The divide between 3rd vs 4th Players

Reading over the play test threads I've observed some tendencies among players of different editions.

3rd Edition People
*Have less issue with the Mind's Eye
*Have less issue with GM's making calls
*Like more skills
*Prefer more character options

4th Edition People 
*Like faster play with clearer rules
*Like less rolls 
*Dislike heal-bot Clerics and linear Fighters
*Like more teamwork
*Like less locked in rolls
*Like there character to be special heroes

It seems to me the major disconnect between these two groups is how much they value:

1.  fast, clear play without argument vs more free form game play 
2.  If each encounter should find the party "fresh" vs a slow drain of a party's resources
   2b:  Traditional Use per day (Vancian) powers vs newer systems like per encounter
3.  Equalizing the classes vs giving everyone a nitch/style
4.  Minds Eyes style vs Grid Map style of combat
5.  How much spotlight is put on the PC


Would you disagree?  Are there any other major divides between the two groups?
This can't possibly go badly.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
*Like more skills


I know I can't feel good about a character until I know they're experts in Underwater Basket Weaving.
This can't possibly go badly.



No worse than other threads.  

I'm not saying one side's opinion is right or wrong.  I'm just trying to get an idea of the divide that D&DNext is trying to bridge.  You need to identify what you goal is after all before you can hope to achieve it.
This is going ot be entertaining. In all seriousness though, one of the things I like in 4e is the cutting down of skills into the essentials - I always thought 3e had a uselessly large # of skills - great ideas were combineing Spellcraft/UMD/Knowledge(Arcana) into Arcana and combining Spot/Search into perception.
*Like more skills


I know I can't feel good about a character until I know they're experts in Underwater Basket Weaving.



When you get to the Underwater Basket dungeon you'll regret not having put points into it!
This is going ot be entertaining. In all seriousness though, one of the things I like in 4e is the cutting down of skills into the essentials - I always thought 3e had a uselessly large # of skills - great ideas were combineing Spellcraft/UMD/Knowledge(Arcana) into Arcana and combining Spot/Search into perception.



Yea, it did seem like 3rd was in an odd place where it wasn't streamlined enough to speed up game play but not nuanced enough justify some of its complexity but in its defense the idea was to give the rogue some depths since part of their identify was that they were "The Skill Class".

So would you include the way 3rd and 4th edition people view the Rogue?
One major division I see is those who play with a battlemap and those who do not. This division is not unique to any one edition. In part it comes from those who want to insure theater of the mind gameplay and not bog down in maps, squares and numbers. The major problem is producing a system that fully utilizes battlemap mechanics while also encouraging creativity. Generally speaking when the battlemap is out people drift toward numbers and away from imagination. 


Don't you know by now that even admitting there is a divide could be construed as so-called "edition warring" and is therefore badwrongfun? Seriously, though, this thread is actually worthwhile, which means it's only a matter of time before people fill it up with nonsense, flaming, trolling, and moderation.


I'd like to say I do think that you are on the mark on a lot of your points, though I personally enjoy the shorter skill list 4th/PF introduced, as well as some of the 4th edition ideas on monster design. I also actually prefer the battlemat for shorter-range battles and use ToTM for large battles/cinematic combats. A battlemat being used when the party is separated by several hundred yards, each pair of them fighting 5-6 monsters while the entire party is mouynted moving at 100' per move is not practical.
Color me flattered.

LIFE CYCLE OF A RULES THREAD

Show
Thank_Dog wrote:

2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I think that if you have to argue to convince others about the clarity of something, it's probably not as objectively clear as you think.

No, what it means is that some people just like to be obtuse.

Without being smug or anything, I'd like to bring up the current 4e campaign I'm running using Google+ Hangout (It's like skype, but for conference calls and free). 

We don't use a battlemat at all - it's totally theatre of the mind. Occasionally, I use Google+'s screenshare function to show a crude map I draw or a picture of a monster/NPC, but it's 90% description and imagination - we have an sbsolute blast, and 2 of the 4 players have never played any RPG before. We had 1 session in person, using the battlemat, and it went just as smoothly, but nobody felt they "needed it" or that it was essential to the gameplay.
This is going ot be entertaining. In all seriousness though, one of the things I like in 4e is the cutting down of skills into the essentials - I always thought 3e had a uselessly large # of skills - great ideas were combineing Spellcraft/UMD/Knowledge(Arcana) into Arcana and combining Spot/Search into perception.



