# The Nature of Change (or, Understanding Edition Wars)



## Truename (Jan 4, 2009)

My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.

(There's some generalizations in the stuff coming up. Individual reactions vary, of course.)

First, it's human nature to resist change. It's not actually a dislike of new stuff that causes this resistance; it's that people get comfortable with the current way of doing things. The resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff they already have and like. So the more mastery someone has over the existing way of doing things, the more likely they are to dislike a new way of doing things.

_This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is._ People will come up with all kinds of rationalizations, and engage in long, bitter arguments, but at their core these arguments come down to "I like what I have now. Please don't take it away from me." Such an argument can never be won (or lost). The more you try, the more entrenched people get in their positions.

So, when people try to argue with me about a change, I don't argue about which way is better. Instead, I say: "It's worked for a bunch of people, and it might work for you, too. Give it a real try for two months and then decide. We'll set a concrete date for your group to make that decision, and it will be your decision to make, not mine."

This generally works, and people often find that they like the new way, even if they originally hated it. (Not always, though.)

It works because there's a predictable pattern to change. (Psychologist Virginia Satir explains it this way: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model) There's an initial period of resistance to making any change. When people try it, they experience chaos, low performance, and low morale as they discover that they no longer understand how they fit into to the system.

At some point, individuals discover a "transforming idea" that shows how the new way benefits them personally. They see how they can fit into the system and they start integrating it into their life. This happens at different times for different people. The nature of the "transforming idea" is highly personal, and some people never discover one.

(In my work, I've found that it takes about two months of full-time use to get through the chaos to the transforming idea. Hence the "try it for two months" argument. I doubt that timeframe applies to a 3e->4e change, though!)

After discovering the transforming idea, people can get very excited and evangelical. They can also overreact, expect too much, and become disappointed. Either way, they clash with people who are still resisting, and flame wars are born.

Over time, people perfect their understanding of the new system and reach a "new status quo." They see its strengths and weaknesses and the turbulence and arguments recede.

People get stuck at different stages in this process. Some never get out of the "resistance" stage, and never try the new system. Some experience the "chaos" stage that occurs when you first try the new system, and conclude that the new system is broken. And some get to the "transforming idea" stage, but then set their expectations impossibly high and are disappointed.

I'm not sure what this tells us, other than the obvious: "edition wars are inevitable," and "some people love 4e from the start (generally the ones who feel they have nothing to lose), others will grow to like it with time, some will try it and hate it, and some won't ever try it," and "edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better." The good news is that they'll pass with time.

Anyway, I hope this meander through the psychology of change was interesting.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 4, 2009)

an interesting take...and an interesting job!


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 4, 2009)

Interesting, especially the 2 months timeline. How would you expect that an echo chamber for criticism and praise such as this board affects the changeover process? I would assume that communicating with like minds will reinforce perceived disadvantages of the new make individuals even more resistant to change? 
And in the same vein would this echo chamber reinforce perceived advantages and make evangelical posters more evangelical?


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jan 4, 2009)

What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 4, 2009)

The problem with the modern world is that much of the change is for its own sake rather than for any real improvement. It is often about each generation repeating the mistakes of the previous one because there is no good way to transmit wisdom in the way that we transmit information between generations. Alot of it comes about because those at the top of any organisation need to feel they are having an effect, not because something is wrong.

Take my own work situation; I work in a University and am a young (40ish) member of staff. We are changing from a school based system to a college based system and it is causing chaos. The centre are hailing this as a stroke of genius and a vast improvement. The problem is, I remember that we had a college based system 15 years ago when I was a student and I remember the school based system being hailed as the great new thing back then. It reminds me of the way dungeons have crept back into D&D after being jettisoned by many groups in the early 90s.

Does the truth change or just our perception of it? Or do we just need any change sometimes to freshen things up? In gaming you can certainly have too much of the same thing. Some resistance to change is not just about psycological adjustment though; it is because the thing you are changing to is just less fit for purpose. In gaming this is more complicated because we are each using the same edition to acheive different purposes.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 4, 2009)

I know the encounter.  I along with others at my job finished a well-overdue redesign to our company's website.   Most were happy with it, our old site was designed in 1999 and was a chaotic mess.  But we did encounter resistance from a few of the sales people, who didn't like it, because it changed their sales pattern.

I can also say I've seen resistance to change in my own life.  I still have not chosen to purchase digital music, preferring CDs I can then convert to MP3 for my Zune.  

So I can see this as a valid criticism of some changes.  But sometimes in many cases the change is not needed but rather just dictated to people.  I once had a boss who insisted on using "Use Cases" for every web site project we did.  Even though the types of clients we dealt with would have worked better with a standard functional specification, and that our applications weren't object oriented or of major complexity,he insisted on using the Use Case format.  Sometimes change can be detrimental and be a business calculation.

I guess you not only need to be aware of the resistance to change, but also if the resistance is caused by any valid problems.  This is more a fault of bosses or executives who don't listen to constructive feedback.

In the case of edition wars--I think the big questions on people's minds are will the changes make a better game and were they necessary.  Since gaming is entertainment, not a workplace environment, a lot of things are subjective and very dependent on user opinion.  So I'm not sure I can chalk up the resistance to change theory as even the primary reason for Edition Wars.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 4, 2009)

Maybe we could all use some Edition War "Therapy".

I think there might be a good portion of ENWorld members with "Edition War" PTSD.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 4, 2009)

Those who resist 4e just need counselling.  Hmmm...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 4, 2009)

Change is painful.  I mean, doesn't that really summarize things?
  I'm being *really* serious.  Change hurts.  We age, for example.  That's a change, and if that doesn't bring pain at times, I don't know what does!

  However, may I point out, as I did in other threads, that it should be a matter of choice?  It always should have been a matter of choice.

  We should be thinking in terms of:  How can we add 4E to what we already have, to make it all even better!
  Not:  We must discard all previous information, and embrace a whole new way.

  The Edition Wars came from the shock of an attempt (by the CEOs of Hasbro, I believe (NOT the average Hasbro worker, much less anyone at WOTC!) to enforce the You Must Go To The New Way approach, instead of Let's Add 4E To Our Previous Collection approach.

  And yes, obviously this would cause some friction.
  There are countless examples in Real Life, of where technological/societal shifts occurred, and all out change was enforced.  It is just in the nature of us, that we wish to preserve What Is.  So yes, one would expect friction.

  The older material is out there, and - frankly - I do not think it is going to go away.  It will simply be preserved in the Digital World, accessible to anyone with an interest in it.
  If Hasbro allows a re-issuing of material no longer supported, then perhaps some of these things will return in force.  And this will be in addition to the newer material that is out there.
  I can hope.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 4, 2009)

PaulMaclean said:


> What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.




I think the OP explains that pretty well. This time many people actually have something to loose, so their emotional reaction is stronger.


----------



## Derren (Jan 4, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> I think the OP explains that pretty well. This time many people actually have something to loose, so their emotional reaction is stronger.




Or maybe 4E really is worse than 3E for a larger number of people?


----------



## Truename (Jan 4, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Interesting, especially the 2 months timeline. How would you expect that an echo chamber for criticism and praise such as this board affects the changeover process? I would assume that communicating with like minds will reinforce perceived disadvantages of the new make individuals even more resistant to change?
> And in the same vein would this echo chamber reinforce perceived advantages and make evangelical posters more evangelical?




I have no idea. But, in my industry, we've been undergoing a major change in work styles for ten years and people are _still_ arguing about it on Internet fora.  Not as much now as they used to, fortunately.



PaulMaclean said:


> What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.




I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before. (I can't prove this at all, so take that guess for what it's worth--not much ).



S'mon said:


> Those who resist 4e just need counselling.  Hmmm...




I hope that's not what you think I was saying. (The last thing I want to do is start yet another new edition war thread.)



Edena_of_Neith said:


> Change is painful.  I mean, doesn't that really summarize things?




Yup. 

The other major point to take away is that when people react negatively, they're generally reacting to what they're _losing_, not what's new. Witness all the complaints about 4e being incomplete, or the MM not having fluff, or the GSL shutting people out. I think if you look carefully, you'll see that most, maybe even all, anti-4e complaints are about loss.

Also, I'm not claiming that 4e is better than 3e. That's an individual decision: Do I get more than I'm losing?

Generally, if people get that "transforming idea" and embrace a change, it's because they figured out the answer to this question: "What are the core values that I don't want to lose in (current way), and how can I have those values in (new way)?"  Those answers aren't specific decisions like "no healing surges" or "revised GSL" but underlying values like (_for example_) "a sense of realism and wonder" or "large variety of support material." And, as I said, the answers will be very personal.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 4, 2009)

Truename said:


> First, it's human nature to resist change. It's not actually a dislike of new stuff that causes this resistance; it's that people get comfortable with the current way of doing things. The resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff they already have and like. So the more mastery someone has over the existing way of doing things, the more likely they are to dislike a new way of doing things.




it is an interesting perspective. I don't know whether you may have glossed over one issue in order to simplify things, but I think a significant factor which you may have overlooked in this presentation is the 'early adopter' effect - there is rarely universal resistance to change, is there?

My understanding is that typically you have the early adopters (who like to try new things), then the main body of people (who are initially resistant to change but may change over time - the group you are largely talking about), and finally a group of people who are always remain resistant to change.

Personally I tend to come into the 'early adopter' strand. Evangelistic about trying out new things. Almost a neophile, if you will. Sometimes I'll try out something new and end up rejecting it however, if I weigh things up after a while and my assessment of it is that it isn't much good. One of the effects of this is that in the business world sometimes someone comes up with a 'new' idea and I find myself in the resister camp because I tried it and have supported it once before but it really, really didn't work out (employee of the month, I'm looking at you!)

Cheers


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.



Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.

4e is a _*totally optional*_ upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.

Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.

Srsly, d00d.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 5, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.
> 
> 4e is a _*totally optional*_ upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.
> 
> ...




Seconded.  My aversion to 4e has nothing to do with change.  Over the course of my RPG fandom, I've probably sat on the GM side of the screen 80% of the time.  I'm also the one suggesting changing settings, systems, or genres 90% of the time.

I've ran & played everything from Basic D&D to Star Frontiers, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Traveller, Star Wars (WEG), GURPS, 3.x, Rolemaster, Alternity, Trinity, Call of Cthulu, and a bevy of OGL games.  

So from a gamer's and collector's perspectives, I had every reason to want to buy 4e.  Two significant factors conspired against it but would not have prevented it:

1) Having firmly embraced the d20/OGL concepts, I can pretty much make the game/setting/genre of my choice using D&D, d20 Modern, or an OGL game as a baseline.  The argument of System X doesn't do <genre> really didn't apply any longer, thereby reducing demand or perceived need to buy to run another genre.

2) Financial.  As a long-time RPGer, I've got a lot invested in RPG material.  However, the amount of 3.x/d20/OGL is by far the largest and is pretty easy to mix-n-match as desired.  I couldn't justify "starting over" nor did I want to wait to "fill in the holes" when my current collection's holes were much, much, smaller.

However, the clincher for me was WotC's combined efforts of the 4e rollout, treatment of the d20 & OGL licenses, and the abomination that was the 4e GSL.

I still looked through the books at the local bookstore and visited sites like this one to read about 4e, to see if in fact I was missing something.  My research has only strengthened that initial gut impulse - I'm not missing anything.

If 4e is the game for you, more power to you.  But I don't think "resistance to change" is as big a factor in people not choosing or sticking with 4e as some believe.


----------



## underthumb (Jan 5, 2009)

I hope you realize just how patronizing this thread is, despite your intentions. 

I think that you're correct in your presumption that there is more to changing systems than the objective qualities of those systems. However, your ascription of these difficulties to a generalized "fear of change" lacks substance and support. Here's a question: what evidence would lead you to believe that resistance to 4e is mostly "rational" (that is, based on the qualities of 4e vs. some other edition) vs. "fear based". Describe how one might discover the truth of the matter in this specific instance.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 5, 2009)

As someone not going 4E, it was originally my intention to buy the core books and make a decision afterwards.  Once I learned that what was "core" in 3.5 (PH, DMG, and MM) was not going to be in the first three books of 4E, I felt like WotC was gouging, and it's been downhill from there.

So, I was originally open to "testing the waters", but then I saw a shark.

And, since I've changed with every other AD&D edition change, I hardly think the reason I'm not changing is simply "resistance to change."


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> it is an interesting perspective. I don't know whether you may have glossed over one issue in order to simplify things, but I think a significant factor which you may have overlooked in this presentation is the 'early adopter' effect - there is rarely universal resistance to change, is there?
> 
> My understanding is that typically you have the early adopters (who like to try new things), then the main body of people (who are initially resistant to change but may change over time - the group you are largely talking about), and finally a group of people who are always remain resistant to change.




What you're talking about here is the classic "diffusion of innovations" curve. Geoffrey Moore used this curve to divide people up into five categories:


Innovators, who want to be on the bleeding edge at all costs
Early adopters, who like to try new things
(_the chasm_--a big gap between what the first two categories want and what everyone else wants)
Early majority, who wait to see other people have success it
Late majority, who wait to see most people succeeding with it
Laggards, who think new-fangled gadgets (like television) are just a passing fad
These five categories form a bell curve, with most people being "early majority" or "late majority." It's a way of understanding the market for new products, and how to sell them to different people.

Change models like Virginia Satir's look at individual and small group reaction to change. (Satir specialized in family counseling.) Different people react to a given change differently. If you graphed all those people together, you'd probably see a bell curve a lot like Moore's.

So, yeah, I agree.  But just because someone is an "early adopter" or "innovator" for one type of change, doesn't mean they will be as eager to adopt a different kind of change, even one that seems closely related on the surface. The population as a whole exhibits the bell curve, but individual reactions vary.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 5, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.
> 
> 4e is a _*totally optional*_ upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.
> 
> ...






Azgulor said:


> Seconded. My aversion to 4e has nothing to do with change. Over the course of my RPG fandom, I've probably sat on the GM side of the screen 80% of the time. I'm also the one suggesting changing settings, systems, or genres 90% of the time.
> 
> I've ran & played everything from Basic D&D to Star Frontiers, Shadowrun, Earthdawn, Traveller, Star Wars (WEG), GURPS, 3.x, Rolemaster, Alternity, Trinity, Call of Cthulu, and a bevy of OGL games.
> 
> ...





Classic expressions of Denial. Would you two like to talk about this?


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 5, 2009)

Artfully, played sir!


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Jan 5, 2009)

Of course some people prefer one edition over another. That actually has nothing to do with the OP's thesis. He's not saying that people who don't like 4E are resistant to change. He's saying that 'Edition Wars' -- as opposed to personal preferences -- have roots in people's responses to change (on both sides). I think there are some other factors as well, but I agree with the OP that response to change is a big part of it.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before. (I can't prove this at all, so take that guess for what it's worth--not much ).




I actually think you're wrong, there.  

While you are correct that the internet medium allows us to see more of the reaction, I think it actually creates, amplifies, and sustains the reaction.  The internet allows us to dwell on the issue for longer, and have salt rubbed in the wound more often.  

If they just got new books on the shelves, and we didn't have places like this to discuss it, the folks who didn't like it would grumble, sure.  They'd try it or not, like it or not, and they'd move on and not keep coming back to the same thing over and over.  

We are, in this sense, our own worst enemies.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree, Umbran. I think the internet also makes a difference in terms of anonymity. I read incredibly rude posts, and I'm pretty sure that few people actually would say those things face-to-face.


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

underthumb said:


> I hope you realize just how patronizing this thread is, despite your intentions.




I'm sorry I came across that way.



underthumb said:


> I think that you're correct in your presumption that there is more to changing systems than the objective qualities of those systems. However, your ascription of these difficulties to a generalized "fear of change" lacks substance and support. Here's a question: what evidence would lead you to believe that resistance to 4e is mostly "rational" (that is, based on the qualities of 4e vs. some other edition) vs. "fear based". Describe how one might discover the truth of the matter in this specific instance.




You're the only one to use the word "fear" in this thread. That's definitely not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that, when a change happens, there's a predictable sequence of events that occur. (And yes, this is a generalization that doesn't apply to everyone.) I see how people react to these things in my day job, and I see the same sorts of reactions in the threads here. So the edition wars look like a typical reaction to change to me... and so, I described that sequence of events in hopes that it would be interesting.

Is that patronizing? Maybe, maybe not, but it is human nature. Try this. Write "Pick one: 1 2 3 4" on a piece of paper, and show it to ten people. Most of them will pick 3. (You can show them the back of the paper afterwards. Write a suitably funny remark on the back, like "People who pick 3 make the best lovers," or "If you picked 3, you secretly prefer 3e.") We humans tend to be more predictable than we wish.

Anyway, I thought it might help to understand why people might not want to make a change... and generally, that resistance is _not_ about "fear of change." A person generally resists because he (or she) thinks the change will cause him to lose something he values. If he ends up accepting the change, it's typically because he discovers how to keep what he values in the new system.

For example, if Bob values his system mastery over 3e, and feels that 4e doesn't really support system mastery, then he might resist using 4e because he would lose that sense of mastery he values. Is that fear of change? Not really. It seems pretty rational to me.


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

Umbran said:


> While you are correct that the internet medium allows us to see more of the reaction, I think it actually creates, amplifies, and sustains the reaction.  The internet allows us to dwell on the issue for longer, and have salt rubbed in the wound more often.




Good point. I agree.


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> For example, if Bob values his system mastery over 3e, and feels that 4e doesn't really support system mastery, then he might resist using 4e because he would lose that sense of mastery he values. Is that fear of change? Not really. It seems pretty rational to me.




But then, unfortunately, Bob comes on EN World and _doesn't_ say "I really enjoy my mastery over 3e system and I don't think there's much benefit to system mastery in 4e, so I'm not going to use it." (Which would be a cool thread, because then we could talk about system mastery, and what's fun about it, and what opportunities, if any, there are for system mastery in 4e, and why the designers chose to change this part of the system, and so on.)

But instead, Bob _thinks_ "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless," and then he _posts_ "4e is too simplistic, for example: it's stupid for epic characters to have a higher DC to climb ladders than heroic characters," and people start shouting about DC tables and p.42 and a gigantic flame war erupts. 

And then I read all the flame wars because they're addictive little things and then I start a thread like this. Not helpful, really.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 5, 2009)

I think another aspect of the way the internet changes things is this:

What some people value, that thing they fear losing, can be membership in a community.  The internet provides that community.  A new edition presents the possibility that the community might start to care about things you don't, and you might lose your connection with it.

I think that's why you sometimes see what is essentially trolling behavior from forum regulars during edition changes.  A troll can just be a fan in the wrong forum- and during an edition change, which forums are the "right" or "wrong" forums can shift.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 5, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> If 4e is the game for you, more power to you.  But I don't think "resistance to change" is as big a factor in people not choosing or sticking with 4e as some believe.




Please report immediately to People's Glorious Democratic Revolutionary Arctic Resort for mandatory Fun Realignment Therapy. No resistance to change will be tolerated, tovarish!

...

When I had a loaded pistol pointed at me, I experienced a notable resistance to change. Up to that point, I did not have any bullets or wound channels present in my body. I displayed classic intransigent psychopathology by vehemently resisting the introduction of any bullets or wound channels. Because, in my pitiable and benighted ignorance, I refused, like a petulant child on the threshold of ingesting green vegetables, to sample even _one_ single bullet or wound channel. Not even one... as if I knew what was best for myself! Man, can I be bullheaded sometimes!


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree with the OP's point that edition wars stem from a normal human reaction to change, but my question is precisely what change is the cause?  Many of the posts in the thread assumed a proposed change to "what game I play."  I submit that the change causing the edition wars is a change to either "what game Wizards of the Coast supports with its immense resources" or "what games are topics of discussion on EN World."

Clearly each individual can choose to adopt 4E for their home game or to keep their existing rules.  But 4E is now the flagship for our hobby, and it now occupies a large share of this forum's mindshare.  These changes are the ones to which we are all still adjusting.


----------



## underthumb (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename-



> Anyway, I thought it might help to understand why people might not want to make a change... and generally, that resistance is _not_ about "fear of change." A person generally resists because he (or she) thinks the change will cause him to lose something he values. If he ends up accepting the change, it's typically because he discovers how to keep what he values in the new system.




Okay, but what you argued is that "resistance to change" is "completely independent of how much better or worse the 'new thing' is". Those are your words. You're saying that humans have a response to change which is content-neutral. More specifically, you're implying that the content of 4e is irrelevant to the responses observed, which reduces any resistance to a kind of psychological hiccup. You even described the irrational lengths that people would go to so that they might avoid "change", implying that normal attempts to reason with those who are anti-4e are bound to fail.

All of this effectively becomes a neat way of packing anti-4e sentiment into a self-help syndrome. Really. Your post even ends with a description of the "stages" of change, helpfully suggesting that "people get stuck at different stages in the process".


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 5, 2009)

What sucks about workplace change is that it's usually thrust upon you and you have no choice in the matter except to roll with it.

What's great about edition change is that although it's thrust upon you, you are free to evaluate it and either roll with it or reject it.



underthumb said:


> All of this effectively becomes a neat way of packing anti-4e sentiment into a self-help syndrome. Really. Your post even ends with a description of the "stages" of change, helpfully suggesting that "people get stuck at different stages in the process".




Yep. And for what it's worth, I'm very much in favor of changes, if they happen to be good ones. That's why I've given a number of alternate systems a shot. Some I've liked, some I haven't.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> But instead, Bob _thinks_ "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless," and then he _posts_ "4e is too simplistic, for example: it's stupid for epic characters to have a higher DC to climb ladders than heroic characters," and people start shouting about DC tables and p.42 and a gigantic flame war erupts.



I have a sneaking suspicion that Bob doesn't even _consciously_ think "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless". He probably actually does _consciously_ think that 4e is too simplistic.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 5, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that Bob doesn't even _consciously_ think "4e sucks, my system mastery will be worthless". He probably actually does _consciously_ think that 4e is too simplistic.




This hits the nail on the head. What this thread actually says is that our "rational" arguments for or against a new edition are just rationalizations of the emotional reaction to change.


----------



## markkat (Jan 5, 2009)

I know you like lasagna. But from now on, how about spaghettios instead?

You don't like that?

Ah, I suspected as much! Let me explain...


----------



## Creamsteak (Jan 5, 2009)

While I would certainly wager that a lot of people have been extraordinarily averse to 'change' between editions of a game here, it's certainly not the end-all-be-all of the discussion.

I think 4e is better at some things and 3e is better at others (and OD&D and every other game in existence are better at something else, worse at something else, etc). For different groups and different games I might run, I might choose one or the other. As a general rule, I think that while they managed to change a couple issues for the better, they also changed a couple things for the worse, and the vast majority of shifts were lateral and are essentially trades (a little more of this and a little less of that).

There is also cost associated with 'change'. Money, time, and other expenses are to be anticipated. In computer hardware, different companies move into newer technology at different speeds, and similarly different gaming groups are going to move into different games at different speeds. It's not all pure psychological aversion. It is perfectly legitimate to weight both sides against each other and say, "This isn't a net benefit."

Then, of course, there's the fact that the hobby as a whole isn't exactly one where any amount of change is going to drastically effect the amount of 'fun' (which is the end-goal afterall) that is going to happen. Honestly, with the people I like gaming with we don't really need a game at all in order to have maximum fun.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Interesting, but I don't think it translates very well, sorry.
> 
> 4e is a _*totally optional*_ upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity.




That's what I was thinking too.  In a company, people can complain, obstruct, and drag their feet, but ultimately, there are only 3 possible outcomes:
(1) conform to the change
(2) lobby the leadership to allow you not to change/cancel the change for everyone
(3) quit/be fired/see your career languish for not being a team player.

In this change, it's about a consumer product being canceled and a producer trying to sell a new product as a substitute under the same brand name.  There are 4 choices for the consumer: 
(1) confirm to the change
(2) lobby the manufacturer to support both, possibly as a climbdown to eliminating the new product (see New Coke)
(3) continue to the use the old product, viable in this case as it has a network of third party support and is difficult to physically wear-out 
(4) quit using the product, either to use competitor products or seek a different form of entertainment (such as WOW)

The other interesting factor not addressed here is that a lot of gamers have been gaming FOR A LONG TIME -- I believe 25+ years was the modal response to the poll on that.  And, to various degrees depending on where you live and when you started gaming, we've been a shunned minority amongst "normals".  So, with a very passionate and entrenched group of devotees, strong opinions are to be expected.

Among workers, I suspect a lot of people just don't care very much about X change, and therefore are willing to acquiesce in any system that isn't directly harmful to their well-being.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 5, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> What sucks about workplace change is that it's usually thrust upon you and you have no choice in the matter except to roll with it.
> 
> What's great about edition change is that although it's thrust upon you, you are free to evaluate it and either roll with it or reject it.
> 
> ...




However, the OPs post suggests that a 'fair shake' for a new system would be something like 3 weeks constant immersion to overcome your (general you) resistance to change. I'm not sure but I would think that 3 weeks full immersion (120 h) corresponds to maybe 6-12 months of gaming.

Now I am not sure that my need to evaluate a system fairly is big enough to suffer through playing it for that long, if I expect I might not like it. However maybe we can acknowledge that investing substantially less time will not allow overcoming biases.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 5, 2009)

Pseudopsyche said:


> I submit that the change causing the edition wars is a change to either "what game Wizards of the Coast supports with its immense resources" or "what games are topics of discussion on EN World."




I tend to agree.  If WOTC still had 3e core books, at least, in circulation, or allowed another company to sell them, would there be less angst, I wonder?

Having your game go Out of Print is more scary/forcing than just having a new game available.


----------



## Drowbane (Jan 5, 2009)

Derren said:


> Or maybe 4E really is worse than 3E for a larger number of people?




Thats what I'm thinking.

I was initally resistant to 2e also... but that faded with one thumb through of the shiny new 3e PHB "They fixed *so* much!!!".

4e has some nice innovations (easier to DM, more static HP, etc), however its just an inferior product to 3e.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 5, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> As someone not going 4E, it was originally my intention to buy the core books and make a decision afterwards.  Once I learned that what was "core" in 3.5 (PH, DMG, and MM) was not going to be in the first three books of 4E, I felt like WotC was gouging, and it's been downhill from there . . . . And, since I've changed with every other AD&D edition change, I hardly think the reason I'm not changing is simply "resistance to change."



You specifically just said that you didn't switch _because of change_--in this case, change in "core" material. Choosing to characterize this change as "gouging" (despite the fact that the amount of material was relatively constant, even if tieflings and warlocks replaced gnomes and sorcerers) without even examining the books or trying the game doesn't strike me as being particularly receptive to change.



Aus_Snow said:


> Some people (like me and many people I know, and many I know of) simply find the game to be lacking, or in some cases to be truly awful. That is all. This is not 'resistance' to anything. Yeesh.



And of course, if it _were _just "resistance" you'd certainly know it, because the processes by which people form their beliefs are totally transparent to them. Really, there's a lot of room for questioning people's motives on both sides of issues like this, where the identity stakes are so high for so many people. Unfortunately, most people are as resistant to having their motives questioned as they apparently are to change.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jan 5, 2009)

Lots of stuff has already been said, and I personally think for the majority of people who don't like 4e the reason comes down to something fairly simple; "it isn't their edition."

