|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 5:56PM
#121
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
I am sorry, but I'm 3e illiterate. I have many years of AD&D, 2e, and 4e under my belt. But no 3e. I have read and played a little of the PF books. Would you mind explaining to me how the character's were unviable?
For me what this statement means is that if you wanted to play a F/MU in 3e you basically couldn't really. In 1/2e a F/MU might be 5/5 or 5/4 where the rest of the party (if single class) might be level 6 (if a slowly advancing class), 7, or 8 (if playing a quickly advancing class like rogue). In 3e a F/MU 5/4 or 5/5 is in the same party with 9th or 10th level chars. His to hits will be so poor he won't be able to hit an apprpriate level monster and his spells will be so weak as to have little effect.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 8:33PM
#122
|
|
|
I hate to jump on what is amounting to a pig-pile but OP, you basic premise is a fantasy.
Understand, that 4e was an attempt to rebuild the game from the ground up and it has failed. 5e is the attempt to fix the mistake.
The biggest fantasy though, is the idea that the fans want a from-the-ground-up reconfiguration of the game and there is just no evidence to back that. The only evidence I see is that you want to change the game from the ground up. I think you have this idea that if this were to happen, then you could convince the majority of fans that your changes (backed up by math and logic) are the right way to go. When it is more likely what would happen if you got your way and Wizards opened it up for change from-the-ground-up that you would end up being shouted down by fans just as you are now. Most likely you would end up walking away grumbling about how shortsighted and pig-headed D&D fans are just like you are now.
The premise that 4ed failed is as valid as DDN is going to fail because in 5 years DDN++ is going to be released.
Bad arguement. 4th edition didn't fail because there's a new edition coming, 4th edition failed because it handed 50% of the market or more to a competitor, when D&D has been the undisputed majority of the market for 40 years.
4e didn't do that, the OGL did.
The OGL didn't do it. People were looking for another game for a reason, they weren't staying with 4th edition if the OGL didn't exist.
The OGL did do it, "it" being "handed 50% of the market or more to a competitor." I doubt PF would have gained as many former D&D fans as it did if it couldn't use the OGL as the basis for its system and thus claim to be the successor to 3.5e
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 8:50PM
#123
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2013
|
The OGL did do it, "it" being "handed 50% of the market or more to a competitor." I doubt PF would have gained as many former D&D fans as it did if it couldn't use the OGL as the basis for its system and thus claim to be the successor to 3.5e
This is how I interpret it as well.
Had the OGL not existed, not only would Pathfinder had never happened, the glut of incredibly bad 3PP for 3.5 wouldn't have happened, either. Whether that would have been good for the hobby or not is anyone's guess.
The 2 core goals of DDN:
1. Create a version of D&D that embraces the enduring, core elements of the game.
2. Create a set of rules that allows a smooth transition from a simple game to a complex one.
- Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 8:53PM
#124
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Ok, you guys are killing me!
You have takeen what amouts to a set-up for the main point and turned it into a derailment to the whole thread.
I just want to point out to shazbot that my comment was not intended to derail this thread and disown all the comments to why 4e failed.
If you folk want to discuss that take it to another thread.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 9:00PM
#125
|
|
|
I am sorry, but I'm 3e illiterate. I have many years of AD&D, 2e, and 4e under my belt. But no 3e. I have read and played a little of the PF books. Would you mind explaining to me how the character's were unviable?
For me what this statement means is that if you wanted to play a F/MU in 3e you basically couldn't really. In 1/2e a F/MU might be 5/5 or 5/4 where the rest of the party (if single class) might be level 6 (if a slowly advancing class), 7, or 8 (if playing a quickly advancing class like rogue). In 3e a F/MU 5/4 or 5/5 is in the same party with 9th or 10th level chars. His to hits will be so poor he won't be able to hit an apprpriate level monster and his spells will be so weak as to have little effect.
Ok, that's what I guessed at. Not sure why he thought I was trying to bait him. I haven't responded to Shaz at all except to post what Monte Cook thought about playtesting. I thought it fitting since he was brought up.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 9:02PM
#126
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Its a bit of both. The OGL is a pull effect (hey guys look at Pathfinder) while the existence of 4th ed is a push effect.