Yea, it did seem like 3rd was in an odd place where it wasn't streamlined enough to speed up game play but not nuanced enough justify some of its complexity but in its defense the idea was to give the rogue some depths since part of their identify was that they were "The Skill Class".

So would you include the way 3rd and 4th edition people view the Rogue?



The weird think is with 3rd ed, I never felt so straved for skill points as when I played a rogue. Yes the received the most skill points by far. I think some of the problem was that  certain players looked to the rogue to do everything, you needed to be the sneaky guy, the trap guy, and the diplomat/espionage guy, usualy all at once.  I never actualy played a rogue in 4E, but the rogues in the games I have played in didn't seem to have this issue.

For D&D next I hope that themes migh span between classes to some point so you can fufill an out of combat role with out gettign she horned inot a single class.

On the skills. While I liked a smaller set of skills, I agreed with athletics, but not Thievery.

Picking Pockets and Undoing traps are completely different skills. One requires knowledge of locks and how they work on top of the nature of using tools to undo that mechanical contraption. The same with disarming traps and palming an object. Had they combined using say Disable and Slight of Hand with Disable applying to traps and locks, while Slight of Hand covers picking of pockets and palming small objects.

It made it impossible for a character that knew nothing about traps and locks, but knew how to lift someone's purse, or palm an Ace to cheat at cards.

While I do agree that the 3.5 skills could be pared down, I think 4e did it too much.

While I can't deny Clearer rules in 4e, an argument can be made against faster play with how long combats lasted.

Also, teamwork has been in every edition of D&D in various degrees.

Basically you are making a bunch of bad assumptions. I will tell you right now when I first read 4e I liked what they did with it, but in play it felt far too gamist and not like the D&D I grew up with. But there were a ton of great ideas for instance, putting the fighter on par with the wizard. Just because I prefer 3.5 doesn't mean I like linear fighters.

So the entire premise of your thread is wrong just based on the assumptions you have made.
One major division I see is those who play with a battlemap and those who do not. This division is not unique to any one edition. In part it comes from those who want to insure theater of the mind gameplay and not bog down in maps, squares and numbers. The major problem is producing a system that fully utilizes battlemap mechanics while also encouraging creativity. Generally speaking when the battlemap is out people drift toward numbers and away from imagination. 





Without being smug or anything, I'd like to bring up the current 4e campaign I'm running using Google+ Hangout (It's like skype, but for conference calls and free). 

We don't use a battlemat at all - it's totally theatre of the mind. Occasionally, I use Google+'s screenshare function to show a crude map I draw or a picture of a monster/NPC, but it's 90% description and imagination - we have an sbsolute blast, and 2 of the 4 players have never played any RPG before. We had 1 session in person, using the battlemat, and it went just as smoothly, but nobody felt they "needed it" or that it was essential to the gameplay.



Yes I agree that is a common divide.  I think I'll add that to the list.

Well I think the battle map really comes down to how good your DM with it.  The battle map is great for tactics but only really comes alive when you have a DM who is willing to really utilize the map.  When the DM draws a lot on the map I find it encourages creativity, while games which are little more then rooms with grids tend to be stale.

Rex's Illustrated Theater style as I like to call it seems be a pretty common compromise.  My group bought a electronic clip board just for this purpose and it works really well allowing the GM to sketch out a rough estimation and leaving it the middle of the table if anyone needs to reference.  I haven't heard anyone complain about this style, but not to many people seem excited about it they way they do when you bring up total imagination vs all grid all the time.
So the entire premise of your thread is wrong just based on the assumptions you have made.



Well while I'm glad you keep an open mind about 3rd vs 4th, I'm afraid you are mistaken here.

The premise is the two groups have some fundamental differences.  That premise is not based on assumptions but observable facts, my conclusions on what those divides generally are is just a hypothesis, based the general discussions going on across the board and of course probably includes some assumptions based on my personal experience.  That is why I invited disagreement and discussion.  If those assumptions are wrong I'm happy to be enlightened.