There are people in the hobby everywhere where a different edition is their favourite. As such for the main source of debate in this, there are people who prefer 3.5. Simple as that.

Though... I have to admit, (though this could be skewered by my appreciation of the changes of 4e, so take what about to say with a grain of salt) I find it somewhat odd when people say when the talk of, "how would you do it?" or "what would you want in a new edition?" They state, "*preferred edition* with some minor changes." 

I dunno maybe it is just me but this doesn't feel like a valid reason for a new edition. I feel a new edition should be a different system, it keeps some base mechanics, themes, etc. But should be something new and different so that those that didn't find what they wanted in a old edition may find it in a new.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 5, 2009)

My take on it is a little bit different. Workplace change is forced on someone usually. What we are dealing with here is nothing forced on us.  Many of us were eager for the change. It got our juices flowing.  

I think what you are seeing here is not resistance to change, but anger.  Anger, because for many of us, for the first time in 20+ yrs of playing D&D, we are being left behind.  We associated ourselves with an image. A Brand, you could say.  A part of our identity was that we were playing D&D, the latest edition.  We may be old timers, we may have cut our teeth on the game in 1984, but we also play the latest & greatest game they put out too.  We may houserule it, but we are still part of a growing community of gamers.  We buy the newest stuff, or at least check it out and steal from it for our games.  When people publish a module, or a new spaltbook, it's for us, damnit!  We are part of the next great thing. We are evolving and changing with the game. We are riding the wave of newness, freshness, the latest and greatest.  And we loved that. It was part of who we were.  

Part of our identity.

With 4e, many of us just felt we couldn't make the switch.  It was too far from the game we played and loved.  

The result of that, was we were no longer the cutting edge.  I know I personally feel regret that I won't be able to go into Borders and sit down and read the latest D&D books.  That's something I have been doing since 1984.  It's basically like someone teling me that the car/computer/IPod that I have now will be the one I will have forever.  There is no sense checking out new cars/computers/IPods, because I won't like it.

It's sad, sort of depressing. It makes me feel old and left behind. Out of touch.  And that excitement that I have had in looking forward to the new thing from D&D, that I have felt since 1984, I will never have again.

From that comes anger.  Anger at the people/company who took away a part of what I liked about my life, a part of myself.  Something I identified with.  Something that made me who I was.  Anger is a natural reaction, along with the sadness.  Eventually acceptance will come, or has come for many of us, and we will find something else to identify with.

I think that's why so many people have such high hopes for Pathfinder, and are calling it the real D&D 4e.  That way they really didn't lose anything, they just re-associate that aspect of their identity with something else. Same with the people who are going with C&C, or other systems.  It's no coincidence that people are picking up their heads out of the 3.x books, and looking at new and growing systems. They want to be a part of something they can identify with in the same way they used to identify with D&D.  They want to be able to buy the new car/computer/IPod damnit!  They want to be a part of something successful, new, that grows and evolves along with themselves and their gaming hobby.  Just like they used to have.

It stands to reason that for the same identity issues, some, not al,  but some people went to 4e because they didn't want to lose that part of their identity.  I think most by far went because they loved the system, and it worked for them. But some went because of fear of losing part of themselves.

Edition wars arise because people basically don't want to be analyzed as to their psychological motivations, or reasons for doing something.  Most think they are completely rational creatures. If you threaten their sense of self, or identity, they get angry.  Their defending of their game system or true motivations is essentially stemming from their identification with the game they play. The more they identify with something, the more hostile they get when you try to take that source of identification away from them.  Loss of the argument triggers fear of losing part of themselves.  Back someone into a corner and th  reaten to take something valuable from them, and watch how they react.


Just my 2 cents...


----------



## darjr (Jan 5, 2009)

I was going to post that, while a good point, this thread will be taken in completely the wrong way. I don't think I need to point that out anymore. Wound tracks? Really? ugh.

I agree, there are completely valid reasons to not want to switch to 4e, even if I don't ascribe to them. I'll even grant that it's entirely reasonable to find the game horrible, however much I don't agree.

What I do find very interesting are examples of the very thing the OP is trying to point out in the response to his post. It's almost Pavlovian.

I see it in my own words and actions.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 5, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> This hits the nail on the head. What this thread actually says is that our "rational" arguments for or against a new edition are just rationalizations of the emotional reaction to change.




Probably not quite that simple.  Take a half step back...

Our rational arguments for or against _may, in part_, be rationalizations of the reaction to change.  But do note that some of the rational argument is also a rational argument - that you have a reaction doesn't mean your brain stops working.  Saying, "You're just having an emotional response" is simplistic, downright condescending, and possibly incorrect in many cases.

When you are having a discussion, do keep in mind how people respond to change, and how people have treated each other around here for the past year or so.  And also keep in mind that their points probably have some merit independent of all that.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 5, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> This hits the nail on the head. What this thread actually says is that our "rational" arguments for or against a new edition are just rationalizations of the emotional reaction to change.




That's right because no one can *rationally* decide what game system fits their style. Logic has no place in making choices. 

I think the emotional responses come in response to condescending attitudes both for and against change.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 5, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> I dunno maybe it is just me but this doesn't feel like a valid reason for a new edition. I feel a new edition should be a different system, it keeps some base mechanics, themes, etc. But should be something new and different so that those that didn't find what they wanted in a old edition may find it in a new.




See, for me, a new edition of something implies significant _continuity_ with its predecessors. Too little continuity and you've got something new, not a new edition.

While there may be some debate on the topic, I feel that, like 1e AD&D was to D&D, 4e is a new game and not the 4th revision of the game that started with 1e AD&D, despite its claim.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 5, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> That's right because no one can *rationally* decide what game system fits their style. Logic has no place in making choices.
> 
> I think the emotional responses come in response to condescending attitudes both for and against change.




Right... there are no thoughts, only feelings. I _feel_ that being hit by a speeding train will injure you, and I _feel_ that 2+2 equals 4. I think.

On the other hand, when you're telling employees how Human Resources has just borked over their career/livelihood/future, it probably helps to couch it in terms of "feelings" and "acceptance". See Catbert for instance.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 5, 2009)

There is a resistance to change.

There is also resistance to things that don't work as well (or even that just don't work BETTER). 

If the change doesn't gain you something, and, in fact, looses you something, and is not forced on you...why do it? Why change something that is good for you into something that is bad for you, if you don't have to?

Usually,  in psychology, you can't avoid change.

In the Edition Wars, you can...if the change doesn't benefit you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 5, 2009)

An interesting thread...a nice description of the psychological phenomenon of resistance to change.

Doesn't apply to me, though, not in this particular case.  I was actually open minded about the update and had pre-ordered my Core 3 before I saw word one of the changes that were to come.

In 30+ years of gaming in over 100 systems, I've only had a problem with 2 system revisions- HERO's flirtation with FUZION, and the changeover from 3.5Ed to 4Ed.

I could look at FUZION and 4Ed and find merits in some of the design decisions that were made.  However, the bulk of the decisions were ones I didn't care for.

Like some before me posted:


> See, for me, a new edition of something implies significant continuity with its predecessors. Too little continuity and you've got something new, not a new edition.




In each case, the new edition was so different- ignoring issues of whether it was better or worse- as to be unpalatable as a replacement for the old edition.  It was no longer a revision, it was a change so complete that the games shared an identity _literally_ in name only.

IOW, what Marketing types call the "New Coke" problem.


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> 4e is a _*totally optional*_ upgrade/downgrade/crossgrade (depending how one might view it) to a particular leisure activity. That is all.




Indeed.

The OP seems to implicitly posit that 4e is the change that must be adapted to; I think this betrays the OP's preference. When, in point of fact, the OP's job and experience is people adapting to changes they can't change.

People who AREN'T upgrading ARE adapting to change. Nothing makes "accepting 4e" any more valid than learning to live without wizards supoort, changing to a different game/publisher, etc.

The OP's job probably concerns itself with helping people adapt to resistance to change because that change is unhealthy for the worker and employer. But when it comes to blindly following a change in one's mode of entertainment, its spending even more after playing the game for years and amassing a collection that is largely unexploited. To me, always spending more resources to chase the new shiney when your existing gaming material is working and largely underutilized is the unhealthy/irrational behavior.

EDIT: A later post by Truename makes me think I may have judged him a little harshly. Nonetheless, I think this is an important point.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jan 5, 2009)

I am having two responses to the thesis as originally presented.

Before presenting these responses, I should ask, what do we mean by "resistance to change"?  I am seeing a number of behaviors that we might see, in the case of adopting the new edition:

1 Want to try it, tried it, didn't like it.
2 Want to try it, tried it, did like it.
3 Want to try it, didn't try it, don't think they'll like it.
4 Want to try it, didn't try it, do think they'll like it.
5 Didn't want to try it, tried it, didn't like it.
6 Didn't want to try it, tried it, did like it.
7 Don't want to try it, didn't try it, don't think they'll like it.
8 Don't want to try it, didn't try it, do think they'll like it.

Of these, the odd responses fit "resistance to change" (but not all to the same degree).  I note that there is a counter issue that falls out of the cases: One who adopts 4E even though it turns out to be, hypothetically, a poorer game.

In response to the initial thesis:

First, resistance to change (in a bell-curve) is probably a functional behavior in many, but not all, circumstances.  Following, the example that was provided (counseling people to change their work habits), probably preselects cases where the behavior is not functional.  That is to say, I'm not seeing evidence that resistance to change is not _correct_ behavior, and if there is a tendency to resistance, I think that one can argue that this is _probably_ correct in most cases.

I will posit, however, that the EnWorld community was tending to the early adopters side of the bell, and was eager to see the shiny new stuff (4E).  Therefore, the resistance to 4E is curious.

Second, an actor who is presenting a change (in this case, WotC presenting 4E) has a careful burden of navigating change responses.  That is, presentations must be true, forthright, and non-impositional.  I presume that most folks have a fairly reactive and negative response to untrue, couched, or impositional statements.  (A response that I find to be entirely rational .)  Any of these features will quickly push the response from the early-adopter side towards the no-way side of the curve.

Then, a response which is to resist change (that is, to resist 4E) can be argued to be a _correct_ behavior, and not a non-functional response by the community.  Rather, the behavior is a result of features of 4E and its presentation.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> _This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is._
> 
> So, when people try to argue with me about a change, I don't argue about which way is better. Instead, I say: "It's worked for a bunch of people, and it might work for you, too. Give it a real try for two months and then decide. We'll set a concrete date for your group to make that decision, and it will be your decision to make, not mine."




Funny. I’ve found myself making the same argument for the old way. If you give the “old school” another try and you really make an effort to understand why the grognards still enjoy the old game, you might just find that you really like it. ^_^

There’s two keys here. (1) The person advocating the “new” needs to recognize that the “new” may actually _not_ be better. Especially for a specific person in a specific situation. (2) The person evaluating the “new” way has to really give it a fair chance. They probably should also make an effort to find that “transforming idea”.


Anyway, IMHO, there is no problem with edition wars. My enjoyment of the hobby has been improved by reading and participating in “edition wars”. There’s stuff to learn there if you don’t take it too seriously. Despite any natural resistance or enthusiastic evangelism, the discussion won’t be completely irrational. Indeed, it is in the expression and collision of natural resistance and enthusiastic evangelism that those “transforming ideas” can often be found.

Whether it’s that the resister comes to understands the benefits of the “new” or that the evangelist realizes that what works for them actually doesn’t work for the resister. Or both.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 5, 2009)

I purchased 3.0 in 2001, played it for a couple of years, purchased 3.5 and played it a little bit. The more I played 3._x_, the less I liked it.

I played other d20 games like _Modern_ and _Mutants and Masterminds_, and I'd play either one again, so it's not d20 games generally.

Ultimately I just didn't like 3._x_.

If I were to play _D&D_ again, it would be either _OD&D_ or 1e _AD&D_. That's not resistance to change, or worse, "nostalgia" - that's a conscious choice based on experience with different systems.

As far as 4e goes, I've honestly paid very little attention to it because I really don't enjoy fantasy rpgs that much anyway. I can scratch that itch if I'm so inclined with an older _D&D_ game or _The Fantasy Trip_ without dropping ducats on a whole new system. I suppose I'm resisting change to 4e because I'm too emotionally invested in the money in my wallet . . .


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 5, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> However, the OPs post suggests that a 'fair shake' for a new system would be something like 3 weeks constant immersion to overcome your (general you) resistance to change. I'm not sure but I would think that 3 weeks full immersion (120 h) corresponds to maybe 6-12 months of gaming.
> 
> Now I am not sure that my need to evaluate a system fairly is big enough to suffer through playing it for that long, if I expect I might not like it. However maybe we can acknowledge that investing substantially less time will not allow overcoming biases.




But my bias was to like it. I was looking forward to a reinvigoration of the hobby, and I was hoping they would fix some of the problem areas of 3.5. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, I even canceled my Amazon order when they couldn't deliver it on time and bought it from the local game store. That means I paid over $100 where most people paid around $60. I was excited to get the books.

And then I played it a few times. Game over man.... Game over!


----------



## rounser (Jan 5, 2009)

"Your opinion is irrational. I predict you'll get defensive about that statement - that's a classic, entirely predictable response to being called irrational, which will just prove how irrational you are."

"But I'm not being irrational!"

"Oh look, you're being defensive, which is, as I said, a classic pattern of irrationality.  And look, I predicted it all along.  So you're irrational."

An earlier poster was right - this has all the hallmarks of sleazy catbert change management HR pop psychology bollocks.  It's sad that people actually pull a paycheck for this, but I guess they're paid by the "change agents".  History is written by the victors, and he who has the gold makes the rules.

Why isn't the light shone on the all-too-human foibles, motivations and predictability of the change agents?  Because they're the ones with the whip hand - no more nor less.


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

Psion said:


> The OP seems to implicitly posit that 4e is the change that must be adapted to; I think this betrays the OP's preference. When, in point of fact, the OP's job and experience is people adapting to changes they can't change.




Not exactly. People hire me to introduce high performance software development techniques and strategies to their teams. I require that the change be at the teams' discretion. I don't know about other fields, but believe me, can't nobody make programmers do what they don't wanna do.  Not if you want high performance, anyway.

My initial post didn't betray my preference as it betrayed my work biases; in my day job, the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many (not all) teams. And I mean "better" in that they make the software better _and_ they make team members' lives better (less overtime, more ownership, higher quality results, authority over schedules...). Yet I face this resistance to change from people on every team. It's human nature. Once they've tried it and adapted, they come to like it, even love it, but there's almost always some initial resistance.

So I'm used to situations where the "new thing" really is better than the "old thing" but the majority of people resist anyway. I'm not trying to make that value judgment here. Sorry if it came across that way. I tried to more neutral in my followups.



Psion said:


> The OP's job probably concerns itself with helping people adapt to resistance to change because that change is unhealthy for the worker and employer.




Not at all, and I'm not in HR, although I can see why some people would think that. Change is hard, but once my teams get through it, they're generally happier (and still in the same job).


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 5, 2009)

Just to make sure I understand ... is the OP saying that the pattern of resistance to change is independent of the comparative quality of X and Y?  That is, in changing from X to Y, and assuming that X can be objectively measured for quality against Y, would the same pattern of resistance apply if X is better than Y _and_ if Y is better than X?

If yes, how in the world would people come around to the "transformative idea" that lets them accept the change to Y, if X is objectively better than Y?  And, maybe more importantly, _why_ would they?

If no, doesn't the entire model depend upon Y being objectively better than X (as it is in the OP's profession)?  And in this context, then, isn't the OP saying -- indirectly, by positing the model as an explanation for edition wars -- that 4E is objectively better than 3E?

I dunno, seems like a pretty shaky model for explaining edition wars, to me.

(Just for the record, my first anti-4E moment was finding out about deliberately non-Euclidean movement and areas of effect, and I can't really think of anything much more rational than that.)


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> What you're talking about here is the classic "diffusion of innovations" curve. Geoffrey Moore used this curve to divide people up into five categories:
> 
> 
> Innovators, who want to be on the bleeding edge at all costs
> ...




Yep, that's the one. Over the decades since I first learned it my recall of the details had grown hazy, but I'm glad I still remembered the principles.

Cheers


----------



## Silver Moon (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before.



I was active in the Convention circuit as an RPGA coordinator at the time of the 2e to 3e change and can verifiy that there was a very vocal negative reaction to it.  At one Con a 'company man' even came out to help people convert their beloved 'Living City' characters from 2nd to 3rd and I was surprised that he was able to leave the room alive.  

One legitimate argument to resisting edition changes is economic - once you've invested large amonts of money into materials for one system want to keep using it to get your money's worth, especially if there is a lot of it that you haven't even used yet.


----------



## arscott (Jan 5, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> (Just for the record, my first anti-4E moment was finding out about deliberately non-Euclidean movement and areas of effect, and I can't really think of anything much more rational than that.)



What nonsense is this--Unless you're only moving along a cardinal, Euclidean distance is all about square roots--can't get much more irrational than that.

Now chessboard geometry, that's rational.  Nice whole numbers, whatever direction you go.


----------



## Psion (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> Not at all, and I'm not in HR, although I can see why some people would think that. Change is hard, but once my teams get through it, they're generally happier (and still in the same job).




Sorry, I mis-typed. I meant "when _resisting the change_ is unhealthy...". I.E. Substantially the same as what you have said here:



Truename said:


> the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many (not all) teams. And I mean "better" in that they make the software better _and_ they make team members' lives better (less overtime, more ownership, higher quality results, authority over schedules...).




So, unlike the situation of adapting to new tools, software engineering best practices (yeah, I'm a software engineer), etc., accepting the change to 4e is not implicitly in my best interest.

As a related back-analogy, I find that about the worst thing you can do in the software world is to accept a change just because a vendor promises it is better. One vendor assures me using java for embedded development is the way to go. Elsewhere, one vendor assures me that open source based software has inherent benefits (and thus I should be buying their product) and another tells me that there is no way I should risk that (and thus I should be buying _their_ product).


----------



## Truename (Jan 5, 2009)

At the risk of beating a dead horse...



Jeff Wilder said:


> Just to make sure I understand ... is the OP saying that the pattern of resistance to change is independent of the comparative quality of X and Y? That is, in changing from X to Y, and assuming that X can be objectively measured for quality against Y, would the same pattern of resistance apply if X is better than Y and if Y is better than X?




Almost. The pattern of _reaction_ to "the introduction of a foreign element" (change) is consistent regardless of whether Y is better or worse. The whole cycle is about more than just resistance.



Jeff Wilder said:


> If yes, how in the world would people come around to the "transformative idea" that lets them accept the change to Y, if X is objectively better than Y? And, maybe more importantly, why would they?




The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.

Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.

1. Late Status Quo: 3.5e
2. (_introduction of foreign element_: 4e released)
3. Resistance: "I read about 4e and didn't like it."
4. Chaos: "All the board conversations are about 4e. Will I be forced to use it? I hates it, my precious, _hates_ it!"
5. (_transforming idea_): "Hey, I still have all my 3.5e books, and there's a lot of people who don't like 4e."
6. Integration: "I'm going to find some 3.5e players for my group, move to a 3.5e forum, and snag some cheap books off eBay."
7. New Status Quo: "I've got a healthy group, more books than I can use, and Paizo's putting out some awesome stuff."

And for the other side of the fence, also a caricature:

1. Late Status Quo: 4e excitement
2. (_introduction of foreign element_: people flaming 4e)
3. Resistance: "These people obviously don't understand 4e. They just need to try it!"
4. Chaos: "Why do people keep flaming 4e? Can't they see that all their arguments are straw-men? 4e is great! Isn't it? Isn't it? Why won't they just try it?  Oh crap, this person tried it for 6 months and still hates it. What if it really does suck?"
5. (_transforming idea_): "Hmm... this rule kind of bothers me. Maybe 4e isn't perfect."
6. Integration: "The flames are getting boring, but there's definitely some problems with 4e. Let's talk about house rules and encounter design."
7. New Status Quo: "4e isn't as awesome as I thought it was, but with some house rules and a good DM, I'm having even more fun than before."

(Again, there's more details on the Satir change model here: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model)


----------



## resistor (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> The transforming idea is about how to integrate the "foreign element" (in this case, Wizards releasing 4e) into your life. Sometimes that means adopting it enthusiastically, but not necessarily.
> 
> Here's an example. It's a caricature, but it's the best I can do in 7 lines.
> 
> ...




How would you account for people whose opinions have flipped?  I was initially really excited for 4e, until more details came out and I realized it wasn't what I wanted.  And I'm sure there are other people who experienced the reverse: initially disinterested, then discovered they like it later.


----------



## Roger (Jan 5, 2009)

Truename said:


> My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.



Interesting post and interesting thread.  I think the data and evidence fit the model fairly well, for the most part.

Regarding the virulence of this particular War, I think there's another factor that isn't usually present and that has yet to be raised.

Since your background is in work habits, let's say we have a situation in which there's a group of employees who have been using a particular brand of Day-Timer for years, but there's a push from management for everyone to migrate to some new brand.  The parallels between this scenario and the real life situation are clear, I hope.

The tricky bit is that it's not just that the employees have been using their particular Day-Timers for years.  It's that some of them, including some who are well-respected by their peers, have also been producing and selling accessories specific to that brand.  A few on a large and profitable scale, many on a smaller and less-profitable scale.  And the upcoming change threatens their economic ecosystem.

In that sort of situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see an unusual amount of effort being put into resistance to the change, and a high level of evangelism inherent in that resistance.

Have you run across this sort of situation in your professional experience?  How did it work out?



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Stormtower (Jan 5, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> My take on it is a little bit different. Workplace change is forced on someone usually. What we are dealing with here is nothing forced on us.  Many of us were eager for the change. It got our juices flowing.
> 
> I think what you are seeing here is not resistance to change, but anger.  Anger, because for many of us, for the first time in 20+ yrs of playing D&D, we are being left behind.  We associated ourselves with an image. A Brand, you could say.  A part of our identity was that we were playing D&D, the latest edition.  We may be old timers, we may have cut our teeth on the game in 1984, but we also play the latest & greatest game they put out too.  We may houserule it, but we are still part of a growing community of gamers.  We buy the newest stuff, or at least check it out and steal from it for our games.  When people publish a module, or a new spaltbook, it's for us, damnit!  We are part of the next great thing. We are evolving and changing with the game. We are riding the wave of newness, freshness, the latest and greatest.  And we loved that. It was part of who we were.
> 
> ...




This.  I was going to type a long post but joethelawyer, you covered it bro.  The only addition I could make to his thoughts is the additional anger/stress that comes with the fracturing of social bonds as players and GMs diffuse away from the previous edition into "anything but" 4E.  

Now, I'm not down on 4E, personally.  I think the game is pretty doggone fun (it ain't my beloved 3.5, but it doesn't need to be) and has plenty of potential.  But as a mid-80's D&D guy it's certainly demoralizing to see how this edition change in particular (more so, by my personal observation, than previous edition changes) has driven many gamers into other RPGs and away from D&D altogether.  I've lost players and DMs from organized play, although they are still happy to sit at my 3.5 table.  Long term, I have some serious reservations about how much the community will remain fractured, as well as how WotC/Hasbro truly intend to draw new gamers (and particularly, new DMs) into the hobby.

But it's not fear of change.  I've happily adopted every previous edition of D&D before 4E, and I'm still on the fence, hedging my bets, seven months after its release.  That's never happened before.


----------



## Thistonius (Jan 5, 2009)

As someone has said, maybe the main reason is an economic one.  I know one person who has refused to buy any 3E/3.5E books due to the amount of money he spent on 2E.  I refused to buy 2E books from 1E simply because of the cost involved.

My move to 4E was a simple one for me.  The rules seemed better, the combat quicker and the character creation easier.  Why?  Because my group has 3 people who wanted to roleplay and had never done it before.  We started with 3.5 and they found all the rules, spells, etc etc very confusing, even after a group of us sat down with them and explained everything to them.  This got me thinking about 3.5 in general.  

When 4E arrived, we gave it a quick playtest, since I bought the 3 core books, and we found that we enjoyed it far more then 3.5.  We introduced it to our new players and they loved it.  They explained that the characters were more concise in what they wanted and didn't have to trawl to page after page of character generation and spells.  When my older players came into the game, they said that it was a breath of fresh air, and when we finished our first fight in less than 10 mins, we were astonished.

So for me, and my group, it was a no-brainer to switch to 4E from 3.5E.  Even our hardcore 3.5 splatbook master has made the switch completly because he enjoys the system more.  He has even sold some of his 3.5 books so he can start buying 4E books instead.

But, at the end of the day, it comes down to what you like and how much you have spent on that 'like' and what you like to play.  Simple as.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 6, 2009)

When I read the OP my first thought was "hmmm, recent account… troll!!!"  Now I’m sure it wasn’t Truename’s intention  but if it were it would have a lot of potential. People involved in a debate just *love* being told "your arguments are irrelevant, you’re just being irrational and following some predictable pattern".

I adopted 3e immediately because I thought it was a huge improvement over previous editions. After a few years I was burned out and felt it needed a serious overhaul. I was really looking forward to a vastly different new edition even before it was announced. Then 4e came out and I realized it kept things I didn't like and I hated most of the changes...
OMG! I don’t fit either profile! I’m so unique and unpredictable!!! 

…OR some people may dislike and not adopt 4e for a variety of perfectly valid reasons and edition wars happen because:
1- people tend to take sides and argue about many things (sports, politics, *not just new situations*)
2- surprisingly, gamers have strong opinions on rpgs.
3- anonymous online debates are often more heated
4- there is no objective way to prove either side right or wrong

Resistance to change may be a factor in edition wars but implying it's the main reason is just glib.



Truename said:


> the techniques I introduce are genuinely better for many



See? completely different situation here.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.  

I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.


----------



## Truename (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I want to thank Truename for a great post and to everyone for a lively and respectful debate. This has been one of the best threads for me on the boards in a while.
> 
> I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.




Thanks! Introduce me to your DDI software team and then I can really do some good...


----------



## RFisher (Jan 6, 2009)

Truename said:


> Yet I face this resistance to change from people on every team. It's human nature.




Well, with software engineers you’ve got much, much more than human nature in the way. You have every IT department who ever forced Notes as an e-mail system on people. You have every PHB who forced development practices that were meant to be a bad example but they weren’t smart enough to understand that. You have every pressed-T-shirt who decided to early adopt unproven practices because their only criterion is buzzword compliance.

Software development has been so badly managed so often.


----------



## Truename (Jan 6, 2009)

Roger said:


> The tricky bit is that it's not just that the employees have been using their particular Day-Timers for years. It's that some of them, including some who are well-respected by their peers, have also been producing and selling accessories specific to that brand. A few on a large and profitable scale, many on a smaller and less-profitable scale. And the upcoming change threatens their economic ecosystem.
> 
> In that sort of situation, I wouldn't be surprised to see an unusual amount of effort being put into resistance to the change, and a high level of evangelism inherent in that resistance.
> 
> Have you run across this sort of situation in your professional experience? How did it work out?




