MMORPG's in one good way: You don't have to upgrade with the newest version or expansion to play. What works for some doesn't necessarily work for others, and that can actually be a good thing.
I've been playing d&d since 1989ish. Every single time this happens. Every. Single. Time. When they come out with a new edition or change things people say they ruined it forever and that it's been dumbed down. I recall when Thac0 was berid of people said that no one will play D&D anymore and it'll die out. Low and behold they sold what was it 30 million copies of the players handbook or something like that?
4th ed is different. Not better, not worse, different. Just like 3/3.5 was from 2nd.
4th ed is different. Not better, not worse, different. Just like 3/3.5 was from 2nd.
I dislike 4th for a variety of reasons, many of which are of the 'already know 3rd too damn well and have all the books' types of reasons. A few are not, however, and they're generally the ones that I feel are more compelling.
Those are the primary reasons that I prefer 3.5 over 4th, but I fully realize it may be a better game for others. I heartily encourage you to try both editions if you can, though. Also, try other pen-and-paper RPGs, some of them can surprise you and give you nice ideas for your next game or character.