On the subject of teamwork for example you seem to think I'm saying some players want team work vs other who don't.  I believe most people agree team work is important to the game, however there seems to be a large divide in option on how much team work should be required as well as what the nature of that teamwork should be.  IE:  The disagreement over Healbot cleric.

Further we might all agree something is a problem, like linear fights, but some might be perfectly willing to live with the problem if they have the choose between it and something.  IE:  I've heard many people say they would prefer linear fighters over watered down wizards.

Agreeing on a problem but disagreeing on the solution is itself be a divide and a major source of disagreement.
So the entire premise of your thread is wrong just based on the assumptions you have made.



Well while I'm glad you keep an open mind about 3rd vs 4th, I'm afraid you are mistaken here.

The premise is the two groups have some fundamental differences.  That premise is not based on assumptions but observable facts, my conclusions on what those divides generally are is just a hypothesis, based the general discussions going on across the board and of course probably includes some assumptions based on my personal experience.  That is why I invited disagreement and discussion.

On the subject of teamwork for example you seem to think I'm saying some players want team work vs other who don't.  I believe most people agree team work is important to the game, however there seems to be a large divide in option on how much team work should be required as well as what the nature of that teamwork should be.  IE:  The disagreement over Healbot cleric.

Further we might all agree something is a problem, like linear fights, but some might be perfectly willing to live with the problem if they have the choose between it and something.  IE:  I've heard many people say they would prefer linear fighters over watered down wizards.



I agree with you in concept even if a lot of people here are refuting your examples. In all my lurking here I've noticed that it is something these people are terrible at (seeing your point and fixating on discrediting examples). 

Overall I do not think Wizards can realistically make both groups happy. Some of things are mutually exclusive regardless of that WotC marketing thinks they should be saying about it.

Well there are more editions than 3rd and 4th but lets not go there.

Anyway the main difference between the 3 (the earlier editions are so close in view that it is fair to lump them together) groups is the main feel of how the player roleplays their character.

AKA Spotlight Control

4E fans want the spotlight to shine on their about once an encounter or every other encounter. Character must manually choose to or be build to be in the background. Each character is given a job or role in order to have a purpose for being there.

3E fans want the spotlight to not ignore them when the time to shine comes. They don't require limelight in every scene. They just want a scene or encounter with their name on it and have no one say no when it comes.

Pre-3E fans want the spotlight to swing organically based on how the DM feels. The DM is entrusted to make sure each character get some time in the limelight. What happens, happens.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!


I agree with you in concept even if a lot of people here are refuting your examples. In all my lurking here I've noticed that it is something these people are terrible at (seeing your point and fixating on discrediting examples). 

Overall I do not think Wizards can realistically make both groups happy. Some of things are mutually exclusive regardless of that WotC marketing thinks they should be saying about it.



Well you can't make 100% of the people happy all the time, but the hope is if they can at least make something that would make most people happy.  I'm not the biggest fan of 2e for example but I do find it playable and can have fun in a 2E game if that is what the group wants to play.  A lot of 3E and 4E people won't even agree to alternate between the two.

Well there are more editions than 3rd and 4th but lets not go there. Anyway the main difference between the 3 (the earlier editions are so close in view that it is fair to lump them together) groups is the main feel of how the player roleplays their character. AKA Spotlight Control 4E fans want the spotlight to shine on their about once an encounter or every other encounter. Character must manually choose to or be build to be in the background. Each character is given a job or role in order to have a purpose for being there. 3E fans want the spotlight to not ignore them when the time to shine comes. They don't require limelight in every scene. They just want a scene or encounter with their name on it and have no one say no when it comes. Pre-3E fans want the spotlight to swing organically based on how the DM feels. The DM is entrusted to make sure each character get some time in the limelight. What happens, happens.



I agree there are more then just 3rd and 4th but uniting those two groups seems to be the main thrust of 5th.