Sort of, but not exactly. My field is called "software methodology" (literally, "the methods used to create software"). In some companies there are people who are responsible for defining the company's methods. Sometimes these people are called "architects" and sometimes they're part of a "project management office" (PMO). Although the software teams are the ones doing the work, the architects (or PMO) are "selling accessories"--they're taking established methods and customizing them to the company's needs. They do tend to resist a lot more.

Sometimes these folks are well respected, and sometimes they aren't. Regardless, I have to figure out who _is_ well-respected, particularly the ones who also dislike the new system. People who are well-respected have disproportionate influence. If they accept the change (particularly if they really hated it to begin with), then it's easier for others to accept it, too.

Once I find these folks, I spend extra time helping them find that "transforming idea" in order for the larger change to be successful. So I talk with them and, without asking, try to get a sense of what they _really_ care about. I don't look for details of how software is developed (analogy: HP & healing surges), but what they're truly passionate about. This often turns out to be rigor, reliability, quality, predictability, user satisfaction, sane work hours, career advancement, or something else (analogy: a realistic-seeming world).

Once I have this sense of understanding, I help those people discover how they can preserve those passions in the new system. I'll talk about how the system cares about rigor, or provides predictability, or can be adjusted on the fly to take advantage of user feedback. I'm not pushy about it, though, and I don't try to convince or persuade so much as to put myself in his (or her) shoes and show that I can see things from his perspective and that I value the same things he does. Then I use "did you know" to help him see that things aren't necessarily as bad as his preconceptions say. (Analogy: "suspension of disbelief is important to me too; I want the things that are happening to have some internal logic. It's hard for me to imagine what's happening otherwise. (pause) The way I deal with that in my game is to describe HP loss as 'getting winded' and taking shallow cuts. That way healing surges are cinematic surges of adrenaline rather than actual healing, except when magic is involved. What do you think of that approach?" ...If that quote sounds a bit forced, it is; it's easier in real conversation.)

This isn't as manipulative as it might sound. It's actually understanding his perspective and trying to show new possibilities. For this to work, I have to truly care about his success, and just show options rather than forcing. People can tell when you're being manipulative. It doesn't work if you are.

Anyway, these conversations don't really result in a "transforming idea," but they plant a seed. Usually that seed is enough to get people past the initial resistance and try the new system for a decent amount of time. At first it's chaos and disaster, but people work through it and eventually find that transforming idea that lets them make the new system work for them.

Umm... so, yeah.  More than you wanted to know about introducing change. I'm not sure what you can take from this experience, but there you go.


----------



## Galloglaich (Jan 6, 2009)

underthumb said:


> Truename-
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I agree 100%, and to be honest I find this kind of pschyo-marketing doctrine _extremely_ creepy (even though it is the basis for a lot of very effective and very lucrative influence of public opinions ala Edward Bernays Madison Avenue) it reduces the human mind / spirit to mechanical processes, there is some cleverness in it's insights on human behavior, but it's more to do with manipulation than enlightenment.   It's the iron hand of cynical rationalization masked in a warm fuzzy mitten of psychobabble.

G.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 6, 2009)

RFisher said:


> . . . buzzword compliance.



That's beautiful.

Thanks for adding that to my vocabulary.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 6, 2009)

great thread.

but i'm not sure you'll convince me to play 4E.

i am against 1edADnD, 2edD&D, 3edD&D, 4edD&D, 2edADnD, 2000ed, 3.11ed for workgroups, and 4E.

not that i haven't tried and played all of them. i just find them not to my standards.

edit: diaglo "prefers the term luddite OD&Der" Ooi


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Resistance to change may be a factor in edition wars but implying it's the main reason is just glib.




Discarding it as a (or the) major reason out of hand is also glib.  Do not throw out hypothesis that are consistent with the evidence out of hand.  You don't need to be bound by them - just keep them in mind as possibilities.

I am not, personally, one who holds to most models that human reactions work in "stages".  That does not mean the model does not hold some goodly wisdom you can extract, and use to your own benefit.

If nothing else, you can take away from this the idea that the person on the other end of the conversation isn't "just being a jerk" - there are generally _reasons_ why people have reactions.  Treat them as if they have a reason that you, and perhaps even they, do not know, and you can probably avoid warring in the first place...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 6, 2009)

The original post was a very interesting take on the edition wars phenomenon.

As I was reading it, a different message was playing in the back of my mind.

" I am the wellspring from which you flow." " What would your world be without me?"

Hearing that triggered an emotional response that I'm sure most gamers are familliar with.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

Truename said:


> My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.




So you are one of those people who turns people's worlds upside down and then explain to them why they should be happy about it. I see.

I'm a big fan of, "If it ain't broke...."


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I don't agree with everything said in the thread and I am not sure you can use a clinical explanation for the situation. Regardless it is still a terrific thread and generated a great discussion amongst my team on brand and marketing strategies.




"Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."

Depressing.


----------



## Wombat (Jan 6, 2009)

One observation I have is that the original posting could be applied to trying _*any *_other roleplaying game, rather than shifting from 3e to 4e.  

Example:  my gaming group became bored with 3e.  We disliked the emphasis on combat, primarily, but there were other issues as well.  So we moved to other systems entirely, rather than moving towards 4e.  

(As an aside, we did get briefly involved in a 4e game -- three sessions worth.  Admittedly we went in with a negative view, but we tried it, found that the aspects of D&D that we disliked were even more greatly emphasized, and opted out entirely.  This was, admittedly, after we had already tried and found we enjoyed other systems.)

When the group first shifted to another system, there was a hard adjustment period, in that the players were still in "D&D mentality" (assume there are dungeons, assume illogical traps lurk in every room, assume that every encounter will be combat-oriented, looks for magical treasures, etc.).  It took about four sessions (roughly two months for us gaming) to break totally out of the old habits and really adjust to the new (or more correctly for one player to complete the transition), but we were happy to be away from D&D.  

We had not held onto the old.  We had gone towards something new.  We successfully made a deep transition in gaming.  

Much more importantly, however, we did not *need *to shift.  We did this from desire, from an interest in finding a game that better fit our style of sessions.  Yes, the game system we shifted to came out after 3e was introduced; would that, then, make the shift necessary?

4e *is *optional.  Just because someone played 3e does not mean that they will play 4e, have to like it, and give up earlier editions.  Most people who play D&D have never played another rpg; is it required that they try another newer rpg when it comes out?  The logic of this is on the level of saying, "We've always played Bridge, but someone has just invented Hearts -- we are all required to shift."

The logic here is faulty except from a "required" environment, such as work or removal of old technology.  It sounds good, but under inspection it becomes questionable at best.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Truename said:


> My day job is all about helping people make major changes to their work habits. I see the same types of reactions there that I'm seeing on this forum in regards to 4e, so I thought you might like to hear some of the things that I've learned about change.
> 
> (There's some generalizations in the stuff coming up. Individual reactions vary, of course.)




I will state upfront that I have a bias with anything that tries to attribute a general reason for human behavior.  Usually, IMHO, it amounts to this might be why some people could be acting this way...



Truename said:


> First, it's human nature to resist change. It's not actually a dislike of new stuff that causes this resistance; it's that people get comfortable with the current way of doing things. *The resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff they already have and like. So the more mastery someone has over the existing way of doing things, the more likely they are to dislike a new way of doing things.*




Bold Mine...I think this is a simplistic view when dealing with subjective things such  as rpg's.  This isn't a policy, procedure or chunk of code that can be measured in terms of productivity increases or efficiency.  It is measured in a very subjective way...mainly fun.  I think it would be more accurate in the case of 3e vs. 4e to assert that resistance comes from not wanting to lose stuff that achieves one's fun (however each individual ranks that).  Thus I don't know if "mastery" is necessarily the correct reason either.  Honestly I feel like I have a better understanding and "mastery of 4e than I do of 3e and it's myriad OGL counterparts...but I have more fun with 3e/OGL games and products.

I think this is moreso because I am continuously learning or discovering something new with my 3e and OGL games/books.  I enjoy that plain and simple.  Others do not and I can accept that. 

Let's look at it a different way, I just purchased a 42" flat panel LCD TV, along with a HD cablebox & DVR.  I wasn't resistant to this change in my television because in the end this tv helps me garner more enjoyment and more fun from using it (whether that is with my xbox 360, PS3, recording programs or picture quality.)... it has nothing to do with the mastery I had over my old TV and VCR which I knew how to use...while there was and still is a learning curve for my new stuff.



Truename said:


> _*This is completely independent of how much better or worse the "new thing" is.*_ People will come up with all kinds of rationalizations, and engage in long, bitter arguments, but at their core these arguments come down to "I like what I have now. Please don't take it away from me." Such an argument can never be won (or lost). The more you try, the more entrenched people get in their positions.




Again emphasis mine...Why do you believe this?  In a work environment, unless you are making the decisions, you often in the end have little choice but to go with the change... as an example, at my job we have just recently switched from RAD 6 to RAD 7 as a development environment.  Regardless of which is "better" or "worse", I am paid to learn to use the current one in completing my assigned projects.  Thus while I may appreciate how smooth my superiors try to make the transition... ultimately it is not my choice.   Unless I don't want to get paid. 

I am not paid to go with the current edition of D&D and thus I have an actual choice and freedom to determine, for me, whether it is a better product or not than what I already have.



Truename said:


> So, when people try to argue with me about a change, I don't argue about which way is better. Instead, I say: "It's worked for a bunch of people, and it might work for you, too. Give it a real try for two months and then decide. We'll set a concrete date for your group to make that decision, and it will be your decision to make, not mine."
> 
> This generally works, and people often find that they like the new way, even if they originally hated it. (Not always, though.)




Have you ever wondered if it's that most people actually come to "like" the new way... or that at a certain point they realize that it is inevitable... I mean unless they want to quit, be labeled as a "troublemaker" at their job, etc.  Again this doesn't apply to something I have the freedom to judge as opposed to having no option in the end.



Truename said:


> It works because there's a predictable pattern to change. (Psychologist Virginia Satir explains it this way: Steven M Smith - The Satir Change Model) There's an initial period of resistance to making any change. When people try it, they experience chaos, low performance, and low morale as they discover that they no longer understand how they fit into to the system.
> 
> At some point, individuals discover a "transforming idea" that shows how the new way benefits them personally. They see how they can fit into the system and they start integrating it into their life. This happens at different times for different people. The nature of the "transforming idea" is highly personal, and some people never discover one.
> 
> ...




Unless of course one or both sides are unwilling to realize this is not an objective thing and totally subjective, again especially when talking about a leisure activity that is done for fun.



Truename said:


> People get stuck at different stages in this process. Some never get out of the "resistance" stage, and never try the new system. Some experience the "chaos" stage that occurs when you first try the new system, and conclude that the new system is broken. And some get to the "transforming idea" stage, but then set their expectations impossibly high and are disappointed.




What about those with no need to try (for a cost to themselves) this new system.  What if they personally haven't experienced the problems... or said problems with the old system just don't affect them in a serious enough manner that the cost is worth it?  As far as the "chaos stage" how about those who know themselves and what they want well enough that they recognize a certain thing is not for them.  Or they get to the "transforming idea" stage and realize the old system accomplished their desires and wants better.  You disregard the issue of better or worse, and in a subjective arena I feel this is where this whole argument falls apart.  If you could show that the new system is objectively better in all aspects that every user wants, your ideas would be totally valid...but instead you disregard it as not relevant, when it is the most relevant thing in this particular situation.



Truename said:


> I'm not sure what this tells us, other than the obvious: "edition wars are inevitable," and "some people love 4e from the start (generally the ones who feel they have nothing to lose), others will grow to like it with time, some will try it and hate it, and some won't ever try it," and "edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better." The good news is that they'll pass with time.




Actually I think edition wars have everything to do with "which system is actually better"...for a particular user, and they will be inevitable because, like all fans, D&D players love to debate the merits and failings (as they perceive them) of their particular hobby, sport, movie, etc.



Truename said:


> Anyway, I hope this meander through the psychology of change was interesting.




Much as I don't agree with alot of it, yes it was a quite interesting read.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

Yes, this version of salesmanship is potentially useful if people are forced to accept a change. The thing is, it comes from a completely value neutral viewpoint; it presupposes you do not care about the actual value of the change and only implementing it. Useful for corporate authority figures, not so helpful when people are trying to choose one or more games based on their perceived play value.


----------



## Greg K (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> "Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."
> 
> Depressing.




This is the design team whose members said that they learned in 3e that thing's like Knight's Challenge and  Rope Trick were bad  and then, in 4e, gave us things like Come and Get It (targets must move towards the Fighter), Divine Challenge (attack the Paladin, who marked you or take damage), and reintroduced Rope Trick as a ritual available to anyone.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Discarding it as a (or the) major reason out of hand is also glib. Do not throw out hypothesis that are consistent with *the evidence* out of hand. You don't need to be bound by them - just keep them in mind as possibilities.
> 
> I am not, personally, one who holds to most models that human reactions work in "stages". That does not mean the model does not hold some goodly wisdom you can extract, and use to your own benefit.
> 
> If nothing else, you can take away from this the idea that the person on the other end of the conversation isn't "just being a jerk" - there are generally _reasons_ why people have reactions. Treat them as if they have a reason that you, and perhaps even they, do not know, and you can probably avoid warring in the first place...






Roger said:


> Interesting post and interesting thread.  I think *the data and evidence* fit the model fairly well, for the most part.
> 
> Regarding the virulence of this particular War, I think there's another factor that isn't usually present and that has yet to be raised.
> 
> ...





OK, Emphasis mine... What data and/or evidence?  The fact that we are having edition wars?  That's the result, so what evidence backs up any of the OP's original hypothesis?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Actually I think edition wars have everything to do with "which system is actually better"...for a particular user, and they will be inevitable because, like all fans, D&D players love to debate the merits and failings (as they perceive them) of their particular hobby, sport, movie, etc.




Debate is fine.

Debate is not "war".  Let's be really clear about this - people who are being rational and calmly discussing what they do and don't like about various editions are not engaging in "edition war".  Debate does not extend to the level of incivility, divisiveness, and vitriol seen on these boards.

Either people lack basic notions of polite discussion, or there's more than that going on.  Given that we are collectively capable of polite discussion about most other topics, the former reason does not explain the behavior.

Ergo, there's more than "love of debate" going on.  Probably several things.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

Greg K said:


> This is the design team whose members said that they learned in 3e that thing's like Knight's Challenge and  Rope Trick were bad  and then, in 4e, gave us things like Come and Get It (targets must move towards the Fighter), Divine Challenge (attack the Paladin, who marked you or take damage), and reintroduced Rope Trick as a ritual available to anyone.




Well, I think they just got a little over-excited and accidentally designed a new role-playing game instead of D&D 4e.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Debate is fine.
> 
> Debate is not "war".  Let's be really clear about this - people who are being rational and calmly discussing what they do and don't like about various editions are not engaging in "edition war".  Debate does not extend to the level of incivility, divisiveness, and vitriol seen on these boards.
> 
> ...




Uhm... you realize there have been literal deaths over sport fans arguments...right.

  Not to say this is in any way acceptable or correct behavior on the boards, but people get heated...especially when all it takes is one person and a snide remark to send everyone escalating to that level.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Uhm... you realize there have been literal deaths over sport fans arguments...right.




Yes, and I dare anyone to suggest with a straight face that "love of a sport" is sufficient reason for a sane person to murder another human being.

And having fans charge out into the streets committing vandalism, burning sofas and trashing people's cars after a Big 10 football game (after their team won, even!) isn't about the football, either.


----------



## Stormtower (Jan 6, 2009)

Wombat said:


> 4e *is *optional.  Just because someone played 3e does not mean that they will play 4e, have to like it, and give up earlier editions.  Most people who play D&D have never played another rpg; is it required that they try another newer rpg when it comes out?  The logic of this is on the level of saying, "We've always played Bridge, but someone has just invented Hearts -- we are all required to shift."
> 
> The logic here is faulty except from a "required" environment, such as work or removal of old technology.  It sounds good, but under inspection it becomes questionable at best.




I hear what you're saying, but consider that social tension created when one is "required" to adopt a new edition to remain involved in organized RPGA-style play.  I will grant that simply dropping out of organized play is an option, but then we're back to the social tension of losing access to a vibrant community of potential DMs and players (not to mention, potential friends).

The rules and culture of games like Bridge and Hearts (or Checkers, Backgammon, Chess, etc.) have not changed significantly since the games were first invented/introduced.  Therefore it is a simple matter to show up at Starbucks, for example, and have a reasonable chance of finding someone to play cards or chess with.  D&D requires not only a much larger monetary investment to play, but a much larger social investment of time and energy.  That is why I remain concerned about the long-term effects of 4E's culture and rules shift fracturing the community.  When the available pool of DMs/players/friend shrinks, social tension about our collective hobby seems to rise.

This is a very different discussion than whether WotC/Hasbro were within their rights to make 4E (they clearly were), and whether remaining involved in the active RPGA community benefits any particular individual within the RPG hobby.


----------



## Roger (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> OK, Emphasis mine... What data and/or evidence?  The fact that we are having edition wars?  That's the result, so what evidence backs up any of the OP's original hypothesis?



Yes, the fact that we are having edition wars.

This is consistent with the hypotheses:
  - edition wars are inevitable
  - edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Yes, and I dare anyone to suggest with a straight face that "love of a sport" is sufficient reason for a sane person to murder another human being.
> 
> And having fans charge out into the streets committing vandalism, burning sofas and trashing people's cars after a Big 10 football game (after their team won, even!) isn't about the football, either.




Whoa, Umbran I wasn't trying to insinuate killing someone over sports was right or for the "love of the game"...if I did well I'm clearing up the fact that that's not my stance... however, I do feel things on the board need to stay in perspective. 

 I have seen very few out and out verbal brawls on the boards lately, and would argue it's more snarky jabs... the same side remarks you'll hear when a gathering for 2 competing teams end up in the same sports bar.  That's it, I don't think there's much going on with that type of behavior except competitiveness (of course here it's on a much, much larger scale than at a local bar)... I certainly don't feel it's increased by fear of change...since again how does that fit into the sports analogy?  I just feel like sometimes we can read too much into peoples behavior.  Again, I am not saying the behavior is right... just that I don't think it goes to some deep seated fear of change everyone is having.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2009)

Like it or not, WotC's situation with 4e is most analogous to Windows Vista (only more difficult, because at least Windows XP isn't open source).

And the OPs experience, to the extent that it is analogous and useful, is in forcing people to upgrade their software-- such as from XP to Vista. _As a requirement for their job._

But for many of Microsoft's customers, and certainly _all _of WotC's customers, upgrading from 3e to 4e is optional. It's not about getting them to _accept _a change. First you have to get them to _want_ to change. There is no external impetus forcing the change.

I'm waiting for D&D Mojave.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Roger said:


> Yes, the fact that we are having edition wars.
> 
> This is consistent with the hypotheses:
> - edition wars are inevitable
> ...




Again where is evidence that fear of change = edition wars?  

All you said was they were inevitable...uhm ok but how does that speak to cause? And they have little to do with which sytem is actually better...this isn't even a fact, it's an opinion and again doesn't support... fear of change = edition wars.


----------



## Roger (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Again where is evidence that fear of change = edition wars?



Where is the evidence that "fear of change = edition wars" is the hypothesis presented by the OP?  As far as I can tell based upon my reading, that is not the case, but I'm happy to consider citations that might support it.



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Whoa, Umbran I wasn't trying to insinuate killing someone over sports was right or for the "love of the game"...




I make no claim that you think it is at all *right*.  But your phrasing does seem to imply causation.

Let me restate - yes, folks die in sports arguments.  I find it difficult to believe that the death has anyting at all to do with the sports, or love of the game, or what have you.  For things to get that heated, and for someone to go that far over the line, something else has to be happening in there somewhere.  It isn't all about the sports.  Agreed?

Now, clearly Edition Wars aren't at all equivalent to murder.  But that doesn't mean the example's useless.  For many months, a large portion of our community behaved in manners we largely agree are inappropriate and counterproductive for these forums.  People who knew better, who admitted they knew better, chose to abandon civility.

Why is it so odd to think there's something in that situation that's not about the game, that there's something else (perhaps several something elses) going on here?

We are a community, a small society, right?  We should expect some social dynamics to be at work, beyond just what we individually like and don't like about a game.  We are not rational robots or Vulcans (at least, most of us aren't  ).




> just that I don't think it goes to some deep seated fear of change everyone is having.




I think the OP, and others, have pointed out several times now that it isn't "fear" of change.  Drop the word fear - it is loaded and doesn't really apply.  Resistance does not equal fear.  

Anyone here ever been subjected to the book "Who Moved My Cheese?"  Much of it is nonsense, or oversimplified.  However, it has some basic concepts within that ring fairly true.  When people have a way of doing things that they are comfortable with, they will often resist changing it, and will resent attempts to change it.  This is not "fear".


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> I can also say I've seen resistance to change in my own life. I still have not chosen to purchase digital music, preferring CDs I can then convert to MP3 for my Zune.




What is this CD, MP3 and "Zune" of which you speak? A pair of Technics 1200s and vinyl is all a man needs for audio perfection.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2009)

Psion said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The OP seems to implicitly posit that 4e is the change that must be adapted to; I think this betrays the OP's preference.



Sure, you can read it like that. But I read it as him describing the context where he makes this observation regarding reaction to change.
And he sees parallels between the reactions in the "Edition Wars".

And it doesn't matter if you HAVE to change. Needed is just a feel of pressure to change. (Just as you do not actually have to adapt to every change on your workplace - Truename even says that sometimes the team will make a final decision on whether its adopts a change or not.)
And this pressure certainly exists, because why else would people post so much on why they like or dislike these editions and justify their choices (or spring to defend them).


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> "Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."
> 
> Depressing.





That is the way the world works bro. People didn't know they wanted a game where you pretend to be an elf killing dragon until Dave and Gary made it and sold it to them. Before D&D people were happy to pretend to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map. Then Dave and Gary showed them a new way to play a game. 

And what does the customer want? If I ask 10 of you what you want in a RPG I'll likely get 5 different answers. If I take those answers,  measure them, and apply the results, I bet we start to get a RPG that is different enough that suddenly the edition wars begin.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Herschel said:


> What is this CD, MP3 and "Zune" of which you speak? A pair of Technics 1200s and vinyl is all a man needs for audio perfection.




Except while jogging...



			
				 Scott_Rouse said:
			
		

> That is the way the world works bro. People didn't know they wanted a game where you pretend to be an elf killing dragon until Dave and Gary made it and sold it to them.




I asked my dentist once which toothpaste he reccomended... He said it didn't really matter, toothpaste didn't really add anything to the act of brushing. I could get the same results just using a brush and water...

I think he just wanted more of my business.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> That is the way the world works bro. People didn't know they wanted a game where you pretend to be an elf killing dragon until Dave and Gary made it and sold it to them. Before D&D people were happy to pretend to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map. Then Dave and Gary showed them a new way to play a game.




In all fairness, people didn't know they wanted Crystal Pepsi either.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Except while jogging...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry scrib, you quoted me while I was editing so this nonsense about your dentist is lost on everyone but me


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry scrib, you quoted me while I was editing so this nonsense about your dentist is lost on everyone but me




Damn you and your thread time travel powers!  hrmmm maybe I will call you The Rouseinator from now on.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I make no claim that you think it is at all *right*.  But your phrasing does seem to imply causation.
> 
> Let me restate - yes, folks die in sports arguments. I find it difficult to believe that the death has anyting at all to do with the sports, or love of the game, or what have you. For things to get that heated, and for someone to go that far over the line, something else has to be happening in there somewhere. It isn't all about the sports. Agreed?
> 
> ...




Fair enough...is it then more accurate towards the OP's point to say that resistance to change is not what I feel causes edition wars?



Roger said:


> Where is the evidence that "fear of change = edition wars" is the hypothesis presented by the OP?  As far as I can tell based upon my reading, that is not the case, but I'm happy to consider citations that might support it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then maybe I don't understand what you believe the OP's point is... could you perhaps clarify for me?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> That is the way the world works bro. People didn't know they wanted a game where you pretend to be an elf killing dragon until Dave and Gary made it and sold it to them. Before D&D people were happy to pretend to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map. Then Dave and Gary showed them a new way to play *a* game.




Emphasis mine...they didn't try to change their game of pretending "to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map." into something totally different...they created a new game for a totally different purpose.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> In all fairness, people didn't know they wanted Crystal Pepsi either.




You can toss about the names of a million failed brand extensions to try and draw comparison to the shift from 3e to 4e and I'll throw out a million more that didn't fail (Diet Pepsi, TDK R/W CDS, Lexus, EN World, etc).

D&D as a game has been evolving since day 1. Dave and Gary (and the people who followed in their footsteps) progressed the game as a business and the players did it as a hobby. It is and will continue to be an ever evolving game. You as a player can either follow it along it's path and remain a customer or get off the edition train at some point and still remain a player. My job is to make sure the train keeps moving and and make sure most of you want to keep on riding.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Then maybe I don't understand what you believe the OP's point is... could you perhaps clarify for me?




My thoughts are:

When things change people freak out. Eventually they stop freaking out and realize the change does not signify the end of the world, or the begining of a perfect world. Just a slightly different world. At that point while it might be different, we go back to a relative status quo.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Sorry scrib, you quoted me while I was editing so this nonsense about your dentist is lost on everyone but me




It wasn't lost on me, either, I read it early enough.



			
				Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> "Don't sell the customers what they want, convince them that they want what you're selling."
> 
> Depressing.




Really? Didn't you write Grim Tales? Did you do no advertisement for that? 

If Scott or Mike see a certain critique flaring up for their game how it doesn't support X, but they think that if you use Y in a particular way, you have Y, is that wrong of them to show this? Is this depressing? 

"Hey, you know, if you got some tea stain on your tablecloth, put some milk on it while it's still fresh - that will make it easier to wash the stain out!"
"You dirty capitalist! You try to cover up that your frigging tea leaves stains, and then you want to sell me milk to fix it?!"


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine...they didn't try to change their game of pretending "to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map." into something totally different...they created a new game for a totally different purpose.



This sounds suspiciously like a claim that "4e isn't D&D".


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Fair enough...is it then more accurate towards the OP's point to say that resistance to change is not what I feel causes edition wars?




Your feel what you like, of course.  

Just as I feel "love of debate" doesn't adequately explain the observed behavior.  I don't think resistance to change is the One True Answer either, but I can see how it may well have played a major part.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Emphasis mine...they didn't try to change their game of pretending "to be Napoleon or Rommel moving little lead armies around on a map." into something totally different...they created a new game for a totally different purpose.




But the point still remains that prior to D&D, wargaming had a completely different status quot. D&D evolved the standard for gaming the same as happens in other product categories. Music played live progressed to music you played on acetate at home,  to music played on the radio,... to music that you take with you and download digitally.

Can you imagine the state of D&D (and quite possibly the RPG hobby) if WOTC just allowed D&D to die on the vine like TSR did with 2e? How much would you be complaining if we broke the game and then just stopped making stuff for 2+ years.  If we did that, sure there would be OGL stuff and other systems, but I gaurantee you the hobby would be way different.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> That is the way the world works bro. People didn't know they wanted a game where you pretend to be an elf killing dragon until Dave and Gary made it and sold it to them.