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. The GSL s also a major factor and the mishandling of Paizo who initially wanted to go wth 4th ed.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 27, 2013 - 11:33PM
#127
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2012
|
Well, yeah. Isn't that more or less how everyone thinks?
No. No it is not.
Some of us - perhaps even most of us - are perfectly happy with other people getting the style of game they want, so long as we also get what we want. That way, nobody is excluded. What you want is apparently that some folks - those who do not share your playstyle - to not get what they want. That's pretty much the definition of selfish.
I mean, I doubt that I or anyone else is going to start taking hostages if they don't rid of the Hit Dice system or whatever, but not a single one of us is going to complain if 5th edition does exactly everything that we want, and nothing we don't. Not everyone is demanding that, but no one will complain if it happens.
Nobody is going to complain, because the chances of exactly that happening are very slim. Everyone has something or another that they dislike to some extent about the games they play. I mean, I love Werewolf: the Forsaken to bits, but there are things I'd change about it, because they're fiddly.
Incidentally, I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect that 5th edition does something new and innovative with the game, or that a public playtest of the rules should address more than just inconsequential character baubles. Since the game really does neither, I think they have failed to address anything that I was expecting and the only way they are going to get me to even listen to their sales pitch from her eon out is if it starts with them scrapping everything and starting over from scratch with a different set of design goals in place.
What do you want that is "new and innovative?" Are things like Advantage/Disadvantage, how Skills work now (disassociated with ability scores, unlike how they've been in the past?) and other things that I'm sure my tired brain isn't thinking of right now not new enough for you?
Also, don't assume we're seeing everything. We're probably not. In fact, I'd bet money we aren't, because if we saw everything, there'd be no reason to pay for it, as we'd already have it.
And finally, good luck with the thought of them scrapping everything and starting over. I very much doubt that will happen. Wish for a unicorn while you're at it.
And then you do a poll where you want a particular result, and admit it as such. I wish I could go back and change my vote from "pretty good" (as I think there are still things that need work, but hey, it's a playtest! That's the entire freaking point!) to "amazing," just to skew the results of your biased attempt at being selfish.
THAT would sure show me.
Okay, yeah, that was probably small and petty of me. My apologies.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 12:10AM
#128
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />The OGL did do it, "it" being "handed 50% of the market or more to a competitor." I doubt PF would have gained as many former D&D fans as it did if it couldn't use the OGL as the basis for its system and thus claim to be the successor to 3.5e
To say the OGL did it is like saying the cliff is at fault when you walk off it. OGL was there first. the designers of 4e had to design 4e knowing the OGL was giving competitors the ability to horn in. Since [by your theory] they didn't, it is their flaw, not that of the OGL.
Note too that 3E also had to deal with OGL, and did so. And 5E will also have to deal with the OGL. It is a distraction to try to blame 4e's failure on what is our basic situation.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 1:27PM
#129
|
Date Joined:
Dec 14, 2003
|
To say the OGL did it is like saying the cliff is at fault when you walk off it. OGL was there first. the designers of 4e had to design 4e knowing the OGL was giving competitors the ability to horn in. Since [by your theory] they didn't, it is their flaw, not that of the OGL.
Note too that 3E also had to deal with OGL, and did so. And 5E will also have to deal with the OGL. It is a distraction to try to blame 4e's failure on what is our basic situation.
I was going to let this one pass, as the thread is derailed enough already, but...
3E had to deal with OGL and... it wasn't going well.
The initial response was very good and as Wizards intended - everyone wanted to use the system of the world's most famed RPG... It allowed D20 to dominate the market and become the most notorious game system ever.
However, as the years passed by, D&D became increasingly "old", and while there were a lot of bad products with D20 logo and companies who did not know how to handle D20, many systems began to appear that competed directly with Wizards IPs.
Systems like Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds began gaining notoriety and fame while 3.X was further and further seen as old and cluttered. Paizo's fame with adventure paths was also made at this time.