Hmm that is certainly and interesting break down of 3rd vs 4th mentality and the whole spotlight mentality.  I guess that one escaped me because my particular group tends to treat our games like live MST3K sessions and has as much fun when someone botches epically and laughter breaks out as when someone goes all BA and takes out a boss in one hit so we tend to care less about spotlight then most groups probably do.
I think the real divide is between 1E/2E and 3.5/PF/4E-- rules-light, very mortal characters of the traditional races and classes vs. heavily customizable, heroic characters of possibly more exotic classes and especially races.

These seem like fundamental differences to me, while the 3vs4 conflicts are more like disagreements in how to express similar types of characters, IMO.
Reading over the play test threads I've observed some tendencies among players of different editions.

3rd Edition People
*Have less issue with the Mind's Eye
*Have less issue with GM's making calls
*Like more skills
*Prefer more character options

4th Edition People 
*Like faster play with clearer rules
*Like less rolls 
*Dislike heal-bot Clerics and linear Fighters
*Like more teamwork
*Like less locked in rolls

It seems to me the major disconnect between these two groups is how much they value:

1.  fast, clear play without argument vs more free form game play 
2.  If each encounter should find the party "fresh" vs a slow drain of a party's resources
3.  Equalizing the classes vs giving everyone a nitch/style
4.  Minds Eyes style vs Grid Map style of combat

Would you disagree?  Are there any other major divides between the two groups?



I belive you are missing something.

Dm's role and character place into the world.

For the character 4th edition gives as an assumption that your character is special, he is a hero, well above common people. In 3rd edition this is false. And is even less true going in previous edition.

As for the dm I cannot say well, given the very short experience I had with fourth edition, yet from what I read the game relied more on good dungeon master to make the game run well, that's something good for me.
Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.
I think the real divide is between 1E/2E and 3.5/PF/4E-- rules-light, very mortal characters of the traditional races and classes vs. heavily customizable, heroic characters of possibly more exotic classes and especially races. These seem like fundamental differences to me, while the 3vs4 conflicts are more like disagreements in how to express similar types of characters, IMO.



I guess that is possible, but I recall playing some pretty crazy things in 2nd edition too, you just had to open up a few more of the optional handbooks.  Just off the top of my head I can think of a lot of Planescape, Spell Jammer and Dark Sun material that all had some pretty exotic stuff you could play as or customize you class with.  Maybe I just wasn't playing enough Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk in 2e but that isn't how I recall second edition at all.

Although slightly off subject you have me curious, would you perhaps care to elaborate on your POV and how it applies to 5th?
Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.


Allow me to disagree, I am a strong supporter of 3rd edition, yet I do not like vancian magic. Even If when I compare it to 4th edition magic I find it wanderfull.

Many 3rd edition do not love vancian magic, just find it much better than 4th edition one. That's what I think.


I belive you are missing something.

Dm's role and character place into the world.

For the character 4th edition gives as an assumption that your character is special, he is a hero, well above common people. In 3rd edition this is false. And is even less true going in previous edition.

As for the dm I cannot say well, given the very short experience I had with fourth edition, yet from what I read the game relied more on good dungeon master to make the game run well, that's something good for me.



Yes someone else brought up the spotlight point earlier and I forgot to add it to the list.  I'll do so now so it can be included in further discussion.

Could you elaborate on the roll of the GM in 4th vs 3rd in your experience?

Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.



 I think it goes farther than that into some people want the common D&D prescription "Use once per day everyday" to go away all together in favor of per encounter, power points, at will or anything else really.
For the character 4th edition gives as an assumption that your character is special, he is a hero, well above common people. In 3rd edition this is false. And is even less true going in previous edition.

As a fan of 3E, this above all was what struck me as odd about 4E.  I felt that any victory was hollow, because the rules for me were so different than the rules for the other side ... almost like I was playing chess against someone who was playing checkers.

The metagame is not the game.

Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.


Allow me to disagree, I am a strong supporter of 3rd edition, yet I do not like vancian magic. Even If when I compare it to 4th edition magic I find it wanderfull.

Many 3rd edition do not love vancian magic, just find it much better than 4th edition one. That's what I think.