Call me a bit naive, but based on the accounts of the initial rise of D&D in 1974, Gary and Dave didn't need to do a lot of convincing. People were intrigued by the concept, they tried it, and they liked it. The initial print run of D&D was 1,000. And from there it exploded as people were exposed to it. That's not a corporate marketing strategy, D&D started at the grass roots level and became huge through the perfect storm of cool new play style, cultural awareness, and controversy. Marketing played a factor eventually, but it didn't start out as anything other than this small experimental new game.



> And what does the customer want? If I ask 10 of you what you want in a RPG I'll likely get 5 different answers. If I take those answers,  measure them, and apply the results, I bet we start to get a RPG that is different enough that suddenly the edition wars begin.




As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle. There are numerous ways that OD&D departed from miniature wargaming, and yet this newest edition has more in common with wargaming than OD&D or any version we've had since. The official brand has gotten so far away from the original game that it's no longer recognizable as the same. 4E is not a continuation along an established line that has gone on for more than 30 years as much as it is a reinvention. I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.

There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatability. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.



Korgoth said:


> In all fairness, people didn't know they wanted Crystal Pepsi either.




Or New Coke.


----------



## Galloglaich (Jan 6, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Yes, this version of salesmanship is potentially useful if people are forced to accept a change. The thing is, it comes from a completely value neutral viewpoint; it presupposes you do not care about the actual value of the change and only implementing it. Useful for corporate authority figures, not so helpful when people are trying to choose one or more games based on their perceived play value.




Very well put.  

G.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This sounds suspiciously like a claim that "4e isn't D&D".



*Why not just ask me if that's what I was trying to say?*

Interpret how you want but no, that's not what I was getting at.  

It's a claim that the analogy really doesn't represent the situation very well.  In the example two totally separate things are compared... In the 3e to 4e situation it is suppose to be the same type of game with the same type of general play.  This might be more analogous to the boardgame Clue and the DVD version of Clue.

EDIT: And for the record you won't find a single post of mine where I ever claimed 4e wasn't D&D... not my style, WotC owns D&D so it's whatever they put the name on.  Now whether I like or dislike what they turn it into is a different story.


----------



## Roger (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Then maybe I don't understand what you believe the OP's point is... could you perhaps clarify for me?



Sure!  I think the point is revealed in the last paragraph of the original post:

* edition wars are inevitable

* edition wars have little to do with which system is actually better



Cheers,
Roger


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Call me a bit naive, but based on the accounts of the initial rise of D&D in 1974, Gary and Dave didn't need to do a lot of convincing. People were intrigued by the concept, they tried it, and they liked it. The initial print run of D&D was 1,000. And from there it exploded as people were exposed to it. That's not a corporate marketing strategy, D&D started at the grass roots level and became huge through the perfect storm of cool new play style, cultural awareness, and controversy. Marketing played a factor eventually, but it didn't start out as anything other than this small experimental new game.




No you are correct, I am obviously simplifying history to make a point about the nature of creation, evolution, and market dynamics.



> As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle. There are numerous ways that OD&D departed from miniature wargaming, and yet this newest edition has more in common with wargaming than OD&D or any version we've had since. The official brand has gotten so far away from the original game that it's no longer recognizable as the same. 4E is not a continuation along an established line that has gone on for more than 30 years as much as it is a reinvention. I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.



It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them. 




> There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatibility. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.



This is as much an over simplification of the situation as my comparison to war games. You really think Mearls, Collins, Perkins or Slavicsek, or anyone else on the design team set the rule in the design document "make sure people can convert their old stuff to 4e"? Give me a break. You know many of these people personally and you worked with many of them. You know that they didn't go into the design process with the notion of forcing people to buy new stuff.  If anything that was an inherent outcome of the design procees and not an premeditated objective.




> Or New Coke.
> 
> Darin



 This meme is tired.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.




i love turtles.

and i would love them even more if you made them OD&D turtles.

sell me products for my favorite game.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Call me a bit naive, but based on the accounts of the initial rise of D&D in 1974, Gary and Dave didn't need to do a lot of convincing. People were intrigued by the concept, they tried it, and they liked it. The initial print run of D&D was 1,000. And from there it exploded as people were exposed to it. That's not a corporate marketing strategy, D&D started at the grass roots level and became huge through the perfect storm of cool new play style, cultural awareness, and controversy. Marketing played a factor eventually, but it didn't start out as anything other than this small experimental new game.




I once asked people if they thought the "negative press" D&D got back in the day helped boost its sales. People said yes, and I'm inclined to agree. It might not have been planned marketing, but it was marketing none the less.





> As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle. There are numerous ways that OD&D departed from miniature wargaming, and yet this newest edition has more in common with wargaming than OD&D or any version we've had since. The official brand has gotten so far away from the original game that it's no longer recognizable as the same. 4E is not a continuation along an established line that has gone on for more than 30 years as much as it is a reinvention. I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.
> 
> There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatability. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.




I play 4e, and I don't find the changes to be as much as you seem to claim. There are some big changes sure, but there were some pretty big changes between 2 and 3 as well. I don't see the need to imply alterior motives.



> Or New Coke.




Man you and new coke. I'm begining to think you had a thing for new coke! 

I like Batman. I like the new Nolan batman movies more then I liked the Burton ones (which I still liked) both of which I liked betetr ten the old Adam West batman stuff. 

A new take doesn't always = new coke.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Jan 6, 2009)

I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.

Feel free to insult me now


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Interpret how you want but no, that's not what I was getting at.



Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> But the point still remains that prior to D&D, wargaming had a completely different status quot. D&D evolved the standard for gaming the same as happens in other product categories. Music played live progressed to music you played on acetate at home,  to music played on the radio,... to music that you take with you and download digitally.




But D&D isn't wargaming, if anything it could be considered an offshoot of wargamming which in turn is an offshoot of the larger category of gaming itself.  So not necessarily any evolution, just new sub-branches created.

As an example using your music example... Where would live concerts vs. and MP3 file be?  Is either an "evoluton" of music?  Not really, though they are sub-branches of ways one can enjoy music and the MP3 file could even be considered an evolution of music storage devices... but it is not an evolution of music.



Scott_Rouse said:


> Can you imagine the state of D&D (and quite possibly the RPG hobby) if WOTC just allowed D&D to die on the vine like TSR did with 2e? How much would you be complaining if we broke the game and then just stopped making stuff for 2+ years.  If we did that, sure there would be OGL stuff and other systems, but I gaurantee you the hobby would be way different.




Uhm, I may be the wrong person to ask this... as my gaming is in no way limited to D&D (in fact with 4e D&D has fallen pretty low on the gaming ladder with me)... but White Wolf did a mighty nice job stepping up to the plate when TSR dropped the ball with AD&D 2e, and I've been a fan ever since.  I don't believe the hobby or even the industry dies or necessarily gets worst with the failure of D&D, in fact I hate this type of thinking as it promotes buying a product, not because it is good, but because you don't want your beloved hobby to collapse.  Truth be told I would love for some of the people who play D&D exclusively to seek out and try new games, support them if they are more to their likng and realize diversification is a good thing in our hobby.  Sometimes I feel the position and detrimental effects of D&D failing are highly exaggerated, especially since...

1. The FLGS is dying...more and more people are ordering online, so the large sales of D&D become less and less of a necesity in keeping these shops open for convenience... I mean were halfway there already.

2.  I don't necessarily feel the direction D&D is heading in (incorporating more and more aspects of boardgaming, wargaming, collectible games, etc.) is where I want my roleplaying to go. Especially when a company seems determined to make it a headache to ignore these aspects.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> I play 4e, and I don't find the changes to be as much as you seem to claim. There are some big changes sure, but there were some pretty big changes between 2 and 3 as well.



Same here. Whenever I read about the huge departure from 'traditional' D&D that 4e is supposed to represent I can't figure out what that's supposed to mean. 

If D&D is defined --roughly-- by the fantasy action stories that make up play, then all editions of D&D form one big unbroken continuum. If D&D is defined by a particular rule set, then 2e and 3e aren't the same game.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.
> 
> Feel free to insult me now



You son of a Up-Quark and an Electron! You wouldn't know the difference between a pre-ganglionic fiber and a post-ganglionic nerve if it was handed to you on a silver plate!


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Herschel* 

 
_What is this CD, MP3 and "Zune" of which you speak? A pair of Technics 1200s and vinyl is all a man needs for audio perfection. _



Scribble said:


> Except while jogging...





Bah! Haul that rig around for a while and you won't need to jog.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Originally Posted by *Herschel*
> 
> 
> _What is this CD, MP3 and "Zune" of which you speak? A pair of Technics 1200s and vinyl is all a man needs for audio perfection. _
> ...




Bah to you! Haul that rig around and you'll also have less cash! (from buying so many needles and rekkids after the damn thing skips so many times!)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I think the reason that 4E is having a hard time gaining acceptance, particularly among the core audience, is because the majority of the people wanted refinement, not reinvention. Had you given them that, there wouldn't be as much discontent right now.




That only holds if retaining the existing core was a consideration. Since before the launch of 4e, I have assumed that it was not.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Really? Didn't you write Grim Tales? Did you do no advertisement for that?




Advertising? Sure. A little bit. Within my non-existent budget, I showed people what I had to offer (Low magic, high adventure). 

At no point did I suggest that folks who did not want what I was offering simply needed to be properly re-educated into wanting something they did not want.

But my business model was predicated on serving a perceived need, not on convincing people that they needed my product. Just that it _existed_.



Scott_Rouse said:


> That is the way the world works bro.




Sometimes marketing is about identifying the consumers wants/needs and then making the product. "It sells itself!" they say of such things.

There's some give and take between the two approaches.

I mean, you have to admit that you have a bit of wiggle room, as a marketer, between the task of selling me on the next edition of D&D and, for example, a handy-dandy device that can scramble an egg while it is still inside the shell. One of those tasks is just slightly more uphill. If I had my choice of which product to market, I am more inclined to go with the product that actually addresses a market demand.

So no, the marketing world doesn't entirely revolve around the task of convincing people that they want to buy something they don't want. 

You pick the hill, you pick the slope.

I have yet to meet the marketer who can convince me that I want something that I don't actually want, although Mr. ShamWow is making a serious run for the money.



> And what does the customer want? If I ask 10 of you what you want in a RPG I'll likely get 5 different answers. If I take those answers,  measure them, and apply the results, I bet we start to get a RPG that is different enough that suddenly the edition wars begin.




I assume this question was addressed at the beginning of 4e development and you've produced the product that you want to sell, targeted at the market you want to sell it to. If that's not the case... What do you think went wrong?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.




Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant. The fact that there does seem to be a significant portion of the market that thinks you are selling turtles should concern you. While I understand WotC and you not wanting to discuss it publicly, I sure hope you are discussing it amongst yourselves.



Scott_Rouse said:


> Darrin Drader said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You may think it is tired, and I understand the need for you to try and squash it, but it is still relevant. New Coke died in part because a significant portion of the market rebelled and thought it was a turtle and not a cat. It was a statistically small portion of the taste testers that rejected it, but they were able convince enough of the market to believe them and to  complain loudly enough that New Coke died.

Just like there can be resistance to change by consumers to a new product, there can also be a resistance to change from the provider of a new product that what they believed that they knew what the market wanted may not have been as accurate as what they believed.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Jan 6, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You wouldn't know the difference between a pre-ganglionic fiber and a post-ganglionic nerve if it was handed to you on a silver plate!




Actually, that's completely true


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But D&D isn't wargaming, if anything it could be considered an offshoot of wargamming which in turn is an offshoot of the larger category of gaming itself.  So not necessarily any evolution, just new sub-branches created.



 Back in the day D&D was war gaming for sure but it was a big enough change that it spawned a hole new category. Just like Magic The Gathering. When Peter asked Richard to make a game like D&D that could be carried in your pocket and played in coffeshops or in line at GenCon Richard took a month and came back with the Trading Card Game M:TG. It was unique and grew big enough to be it's own category but it also could have just been a D&D card game.



> As an example using your music example... Where would live concerts vs. and MP3 file be?  Is either an "evoluton" of music?  Not really, though they are sub-branches of ways one can enjoy music and the MP3 file could even be considered an evolution of music storage devices... but it is not an evolution of music.




I was talking about the consumptive act ofpeople  listening to music and the not the act of making music.




> Uhm, I may be the wrong person to ask this... as my gaming is in no way limited to D&D (in fact with 4e D&D has fallen pretty low on the gaming ladder with me)... but White Wolf did a mighty nice job stepping up to the plate when TSR dropped the ball with AD&D 2e, and I've been a fan ever since.  I don't believe the hobby or even the industry dies or necessarily gets worst with the failure of D&D, in fact I hate this type of thinking as it promotes buying a product, not because it is good, but because you don't want your beloved hobby to collapse.  Truth be told I would love for some of the people who play D&D exclusively to seek out and try new games, support them if they are more to their likng and realize diversification is a good thing in our hobby.  Sometimes I feel the position and detrimental effects of D&D failing are highly exaggerated, especially since...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The FLGS is dying...more and more people are ordering online, so the large sales of D&D become less and less of a necesity in keeping these shops open for convenience... I mean were halfway there already.




I for one would love to see an industry with lots of competeion and many popular sytems. The TCG industry was never bigger for anyone than when Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh were giving M:TG a serious run for it's money. It would be great to see that type of vigor for the RPG category

Amazon, video games, the lack of a massive kids TCG, or any other single effect is killing the FLGS. The FLGS is dying the death of a hundred cuts including a bad economy, shift in consumer buying habbits, and preference for entertainment.



> 2.  I don't necessarily feel the direction D&D is heading in (incorporating more and more aspects of boardgaming, wargaming, collectible games, etc.) is where I want my roleplaying to go. Especially when a company seems determined to make it a headache to ignore these aspects.




Then I guess you'rr getting off the train and that's is your choice. If I were a joe avergae gamer staying on the train, I for one would not want to jump on the internet and make you feel bad for that choice but others seem to enjoy that. I don't get it


----------



## cwhs01 (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D.




And it still is... IMO and all that. 

A lot of people seem to argue that 4e is not a level based, high fantasy, kill-stuff/grab-the-loot, type of game anymore. I'd argue that it is.




Darrin Drader said:


> This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatability. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want.




And I've heard that the global financial crisis is actually all part of WoTC's master plan to rule the world. Step 1 was 3e; to recruit geeks for their army. Step 2 was 4e; to get them angry. step 3 will come soon... and involve swallows and coconuts.
or so i've heard.

Paranoia is all well and good. very healthy. 
But claims of 4e just being a money grabbing scheme, might have to be backed up by some evidence before i believe it. Just saying.  

IMO 4e mostly seems to have been produced by people who like, play and understand roleplaying games.
 Critizising the game is okay, very cool and even better if the critique is valid. But i can't really accept that critizing the team behind the game is cool and justified.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I assume this question was addressed at the beginning of 4e development and you've produced the product that you want to sell, targeted at the market you want to sell it to. If that's not the case... What do you think went wrong?




I think the point was that _even if you ask_ the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars.  That's not something "going wrong".  That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> Actually, that's completely true



Dang, I hoped I could trick you into explaining it to me without admitting my own incompetence! 



Brown Jenkin said:


> Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant. The fact that there does seem to be a significant portion of the market that thinks you are selling turtles should concern you.



Don't Scotts post not imply he is concerned about it? Why are people think we are selling turtles? Isn't our product not also a cat? Maybe we should show to them how it can be a cat! Of course, the example of cat and turtle only goes so far... Maybe WotC actually sells you a shapechanger whose natural form is a turtle or something. 

The example complaint of "skill DCs grow with your level" - "that makes the game world inconsistent" is something that I keep thinking about - 
it was obvious to me that I could easily turn this into "skill DCs grow with the level of the challenge" and just like that I would be empowered to create an internally consistent world.

If this is so easy, wouldn't this be a reason for the marketing or the next DMG to contain this description? Or is this painting my turtle black and putting pointed ears on its head and then trying to sell it to you as a cat?


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> This is as much an over simplification of the situation as my comparison to war games. You really think Mearls, Collins, Perkins or Slavicsek, or anyone else on the design team set the rule in the design document "make sure people can convert their old stuff to 4e"? Give me a break. You know many of these people personally and you worked with many of them.




Yes, they're great people and great designers, which makes me wonder what forces within the company led to the final results. Since I can't claim inside knowledge of anything beyond my departure from the company in 2004 (and anything before that, I won't talk about), I honestly don't know how we arrived at the present situation. Between a marketing strategy that alienated a lot of the players, a game that frankly leaves many of us scratching our heads, and a GSL that is anything other than a safe harbor for third party publishers, it's hard not to come to certain conclusions. I can accept that those conclusions might be wrong, but that still brings us to a situation that a lot of us - fans, freelancers, and publishers alike - just can't get behind. I wish things were different.


----------



## jensun (Jan 6, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.
> 
> Feel free to insult me now



As does mine.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That only holds if retaining the existing core was a consideration. Since before the launch of 4e, I have assumed that it was not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I tend to agree with you. It is very rare for one to create a pet rock. Most products (including 4e) are made from a real (and sometimes perceived) demand in the marketplace.  

I believe we made a product a lot of people wanted. Is it for everyone? No, but my sales show me a lot of people did want it. The same thing happened with 2e to 3e. The circumstances were different but there were people who said no way and other who jumped on it.





> I assume this question was addressed at the beginning of 4e development and you've produced the product that you want to sell, targeted at the market you want to sell it to.




Yes.



> If that's not the case... What do you think went wrong?




No Comment


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If this is so easy, wouldn't this be a reason for the marketing or the next DMG to contain this description? Or is this painting my turtle black and putting pointed ears on its head and then trying to sell it to you as a cat?




Maybe it's like telling the person who wants a cat that they live in a swamp, and a turtle might work better.

Plus if you add radioactive goo you can make it into a pizza eating ninja.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I think the point was that _even if you ask_ the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars.  That's not something "going wrong".  That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.




Hey, right, that's where my head is at. I've just assumed 4e moved on without me. And I have said many times, if these are the right changes to grow the hobby, that's frakkin' great. I'm totally down with that.

The confusing part for me is what Scott found so interesting (and applicable) in the OP. 

If the OP had said, "My job is to help people _feel good_ about jumping off the train!" then Scott's posts in this thread (especially his last couple of posts) would make more sense to me.



Brown Jenkin said:


> Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant. The fact that there does seem to be a significant portion of the market that thinks you are selling turtles should concern you. While I understand WotC and you not wanting to discuss it publicly, I sure hope you are discussing it amongst yourselves.




Since they have produced a turtle, the marketer's job is to convince you that what you really want is a turtle. 

It's *mearls'* job to read the dozens of threads explaining what it is you want in a cat.

Then to go back and... maybe glue some fur onto the turtle, I don't know. The analogy is getting away from me a little bit.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Dang, I hoped I could trick you into explaining it to me without admitting my own incompetence!
> 
> 
> Don't Scotts post not imply he is concerned about it? Why are people think we are selling turtles? Isn't our product not also a cat? Maybe we should show to them how it can be a cat! Of course, the example of cat and turtle only goes so far... Maybe WotC actually sells you a shapechanger whose natural form is a turtle or something.
> ...




I think this solution is only viable to a certain point.  The problem is that, even if I am willing to invest in a new rpg... what is the point where buy in becomes too much?  I mean if I have to buy the first 3 corebooks (about $112) plus the second DMG...so another $34...but what if you in fact need rules from the 3rd DMG aqnd rules from the 2nd PHB just to get the core for your playstyle?  Basically I think with the multitude of 3.5 sourcebooks and a generally lower buy in costs of most games (Do yo know Anima: Beyond Fantasy has rules for Magic, Martial Arts Techniques, Psychic Powers, Summoning, Skills, etc. all in one $60 full color book?) when do yo jump off the train and admit you would be better served by not going with 4e... even though up until now you have had a certain amount of brand loyalty to D&D?


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> As someone pointed out several months ago, if you get ten people together who want to buy a cat, the shop owner shouldn't sell them a turtle.




I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you



Brown Jenkin said:


> Whether you believe you are selling cats or turtles is only partly relevant.




but I get the feeling that you don't like it.



Scott_Rouse said:


> It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.




What's with all the screaming?



diaglo said:


> i love turtles.
> 
> and i would love them even more if you made them OD&D turtles.
> 
> sell me products for my favorite game.




You like monkeys, you like ponies 
Maybe you don't like monsters so much 
Maybe I used too many monkeys 

Isn't it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Hey, right, that's where my head is at. I've just assumed 4e moved on without me. And I have said many times, if these are the right changes to grow the hobby, that's frakkin' great. I'm totally down with that.
> 
> The confusing part for me is what Scott found so interesting (and applicable) in the OP.
> 
> ...




I think a better analogy would be that the cutomers simply want a pet. 

It's mearls job to determine what kind of pet would make the best pet for the majority of his customers.

Maybe the best fit would be a turtle, but people still want fur... so they get them a platypuss.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Then I guess you'rr getting off the train and that's is your choice. If I were a joe avergae gamer staying on the train, I for one would not want to jump on the internet and make you feel bad for that choice but others seem to enjoy that. I don't get it





To be fair, these kind of attacks come from both sides of the fence (or train).

Some followup questions (preferably from the people who've made attacks) i'd like answered as well:

What is in it for the people making these kinds of attacks?
What outcome do they hope for?
What justifies the often very personal attacks?
Is personal oppinion and annecdotal evidence really a good substitute for reason? 
are ad hominem attacks better than a calm debate of pros and cons?
Could "then play something else" be framed more tactfully so as not to antagonize people?
Is it possible to not like certain aspects of an edition and discuss possible solutions? Calmly and rationally?


Oh btw. I'm not a saint, and i know it.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 6, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you
> 
> but I get the feeling that you don't like it.
> 
> ...




Thread winner!


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> To be fair, these kind of attacks come from both sides of the fence (or train).
> 
> .





QFT.

For the record I don't like either side of the war. Debate is fine but people need to be civil


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I think the point was that _even if you ask_ the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars. That's not something "going wrong". That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.





I'll even take this one step further, using myself as the example. There are many things I REALLY dislike about 4E. There was more I disliked about 3E. I ran/run a 1E/2E Hybrid with house rules because there were things I didn't like in those editions. I have played all three, run 1,2 & 4. I disliked 3E most of all and never bought products outside of miniatures and the original 3.0 PH and I was big on the skirmish side. But I did borrow from it the parts I did. That said, I play/run 4E mostly now and am enjoying it, even with its "warts". 

I don't like the "bad" parts any better now really, but there are enough things I do like that make it easier to overlook the parts I don't.

Oh, and JQ is a lilly-livered weasel-licker.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I think this solution is only viable to a certain point.






> The problem is that, even if I am willing to invest in a new rpg... what is the point where buy in becomes too much?



That's something everyone has to figure out for himself - in the end. But it might be a good thing for you and the guy selling you his new-fangled product to ensure you know all the potentials of what you will gain. 



> I mean if I have to buy the first 3 corebooks (about $112) plus the second DMG...so another $34...but what if you in fact need rules from the 3rd DMG aqnd rules from the 2nd PHB just to get the core for your playstyle?  Basically I think with the multitude of 3.5 sourcebooks and a generally lower buy in costs of most games (Do yo know Anima: Beyond Fantasy has rules for Magic, Martial Arts Techniques, Psychic Powers, Summoning, Skills, etc. all in one $60 full color book?) when do yo jump off the train and admit you would be better served by not going with 4e... even though up until now you have had a certain amount of brand loyalty to D&D?




If you mean literal buy-in - how much do I need to spend on this gaming product, I can barely help you. I have enough money each month to buy the gaming products I want (which might be more then I need, too). The question for me is if I get the utility I expected. If we still played 3E D&D in my group and there will still new products coming out, I would probably still buy them. Which to me indicates that I might never really feel that I have "enough", so it doesn't mean much to me that a new edition means I start at "zero". 
If I really believed there was a point where I couldn't be interested in getting more, and, worse, that I couldn't afford more, then this might change my decisions. But I suppose that would have meant more home-brewing for me (and/or relying on other members of my group to provide the rulebooks.)


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott,

Just a question, I am a fan of SWSE, and in fact feel it is more along the lines of what I was both expecting and desired in a D&D 4e.  In fact I was quite excited in hearing that SWSE was a "preview" for D&D 4e and it actually got me to purchase the 3 core and an extra PHB, sight unseen (though I will admit I haven't purchased any supplements or signed up for DDI)... yet I feel in the end you all went in some pretty divergent, if not downright  opposite directions with the final product of 4e.  Was there a reason for this, was the concept originally closer to SWSE than it turned out?  Just curious.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's something everyone has to figure out for himself - in the end. But it might be a good thing for you and the guy selling you his new-fangled product to ensure you know all the potentials of what you will gain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well for me it's not a question of whether I can afford it, but if your initial product doesn't grab me... I will tend to look for and fully support ones that do, and regardless of how much free income I have, I have limited actual play time.   Honestly, it's hard for me to want to buy more, or even stay interested enough to see what's coming out if a product doesn't grab me initially (I haven't been to the WotC site in forever)... which leads me to another thought

It's also not just a question of cost either though... You realize if the rules I wanted weren't coming out till DMG 3, I have to wait 2 to 3 years in order to get them... that can also be a factor with the addressing of issues in future products.


----------



## cwhs01 (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> For the record I don't like either side of the war. Debate is fine but people need to be civil





I was thinking about a clever and witty response, but couldn't really come up with any. I'll go with qft and add that i am amazed that you insist on being reasonable and friendly despite all. cudos.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 6, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Brown Jenkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Only sort of true. My issue with the change here is in the name and former brand associations I am losing. I play dozens of games both RPGs and Board Games. I have tried lots of RPGs and enjoy some more than others. For fantasy role playing I have found I really like 3.x (leaning more 3E over 3.5). Now does this mean that I think 4e sucks, not really. I think 4E is an interesting system and has its uses. I think it was well designed and balanced. Will I avoid playing 4E, no I think it is excellent for tactical wargaming. But for fantasy RPGing I will stick with 3.x. I get involved here because I have brand associations and group identity with which I find myself on the 3.x side of the edition war. I am mostly upset by the takeover of the brand of the D&D name by 4E when I think it would have had better critical reception if it had been called _Heroes and Horrors_ (a name I am making up and apologies if it has already been taken).


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 6, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> You may think it is tired, and I understand the need for you to try and squash it, but it is still relevant. New Coke died in part because a significant portion of the market rebelled and thought it was a turtle and not a cat. It was a statistically small portion of the taste testers that rejected it, but they were able convince enough of the market to believe them and to  complain loudly enough that New Coke died.
> 
> Just like there can be resistance to change by consumers to a new product, there can also be a resistance to change from the provider of a new product that what they believed that they knew what the market wanted may not have been as accurate as what they believed.




There's something else to consider with New Coke. The brand New Coke stuck around for many years afterwards and was marketed alongside Coke Classic. What New Coke represents isn't the failure of a change to grab hold of the market. It's a case where the manufacturer listened to the people who were dissatisfied and then put out a product that made them happy. 