As the years passed, the 3.X system was seen as an old engine that other companies were improving - Green Ronin, Paizo...
That is what drove a need for a 4th edition. 3rd edition sales were declining as other companies were gaining notoriety with products with more inovative design. If Wizards had insisted in keeping 3rd edition, games like M&M and True 20 would capture the audience claming for a improved game.
3.X survives because of Paizo and Pathfinder. 3.X managed to beat the OGL because it effectively traded companies. 3rd edition would not have survived the OGL had Wizards not built 4e. WotC were already losing their costumers to people who were creating better game systems with the OGL.
If Wizards' 4th edition was exactly the system you see in Pathfinder, you can bet many people would simply label it as another "0.25" on the 3.X line and accuse WotC of moneygrabbing :P. The "3.5" move was met with heavy criticism from the public, would this same public swallow a "3.75" from the same company? Apparently, only if such "3.75" was not marketed as a "new D&D for the public" but as the "true D&D for those abandoned by WotC"... ;P
4e failure may not have come solely from the OGL, but the OGL weighed heavily on the circunstances that allowed a rival company to create marketing that was essentially: "Hey, all you guys who don't feel sure about the new edition? All of you who spent years and hundreds of dollars in books for this game system? Don't worry! We'll continue publishing 3rd edition for you. And we'll even update its engine!". That's a powerful message to state in the transition between editions.
No D&D had ever had to deal with that. 4e did. Not even 5e will have to deal with this, as 4e has no such license  .
---
At any rate, I agree with you on one point: "the designers of 4e had to design 4e knowing the OGL was giving competitors the ability to horn in."
Paizo's move was very... predictable. Specially in face of 4e's fiasco with the GSL. If Paizo hadn't created Pathfinder, another company would. Wizards should have known.
I don't think this should have affected the game's design, but should certainly affect the management of the IP. Wizards could not have dropped the ball with the other RPG companies. Wizards could not afford to piss off legions of fans by straying so far from the "Greyhawkian-Gygaxian" feel. It sure could not afford nuking the realms.
But it did - and that made Paizo's alternative all the more enticing...
In my opinion of course . Your perspective, evidently, is different! ^^
---
Which bring us back to the Next edition.
Dungeons & Dragons 3rd and 4th edition tried to innovate and move the design forward. In face of 4th edition's failure, it would seem the designers are much more cautious to move the design forward. In many aspects, they're even trying to move it back to earlier paradigms.
And moving back to earlier paradigms of design is not a problem per se - I only ponder if a Dungeons & Dragons emulating earlier (and already available editions) will fare better than Paizo's Pathfinder. :P
How many of Paizo's fans will come back to D&D? How many veterans of AD&D that now play retroclones would come back? How many 4e fans would migrate to a 1e-3e retroclone? How many new fans would come to a game designed as such?
These are big questions. Important questions.
In my perspective, creating a 1e-4e retroclone would fail. A 4e retroclone would be a catastophre. Creating a modular D&D that retroclones 1e-4e may achieve some success. But only a new, inherently better game than 1e-4e that can retroclone such editions has a good chance of success.
And that is fiendishly hard to achieve. From the playtest, I have not yet been able to glimpse this game system. I have, however, seen a general tendency to end up in a 2e-3e retroclone. Since I think such proposition would terminate D&D, I worry :P.
As ever in such edition transitions, there are a lot of questions and concerns in my mind...
Are you threatening me master jedi?  Dungeons & Dragons 4e Classic - The Dark Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 28, 2013 - 2:39PM
#130
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
ANother company cloning 3.5 would not have had the same success as they did not have Paizo's reputation for quality adventures and they did not have the Dragon/Dungeon magazine subscribers list.
New mechanics sure. Nuking the Realms and the Great Wheel cosmology, they did not have to do that. They also had multiple directions they could have gone with. A 4th ed that resembles Star Wars Saga probably would have been better recieved than 4th ed. Most of the 3rd PP have fallen by the wayside anyway.
There were alot of things they could have done with 4th ed evolving from 3.5. They chose the nuke button and it detonated in WoTC face.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