Well, it's possible that the issue isn't with Vancian magic so much as with Vancian casters; 4e players typically consider the 3e casters overpowered and 3e martial characters underpowered and boring, because the really fundamental difference between 3e and 4e was putting everyone on the same AEDU power system, with the result of vastly reducing the power and options available to casters, while increasing the options available to martial characters (effects on power are somewhat dependent on what part of the 3e cycle you're talking about; a 4e martial character is more powerful than a 3e SRD martial character, but splatbooks made a significant difference).
Reading over the play test threads I've observed some tendencies among players of different editions.

3rd Edition People
*Have less issue with the Mind's Eye
*Have less issue with GM's making calls
*Like more skills
*Prefer more character options

4th Edition People 
*Like faster play with clearer rules
*Like less rolls 
*Dislike heal-bot Clerics and linear Fighters
*Like more teamwork
*Like less locked in rolls

It seems to me the major disconnect between these two groups is how much they value:

1.  fast, clear play without argument vs more free form game play 
2.  If each encounter should find the party "fresh" vs a slow drain of a party's resources
3.  Equalizing the classes vs giving everyone a nitch/style
4.  Minds Eyes style vs Grid Map style of combat

Would you disagree?  Are there any other major divides between the two groups?



I disagree with many of the things you've said.
Third edition opinions
Minds eye is equally important or unimportant to both groups.
Not sure theres much difference between third and fourth edition as for gm's making decisions.
Third edition skill minutia leads to more trap options and less playability.
3rd edition players prefer more options for some archetypes but not others.

4th edition opinions
might prefer faster play but due to other considerations that is not happening.  ALL editions SHOULD prefer clearer rules imo.
Not sure what you are refering to when you say like less rolls.
True about disliking healbot clerics and linear fighters and more teamwork.
Debatable about liking less locked in rolls.

1) I think there is a place for freeform play but feel that there should be clear guidelines so there is less arguing.
2) This is not an issue between 3rd and 4th as much as it is between 3/4 and earlier editions.  The DIFFERENCE between 3rd and 4th is in how it is achieved- 3rd healing sticks versus 4ths internal daily resources and reserves.
3) I like everyone having a niche or style that they bring to the table.  I don't like 3rd editions caster niche being "everything mundanes can do but more".  Ballance is not the opposite of everyone having a niche it ENABLES everyone to have a niche and have fun equally.
4) Minds eye vs grid has no difference in 3e or 4e in my experience.



Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.


Allow me to disagree, I am a strong supporter of 3rd edition, yet I do not like vancian magic. Even If when I compare it to 4th edition magic I find it wanderfull.

Many 3rd edition do not love vancian magic, just find it much better than 4th edition one. That's what I think.


Well, it's possible that the issue isn't with Vancian magic so much as with Vancian casters; 4e players typically consider the 3e casters overpowered and 3e martial characters underpowered and boring, because the really fundamental difference between 3e and 4e was putting everyone on the same AEDU power system, with the result of vastly reducing the power and options available to casters, while increasing the options available to martial characters (effects on power are somewhat dependent on what part of the 3e cycle you're talking about; a 4e martial character is more powerful than a 3e SRD martial character, but splatbooks made a significant difference).



Yet my dealbreaker with 4th edition magic is not even that. Is not how powerfull character are. Ok, I like the story "low level non magical character are better than magical ones, high level spellcasters are better than others", but I can like even everyone just as powerfull as everyone else for all the game long.
My BIG problem is with fly. With invisibility. With magic aura, with prestidigitation, charme, teleport, and everything else that does not deal damage. My trouble is with flavourfull spels, that can be even useless, but DO are fun to use. With utility spells. My trouble is with them praticaly non existing, or just being turned into horrible rituals no one will ever use because of the cost. Magic is more than "damage and x condition". I can love a game with no damage spell. I cannot even slightly like a game with only combat spells.
Another split is Scope of Balance

4th edition focused on balance between characters during an encounter. Going long periods of time nothing heavily contributing is against 4th edition fans' wishes.

3rd edition focused on balance between characters during the whole adventure. It didn't matter that the rogue was squishy, he opens the lock door and disarms the trap.

The earlier edition were balance over a career or lifetime. The wizard sucks early so them being late game monsters was okay.

4th= Encounter Design
3rd= Adventure Design
Pre3rd= Lifetime Design

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Funny thing is, lately I see a lot of 3e and 4e fans voicing the same complaints about D&D Next. The new divide as I see it is between fans of 1-2e and fans of 3-4e.