Granted, Coke Classic was still not the same as original Coke because they changed the sweetener, but it was close enough to satisfy people. The reason New Coke gets mentioned as much as it does is because that's exactly the solution that a lot of us want. Frankly, if WotC wanted to release edition 3.75, and do it it under the OGL, and run it alongside 4E, I think that would take care of the problem. And it isn't like this approach has never been done before; Basic D&D and Advanced D&D coexisted for a long time. 

This solution wouldn't be about ending an edition war. It would be about getting the people who got off the train to get back on and I think it would restore a lot of good will towards WotC.



Brown Jenkin said:


> Only sort of true. My issue with the change here is in the name and former brand associations I am losing. I play dozens of games both RPGs and Board Games. I have tried lots of RPGs and enjoy some more than others. For fantasy role playing I have found I really like 3.x (leaning more 3E over 3.5). Now does this mean that I think 4e sucks, not really. I think 4E is an interesting system and has its uses. I think it was well designed and balanced. *Will I avoid playing 4E, no I think it is excellent for tactical wargaming. But for fantasy RPGing I will stick with 3.x.* I get involved here because I have brand associations and group identity with which I find myself on the 3.x side of the edition war. I am mostly upset by the takeover of the brand of the D&D name by 4E when I think it would have had better critical reception if it had been called _Heroes and Horrors_ (a name I am making up and apologies if it has already been taken).




Emphasis mine. This sums it all up better than I've seen before.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 6, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> I made this half-monkey half-pony monster to please you
> 
> 
> 
> ...




if the half-monkey half-pony monster of a ruined pony that i loved was marketed for OD&D i would buy it.


----------



## Krensky (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Granted, Coke Classic was still not the same as original Coke because they changed the sweetener, but it was close enough to satisfy people. The reason New Coke gets mentioned as much as it does is because that's exactly the solution that a lot of us want. Frankly, if WotC wanted to release edition 3.75, and do it it under the OGL, and run it alongside 4E, I think that would take care of the problem. And it isn't like this approach has never been done before; Basic D&D and Advanced D&D coexisted for a long time.




That's a myth. Coca-Cola had been replacing cane sugar with corn syrup in Coca-Cola for years, starting with a 50-50 mix five years before New Coke, and having completely replaced all cane sugar with corn syrup in all Coke in the country by six months before the release of New Coke.

There actually be some interesting take away between the New coke D&D 4 analogy though. New Coke was developed to compete with Pepsi, and Coca-Cola did it be taking the formula for Diet Coke and swapping the artificial sweeteners for corn sugar, and was very popular in taste tests. But since the whole plan was secret, they never asked how people would feel about it replacing the Coke they had, which had become a cultural icon. The problem wasn't that New Coke tasted bad, it was that it was replacing something that people cherished as part of their identity.

There's no direct analogy, but there are some points of similarity. D&D is certainly a core element of the current gamer identity, especially after WotC saved it when they released 3e. 4e changes that, and it also replaces 3e. 4e is very different from 3e in order to meet the perceived demands of the market (which may also be the actual demands), but those differences make people who hold D&D as part of that identity upset, just as lots of people rejected New Coke without consideration. 4e is also very different then people expected (I also was expecting something more like SWSE), which diesn't help either.

It's coincidence but there are some interesting, although probably meaningless in the end analysis, parallels.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Scott,
> 
> Just a question, I am a fan of SWSE, and in fact feel it is more along the lines of what I was both expecting and desired in a D&D 4e.  In fact I was quite excited in hearing that SWSE was a "preview" for D&D 4e and it actually got me to purchase the 3 core and an extra PHB, sight unseen (though I will admit I haven't purchased any supplements or signed up for DDI)... yet I feel in the end you all went in some pretty divergent, if not downright  opposite directions with the final product of 4e.  Was there a reason for this, was the concept originally closer to SWSE than it turned out?  Just curious.




I can't say as I was not that intimately involved in the design. I'll see if Mearls will come on and answer. I would suspect some of it has to do with SWSE being a different IP and that from it's design came new ideas and even more clarity of what 4e would become.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> I can't say as I was not that intimately involved in the design. I'll see if Mearls will come on and answer. I would suspect some of it has to do with SWSE being a different IP and that from it's design came new ideas and even more clarity of what 4e would become.




Thanks for the reply, and hopefully Mike Mearls will come through and shed some insight, it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Krensky said:


> There's no direct analogy, but there are some points of similarity.




The issue I have with this analogy is that coke, unlike D&D is a consumable product.

If you drank your old coke stock, in order to restock your soda supply you had to buy new coke.  If you didn't like New Coke you were out of luck. 

3e is not a consumable (unless you have some whacked out play style I'm unaware of.) The 3e you have now will last indefinitely. If you don't like the New 4e coke, you can safely ignore it and go on using your old 3e coke. Your "stock" isn't going to deplete.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Emphasis mine. This sums it all up better than I've seen before.



Yeah, that says it well.  

My knee-jerk to the OP, was the same "who says there is a change to 4E to cope with?" as others have suggested.

However, I think it does still more or less describe me.  It is just for a different change than the OP assumes.  The change I have had issue with is going from having the industry leading game with a steady flow of monthly fix product be up the standards I want, to accepting that the new industry leading game does not aim for that target.


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I think the point was that _even if you ask_ the customers, you end up with products that don't satisfy everyone, and you get edition wars.  That's not something "going wrong".  That's the nature of the beast - you cannot please everyone all the time.




On this note, I really, really recommend Malcolm Gladwell's talk on what we can learn from spaghetti sauce.  

Moral of the story:  There is no one best D&D, just like there is no one best spaghetti sauce.  Some people like regular spaghetti sauce, some people like spicy spaghetti sauce, and some people like extra chunky, and they often cannot articulate that fact.  In all likelihood, similar "clusters" of preferences exist within the D&D community, and we're probably just as bad at articulating them

To continue with the pasta analogy, imagine Roberto's Awesome Pasta Sauce, which is a mildly spicy sauce with moderate chunks.  Fans of both spicy sauces and chunky sauces like it.  Roberto decides he needs a new recipe, and makes Roberto's NEW Awesome Pasta Sauce.  However, this new sauce is a thin spicy sauce, with no chunks.  Suddenly the chunky sauce fans feel "left out," or "disenfranchised," or "fired from the target audience."  However, lots of new fans who DIDN'T like chunks are also brought into the brand.

---------

Without defining them, I'd warrant that D&D cluster preferences line up somehow with popular "styles" of game, even if they're not necessarily the ones we would rattle off from introspection.  The move from 3e to 4e represents a change in which styles are considered primary/encouraged in the core game.  Some ones that were previously encouraged are left out, and some previously unaddressed styles are brought in.

There's nothing inherently good or bad about this; what matters is whether it _works_.  There's a few key assumptions involved in this strategy:

1) The gain in marketshare/income/market growth/whatever from adding new styles will be enough to compensate for losing the old ones.  This applies both in the short term and in the long term.  With limited data, it appears to me that 4e has succeeded at this in the short term (lots of core rulebooks sold), but may have trouble in the longterm (decent number of people going back to 3e, doubt about the longterm investment of new players).

2) The ill-will generated by dropping certain styles won't have a significant impact on future marketshare/income/market growth/whatever.  IMO, this is the one where 4e has done poorly.  The GSL debacle created rallying points (former 3PPs) for the left-out clusters.  I would hypothesize that a more lenient GSL that brought in more of the 3PPs would have have prevented the "opposition" from materializing as much as it had.  A lot of non-4e-fans might have come around to it through house-ruled versions put out by 3PPs.  (Fourth edition rules, third edition feel?)


----------



## BryonD (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 3e is not a consumable (unless you have some whacked out play style I'm unaware of.) The 3e you have now will last indefinitely. If you don't like the New 4e coke, you can safely ignore it and go on using your old 3e coke. Your "stock" isn't going to deplete.



I really enjoy buying new product.  I mean that very seriously.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> The issue I have with this analogy is that coke, unlike D&D is a consumable product.
> 
> If you drank your old coke stock, in order to restock your soda supply you had to buy new coke.  If you didn't like New Coke you were out of luck.
> 
> 3e is not a consumable (unless you have some whacked out play style I'm unaware of.) The 3e you have now will last indefinitely. If you don't like the New 4e coke, you can safely ignore it and go on using your old 3e coke. Your "stock" isn't going to deplete.




This isn't exactly true...the number of 3e books will slowly decline and disappear... the funny thing I find is that many 3.5 books (especially the core books) aren't really going for rock bottom prices anymore since the actual release of 4e.  I think this may be why many are anticipating Pathfinder.  I wonder what would happen if WotC made the 3.5 books POD...


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> 3e is not a consumable (unless you have some whacked out play style I'm unaware of.) The 3e you have now will last indefinitely. If you don't like the New 4e coke, you can safely ignore it and go on using your old 3e coke. Your "stock" isn't going to deplete.




I very strongly disagree with this claim.

Playing an RPG requires other players.  As 3e falls out of print, fewer and fewer players will being seeking out 3e games.  Fewer and fewer will have copies of the 3e books lying around.  And it will become harder and harder to find people to play with.

You claim only holds if you have a permanent gaming group and will never need to find new players.  For most people, that simply isn't the case.  So, while the books may be non-perishable, the player base certainly is.

(This is one of the stated reasons for Paizo publishing Pathfinder RPG: they need to keep the rules in print so that the player base doesn't dry up.)


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> There was really no need for such a huge departure from the previous editions, people still would have bought it because it's D&D. This brings me to the point that the true reason for making the game so different was to eliminate backwards compatability. If people can no longer use their old stuff, they're forced to buy new stuff, which is where we come back to selling the people what you have rather than giving them what they want. This strategy all falls down due to the fact that gamers are smarter than that and they have other options. Lots of them.






Bingo.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

JohnnyQuest said:


> I find 4E quite recognizable as D&D, and so does my entire gaming group.
> 
> Feel free to insult me now




Your sister plays Palladium Fantasy! You wrote a fantasy heartbreaker and I fed it to my goat!


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I really enjoy buying new product.  I mean that very seriously.




Sure, I'm not saying you can't be unhappy about no new 3e products from WoTC, just that I don't find the analogy with new coke accurate. In the new coke case, you either had to give up drinking coke, or start liking new coke. In D&D's case, you can keep playing 3e to your hearts content.

Would there be any difference between this, and say if WoTC just stopped making new products for D&D completely? If they can't make products that sell for 3e, not making 4e isn't going to suddenly make them start to sell better.

I just don't get the anger. 

Also the OGL pretty much insures that someone somewhere can supply new product for 3e if the demand warrents it.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 6, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> It is the sentiment in your analogy that is at the heart of the edition wars and it is the belief that we are selling turtles that perpetuates them.




If it looks like a turtle and walks like a turtle...




Scott_Rouse said:


> You really think Mearls, Collins, Perkins or Slavicsek, or anyone else on the design team set the rule in the design document "make sure people can convert their old stuff to 4e"? Give me a break. You know many of these people personally and you worked with many of them. You know that they didn't go into the design process with the notion of forcing people to buy new stuff.  If anything that was an inherent outcome of the design procees and not an premeditated objective.




Then the design process was flawed.  As you said before, your job is to make sure most people stay on the train. Well, by all polls here at least, you lost more than half of them.  

You can't blame some of use for our suspicions.  The fact that Darrin worked there, and he still has these suspicions, says a lot I think.  Also, combine the lousy restrictive GSL that scared many 3pp's away, and the fact that many changes to the game make it so that you can't make 4e compatible products with the OGL, and I don't think his suspicions are unjustified.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I really enjoy buying new product.  I mean that very seriously.




I love it so much, I'm eyeing 3e and 3pp products I passed over before, just because I might enjoy buying it.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

resistor said:


> I very strongly disagree with this claim.
> 
> Playing an RPG requires other players.  As 3e falls out of print, fewer and fewer players will being seeking out 3e games.  Fewer and fewer will have copies of the 3e books lying around.  And it will become harder and harder to find people to play with.
> 
> ...




There are still people playing 2e, there are still people playing 1e, there are still people playing OD&D! 

Just because one new system might be more popular now then your favored edition doesn't mean the new system shouldn't exist. 

It's always been easier to find a game of D&D then say GURPS, but is that D&D's fault?

And besides... if it IS a new coke thing, then there should be LOTS of players still ready and willing to play 3e shouldn't there?


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Jan 6, 2009)

deleted


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 6, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> That only holds if retaining the existing core [audience] was a consideration. Since before the launch of 4e, I have assumed that it was not.



Yes.  It took me substantially longer to come to that conclusion.  I even started a thread about it, asking why I -- as someone who owns _every single 3.5 product released_, and thus (I'd assumed) a member of WotC's core audience -- was left behind by WotC and 4E.

And the response I got from the pro-4E folks was, "WotC didn't leave you, you left WotC," or "You're not WotC's core audience."  I still find both responses very confusing, but _c'est la vie_.


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> There are still people playing 2e, there are still people playing 1e, there are still people playing OD&D!




Yes, but that doesn't mean I can find them to play a game



> Just because one new system might be more popular now then your favored edition doesn't mean the new system shouldn't exist.




Did I say that?



> It's always been easier to find a game of D&D then say GURPS, but is that D&D's fault?




Again, did I say that?



> And besides... if it IS a new coke thing, then there should be LOTS of players still ready and willing to play 3e shouldn't there?




For the moment.  But, as with such things, the 3e player base will suffer attrition over time, and those lost players are unlikely to be replaced by new ones who will go with the shiny new system.

You questioned why people are angry.  The answer is simple: they're afraid.  They're afraid that their preferred game is going to be increasingly marginalized, when it used to be common.  They're afraid that a few years from now, they won't be able to find a replacement player when Bob moves away, or that they won't be able to find a new copy of the PHB when theirs wears out.

What should worry WotC is that their seems to be a larger-than-expected number of people in this category, AND they are supported by organizing agents (former 3PPs) that can turn these feelings into competition for WotC.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yes.  It took me substantially longer to come to that conclusion.  I even started a thread about it, asking why I -- as someone who owns _every single 3.5 product released_, and thus (I'd assumed) a member of WotC's core audience -- was left behind by WotC and 4E.
> 
> And the response I got from the pro-4E folks was, "WotC didn't leave you, you left WotC," or "You're not WotC's core audience."  I still find both responses very confusing, but _c'est la vie_.




Because you have to look at your future clientele.

Your current clientele might love what you're producing right now, but if you're not bringing in a new crop what then?

You'd need to make a chocie then wouldn't you?

Either you:

1. Stay with the status quo, and sell to the current clients as long as you can then close up shop...

or

2. Make some changes to your product in an effort to appeal to the new generation. 

Number two risks loosing some of your current clients, but leaves room for future life.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 6, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Frankly, if WotC wanted to release edition 3.75, and do it it under the OGL, and run it alongside 4E, I think that would take care of the problem. And it isn't like this approach has never been done before; Basic D&D and Advanced D&D coexisted for a long time.
> 
> This solution wouldn't be about ending an edition war. It would be about getting the people who got off the train to get back on and I think it would restore a lot of good will towards WotC.





Isn't that what Pathfinder is, essentially?  Not to be too snarky, but seriously, hasn't that ship sailed for WOTC already since Paizo decided to do Pathfinder?  Though I haven't been involved in Pathfinder's development at all, I periodically go to the boards and read what they are doing and discussing, and quite frankly I don't think WOTC could ever do something like that. Doesn't seem to be their style.  They haven't exactly demonstrated that they are open to that level of input in their design process.  If they had, I think we would have a 4e which looked totally different than what we have now.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 6, 2009)

resistor said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean I can find them to play a game



i did. it took years of wading thru 2edADnD and d02 fanbois but i was able to form a group.

you just need to be vigilant and have patience.

stick to your guns. plug away.

edit: if you wanna play OD&D(1974) meet me at Gen Con.


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Because you have to look at your future clientele.
> 
> Your current clientele might love what you're producing right now, but if you're not bringing in a new crop what then?
> 
> ...




Doesn't this just bring us back to the New Coke argument?  Coca Cola has been doing pretty well for decades selling essentially the same thing to the same people (I mean, seriously, does anyone ever actually switch from a Coke fan to a Pepsi fan, or vice versa?  The lines seem pretty drawn).  And the one time they tried to make some changes, it became one of the most commonly referenced business disasters is modern history.

I think the take away point is that neither approach is a silver bullet.  (1) risks market stagnation, while (2) risks loss of the consumer base.  Either requires planning, careful marketing, and good management.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 6, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Isn't that what Pathfinder is, essentially? Not to be too snarky, but seriously, hasn't that ship sailed for WOTC already since Paizo decided to do Pathfinder?.




ship hasn't sailed for WotC. they own the harbor. it would essentially be them opening back up the port.

Davey "wants an OD&D dock" Jones


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

DaveyJones said:


> i did. it took years of wading thru 2edADnD and d02 fanbois but i was able to form a group.
> 
> you just need to be vigilant and have patience.
> 
> ...




While it was a rhetorical point, your comment re-enforces my point that, with 3e out of print, finding players for it will become harder and harder over time, just as it has to find OD&D players.

(As an aside, I appreciate the offer, but I've never actually played OD&D (or any D&D before 3e), and don't plan on being at Gen Con.  Sorry!)


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 6, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Your current clientele might love what you're producing right now, but if you're not bringing in a new crop what then?
> 
> You'd need to make a chocie then wouldn't you?



I believe that you've offered a false dichotomy.

Nevertheless, I also believe that unfortunate adherence to that false dichotomy could explain WotC's choices with regard to gamers like me.


----------



## DaveyJones (Jan 6, 2009)

resistor said:


> While it was a rhetorical point, your comment re-enforces my point that, with 3e out of print, finding players for it will become harder and harder over time, just as it has to find OD&D players.
> 
> (As an aside, I appreciate the offer, but I've never actually played OD&D (or any D&D before 3e), and don't plan on being at Gen Con. Sorry!)




don't come to Gen Con. I am willing to teach OD&D in Stone Mtn, GA. find one of my threads.


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

DaveyJones said:


> don't come to Gen Con. I am willing to teach OD&D in Stone Mtn, GA. find one of my threads.




I actually grew up in Athens, GA.  But now I find myself pretty far away, so unless you want to come to Seattle to teach me, I think I'll have to miss out.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 6, 2009)

Did I accidentally log into e-Harmony?


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 6, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Isn't that what Pathfinder is, essentially?  Not to be too snarky, but seriously, hasn't that ship sailed for WOTC already since Paizo decided to do Pathfinder?  Though I haven't been involved in Pathfinder's development at all, I periodically go to the boards and read what they are doing and discussing, and quite frankly I don't think WOTC could ever do something like that. Doesn't seem to be their style.  They haven't exactly demonstrated that they are open to that level of input in their design process.  If they had, I think we would have a 4e which looked totally different than what we have now.




There are two different ways to do 3.75. The first way is to look at the game in an evolutionary manner, incorporating some of the 4e concepts while leaving the basic structure intact. The second way is to keep the game essentially the same, but replace broken subsystems with better stuff. For instance, replace poorly designed monsters with good ones, write some grappling rules that are simpler than the rules for aerial combat, etc. Pathfinder has gone basically the first way.

The second way is still open, to WotC or anyone else.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 6, 2009)

resistor said:


> I actually grew up in Athens, GA.  But now I find myself pretty far away, so unless you want to come to Seattle to teach me, I think I'll have to miss out.




i might be in seattle this summer. i'll let you know when i'm in town.

diaglo "DaveyJones is my home account" Ooi


----------



## resistor (Jan 6, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Did I accidentally log into e-Harmony?




You're the one with Romeo in his sig.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 6, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Did I accidentally log into e-Harmony?




i bought minis from you mang. and you never called me back.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

resistor said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean I can find them to play a game
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Maybe not, but it seemed like the answer fit what you were saying? 



> For the moment.  But, as with such things, the 3e player base will suffer attrition over time, and those lost players are unlikely to be replaced by new ones who will go with the shiny new system.




But again, what my original point was, that the "new coke" analogy is still innapropriate.

With new coke, once the supply of old coke was out, I couldn't experience it even if I wanted to. It no longer existed. 

All editions of D&D still exist. It might be harder to find new players and get materials sure, but it's not impossible. 

The New Coke analogy just doesn't fit.



> You questioned why people are angry.  The answer is simple: they're afraid.  They're afraid that their preferred game is going to be increasingly marginalized, when it used to be common.  They're afraid that a few years from now, they won't be able to find a replacement player when Bob moves away, or that they won't be able to find a new copy of the PHB when theirs wears out.




Sure, but then their anger is misplaced. 4e is not the cause of these problems. Not printing 4e isn't going to create new fans of earlier editions.


----------



## JohnnyQuest (Jan 6, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Your sister plays Palladium Fantasy! You wrote a fantasy heartbreaker and I fed it to my goat!




Okay, this one is the best yet ...


----------



## Scribble (Jan 6, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I believe that you've offered a false dichotomy.
> 
> Nevertheless, I also believe that unfortunate adherence to that false dichotomy could explain WotC's choices with regard to gamers like me.




Simplified maybe? 

But yeah there could be other reasons too.

Like even if you are 100% happy with the current product, if there's a larger untapped market out there who want to buy D&D but not in it's current form, is it justifiable to continue making the current product?

Also not working for WoTC I can only go by what they said in the past, and that was that table top rpgs were loosing fans to other fantasy simulation and gaming mediums.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 6, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> Then the design process was flawed. As you said before, your job is to make sure most people stay on the train. Well, *by all polls here at least,* you lost more than half of them.
> 
> You can't blame some of use for our suspicions. The fact that Darrin worked there, and he still has these suspicions, says a lot I think. Also, combine the lousy restrictive GSL that scared many 3pp's away, and the fact that many changes to the game make it so that you can't make 4e compatible products with the OGL, and I don't think his suspicions are unjustified.




Your argument breaks down horribly under scrutiny.

Using this board as a representative cross section of the gaming community is unscientific, anecdotal and flat-out ridiculous. This board is one miniscule, nay, microscopic segment of the gaming population. The WotC boards would be better and still wouldn't pass muster under any reasonable measure.

Using the football boards I frequent as an example, by your definition the VAST majority of sports fans are poltically liberal to very liberal. Demographics have shown otherwise. 

Also, the use of the word suspicions vs. suppositions also weakens your stance considerably. Suspicions is construed as an accusation limiting debate vs. suppositions which is just stating a theory where open debate is needed.

I believe the legal term for what has happened to your argument is pwned.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 7, 2009)

Scribble said:


> All editions of D&D still exist. It might be harder to find new players and get materials sure, but it's not impossible.




finding new players isn't hard.
finding new material is impossible.

until WotC releases a reprint of OD&D(1974) i will be on the internet.


----------



## resistor (Jan 7, 2009)

Scribble said:


> With new coke, once the supply of old coke was out, I couldn't experience it even if I wanted to. It no longer existed.
> 
> All editions of D&D still exist. It might be harder to find new players and get materials sure, but it's not impossible.
> 
> The New Coke analogy just doesn't fit.




I'm pretty sure I just demonstrated how it does fit.  You pointed out that a fan of old Coke would have his horde of old cans to keep him going for a while, but eventually he'll run out.   He might be able to buy some more on eBay for the next few years, but eventually the supply will diminish and the price of the few left will skyrocket, effectively cutting him off.

THE SAME THING will happen with 3e players: I have my current gaming group.  If I lose a player in the next year or so, I probably won't have too much trouble replacing them.  But in five years, it won't be so easy.  Once we reach 10,  it will probably be pretty difficult.

It is EXACTLY the same thing, stretched over a longer timescale.



> Sure, but then their anger is misplaced. 4e is not the cause of these problems. Not printing 4e isn't going to create new fans of earlier editions.




This is just wrong.

If 4e didn't exist, 3e would be being published, new players would be playing it, and 3e fans on the whole would be well off.

If 4e existed in a form that appealed more to 3e fans, they would switch over to it, and have in print books, new players, etc.

The fact that it was created as a replacement for the game they find superior makes it directly responsible for the decline of their preferred system.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 7, 2009)

diaglo said:


> finding new players isn't hard.
> finding new material is impossible.
> 
> until WotC releases a reprint of OD&D(1974) i will be on the internet.




Sure, I meant finding material already written. Like another copy of a PHB or DMG or soemthing. 

I wonder if there's enough demand for someone to retro-clone OD&D?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yes. It took me substantially longer to come to that conclusion. I even started a thread about it, asking why I -- as someone who owns _every single 3.5 product released_, and thus (I'd assumed) a member of WotC's core audience -- was left behind by WotC and 4E.
> 
> And the response I got from the pro-4E folks was, "WotC didn't leave you, you left WotC," or "You're not WotC's core audience." I still find both responses very confusing, but _c'est la vie_.





I don't think you are the "core audience" for 3.5 Jeff, just like neither of us was really the "core audience" for miniatures as it turns out. You and I may be more passionate and vocal than many others but look at our collections.  Going by the other thread, I have a lot more minis than even you do, and I'm by no means anywhere near top dog from the MaxMinis/Hordelings crew. And what percent of those actually played minis tournaments? Or went to Gen Con to play? You said you have EVERY 3.5 product. How much more would you realistically buy? Alternately, how much more would the average gamer buy?

In the group I played with many of the books were owned by someone or other. I noticed in my basic perusing there was a lot of repitition in material between the books to fill them out. If the new edition stayed very close to 3E, how much more would most people really want to buy. PH? DMG? Then what? Prestige classes appeared to have entered the spaghetti realm where anything that might stick was also cloned.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Your argument breaks down horribly under scrutiny.
> 
> Using this board as a representative cross section of the gaming community is unscientific, anecdotal and flat-out ridiculous. This board is one miniscule, nay, microscopic segment of the gaming population. The WotC boards would be better and still wouldn't pass muster under any reasonable measure.
> 
> ...





i don't agree with your points as to my conclusions. despite the red font.

and what the does pwned mean anyhow? been seeing that word here for a year now and have no clue what it stands for.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 7, 2009)

resistor said:


> I'm pretty sure I just demonstrated how it does fit.  You pointed out that a fan of old Coke would have his horde of old cans to keep him going for a while, but eventually he'll run out.   He might be able to buy some more on eBay for the next few years, but eventually the supply will diminish and the price of the few left will skyrocket, effectively cutting him off.
> 
> THE SAME THING will happen with 3e players: I have my current gaming group.  If I lose a player in the next year or so, I probably won't have too much trouble replacing them.  But in five years, it won't be so easy.  Once we reach 10,  it will probably be pretty difficult.
> 
> It is EXACTLY the same thing, stretched over a longer timescale.




With old coke, once the supply runs dry that's it. It's impossible to get more.

"pretty difficult" isn't impossible. Players are a renewable resource. it might be harder to get more 3e players, but harder again isn't impossible. Hey you can even create new players if you want. "hey guys lets try this other system." 




> This is just wrong.
> 
> If 4e didn't exist, 3e would be being published, new players would be playing it, and 3e fans on the whole would be well off.




This is assuming new players want to play 3e, and that if 4e didn't exist 3e would continue to be published indefinitely.