As an example, look at the not wearing armor while casting issue.
Funny thing is, lately I see a lot of 3e and 4e fans voicing the same complaints about D&D Next. The new divide as I see it is between fans of 1-2e and fans of 3-4e.

As an example, look at the not wearing armor while casting issue.



That doesn't suprise me at all.  Fundamentally both 3E and 4E DnD are modern games built around coherent modern system structures (IMHO 4e more so than 3e but both are).  Whatever other differences 3e and 4e player have (and there are many), I don't think either wants to go back to what they might regard as the bad old days of pre-modern gaming.  Hence the rift.

-Polaris
Ultimately, the divide between those who love 3e and those who love 4e can be boiled down to this:  Details.  Do you like more or less detail in your rpg gaming experience.

That said, of course any group can make 3e less detail oriented if they wish with the application of house rules.  Same thing with 4e, there is nothing preventing you from using house rules to get the game closer to they way you like to play.

I am not interested in seeing more arguments about 3e vs 4e.  Ugh.  DND Next is supposed to allow the modular application of rules sets that allows each play group to form the game of DND they want to play.  Great, I hope it works out that way!!

What I'd like to see:
-From 4e:  Streamlined rules for monster and encounter design, as well as the 4e magic system because I have always disliked the Vancian magic system all the way back when I was playing 1st edition.  (Or have the option to use Vancian magic "rules module" or 4e magic "rules module" as you desire.)
-From 3e:  Character customization.
-From 1e and 2e:  DM session and story control.

Simple list, but everything after that is just gravy in my book.
Based on the threads I've seen, the main difference between 3e players and 4e players is that 3e players think Vancian magic is good and 4e players want it to die in a fire.



I'll have to disagree with this statement. The difference is 3e players think magic being superiority is a integral part of vancian magic. 4e players think removing magic superiority doesn't make it stop being vancian magic. I actually could care less about vancian magic. I just don't like how everything thats not magic has to be dumb down as part of the expression of how awesome magic is compared to everything else.


I also feel as though DnD Next may be targeting 1/2e people more so then 3e/4e. The playtest so far feels more like 1/2e then PF/4e (haven't played 3e/3.5e so I could be wrong).


Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
I think the real divide, for the most part, is balance.  To most fans of 4e, it's paramount.  To most fans of 3.5 and earlier editions, it doesn't really matter.  A lot of the mentioned differences can be related directly to this one main root, as it were.

I'm interested to see so many say the playtest so far felt like 1/2e.  To me it felt a lot like 3.5.  So much so, in fact, that I had a hard time justifying my time spent with it.  I don't want a game so similar to any edition that I could just play that edition.  Like it or not, 4e redefined D&D.  I guess I sort of expect that from 5e.  And ... uhh ... I'm not seeing it.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

What I'm worried about is if the edition wars and the fracturing of the Dungeons and Dragons fanbase as a whole could actually cause the new edition to ultimately fail in the design goal of unifying the fan base. Since many "edition warriors" may be unwilling to compromise , this could spell disaster in giving the developers feedback.
On the whole, the divide between all the fans who are devoted to each edition (and who keep on fighting edition wars) could very well hurt the brand to the point where the brand has to be shelved.
While I do see a lot of that, I also see far more cooperation between camps than I saw when 4e was announced.  Right now it seems like a lot of people are actually trying to work together.  I've seen a lot of argument, sure, but I've also seen a lot of 'well, that's not the way I like to do it but I can't see why you shouldn't be able to play that way', too.  There seems to be a real effort to find compromise to see as many playstyles integrated as possible.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

there is something i can't stand from 3e/3.5 . It's something i just don't like...is something i hate, and it's something alot of people love from it...

Class Levels/Multiclassing/Prestige Classes on 3.0/3.5

I hate that leveling system with all of my soul, is a freaking mess and it doesn't make character creation more flexible...it make it more restricted, i can make characters concepts into 4e at level 1 & 2 and making them viable, while it require me level 7 on 3.0/3.5.  Playing a character on 2 diferent you don't like classes for like 7 levels (several months of sessions, hell it can be more than a year), and after that, your character start to feel like what you had in mind on your character concept...maybe with a prestige class, being viable...well that depends on the concept.
3e magic kept the power of earlier magic systems without the drawbacks that were inherent in many high level spells.

They used the disruption rules to offset this but they weren't applicable as often as assumed if the wizard was prepared and well defended by his party.

Thus high level magic went out of control.

Instead of bringing back the dangers of high level magic to deter its use 4e just nerfed it and gave everyone something as powerful to play with.

I for one would like high level magic that is dangerous to use. That way the wizard can have all his toys but must balance risk vs reward the way he use to.

Teleporting was powerful but dangerous.

Edition wars kill players,Dungeons and Dragons needs every player it can get.

@Melwick - That's kinna a fear of mine, although it's too early imo to put too much stock into it.  There's still proselytizing compromising to be done! Smile

In my own personal (and thus anecdotal) experience, the biggest divide between old and new (B/1/2, 3.x/pf/4) is the ability to make a character who isn't a perfect adventurer at level 1.  Now, to be fair, 3.x/pf walk the line here -- you can build the perfect adventurer at level 1 or 2, or you can water yourself down with things your DM likely won't use, but it's not particularly easy.  In 4e it is (again, from my own experience only, which is not a lot with 4) nearly impossible because the system is so set on making sure everyone is equally powerful.  No one starts as the town loser and becomes a great hero - a staple of 'generic fantasy', imo.  Those are typically my preferred roles, and that made 4e a non-starter for me at all.  I know the true edition warriors are probably chomping at the bit with that statement, but please...allow me my own preferences.

There are some good things from 4 that I do like (some with modified names, though), like healing surges.  I didn't like them in combat though.  I positively love them as a between-encounter healing mechanism like DDN is proposing so far.  It's explainable in very simple, common, easy-to-visualize terms whereas many of the in-combat methods did not come across that way to me.

My 'divide', as it were, would be fast gameplay, heavy DM adjudication on most improvisations within a relatively structured set of guidelines, tons of character options (including the option to play Janna, the local barmaid if I so desire), and a reasonable balance between martials and casters (I think more chance of spell disruption, a la 2E, is and has always been the key to this), as well as being able to use imagination (is that what you all are calling 'Theatre'?) instead of a battlemat if I so desire.  I'm not averse to anything else being added -- my way isn't everyones!   Also, I think the primary sets of both 'styles' of options need to be in the core rulebook so one side or the other doesn't feel 'preferred' or 'endorsed'.  That would be patently unfair imo, even if my preferences were the one chosen.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

That doesn't suprise me at all.  Fundamentally both 3E and 4E DnD are modern games built around coherent modern system structures (IMHO 4e more so than 3e but both are).  Whatever other differences 3e and 4e player have (and there are many), I don't think either wants to go back to what they might regard as the bad old days of pre-modern gaming.  Hence the rift.

-Polaris



Sniping doesn't help the divide across editions either - the last sentence was completely unnecessary. I didn't spend a dime with WotC in 2011 but I bought a dozen different retroclone titles. I doubt anyone on the forum knows the distribution of gamers/edition but I am betting that someone at Wizards does. It's not an accident that 5E contains elements of 1/2E along with shiny modern bits...

Veteran of The Transfer... Add 700 to my post count... 

Guess what? If retroclones/old style 70s garbage was any good, you wouldn't be here - you'd just play them.

The goal of Next, insofar as I understand it, is a 1e feel with the modern mechanics of 3/4e, as well as a game system unified enough that players of the different "eras" can enjoy it.

Characterizing modern bits as "shiny" as you did implies they have little substance, unlike your great old traditional game, which is just as much sniping as the post you quoted.  
Guess what? If retroclones/old style 70s garbage was any good, you wouldn't be here - you'd just play them. 



I'd be careful with this line of reasoning, Rexracerjr, it's nowhere near categorically true.  I play many systems, from BECMI to 2nd to Pathfinder to Dark Heresy to Shadowrun 1/2E and Lo5R.  I'm pretty happy with all my systems, yet here I am because I think another good system would be nice.   Being happy with systems has nothing to do with whether you're interested in another.  Smile

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."