> If 4e existed in a form that appealed more to 3e fans, they would switch over to it, and have in print books, new players, etc.




Great? 



> The fact that it was created as a replacement for the game they find superior makes it directly responsible for the decline of their preferred system.




They find it superior. You're saying they angry at 4e because other people have different tastes then they do.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Your argument breaks down horribly under scrutiny.
> 
> Using this board as a representative cross section of the gaming community is unscientific, anecdotal and flat-out ridiculous. This board is one miniscule, nay, microscopic segment of the gaming population. The WotC boards would be better and still wouldn't pass muster under any reasonable measure.
> 
> ...




Here's something interesting I'd like you and anyone else that keeps claiming these boards don't provide any type of valid cross section for determining anything about D&D to read...

MM= Mike Mearls for those who don't know.



Critical-Hits said:


> *CH: Where were you drawing the feedback from where those trouble spots are?*
> 
> *MM*: A lot of that was internal. Obviously everyone in R&D plays a lot of D&D. *A lot of it came from cruising messageboards. It’s interesting how you don’t see Wizards people posting a lot, either on ENWorld or the Wizards boards, but we read a lot of threads.* A lot of it is just seeing the same complaints crop up again and again. I don’t know how many times I saw someone complain that their games took too much time to prep. There were a lot of DMs saying that prepping for their 10th level game was like doing homework. Numbers have to be crunched and a lot of stuff has to come up. We looked at adventures and came up with a new format.
> Just looking at what people are doing with our games and figuring out, just how can we make that easier, and how can we respond to what they’re doing. When we started talking about a new edition, we said “it has to be compelling, because this game is good.” We have to find ways that speak to people who play D&D. People who play D&D are really smart about what D&D is and what it isn’t. You’re not just selling cars to someone who has never popped the hood and has no idea what you’re talking about. You have to speak in that sort of technical language, since that’s what people respond to. It is a challenge, because you don’t want people to feel like idiots for liking third edition.






Now argue all you want about validity of the information on these boards, but it seems, from Mike's answer above, the posters on this board can be used as a valid cross section of the gaming community for determining what problems should be addressed in D&D, (It's just a shame they felt no  need to determine the way in which we wanted our problems fixed as well.),  Any way I wonder how the fact we can be used for this type of data fits in with us being insignificant for other types of data? Hmmm...


----------



## RFisher (Jan 7, 2009)

The Shaman said:


> That's beautiful.
> 
> Thanks for adding that to my vocabulary.




I stole it from Sun. When they first made Java public they advertised it as “buzzword compliant”.



Wombat said:


> One observation I have is that the original posting could be applied to trying _*any *_other roleplaying game, rather than shifting from 3e to 4e.




Like I said, people are resistant to trying classic D&D. If they give it a chance, though, they eventually find the “transforming idea”. They find they like it and start evangelizing it.



Stormtower said:


> The rules and culture of games like Bridge and Hearts (or Checkers, Backgammon, Chess, etc.) have not changed significantly since the games were first invented/introduced.




I’d say that the rate of change has decelerated over time so that it is now effectively static. (You’ll still find little changes in the rules of official Chess organizations, but the rules are essentially static.) That looks like a healthy development to me. The all-over-the-chart rate-of-change from the history of D&D does not look healthy to me.



Scott_Rouse said:


> Music played live progressed to music you played on acetate at home,  to music played on the radio,... to music that you take with you and download digitally.




Ah, so that’s why I have to go to eBay to hear live music! ^_^



Scott_Rouse said:


> I believe we made a product a lot of people wanted. Is it for everyone? No, but my sales show me a lot of people did want it.




If we return it, will it show up in those sales figures? If we can’t return it, is there a way to get our dissatisfaction to show up in your sales figures?



Scribble said:


> I wonder if there's enough demand for someone to retro-clone OD&D?




I’m going to have to say that there is, but I’m too rushed (or lazy) to search out the link right now. ^_^


----------



## RFisher (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now argue all you want about validity of the information on these boards, but it seems, from Mike's answer above, the posters on this board can be used as a valid cross section of the gaming community for determining what problems should be addressed in D&D




Because someone _can_ make the assumption that ENWorld is a representative cross-section and that they _can_ make decisions based on that assumption—this doesn’t mean they are _right_.

There is always the danger that in fixing what is a problem for a squeaky wheel minority will compromise what made your product successful among the content and silent majority.

I’m not saying that this mistake was made in 4e, BTW. I’m not saying that Mearls didn’t have valid reasons for considering ENWorld a representative cross-section either. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

RFisher said:


> If we return it, will it show up in those sales figures? If we can’t return it, is there a way to get our dissatisfaction to show up in your sales figures?




This, if only it would...and some xp for you.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

RFisher said:


> Because someone _can_ make the assumption that ENWorld is a representative cross-section and that they _can_ make decisions based on that assumption—this doesn’t mean they are _right_.
> 
> There is always the danger that in fixing what is a problem for a squeaky wheel minority will compromise what made your product successful among the content and silent majority.
> 
> I’m not saying that this mistake was made in 4e, BTW. I’m not saying that Mearls didn’t have valid reasons for considering ENWorld a representative cross-section either. Maybe he did; maybe he didn’t.




What I'm saying is this is proof, not speculation, that we were and probably still are used as a cross representation of gamers for WotC as far as D&D goes, and really that's what matters... not whether it's right or wrong... just that it is.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

resistor said:


> I'm pretty sure I just demonstrated how it does fit. You pointed out that a fan of old Coke would have his horde of old cans to keep him going for a while, but eventually he'll run out. He might be able to buy some more on eBay for the next few years, but eventually the supply will diminish and the price of the few left will skyrocket, effectively cutting him off.
> 
> THE SAME THING will happen with 3e players: I have my current gaming group. If I lose a player in the next year or so, I probably won't have too much trouble replacing them. But in five years, it won't be so easy. Once we reach 10, it will probably be pretty difficult.
> 
> ...





LoL, wow, sorry man, but your logic (and others trying to use the Coke analogy) is a total leap. I have a six-pack of Billy Beer my dad saved for me. Should I still drink it? You're comparing a perishable consumable to a game. Even if you are worried about your hard copies of game material, you can scan and PDF them. Pretty hard to digitally save a soft drink.

You can also house rule and create new stuff for any edition you want. Lord knows I do/did. That's almost the essence of the game.

I started many players in D&D in my 1E/2E hybrid, a couple as recently as August 2008. Copping a line from "Field of Dreams": If you run it (well), they will come.


You are actually incorrect. 3E had most likely blown its publishing wad. On these message boards there were a lot of complaints about material being repeated in the source books more frequently to 'fill them out'. What does that tell you? It tells you the same source you are incorrectly using as a representative sample of the gaming industry is now debating the opposite side of what they "said" they wanted. People noticed a trend of repitition. They didn't like it.

"Stop repeating all this info, it's terrible and a waste of my money! I'm not going to buy any more of this crap!"

Fast Forward 6 months:

"What have you done to MY game? Where is my new stuff for MY game? I want to buy more of the other stuff, not this new crap!"

Another fallacy. If you find a game/edition superior, you play it regardless if it's 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, GURPS, Cyberpunk 1,2 or 3(?), Shadowrun 1,2,3 or 4, Hackmaster, Girls With Guns, whatever. 

Your argument also completely breaks down with the statement prior to that. Using the exact same anecdotal evidence you use for an apples-to-apples comparison, a rather large number of '3E fans' HAVE switched. Sales figures would also indicate a large portion of people have switched.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Here's something interesting I'd like you and anyone else that keeps claiming these boards don't provide any type of valid cross section for determining anything about D&D to read...




I agree with you about this one Imaro. Saying the boards are "useless" for determining things about D&D is kind of silly in my opinion.

What I DO feel is that also need to understand/ take into account what data obtained from enworld represents.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> and what the does pwned mean anyhow? been seeing that word here for a year now and have no clue what it stands for.





I had to ask that question myself a while back. Apparently it was a common typographical error for "owned" used often in MMORPGs and such that just became commonly used. I used to find it annoying, now I find it just silly.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

scribble said:


> i agree with you about this one imaro. Saying the boards are "useless" for determining things about d&d is kind of silly in my opinion.
> 
> What i do feel is that also need to understand/ take into account what data obtained from enworld represents.





exactly!


----------



## resistor (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> LoL, wow, sorry man, but your logic (and others trying to use the Coke analogy) is a total leap. I have a six-pack of Billy Beer my dad saved for me. Should I still drink it? You're comparing a perishable consumable to a game. Even if you are worried about your hard copies of game material, you can scan and PDF them. Pretty hard to digitally save a soft drink.




Please reread my point.  I claim that the PLAYER BASE is like the softdrink, not the books themselves.  Both will run out over time.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> What I'm saying is this is proof, not speculation, that we were and probably still are used as a cross representation of gamers for WotC as far as D&D goes, and really that's what matters... not whether it's right or wrong... just that it is.




Ah! Gotcha.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> You are actually incorrect. 3E had most likely blown its publishing wad. On these message boards there were a lot of complaints about material being repeated in the source books more frequently to 'fill them out'. What does that tell you? It tells you the same source you are incorrectly using as a representative sample of the gaming industry is now debating the opposite side of what they "said" they wanted. People noticed a trend of repitition. They didn't like it.
> 
> "Stop repeating all this info, it's terrible and a waste of my money! I'm not going to buy any more of this crap!"
> 
> ...




Well I just wanted to comment on this part of your post... could it also be that WotC was just being unimaginative because they already knew 4e was coming?  I know for a fact Mike Mearls had knowledge of 4e from 2005 on. 

  I mean the 3PP were still producing new and interesting things (adventures, campaign settings, new classes, ways of using skills, etc.) without repetition, I mean sheesh there were still parts of Eberron that hadn't been touched on and a book with expansions for the fringe classes like Hexblade's, Duskblade's, etc. would have been great.  In the end I think we were given some, maybe even majority crap for 3e/3.5 to prep us for acceptance of 4e... at least by WotC.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

resistor said:


> Please reread my point. I claim that the PLAYER BASE is like the softdrink, not the books themselves. Both will run out over time.





I suppose you could argue that the old players will eventually die, but that's kind of silly. Read mine again. If you run it (well) they will come. Your enthusiasm can carry most people farther in a game than anything printed can. I've run many groups that never expressed a desire to want to try 3E. 

As long as you have ideas and fun, and express them to others, nobody can take that away and people will be drawn to it.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well I just wanted to comment on this part of your post... could it also be that WotC was just being unimaginative because they already knew 4e was coming? I know for a fact Mike Mearls had knowledge of 4e from 2005 on.
> 
> I mean the 3PP were still producing new and interesting things (adventures, campaign settings, new classes, ways of using skills, etc.) without repetition, I mean sheesh there were still parts of Eberron that hadn't been touched on and a book with expansions for the fringe classes like Hexblade's, Duskblade's, etc. would have been great. In the end I think we were given some, maybe even majority crap for 3e/3.5 to prep us for acceptance of 4e... at least by WotC.




I find this funny. You're only as good as your recent sales figures. Commissions and bonuses are based on them. A decent part of the company would be "cutting off their nose to spite their face", as it were.

And they still are, but look at your example: Expansions for Hexblades and Duskblades? Pretty limited subject and target audience.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I find this funny. You're only as good as your recent sales figures. Commissions and bonuses are based on them. A decent part of the company would be "cutting off their nose to spite their face", as it were.
> 
> And they still are, but look at your example: Expansions for Hexblades and Duskblades? Pretty limited subject and target audience.




And yet you still have to devote resources, and money... probably the lion's share of both to a new flagship project, so do you think they had their best, most creative and well paid designers on late 3.5 stuff or on 4e stuff?  So now which would suffer again, oh yeah 3.5... exactly what I stated earlier, yeah I guess that is kinda funny but I don't see it in any way as cutting off your nose to spite your face, especially when core books are where your game is made or broken.

Isn't everything "limited" beyond the core?  I mean those were things that needed support and I certainly would have bough a $35 book that allowed me to get more use out of those particular classes along with other fringe classes that hadn't been explored beyond the basics.  In fact I remembver peole clamoring for more support for these types of classes that had been introduced and then forgotten about.  I'm curious what sourcebook would be a non-limited one in your opinion, you know the type that everyone would buy?


----------



## diaglo (Jan 7, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sure, I meant finding material already written. Like another copy of a PHB or DMG or soemthing.
> 
> I wonder if there's enough demand for someone to retro-clone OD&D?




i've been demanding it. ask (T)ed stark. 
i submitted OD&D to the wotc new idea plea that eberron won. 

give me enough time i'll be sure to get a few more gamers to know who wants OD&D back in print. 

and new material for the greatest edition ever.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I find this funny. You're only as good as your recent sales figures. Commissions and bonuses are based on them. A decent part of the company would be "cutting off their nose to spite their face", as it were.




Absolutely true. Later 3.5 books were as high quality as any of the earlier stuff. I think some of the more interesting products came from the last couple years of 3E.



Imaro said:


> And yet you still have to devote resources, and money... probably the lion's share of both to a new flagship project, so do you think they had their best, most creative and well paid designers on late 3.5 stuff or on 4e stuff?




Because of their stable of freelancers, some of whom were previously part of the R&D department, they were able to keep the good stuff coming for 3.5 up until the one-year buildup to 4E. I have a hard time finding major fault with them for their handling of 3rd edition at any stage.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I don't think you are the "core audience" for 3.5 Jeff, just like neither of us was really the "core audience" for miniatures as it turns out.



Sure, we're not the audience "as it turns out," but I find it very hard to believe -- again, as someone who bought every 3.5 product -- that I'm not in the audience that WotC _wanted_.

Scott Rouse himself said that they wanted to keep people "on the train."  Did he not mean people who had been loyal customers to the point of completism?  Again, I find that very difficult to believe.

If it's true, then, that WotC would have liked to keep people like me on board the train, it follows that somewhere WotC messed up pretty badly.  WotC and pro-4E folks might like to say -- _now_ -- that I got off voluntarily, but I feel like I was thrown off.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yes. It took me substantially longer to come to that conclusion. I even started a thread about it, asking why I -- as someone who owns _every single 3.5 product released_, and thus (I'd assumed) a member of WotC's core audience -- was left behind by WotC and 4E.




It strikes me personally as _wildly_ unsurprising that someone that happy with the current edition would be unhappy with substantial changes to it.



Jeff Wilder said:


> And the response I got from the pro-4E folks was, "WotC didn't leave you, you left WotC," or "You're not WotC's core audience." I still find both responses very confusing, but _c'est la vie_.




Those are... odd... things to say. It's possible they made sense in the context of that thread, I guess.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> It strikes me personally as _wildly_ unsurprising that someone that happy with the current edition would be unhappy with substantial changes to it.



"Substantial changes"?  I'm fairly happy with the way Pathfinder is shaping up.  Are those not "substantial" changes?

Assume that I'm okay up to X-1, but not okay at X.  Assume that because I buy everything, WotC would like to keep me as a customer.  Given those assumptions:

Why would WotC make changes to the tune of not just X, but arguably X+1?

There are answers to that question that make sense.  The one that makes the most sense to me involves trying to kill the OGL genie.

BTW, if the second assumption above is false, then WotC _did_ throw me off the train.  There are possible explanations for that, too -- such as believing that enough new customers would make up the revenue provided by one completist like me -- but it's still me being thrown off the train, not disembarking voluntarily.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet you still have to devote resources, and money... probably the lion's share of both to a new flagship project, so do you think they had their best, most creative and well paid designers on late 3.5 stuff or on 4e stuff? So now which would suffer again, oh yeah 3.5... exactly what I stated earlier, yeah I guess that is kinda funny but I don't see it in any way as cutting off your nose to spite your face, especially when core books are where your game is made or broken.
> 
> Isn't everything "limited" beyond the core? I mean those were things that needed support and I certainly would have bough a $35 book that allowed me to get more use out of those particular classes along with other fringe classes that hadn't been explored beyond the basics. In fact I remembver peole clamoring for more support for these types of classes that had been introduced and then forgotten about. I'm curious what sourcebook would be a non-limited one in your opinion, you know the type that everyone would buy?





Your first point is over-simplified and incorrect. It assumes that three years ago numbers didn't really "count". Even going with your assumption: People working on old and new projects are expected to produce for BOTH. Stop producing for the old and you're on the street before the new. In business, it's really that straight forward.

Also, you defeated your own argument. The core books were all done. And even the closer-to-core books would feature settings and more general classes like fighter/mage/rogue/wizard not certain prestige classes. 

3E was also an absolute mess from the "core book" standpoint. They tried shoving "core" material in to everything. The DMG had PC prestige classes and info in it. The PH had magic items. It was a hodge-podge to get people to buy more books. And it sort of worked for a time but in the end it was just kind of a mess. 4E is much more streamlined and concise so far.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> "Substantial changes"? I'm fairly happy with the way Pathfinder is shaping up. Are those not "substantial" changes?




I haven't checked out Pathfinder recently, but when I did the first time it looked about as substantial a set of changes as, say, Unearthed Arcana.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Assume that I'm okay up to X-1, but not okay at X. Assume that because I buy everything, WotC would like to keep me as a customer. Given those assumptions:
> 
> Why would WotC make changes to the tune of not just X, but arguably X+1?




Because they percieve the market for X+1 to be larger than that of the market for X-1 or even X.

Alternatively, they miscalculated the value of X.



Jeff Wilder said:


> There are answers to that question that make sense. The one that makes the most sense to me involves trying to kill the OGL genie.




The OGL genie's immortality was obvious to anyone paying attention.

The answer that makes the most sense to me is that they decided 4E was a chance to redesign from starting principles (akin to the shift from 2E to 3E) in a way that wasn't appropriate during the 3E->3.5E shift.



Jeff Wilder said:


> BTW, if the second assumption above is false, then WotC _did_ throw me off the train. There are possible explanations for that, too -- such as believing that enough new customers would make up the revenue provided by one completist like me -- but it's still me being thrown off the train, not disembarking voluntarily.




Account for the possibility that they can't know X for every gamer, nor satisfy every gamer's X-1. (It's very likely that for at least one person, X-1 is the game as they already have it).


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Sure, we're not the audience "as it turns out," but I find it very hard to believe -- again, as someone who bought every 3.5 product -- that I'm not in the audience that WotC _wanted_.




Granted. But I'm not sure it was a realistic goal to keep everyone like you and I with new editions/distributions/etc. I know my minis buying habits are changing drastically. A certain amount of attrition was expected, I would think, just because th eolder stuff would remain immensely popular with some, just like I never bought 3E stuff past the PH and stuck with the older material I so enjoyed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> And having fans charge out into the streets committing vandalism, burning sofas and trashing people's cars after a Big 10 football game (after their team won, even!) isn't about the football, either.




I gotta agree here.


RC


----------



## vic20 (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> LoL, wow



Your posts are nearly impossible to read with the all the color utilization. I can't focus on your ideas, or tell which ones are even yours.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

vic20 said:


> Your posts are nearly impossible to read with the all the color utilization. I can't focus on your ideas, or tell which ones are even yours.





I'm sorry. I was attempting to match color to color when addressing separate points while keeping the original quote more or less in-tact and complete in flow. Apparently the idea failed large.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Account for the possibility that they can't know X for every gamer, nor satisfy every gamer's X-1. (It's very likely that for at least one person, X-1 is the game as they already have it).



I account for the possibility; I think that this lack of knowledge is what I'm talking about as a possibility.

You can believe WotC's continuing line about record-breaking sales, or you can believe the polls here on EN World, or you can -- like me -- believe the answer is somewhere in the middle.  If that's the case, WotC badly miscalculated X-1, not just for me, but for lots and lots of gamers.  And I believe that the effects of miscalculation -- if that's what happened -- could have been substantially lessened.

BTW, you're right.  I shouldn't have said "kill" in reference to the OGL.  It cannot be killed, but it can be -- and it has been -- weakened by its abandonment by WotC, and I think that weakening is another possibility for the design to X+1.  (And I'm not talking about the actual license, but the player- and designer-base that uses it.)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 7, 2009)

Scribble said:


> But again, what my original point was, that the "new coke" analogy is still innapropriate.
> 
> With new coke, once the supply of old coke was out, I couldn't experience it even if I wanted to. It no longer existed.




Actually, that's not true. Original Coke still existed and was still being bottled. You just had to go outside of the country to get it. In other words, it was harder to get.

Again, not necessarily unlike the environment we may see trying to find  players and materials for earlier editions...
EDIT: Not that I mean you would have to leave the country... but you might have to leave your regular group or gaming grounds to do it.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Yes.  It took me substantially longer to come to that conclusion.  I even started a thread about it, asking why I -- as someone who owns _every single 3.5 product released_, and thus (I'd assumed) a member of WotC's core audience -- was left behind by WotC and 4E.
> 
> And the response I got from the pro-4E folks was, "WotC didn't leave you, you left WotC," or "You're not WotC's core audience."  I still find both responses very confusing, but _c'est la vie_.



"Perhaps it is you who have moved away - by standing still." - Inherit the Wind



Jeff Wilder said:


> "Substantial changes"?  I'm fairly happy with the way Pathfinder is shaping up.  Are those not "substantial" changes?



No, not really.  It's all well and good to slap on a new coat of paint, but it's not really addressing the fundamental flaws, anymore than 2e did with AD&D.



joethelawyer said:


> You can't blame some of use for our suspicions.  The fact that Darrin worked there, and he still has these suspicions, says a lot I think.



Yes.  It says that Darrin is a very suspicious person.  (edit: that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek)  I've seen enough rants here by Darrin that say to me, he seems to have a chip on his shoulder regarding WotC/Hasbro specifically or large businesses in general.  Which is fine, but he's not an impartial observer - his past statements show an inclination to view any move by WotC as having sinister motives.

All the turtle talk is pretty silly.  The 4e design team listened to the players, who said that they didn't like X, Y, and Z and wanted more A, B, and C.  There was a list I saw posted by Mearls back in the day of changes people wanted to the game that the designers wanted to address, and it was very non-controversial.  So those elements were fixed... In the end, this resulted in a package that differed a lot from how 3e worked, because that's the logical consequence of fixing those issues.  Mearls et al simply made the "mistake" of taking the audience at its word instead of delivering a safe patch-up ala 2e.

I would also say the early presentation of 4e was rather flawed - instead of focusing on "you didn't like this and we fixed it" most of the early press was about the silly implied setting - but that ship has long sailed.


----------



## Pseudopsyche (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> BTW, if the second assumption above is false, then WotC _did_ throw me off the train.  There are possible explanations for that, too -- such as believing that enough new customers would make up the revenue provided by one completist like me -- but it's still me being thrown off the train, not disembarking voluntarily.



I would say that WotC changed the route on you.  Mearls designed a route that he thought would serve more people better.  Scott's job is to show existing passengers how the new route can still get them where they want to go, along with promoting the route to new passengers.  Of course, depending on where you live, the new route may simply not work for you.  It sucks, but it doesn't mean that it was personal.

Ideally, those who are no longer served by the train will find alternative transportation.  (You might even say they'll find a different path.)  The alternative provider may not have the same cachet, but it will get people where they need to go.

That said, if there were a discussion board dedicated to transportation options in the region (which may traditionally have focussed on this one railroad company), I'm sure there would be some heated discussions about the route changes.  I also think that the OP's points about the nature of change would apply.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> BTW, you're right.  I shouldn't have said "kill" in reference to the OGL.  It cannot be killed, but it can be -- and it has been -- weakened by its abandonment by WotC, and I think that weakening is another possibility for the design to X+1.  (And I'm not talking about the actual license, but the player- and designer-base that uses it.)




The way I see it, WotC had abandoned the promise of the OGL fairly early by not expanding the SRD after psionics and Unearthed Arcana. I understand the desire to protect their IP, but as the Complete books and PH2 start to become more scarce, finding some of the really useful feats that go a long way to helping the fighter and multiclass casters balance out will be much harder.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Your first point is over-simplified and incorrect. It assumes that three years ago numbers didn't really "count". Even going with your assumption: People working on old and new projects are expected to produce for BOTH. Stop producing for the old and you're on the street before the new. In business, it's really that straight forward.




No, you over simplified my statement to better counter it.  I didn't say numbers don't matter, but in the end resources and money are allocated by priority, that my friend is "business".  I never said 3.5 was shut down as far as production...but really, Who here is going to argue Elder Evils was something everybody was pinning for... I would argue this was more niche than even my suggestion, yet it was driven by an imperative to have people wrap up and end their 3.5 campaigns.  Same with the Rules Compendium (great a resource as it was) as far as the design principle of ending 3.5... Oh and we also finally got a Greyhawk adventure, even though WotC neglected the setting throughout the run of 3.5 because it supposedly wouldn't sell.



Herschel said:


> Also, you defeated your own argument. The core books were all done. And even the closer-to-core books would feature settings and more general classes like fighter/mage/rogue/wizard not certain prestige classes.




Uhm...huh?  What are you talking about here. 3e or 4e...I don't get what you are arguing here or even what you're thought is at all with this paragraph.



Herschel said:


> 3E was also an absolute mess from the "core book" standpoint. They tried shoving "core" material in to everything. The DMG had PC prestige classes and info in it. The PH had magic items. It was a hodge-podge to get people to buy more books. And it sort of worked for a time but in the end it was just kind of a mess. 4E is much more streamlined and concise so far.




Uhm...the 4e PHB had magic items in it not the 3e one... and numerous 4e books (Manual of the PLanes, Draconomicon, Martial Power)  have paragon paths in them, not to mention rituals are scattered all over the place as well...  Less books maybe, but even that will fade with time...but I don't know about it being more concise. you know what I can't discuss what I don't understand and somewhere in this post your point has been totally lost on me.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 7, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> If it looks like a turtle and walks like a turtle...




If _everyone agreed_ that it looks like a turtle... but they don't.


----------



## Shemeska (Jan 7, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Absolutely true. Later 3.5 books were as high quality as any of the earlier stuff. I think some of the more interesting products came from the last couple years of 3E.




And I have to agree for the most part. There were some absolute gems like Fiendish Codex I, Lords of Madness, Serpent Kingdoms, Tome of Magic, etc. Some of the best books of the entire edition.

But at the same time it was also a mixed bag. For books like the Planar Handbook and Races of X, I thought they were kinda mailing it in. But a matter of taste perhaps.

In many ways some of those late 3.5 books (especially the ones largely done by freelancers) mirror some of the crazy level of creativity that I see in some of the very late 2e books (Faces of Evil, etc).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 7, 2009)

Umbran said:


> If _everyone agreed_ that it looks like a turtle... but they don't.




But enough do. 

So is it a turtle or a cat?

[sblock]






[/sblock]


----------



## Spatula (Jan 7, 2009)

So what do we do with all of the people who thought that 3e was the turtle?

I wonder how much of the bitterness is driven by there being an existing community here on EN World.  After the initial 3e flame wars in the early days of EN, the 3e-turtle types (presumably) went off to Dragonsfoot or rpg.net or somewhere else that wasn't ~90% 3e embracers.  There were still some edition wars, and there was consistant interest in throwback games like Hackmaster, OSRIC, C&C, etc. by people who grew disenchanted with 3e.  But it never seemed to get that rude.

But now the edition change has come upon an already intact community, instead of a fledging one, and there's no obvious home for one side or the other to leave for.  Nor is it obvious that anyone should leave.  But the extremes on both ends think they're the ones that belong and resent the presence of the other.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2009)

Spatula said:


> So what do we do with all of the people who thought that 3e was the turtle?




You sell them 4e, which presumably was the plan all along.

If you want to sell cats, sell cats; and if you want to sell turtles, sell turtles. But if your turtle business plan revolves around convincing cat lovers that your turtle is a cat, you screwed the pooch.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 7, 2009)

It's not change I'm resistant to.  If I'm driving a ferrari, and suddenly you replace it with a tricycle, I'm not resistant to the change, I'm resistant to the fact that I can't actually, you know DRIVE anymore.  I WANTED to like 4e, but the more I heard about it, the more certain I was that it wasn't D&D as I have known it.  Change is only good if it's an improvement.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 7, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You sell them 4e, which presumably was the plan all along.



If you didn't think that 3e was D&D, then 4e probably doesn't look much better.


----------



## Mark (Jan 7, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Change is only good if it's an improvement.





That seems to be the crux of most of what I have read and heard from those who had to decide if they were going to buy, play and continue to play 4E.  That is, whether or not they felt what was created as 4E was an improvement over what they were playing previously.  The vast majority of what I have read and heard has been based on informed consideration of what was presented prior to release and what was actually being sold as of the release and what was suggested is still in the pipeline.  I'll post some more complete thoughts on what I have read and heard later this week.  I do not feel comfortable with the premise suggested by the OP in this thread, insofar as it seems to rely on the idea that no matter what anyone actually says, 4E is a natural progression for the game and I have found a good deal of reluctance by many to believe that is the actual case, most agreeing that the game has so substantially change that it is a new game rather than a new edition.  I will also add my thoughts on that aspect later this week, as well.


----------



## The Shaman (Jan 7, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> But if your turtle business plan revolves around convincing cat lovers that your turtle is a cat, you screwed the pooch.



Holy mixed metaphor!







resistor said:


> Playing an RPG requires other players.  As 3e falls out of print, fewer and fewer players will being seeking out 3e games.  Fewer and fewer will have copies of the 3e books lying around.  And it will become harder and harder to find people to play with.



Very true.

I returned to my old school roots and discovered that it can be very difficult to find players, to the point that I enjoyed only a single afternoon of tabletop gaming in all of 2008.

The amount of effort it takes to get a game going increases considerably, particularly when you factor in that most of us don't have the kind of time to devote to gaming that we did in our halcyon days of youth.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You sell them 4e, which presumably was the plan all along.
> 
> If you want to sell cats, sell cats; and if you want to sell turtles, sell turtles. But if your turtle business plan revolves around convincing cat lovers that your turtle is a cat, you screwed the pooch.




Turtles, Cats. 



			
				This should have been from hong said:
			
		

> Food metaphors are the only true metaphor. All others are poor imitations of the real thing.




The problem with the analogy is that it just doesn't fit. Most of the peoples on this board played 3E. Some gladly switch to 4E, some don't see why they should. If it was as simple and obvious as the difference between as a cat and a turtle, this would never have happened. How many cat owners certainly learn that they prefer turtles? Or that their pet shop is now selling them turtles instead of cats?

There was something in 3E that appealed to all of us. But there were also elements people didn't like as much. But the disliked elements are not the same for everyone. A group of people sees the elements they didn't like removed in 4E. Others see the things they liked removed or the things they disliked still remaining.


----------



## Rolflyn (Jan 7, 2009)

First of all, I don't really accept the original posters notion, but for a second let's assume it is true.  If fear/resistance to change is the motivation for the anti-4e crowd in edition wars, what is the motivation of the pro-4e crowd in those same wars?

I've seem both sides start battles, it isn't just anti-4e folks crapping in pro-4e threads.  I learned to use the ignore feature just to survive some of the pro-4e crappers who continually assaulted pro-3.x threads.  What was there motivation?


----------



## Truename (Jan 7, 2009)

Rolflyn said:


> First of all, I don't really accept the original posters notion, but for a second let's assume it is true. If fear/resistance to change is the motivation for the anti-4e crowd in edition wars, what is the motivation of the pro-4e crowd in those same wars?
> 
> I've seem both sides start battles, it isn't just anti-4e folks crapping in pro-4e threads. I learned to use the ignore feature just to survive some of the pro-4e crappers who continually assaulted pro-3.x threads. What was there motivation?




In the OP, I said:



Truename said:


> After discovering the transforming idea, people can get very excited and evangelical. They can also overreact, expect too much, and become disappointed. Either way, they clash with people who are still resisting, and flame wars are born.




I'm not sure that this is the reason here, but I certainly see it in my day job. Some people are upset about new development techniques and flame them as stupid (without giving them a fair trial, or in many cases, without really understanding them); others get excited about them and become rabid, pushy, and unwilling to tolerate criticism. The tone of the edition wars here is similar. (Not to say that everyone who participates is mindlessly flaming, or rabid and pushy.)

Note that I'm not trying to say one side or other is "right" or "wrong."  (To quote WOPR, the only way to win... is not to play.)


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Truename said:


> (To quote WOPR, the only way to win... is not to play.)



Tsk.

"The only winning move is ... not to play."


----------



## Truename (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Tsk.
> 
> "The only winning move is ... not to play."




D'oh! Knew I should have looked that up.


----------



## Melan (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> I'm sorry. I was attempting to match color to color when addressing separate points while keeping the original quote more or less in-tact and complete in flow. Apparently the idea failed large.



To use the tried and true analogy, your method was the New Coke of Internet posting.

As for the main topic, it is an argument that has to assume either the inevitability of changes, or the objective infallibility of designers. The first is a misunderstanding of how hobbies differ from corporate jobs; the second is a paternalist assumption. Colour me unimpressed.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> No, you over simplified my statement to better counter it. I didn't say numbers don't matter, but in the end resources and money are allocated by priority, that my friend is "business". I never said 3.5 was shut down as far as production...but really, Who here is going to argue Elder Evils was something everybody was pinning for... I would argue this was more niche than even my suggestion, yet it was driven by an imperative to have people wrap up and end their 3.5 campaigns. Same with the Rules Compendium (great a resource as it was) as far as the design principle of ending 3.5... Oh and we also finally got a Greyhawk adventure, even though WotC neglected the setting throughout the run of 3.5 because it supposedly wouldn't sell.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Melan said:


> To use the tried and true analogy, your method was the New Coke of Internet posting.







Melan said:


> As for the main topic, it is an argument that has to assume either the inevitability of changes, or the objective infallibility of designers. The first is a misunderstanding of how hobbies differ from corporate jobs; the second is a paternalist assumption.




Melan
Is this about right as a color? 

There are differences, sure, but note that Truename did notice that the behavior was similar to behavior when new methods and procedures are introduced in a corporate world. This might indicate that we can make predictions on the behavior using the same model as for changes in the corporate world and see if it works. And if we see them, we might want to find reasons why we behave similar despite it being different scenarios.

For one, why could people see the change as similar pressing as the change of a job? Because we don't want to feel left behind? If we fail to adopt to job environment changes, we risk getting fired. If we don't jump on the latest edition bandwagon, maybe we also get "fired" from our games, because it gets harder to find support and players. Sure, you have a group _now_, but do you still have one in a year? After your move? If the DM has to retire because he needs to care for his newborn?


What is the biggest difference, really? Maybe that you feel that change is not mandatory? But is it? If it's true that if 4E is widely adopted you will find less players and might have to get less opportunity to play, then the change becomes mandatory if you want to keep playing. So you need to find a way to convince others that the "old way" is still better the the new thing. You are in a situation like that at your work place. It doesn't really matter for the behavior pattern whether the old way is better or not - you still use the same methods, like figuring out what is better about the old way and what's bad with the new way.

If you are the guy that decided to adopt the new change, you are in a similar situation - you don't want to go back, but if everyone else does, you have to or stop playing/working - or keep using the "inferior" way. So you do what the early adopters do, too - preach the new way. Aggressively. Possibly even ignoring any valid criticism to the "new way", because it hurts your position (and of course the positive aspects seem to outweigh the negative ones - for you.)*

An edition change is not really as optional as some people describe it. There is a fear - and maybe even a justified one - that if the majority makes a choice different from you, that you are left out and either have to stop playing, or play something you don't like (at least not as much as your choice.)

Sure, losing your job because you didn't adapt to changes is worse then losing one of your hobbies (I assume.) But we are not discussing our job situations on EN World (most of the time), we are discussing our hobby. 


*) This is one of the worst things coming from the edition wars. It is a lot harder to discuss what you worry about if you are "pro-4E", and it is a lot harder to discuss what you like about it if you are "anti-4E" - either choice can be construed as an argument against your position. "But you said you liked that? How come you don't switch!" "Haha, even 4E fans don't like their game!".


----------



## evileeyore (Jan 7, 2009)

diaglo said:


> Scribble said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, I meant finding material already written. Like another copy of a PHB or DMG or soemthing.
> ...





Why don't you just do it up like OSRIC?  I'm sure there has to be more than just the one of you that has the old books.


Heck if we roll it Moldvay I can assist, I've got the old Moldy books...


(EDIT:  Of course, I've got the old Moldvay books, so I don;t need a revamp...  geuss the case is the same with diaglo.  Damn.)


----------



## cwhs01 (Jan 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> But enough do.





Says who?





Brown Jenkin said:


> So is it a turtle or a cat?




I'll add a few more questions to my "edition-wars debate" list:

What do people hope to accomplish, when using (often derogatory) metaphors in discussions about the different editions?

Could the point be made without risking antagonizing people needlessly with thinly veiled insults (eg. comparing 4e to new coke)?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 7, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Sure, I meant finding material already written. Like another copy of a PHB or DMG or soemthing.
> 
> I wonder if there's enough demand for someone to retro-clone OD&D?




Its been done.

Swords and Wizardry while not an exact reprint, is closer to OD&D than any other retro clone. Its a fun read and I plan on running at least a few sessions to take it for a test drive.

If WOTC wants to push the new shiny as the only supported system then let them. If you don't like 4E then don't play it. As far as finding gamers is concerned, if a perspective player refuses to even try any system other than one that you hate, then chances are clashing playstyles would make gaming with them short lived anyhow.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> BS. You said they were not putting effort and resources in to 3E, which you just countered right here by saying they were, just putting out product to have people "wrap up" their 3.5 campaigns. Which is it? Maybe there's a good reason you don't understand the debate.




 Let's review what my actual statements were...shall we...



Imaro said:


> Well I just wanted to comment on this part of your post... *could it also be that WotC was just being unimaginative because they already knew 4e was coming?* I know for a fact Mike Mearls had knowledge of 4e from 2005 on.
> 
> I mean the 3PP were still producing new and interesting things (adventures, campaign settings, new classes, ways of using skills, etc.) without repetition, I mean sheesh there were still parts of Eberron that hadn't been touched on and a book with expansions for the fringe classes like Hexblade's, Duskblade's, etc. would have been great. *In the end I think we were given some, maybe even majority crap for 3e/3.5 to prep us for acceptance of 4e... at least by WotC.*




Hmm...okay I don't say 3.5 was stopped or put on hold in this post...in fact this sounds exactly like what I'm still claiming...ok let's  look at my other post...



Imaro said:


> And yet you still have to devote resources, and money... probably the lion's share of both to a new flagship project, so do you think they had their best, most creative and well paid designers on late 3.5 stuff or on 4e stuff? So now which would suffer again, oh yeah 3.5... exactly what I stated earlier, yeah I guess that is kinda funny but I don't see it in any way as cutting off your nose to spite your face, especially when core books are where your game is made or broken.
> ...




  Now in both posts I claim that the material they were putting out at the end of 3.5 was not their most imaginative or creative stuff and was in fact more geared towards ending campaigns or getting one to end their 3.5 games... how does this in any way contradict with there being less resources (just look at the release schedule near the end of 3.5) and less creativity devoted to 3.5 due to 4e?  Again I believe there was life still left in 3.5, the products at the end of it's life cycle carried an agenda, and were most likely regulated to less importance than 4e... thus they are in no way proof 3.5 had "blown it's wad".  Clear enough now?




Herschel said:


> Martial Powers darned well SHOULD have Paragon Paths in it as it's closer to a "core" book and centers around a general type of character. I'll grant you Manual of the Planes and Draconomicon are still a harken back to 3.5 with Paragon Paths although I am curious as to which Paragon Paths are in them. If there are only a couple and are directly related to said book (say, Dragonslayer, HaAnd of Tiamat, or the like in Draconomicon) I can see it being more appropriate than a lot of the 3.5 inclusions, but I'm guessing they threw some other stuff in too. More streamlined, but still not great and yet using a style still that would be familiar to 3.5 fans.




So you agree with me...stuff is scattered about in 4e as well.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The problem with the analogy is that it just doesn't fit. Most of the peoples on this board played 3E. Some gladly switch to 4E, some don't see why they should. If it was as simple and obvious as the difference between as a cat and a turtle, this would never have happened. How many cat owners certainly learn that they prefer turtles? Or that their pet shop is now selling them turtles instead of cats?




So make it a dog/cat analogy. I'll gladly concede that it's a much better fit.

The point still stands.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I account for the possibility; I think that this lack of knowledge is what I'm talking about as a possibility.
> 
> You can believe WotC's continuing line about record-breaking sales, or you can believe the polls here on EN World, or you can -- like me -- believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. If that's the case, WotC badly miscalculated X-1, not just for me, but for lots and lots of gamers. And I believe that the effects of miscalculation -- if that's what happened -- could have been substantially lessened.




My point is that if you really bought _every single _3.5 supplement, your X-1 seems likely to be much smaller than you believe it to be (relative to the market as a whole).

People who said that you left WotC rather than WotC leaving you are... making odd claims, IMO. WotC definitely adjusted its aim. But it didn't necessarily adjust the aim very far.

_Every single_ dart that WotC threw at the board in the 3.5 years struck close enough to your center that you thought it worth your while to pick up. Is it that hard to believe that, in adjusting their aim for the new edition, it was practically _inevitable_ that they were going to miss with a few? And that, since you have a _complete edition _of hits, those misses in a new edition with (currently) less supplemental material are very likely to be a dealbreaker for you?


----------



## diaglo (Jan 7, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> My point is that if you really bought _every single _3.5 supplement, your X-1 seems likely to be much smaller than you believe it to be (relative to the market as a whole).




i bought every single product.
they lost me feb 07.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now in both posts I claim that the material they were putting out at the end of 3.5 was not their most imaginative or creative stuff and was in fact more geared towards ending campaigns or getting one to end their 3.5 games... how does this in any way contradict with there being less resources (just look at the release schedule near the end of 3.5) and less creativity devoted to 3.5 due to 4e? Again I believe there was life still left in 3.5, the products at the end of it's life cycle carried an agenda, and were most likely regulated to less importance than 4e... thus they are in no way proof 3.5 had "blown it's wad". Clear enough now?
> 
> So you agree with me...stuff is scattered about in 4e as well.





First, your point that it wasn't creative or imaginitive doesn't have to coincide with wrapping campaigns up. At all. You're arguing from a biased belief, not an objective view of things. Wrapping things up with a *BANG* is the goal. A climax with the feeling "Wow, we've done it all now" would be the preferred way to "end" 3.5.

I do agree some things are still scattered, and it's one of the things I hated about 3E and am not pleased with about 4E as they only appear to have cleaned it up some.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> So make it a dog/cat analogy. I'll gladly concede that it's a much better fit.
> 
> The point still stands.




I am not sure I get the point, either. 

I can only assume people played D&D 3E because it gave them what they individually wanted. Now D&D 4E gives some people still what they want (and some people more then 3E did give them) and others not what they wanted (or at least less of it.) 

Is the best analogy that people had a dog, and some people liked it because of the fur, but would like to to purr when petted, while others enjoyed walking their dog? But can we follow that the dog owners got it right - it was a dog, so the pet shop should still sell dogs to them and not switch to cats? Or does it just mean that a cat is also a valid pet and the pet shop should sell those too? (The analogy fails the moment we consider that a real pet shop would sell you both cats and dogs - well, assuming they are sold in pet shops.) Or do you think D&D always stood for dogs, and when the "Dog Shop" suddenly sells cats he's doing it wrong? 

But again, the problem is that it is every easy to distinguish between cat and dog. People usually know that they have a cat or a dog. But people don't necessarily distinguish exactly what makes a particular game they like "their" game - until you change the game and remove the parts they liked. 

Nah, this analogy just sucks. It simplifies the aspect that is exactly not simple and creates the problem we are talking about! I think food analogies like "spaghetti sauce" can work better. D&D is a spaghetti sauce. But do you like the sauce because of the chunky parts, or because of a particular ingredient, or a mix of things? You'll only find out if you still like it if I change some of the ingredients. 

Or if it has to be cats and dogs, D&D is a dog. D&D 3E and 4E are both dogs, but different types - maybe one is a sheppard dog and the other is a Chihuahua, and the Chihuahua showed you how much more you liked big dogs over small dogs, or how much easier it is with a small dog in your apartment...

[/rambling]


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> _Every single_ dart that WotC threw at the board in the 3.5 years struck close enough to your center that you thought it worth your while to pick up. Is it that hard to believe that, in adjusting their aim for the new edition, it was practically _inevitable_ that they were going to miss with a few?



But that's the thing ... they didn't miss with "a few," as far as I'm concerned.  If they were even still facing the dartboard, they must've been throwing backwards over their shoulder.

Sticking with your analogy, doesn't it seem odd that in "adjusting their aim" -- given that everything they threw hit the target before -- absolutely _nothing_ hit the target this time?  That's not "aim adjustment."  That's switching to the pub down the street.  Or it's really, _really_ bad aim.  Right?

It also occurred to me ... if we accept your hypothesis -- that in adhering so closely to 3.5 that I bought everything, it's logical that 4E doesn't appeal to me -- and carry it out to the extreme, does that mean that someone who bought _no_ 3.5 products is more likely to buy 4E than is someone who was more moderate in their 3.5 purchases than I was?


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> First, your point that it wasn't creative or imaginitive doesn't have to coincide with wrapping campaigns up. At all. You're arguing from a biased belief, not an objective view of things. Wrapping things up with a *BANG* is the goal. A climax with the feeling "Wow, we've done it all now" would be the preferred way to "end" 3.5.




What exactly is the "objective" view... You either like or don't like the end products, right?  I mean how do you measure creativity or imagination... objectively?  IMHO, a big book of creatures to fight in and blow up your campaign world is not original (I would argue it's the end-plot for 85% of the console rpg's out there.) and not what people wanted, in fact I would argue the majority of D&D players don't play epic level campaigns either...so it was even more niche than the product I suggested (plus how many times are you going to end the campaign if you're moving to 4e, so do you really need a whole book of "Elder Evils"?).  I didn't know I had to put a disclaimer in my posts that this is how I feel....but yeah.  

You feel like everything that could have been done with 3e was...I don't, any example I give of another product (as I did earlier) will be torn apart by you in a subjective manner to prove your position.  So really what's the point of this, as long as there are people making new and interesting products with the OGL, I feel that it was possible for WotC to do the same, where is your proof that "everything" has been done?  I also find it ironic that with 4e they have decided to do multiple settings... something else that could have been done for 3e, maybe in one off books.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that's the thing ... they didn't miss with "a few," as far as I'm concerned. If they were even still facing the dartboard, they must've been throwing backwards over their shoulder.
> 
> Sticking with your analogy, doesn't it seem odd that in "adjusting their aim" -- given that everything they threw hit the target before -- absolutely _nothing_ hit the target this time? That's not "aim adjustment." That's switching to the pub down the street. Or it's really, _really_ bad aim. Right?




I find it hard to believe that _nothing_ in the new edition hit your dartboard at all. But if you say it did, ok.

To me, it's not _that_ much of an aim adjustment.

Perhaps your dartboard is a lot smaller than mine?


----------



## Mallus (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Or if it has to be cats and dogs, D&D is a dog. D&D 3E and 4E are both dogs, but different types - maybe one is a sheppard dog and the other is a Chihuahua, and the Chihuahua showed you how much more you liked big dogs over small dogs, or how much easier it is with a small dog in your apartment...



How about this...

OD&D was a small dog.

AD&D was a larger dog with a worse temperament.

2e was a spayed dog with a better temperament. Despite that, some people felt he lacked the personality of AD&D.

3e was _sold_ as a dog, but it was really a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. Eventually the pig became quite large, and some people began to miss the smaller, cuter pig.

4e is being sold as a dog, too. As to whether it is... that's sparked some debate. It clearly has both dog and pig-like qualities, as well as a bit of cat and turtle. _I_ think it makes a fine pet.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But that's the thing ... they didn't miss with "a few," as far as I'm concerned.  If they were even still facing the dartboard, they must've been throwing backwards over their shoulder.
> 
> Sticking with your analogy, doesn't it seem odd that in "adjusting their aim" -- given that everything they threw hit the target before -- absolutely _nothing_ hit the target this time?  That's not "aim adjustment."  That's switching to the pub down the street.  Or it's really, _really_ bad aim.  Right?




Yes, it is odd. But maybe it's just a very big dartboard they are hitting at? And they learned how to hit triple 20s and no longer try aiming for 19? 

Statistics don't "explain" why you rolled 3 1s in a row. But they don't forbid it either.

PS: 
What actually might be more important: You didn't like the core rules? How likely is it you still really find something in the other books and would find this notable enough to buy? Imagine you didn't like the 3E PHB because it was somewhat different (maybe it didn't have Gnomes, Druids, Barbarians, but Warlocks and Warlords, and 2 Elven races) - but the rest stayed the same? Would you still have bought all the books?)

What I am saying is that maybe one miss might be enough to lose you.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Mallus said:


> How about this...
> 
> OD&D was a small dog.
> 
> ...




I don't know, I don't like the "loadedness" inherent to the Vietnamese pot-bellied pig. Maybe it was a dog that looked to you like that, but it was still a dog.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What I am saying is that maybe one miss might be enough to lose you.



I think that's definitely true.

But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5.  _Tome of Battle_, and so forth.  Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nah, this analogy just sucks.




Fine. It sucks. Analogies are unnecessary anyway.

You can give the holdouts what they want; you can try to convince the holdouts to want what you're selling; or you can move forward without the holdouts because they are no longer part of your market.

I think those three strategies pretty much describe the differences between Mike Mearls' job, Scott Rouse's job, and Bill Slavicsek's job.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I think that's definitely true.
> 
> But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5.  _Tome of Battle_, and so forth.  Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?



But they still are significant previews of 4E! The concepts of powers (Tome of Battle), the concept of skills (Star Wars Saga Edition). But maybe you saw Tome of Battle more as an "alternative spellcasting system for fighters" while it was actually a preview for a "general character ability system for all classes". Or maybe you saw "Talents are a way to distinguish classes and characters" while it was actually "you get something new every level and something class-specific every other level". (I am not sure the latter is a good description for what talents are. In a way, talents are "powers" light, in another way they are "class feats" ...)



> You can give the holdouts what they want; you can try to convince the holdouts to want what you're selling; or you can move forward without the holdouts because they are no longer part of your market.
> 
> I think those three strategies pretty much describe the differences between Mike Mearls' job, Scott Rouse's job, and Bill Slavicsek's job.



Of course, sometimes the borders are fluent. For example, Mike might point you out that a certain rule is actually what you wanted, you just didn't notice it yet (or he communicated it badly).


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 7, 2009)

The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions. 

By the way this may be a cat, but certain people may think it is a turtle.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions.



You are probably right, but this is just why the analogy is so bad. To have so different views on how far the editions are apart, we must have been unable to "see" the previous editions clearly enough. 



> By the way this may be a cat, but certain people may think it is a turtle.
> View attachment 38444



It certainly looks terribly creepy, damnit!


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I think that's definitely true.
> 
> But the thing is, I really enjoyed the so-called "4E preview" books for 3.5. _Tome of Battle_, and so forth. Wouldn't you think that those books and 4E would be in pretty close proximity on the dartboard?




I do think that these books and 4E are pretty close in proximity on the dartboard. At least, on my dartboard.

I'm willing to accept the possibility that my dartboard (or, I suppose, yours) is one that follows alien geometries, shifting in and out of the mere three dimensions that other dartboards occupy. It's also possible that you and I have differing ideas of "close proximity".


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> I do think that these books and 4E are pretty close in proximity on the dartboard. At least, on my dartboard.
> 
> I'm willing to accept the possibility that my dartboard (or, I suppose, yours) is one that follows alien geometries, shifting in and out of the mere three dimensions that other dartboards occupy. It's also possible that you and I have differing ideas of "close proximity".




I think it all depends on what aspects of these "preview" books you enjoyed and whether 4e incorporated that aspect or not.  Especially with SWSE, I feel that instead of trying to be so secretive... WotC should have specified what parts were previews for 4e.  I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules.  Just my thoughts though, YMMV.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I think it all depends on what aspects of these "preview" books you enjoyed and whether 4e incorporated that aspect or not. Especially with SWSE, I feel that instead of trying to be so secretive... WotC should have specified what parts were previews for 4e. I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules. Just my thoughts though, YMMV.




To be honest, I'm not sure "secretive" was always the right word.

It's pretty clear IMO that a lot of 4E (particularly about multiclassing) was shifting until fairly close to release.

But sure, a lot of the specifics of those books ended up being changed for 4E, and if you really liked the specifics of the prior book, the changes are going to feel like a "miss" regardless of how close to center they actually come, because you already have a product that's _closer_.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I don't think it's hard to understand how someone who, accepted SWSE as a preview for 4e, and who likes SWSE's multi-classing rules ... can suddenly go WTF, when they see D&D 4e's multi-classing rules.  Just my thoughts though, YMMV.



Yes, I think that is easy to see. Saga multiclassing gave you "less" class abilities then 3E multiclassing - you didn't get all starting feats, most notably. But 4E gives you even less then that! The theme, though, is still the same from a certain perspective - classes have a front-loaded element and you don't get everything of this front-loading when you multi-class.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Yes, I think that is easy to see. Saga multiclassing gave you "less" class abilities then 3E multiclassing - you didn't get all starting feats, most notably. But 4E gives you even less then that! The theme, though, is still the same from a certain perspective - classes have a front-loaded element and you don't get everything of this front-loading when you multi-class.




I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 7, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> For example, Mike might point you out that a certain rule is actually what you wanted, you just didn't notice it yet (or he communicated it badly).




I think folks know the product pretty well by now. The adoption gap is not a result of misunderstanding what is being offered. 

A rule here or there might need clarification-- they usually do-- and that might help, but nothing is going to fix the major "departure" issues. These are not simply a matter of miscommunication.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?




Yes. But then I am not sure I felt that multiclassing was so much encouraged in SAGA - I think that was always more D20 Modern for me, where "single-classing" was nearly impossible.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 7, 2009)

Herschel said:


> Imaro said:
> 
> 
> > I never said 3.5 was shut down as far as production...but really, Who here is going to argue Elder Evils was something everybody was pinning for...
> ...


----------



## Spatula (Jan 7, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I guess I was moreso talking about the theme of "encouraged" multiclassing with more than one class, top construct the character you want, in SWSE... see how we looked at that in totally different ways?



Fully fulled character concepts are their own individual class in 4e, rather than cobbled together out of existing classes.  This way of looking at 3e/4e multiclassing is thus kinda missing the point - they have different purposes, and certain goals are reached via different means in 4e.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jan 7, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> The problem is that some people think we are dealing with a Terrier vs. a Shepard, others think we are dealing with a Dog vs. a Cat, and others think it is a Cat vs. a Turtle. The closer or farther apart one tries to make the difference in the analogy seems to me to betray just how far apart they see the 2 editions.




Argument by Analogy is a pretty hard sell to a lot of people in the first place, and shouldn't even be used.

If we are to say that 3E was a class-based system that contained a multiclassing sub-system that proceeded with point-based system attributes, does that make 3E a Dog, a Cat, a Turtle, a Parrot?

And then does the 4E class and multiclass system/subsystem then have discrete differences that relate it to 3E in the manner of breed or species?


----------



## FireLance (Jan 7, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Anyway, I think my favorite analogy is when your favorite "alternative rock" station becomes a "new rock" station and continues to play about half of what it was playing when you were still a freshman in college ten years ago, and half what we used to call "hard rock" or "heavy metal," up to and including Metallica.



I think that's a pretty good analogy. I've noticed something similar happening to me. Locally, there's one radio station that focuses on popular music, another that focuses on music from the last two or three decades, and a third that focuses on "Golden oldies". When I was just out of college, I listened mostly to the first. Now, I find myself listening mostly to the second. In twenty years' time, I think I will find myself listening mostly to the third. It wasn't that my tastes in music have changed. It's just that the music I enjoy has shifted from one station to another over the years. In fact, if my tastes in music had changed, I'd still be listening to the first station!


----------



## RFisher (Jan 8, 2009)

It’s seems to me that the knee-jerk resistance to change should be roughly the same everytime. So, if you compare the amount of arguing during the various transitions, the differences won’t be due to “people just don’t like change” but due to something more substantive.

The big problem is that there’s not a lot of record of the gnashing of teeth and tearing of clothes from oD&D → AD&D. (And there was controversy even though oD&D was kept around.) There’s more from the 1e → 2e period. You have to normalize for that.

I suppose, though, that timing could actually have an effect on the knee-jerk reaction.



Spatula said:


> If you didn't think that 3e was D&D, then 4e probably doesn't look much better.




True for me. 3e was a different game masquerading as D&D. 4e looks simply like a different game. Just as RQ, T&T, &c. were different games than oD&D despite bearing some traces of D&D DNA.

But that’s OK. I was never expecting 4e to be D&D. ^_^



cwhs01 said:


> What do people hope to accomplish, when using (often derogatory) metaphors in discussions about the different editions?
> 
> Could the point be made without risking antagonizing people needlessly with thinly veiled insults (eg. comparing 4e to new coke)?




The problem is that I never intended the metaphor to be derogatory. And it wasn’t a thinly veiled insult because I’m not that subtle. If I intend to be insulting, it will be obvious.

It’s better to misread a post in a more positive light than was intended than to risk reading it in a more negative light than was intended. It’s better to misread mean-spirited as friendly joking than that to risk reading friendly joking as mean-spirited. When you fail at those, it’s better to ignore.

Basic netiquette from TCP-over-smoke-signal days. ^_^

If only I were better at following my own advice. ^_^


----------



## Imaro (Jan 8, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Fully fulled character concepts are their own individual class in 4e, rather than cobbled together out of existing classes.  This way of looking at 3e/4e multiclassing is thus kinda missing the point - they have different purposes, and certain goals are reached via different means in 4e.




I understand all of this, what I was saying is that it's easy to see from the blanket statement that the rules of SWSE were a preview for 4e...that many could draw the wrong conclusion since there are some pretty big differences in those two games.  It's easy to site those differences now that 4e is out...but it wasn't nearly as easy or clear back then.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2009)

> Could the point be made without risking antagonizing people needlessly with thinly veiled insults (eg. comparing 4e to new coke)?




The New Coke analogy- which I was among the first to bring up on these boards in reference to 4Ed- is not meant to insult 4Ed.  Its not an _insult,_ its an *observation.*

It is brought up because it is _the_ classic example taught in MBA programs (like the one I went through) when illustrating the potential pitfalls of reading too much into your market research and overcommitting to a particular business strategy or product.

Coke, the dominant softdrink manufacturer, had been losing market share to newer, sweeter softdrinks, especially Pepsi.  They did extensive recipe testing in product labs, and millions of dollars worth of real-world product testing, marketing research.  After the new recipe kept beating the old recipe AND other soft-drinks in test after test, they released New Coke and started winding down production of the original recipe.

It was a popular flavor, a world-beater according to empirical data.

The problem was 2 fold- it didn't fit into the identity of the product it was meant to replace, but even more importantly, the existing customer base didn't want the new flavor if it meant giving up access to the old.  They wanted _both._  While they expected New Coke to bring in new customers- which it did- they lost members of the customer base.

The rest is history.  Sales rose sharply as new customers flocked to New Coke, but then declined steeply as the backlash began. It cost Coke a LOT, not just in expenditures, but also in market share.

We_ know _WotC designers did market research, at least according to their own statements, and we have no real reason to doubt them.

Many of the changes they put in the game seemed popular as HRs or in playtest, in 3PP D&D variants, etc.  Many things they took out seemed unpopular or in some way flawed- especially things that were frequently HRed away.

Right before printing, 4Ed must have looked like gold.

The problem is that, like New Coke, many players in the existing consumer base didn't like the complete aggregation of changes 4Ed introduced _as a substitute_ for 3.X.*  It didn't conform with the identity they saw in 3.X.

IOW, 4Ed risks becoming and is _already_ seen by some to be the New Coke of the RPG industry.

(There were also certain PR blunders that also muddied the waters as well, but that is a different issue.)

* I should qualify that statement: it is based on a variety of polls on different RPG websites since 4Ed's release.  Right now, we are seeing a sizeable number of the "old guard" who simply aren't playing 4Ed for a variety of reasons, but 4Ed sales of the Core 3 are high.  Even if 4Ed IS the New Coke of the RPG industry, we won't know for some time- the product is simply too new.


----------



## Wayside (Jan 8, 2009)

It's a bit of an insult--to the people doing the bashing. During blind taste tests self-identifying Pepsi and Coke fans preferred New Coke, and it was only after the identities of the products involved were revealed that people started to get redonkulous:



> In 1987 The Wall Street Journal commissioned an interesting survey of 100 randomly selected cola drinkers, of whom 52 declared themselves beforehand to be Pepsi partisans, 46 Coke Classic loyalists, and 2 new-Coke drinkers. In the Journal's blind taste test, new Coke was the winner with 41 votes, followed by Pepsi with 39 and Coke Classic with 20. Seventy of the 100 people who participated mistakenly thought they had chosen their favorite brand; some were very indignant. A Coke Classic drinker who chose Pepsi said, "I won't lower myself to drink Pepsi. It is too preppy. Too yup. The New Generation--it sounds like Nazi breeding. Coke is more laid back." A Pepsi enthusiast who chose Coke said, "I relate Coke with people who just go along with the status quo. I think Pepsi is a little more rebellious, and I have a little bit of rebellion in me."



Pasted from here, originally taken from _Introduction to Statistical Reasoning_, Gary Smith, McGraw Hill, 1998, pp. 186-187.

It's too bad we can't do a blind edition test, since if ordinary people construct elaborate identities around beverages I can only imagine the hilarity that goes on in Joe Gamer's brain.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 8, 2009)

The idea that EN World is irrelevant and not a "representative sample" of typical gamers is crazy for one reason; this is not a democracy where one person gets one vote. Your "market weight" to WoTC depends on how much you spend. The more you spend, the more they should care. 

It would not surprise me to find that several thousand people on this board have 50+ 3.5E books (I know I have) because a) many of us are committed (obsessed) D&Ders and we over-represent DMs as well. Not everyone here will have this many books, but I bet alot of us do, perhaps 1-2000 people (the regular posters). So these 1-2000 people might have say, 50,000-100,000 books between them, plus another 30,000 "normal" DMs (I am NOT one of these, let me tell you ) who might have 5-10 books. That is alot of sales (0.1-0.5 million) when you think that total D&Ders are only 5-10 million, so only 1-2 million groups (average group is 5 if we look at 4E design goals).

If we add in the assumption that many of players own NO books (in my experience, only the DMs tend to own any books)  then we make up a significant percentage of total WoTC and 3PP sales, just on this board.

You can change the assumptions, but anyway you cut it, committed gamers are probably worth an order of magnitude more purchasing power than the average gamer and I think it might be closer to two orders of magnitude.

So I hope WoTC is listening!


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

Ydars said:


> So I hope WoTC is listening!




I'm certain they're listening, but what can they do at this point?


----------



## Ydars (Jan 8, 2009)

1) Create 4.5E version of D&D that takes on board the criticisms of 4E and resolves them. I know some people will say this is wrong, but the opinion polls on this site indicate that many people who think 4E is not for them would respond better to a fundamental re-jig than continuing in the current direction. I think they have lost so much of the highly committed and commercially important fan-base that they will need to do something now rather than wait for the train-wreck that 4E is becoming.

2) Produce a workable, fair and equitable GSL that allows 3PP to produce original, quality adventures, settings and splat books without allowing them to produce whole new game systems.

3) Buy me a large pizza for being sauve enough to save their hides for them .


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2009)

cwhs01 said:


> /snip
> I'll add a few more questions to my "edition-wars debate" list:
> 
> What do people hope to accomplish, when using (often derogatory) metaphors in discussions about the different editions?
> ...




I too would love answers to this.  This is a drum I've been beating for over a year with the whole, say what you mean thing and don't rely on tired, over used memes to try to make your point.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The New Coke analogy- which I was among the first to bring up on these boards in reference to 4Ed- is not meant to insult 4Ed.  Its not an _insult,_ its an *observation.*
> /snippage for length




But, it is insulting.  You admit yourself that it is too early to know if there is any real comparison between the New Coke debacle and 4e.  So, people who trot out this horse for the comparison are doing so in purely speculative terms.  The trouble is, no one bothers to say that up front.  

No one says, "Hey, in three or four years from now, maybe the release of 4e will look like the release of New Coke.  We'll have a better idea once the dust has settled. "  No.  It's, "Hey, half of En Worlders haven't switched over for whatever reason, 4e is obviously the New Coke and DOOMED TO FAILURE!!  ((usually adding the suckitude caveat as well))"

Then people turn around in wide eyed innocence and wonder why a bunch of people who actually like 4e think this is a crock of .  And thus is born Edition wars.

The funny thing is, if you are very specific in your criticisms of any edition, there's almost no problem.  Discussions might get heated, but rarely devolve into edition war territory.  It's only when people want to stick in airy fairy high altitude generalizations that edition wars start.


----------



## NN (Jan 8, 2009)

Well I am absolutely delighted with 4E.

It means I can now play 3.xE without having my grognard membership revoked.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, it is insulting.  You admit yourself that it is too early to know if there is any real comparison between the New Coke debacle and 4e.  So, people who trot out this horse for the comparison are doing so in purely speculative terms.  The trouble is, no one bothers to say that up front.
> 
> No one says, "Hey, in three or four years from now, maybe the release of 4e will look like the release of New Coke.  We'll have a better idea once the dust has settled. "  No.  It's, "Hey, half of En Worlders haven't switched over for whatever reason, 4e is obviously the New Coke and DOOMED TO FAILURE!!  ((usually adding the suckitude caveat as well))"




If people want to have an overwrought sense of offense about 4e being compared to New Coke they should think about one or two things. I think Dannyalcatraz's explanation was quite good about why it should _not_ be viewed as an insult. There are quite a few people who have been down on 4e precisely because it does exactly what New Coke did to old Coke drinkers - messed with product identity in ways that no previous revision of AD&D did. 

A major difference between 4e and New Coke is that there is no major rival able to exploit the shift like Coca Cola had in Pepsico. THAT is probably what ultimately caused New Coke to fail (though it was sidelined by Classic Coke, it was still bottled a LONG time later, not even a complete failure). By diverting away from old product identity that they had been marketing on months before and mucking with the brand loyalty of consumers, they gave Pepsi powerful PR tools to hack away at Coke's image. Nothing comes close to WotC and D&D when it comes to this issue.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm certain they're listening, but what can they do at this point?




Well, for one thing, they can keep selling me pimped-out gear for my turtlecat. 



Brown Jenkin said:


> By the way this may be a cat, but certain people may think it is a turtle.
> View attachment 38444




Positively _Gygaxian_.


----------



## bouncyhead (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I too would love answers to this.  This is a drum I've been beating for over a year with the whole, say what you mean thing and don't rely on tired, over used memes to try to make your point.
> 
> 
> But, it is insulting.  You admit yourself that it is too early to know if there is any real comparison between the New Coke debacle and 4e.  So, people who trot out this horse for the comparison are doing so in purely speculative terms.  The trouble is, no one bothers to say that up front.
> ...





I think this is because a large proportion of the 4E non-adopters are rejecting on intangible grounds - taste/feel etc. and the Coke analogy speaks well to them and strikes a chord with their experiences. Those merrily playing 4E took a taste, either didn't notice the difference or thought 'this tastes great!' and have been enjoying the game ever since. The Coke analogy seems inappropriate/premature. 

The reason that there are so few edition discussions that focus on specifics/mechanics is that very few non-adopters (in my experience) have rejected 4E for specific/mechanical reasons ('I would play it but for the multi-classing rules', 'It's great but I can't bring myself to like minions'). They just don't like the taste. Asking them 'but what do you specifically dislike about the taste?' probably won't elicit any kind of constructive response ('I dunno... it's just... different' or the classic 'It just doesn't FEEL like D&D').

Here's a another analogy since they cause so much bad feeling. Season 5 of the West Wing - same characters, same situation, broadly the same storylines, but it didn't 'feel' the same when Sorkin left the show. For me it lost it's way entirely. I would find it v difficult to express specifically what I didn't like about it. I think you can see where I'm going with this...


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

bouncyhead said:


> The reason that there are so few edition discussions that focus on specifics/mechanics is that very few non-adopters (in my experience) have rejected 4E for specific/mechanical reasons ('I would play it but for the multi-classing rules', 'It's great but I can't bring myself to like minions'). They just don't like the taste. Asking them 'but what do you specifically dislike about the taste?' probably won't elicit any kind of constructive response ('I dunno... it's just... different' or the classic 'It just doesn't FEEL like D&D').




Actually there have been some pretty extensive reasons listed in numerous places, which revolve around actual game play or the books themselves.

The reason I consider it a step backwards is because of what roleplaying games grew out of and what is unique about them. We all know that RPGs grew out of tactical strategy games, where you were essentially pushing historical army units around on a board, battling other armies to see if you can out-general your opponent. One day Gygax and Arneson decided to apply the basics of that game to allow you to simulate a single character in a fantasy world. His inspirations were fantasy fiction, which I'm not going to cite because we all know the story.

So while RPGs included simulated combat as a core element, the tactical element was de-emphasized and it instead placed an emphasis on recreating your favorite fantasy stories. In short, it was intentionally about simulationism, not gamism.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't HATE 4E. It did some things right, such as making your BAB and saving throws based on 1/2 level + ability modifier and then spread character progression over 30 levels. This really takes care of the problem with 3.x being difficult to play at higher levels and it spreads out the playable levels well beyond what they are in 3.x. If they would have done that and then added in a few of the tweaks from the Star Wars SAGA edition, I think it probably would have worked.

Instead, I see 4E deficient in three key areas.

1. Gamism. The rules focus on combat only. The rules that allowed you to interact with the world in ways that don't involve combat were mostly stripped out of the system. On top of that, while I like the basic concept of powers, I think they got way too carried away with them, making it so that combat revolved around them. Why even bother to include special combat actions and feats if you're going to just build them into the class powers? Also, since your at-will powers automatically double weapon damage, why would you not use them? They're too good. You're never going to choose to not use them, which leads to combat being very repetitive. I prefer the method of having your regular attacks modified by feats. Then there's all the forced movement, and the counters indicating various combat conditions of varying durations. It appears to have been meant to make combat more dynamic, but to many, adds complication back into combat and makes it less fun. To me, this looks like the game is moving closer to its wargaming roots, which is something that I personally don't like. I feel that the right area for gamism and simulationism is somewhere in between 3.5 and True20. 4E is a fine miniatures game, and it's fun in its own right, but I have more fun with 3.5 for actual roleplaying.

2. Layout, white space, and wasted space. With the large font size, the reduced number of character races and classes, magic items, spells, and the amount of space in the books that is literally wasted, I can't help but compare it side to side with 3.5 and wonder what the reason was for excluding so much stuff. I'll avoid projecting motives on WotC, but I will say that I feel like I'm getting less game for more money. Sure, spend more money on more books and get the options you're missing, but I want a core that's a little more complete and more consistent with the past couple editions of D&D. The powers themselves are large, spread out, and colored in where they could be greatly condensed, saving space, which would provide room for some of the things they decided not to include. Yeah, I'm not a fan of powers in the first place, but those things are space wasters. Then the things they chose to cut in favor of the new things they chose to include is just puzzling.

This doesn't even begin to address the fact that combat grinds. There are plenty of tangible reasons people aren't enjoying it.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If people want to have an overwrought sense of offense about 4e being compared to New Coke they should think about one or two things. I think Dannyalcatraz's explanation was quite good about why it should _not_ be viewed as an insult. There are quite a few people who have been down on 4e precisely because it does exactly what New Coke did to old Coke drinkers - messed with product identity in ways that no previous revision of AD&D did.
> 
> A major difference between 4e and New Coke is that there is no major rival able to exploit the shift like Coca Cola had in Pepsico. THAT is probably what ultimately caused New Coke to fail (though it was sidelined by Classic Coke, it was still bottled a LONG time later, not even a complete failure). By diverting away from old product identity that they had been marketing on months before and mucking with the brand loyalty of consumers, they gave Pepsi powerful PR tools to hack away at Coke's image. Nothing comes close to WotC and D&D when it comes to this issue.




Considering the massive amount of internet ink that was spilled over every single blog post by the dev's, decrying the blackening of 3e's good name and wailing and gnashing of teeth about how much they were muckraking 3e, I think it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that people might over react the other way.

It's funny, people talk about how WOTC performed this really negative campaign about 3e, yet, when you go back and actually read the blog posts, now that the dust has settled, it's actually extremely difficult to see anything that's terribly negative.

So, yeah, the New Coke thing does grate.  Because it presumes that 4e is somehow a failed product.  There's been posts in this thread alone talking about how 4e is an "inferior product".  It's not inferior though.  I may or may not like it and that's fine.  But, it's certainly not inferior to anything.

New Coke failed for a number of very specific reasons that have very little relation to 4e.  4e has not failed (yet) and it is still far too early to draw parallels.  Doing so does become somewhat thinly veiled insult.  "What?  You LIKE New D&D?  Come on, what are you talking about?  It's crap!  Gimme back my old D&D!"  Replace D&D with Coke and you've got the same line.

IF, two or three years down the line, 4e falls flat on it's keister and fails, THEN you can draw parallels.  Currently, you cannot.  4e is no more different from 3e than 3e is from Basic D&D.  Any claims to the contrary is yet another "OH, it's not really D&D" salvo in the edition war.

See, and right there, that's another reason why the New Coke analogy falls down.  New Coke wasn't Coca Cola.  It was an entirely new recipe.  When you start drawing parallels between New Coke and 4e, you're basically saying that it's not D&D.  Which, again, is just more Edition War crap.  

If I can play a tiefling Binder in 3e, and still be considered to be playing D&D, then playing a tiefling Warlock in 4e is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No one says, "Hey, in three or four years from now, maybe the release of 4e will look like the release of New Coke.  We'll have a better idea once the dust has settled. "



Of course, on the other hand, back in July you assured me that the dust would have settled if I simply waited until September.

I didn't think September would be all that different from July and it wasn't.
I didn't think now would be all that much different from September and it isn't.  (If anything the new shiny is already cracking)
I certainly don't think 4E will be MORE popular four years from now.  How much of an impact the total removal of new shiny has remains to be seen.  Maybe a bit, maybe a lot.  But I'm pretty confident there is no boom that just hasn't quite happened yet.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, the New Coke thing does grate.  Because it presumes that 4e is somehow a failed product.  There's been posts in this thread alone talking about how 4e is an "inferior product".  It's not inferior though.  I may or may not like it and that's fine.  But, it's certainly not inferior to anything.



If your standard is generation of revenue then it may or may not be inferior.  That remains to be seen.  And I certainly 100% endorse that this should be WotC's goal and standard.

But I'm not here as an advocate of WotC.  When the standard of measure is production of the gaming experience that I want, its measure is simply "fair".  That is decidedly inferior to other options out there.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Considering the massive amount of internet ink that was spilled over every single blog post by the dev's, decrying the blackening of 3e's good name and wailing and gnashing of teeth about how much they were muckraking 3e, I think it's not exactly out of the realm of possibility that people might over react the other way.
> 
> It's funny, people talk about how WOTC performed this really negative campaign about 3e, yet, when you go back and actually read the blog posts, now that the dust has settled, it's actually extremely difficult to see anything that's terribly negative.
> 
> ...




I think there are a couple of things that should be considered as well though. 

Sure you can't draw exact parallels for awhile to see the success of 4E. But at the same time the New Coke case study is still good to look at because there are still similarities in the early stages, and to ignore that one can also end up not taking lessons and directing the path in the future to diverge from that model instead of continuing to parallel it. 

By discrediting the analogy one also risks angering further those who don't feel that 4E feels like D&D to them. By saying *"When you start drawing parallels between New Coke and 4e, you're basically saying that it's not D&D.  Which, again, is just more Edition War crap."* you are rejecting the feelings that many don't think that 4E is D&D have.  Many people like myself don't feel that 4E is D&D to them, and the edition wars get further inflamed when they are told that what they feel isn't true, when in fact that is what they are feeling. When I am using that analogy it is because I believe that analogy is true and is the best way of trying to get my viewpoint across, not because I am trying to pick things with the express intent of lying and trying to further an edition war. 

I use the analogy because I don't want D&D to fail, and the path I currently see is remarkably similar to the one taken by Coca-Cola that lead to an epic fail. I use the analogy because I hope that WotC will also look at it and realize that the important part of the analogy isn't that New Coke sucks and so does 4E, but rather that there does seem to be a large segment of their former market is that 4E doesn't feel like D&D to them and to look at the possible consequences of failing to at least take that into account. 

As I have said earlier, I don't think 4E sucks. I think it is a well designed a fun tactical miniatures game. I just don't think it is as good of a fantasy RPG and while 3.x isn't perfect either, it works better for that type of game for me.


----------



## dmchucky (Jan 8, 2009)

*Wow!*



joethelawyer said:


> My take on it is a little bit different. Workplace change is forced on someone usually. What we are dealing with here is nothing forced on us.  Many of us were eager for the change. It got our juices flowing.
> 
> I think what you are seeing here is not resistance to change, but anger.  Anger, because for many of us, for the first time in 20+ yrs of playing D&D, we are being left behind.  We associated ourselves with an image. A Brand, you could say.  A part of our identity was that we were playing D&D, the latest edition.  We may be old timers, we may have cut our teeth on the game in 1984, but we also play the latest & greatest game they put out too.  We may houserule it, but we are still part of a growing community of gamers.  We buy the newest stuff, or at least check it out and steal from it for our games.  When people publish a module, or a new spaltbook, it's for us, damnit!  We are part of the next great thing. We are evolving and changing with the game. We are riding the wave of newness, freshness, the latest and greatest.  And we loved that. It was part of who we were.
> 
> ...




This. QFT. This is the best explanation I have ever seen written for how I feel about 4th Edition D&D. Leave it to a lawyer to spell it out so perfectly. Thanks dude.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 8, 2009)

BryonD said:


> If your standard is generation of revenue then it may or may not be inferior.  That remains to be seen.  And I certainly 100% endorse that this should be WotC's goal and standard.
> 
> But I'm not here as an advocate of WotC.  When the standard of measure is production of the gaming experience that I want, its measure is simply "fair".  That is decidedly inferior to other options out there.




No, that means that you simply don't like it.  Inferior and superior have pretty specific meanings.  I don't like AD&D.  It doesn't provide the experience of gaming that I want.  Does that mean that AD&D is inferior to 3e?

I think there'd be a fair number of people who would argue with me if I tried to claim it.

I can pretty clearly claim that I don't like AD&D 1e.  That's fine.  I'm just stating my opinion and no one can argue with me on that.  It's when I try to justify my dislike by stating that the product is simply not up to standard (which is what inferior means) that edition wars start.  

BTW, in the Edition Switch Poll, version 2, I already stated early on that I was suprised by the results and I was wrong.  I'll state it here as well.  What did that have to do with this discussion?

Brown Jenkin - but, in my mind, why bring up the idea that 4e is or is not D&D at all if you aren't starting edition wars?  What possible difference could it make to you whether or not I claim to be playing D&D when I'm playing 4e?  You don't like 4e and don't play it (I assume, and neither do I play it either).  But why blatantly state that I'm not playing "real" D&D when playing 4e?

What purpose does that serve?  How is that even a reasonable critique of the system?  All it does is tie us up into a tail chasing debate over dueling ideas of "what is D&D".  It doesn't advance anything.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Brown Jenkin - but, in my mind, why bring up the idea that 4e is or is not D&D at all if you aren't starting edition wars?  What possible difference could it make to you whether or not I claim to be playing D&D when I'm playing 4e?  You don't like 4e and don't play it (I assume, and neither do I play it either).  But why blatantly state that I'm not playing "real" D&D when playing 4e?




I have tried to consistently say that 4E doesn't feel like D&D to *me*. If I slipped up somewhere I apologize. I don't doubt that to many people it does feel like D&D to them. The point I was trying to get across was that there are large numbers who don't feel like it is D&D to them and that needs to be considered. To try and shut them down when they are expressing that feeling risks further angering them. 

P.S. if you look at the bottom of my post I stated that I don't think 4E sucks, I just prefer 3.x for fantasy role playing. I think it is a good game and will use it for other types of gaming.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 8, 2009)

On the flavor / "feels like D&D" front:

OK. So I'm probably going to get dogpiled for mentioning this. But I'm going to put this smiley here:  - see him? You can't look me in the eyes because it's the intarweb. But can anyone, whether friend or foe of 4E, look McSmiley in his four eyes and tell me/him that 4E does *not* remind you, in any way, of World of Warcraft?

Because it seems patently obvious to me that 4E is _partly_ the result of someone saying "World of Warcraft has made Blizzard richer than Croesus. It is a fantasy game that has reached dizzying heights of profit and market penetration. We've gotta get in on some of that!" And then proceeded to make D&D more like World of Warcraft. I mean, does anyone really and honestly (if people can be real and honest on a computer) think that there isn't at least some of that operative in the design principles? Because then that would make a lot of design decisions seem like remarkable coincidences. 

I can understand thinking "we need to make this more like what the kids are into these days". I think that's tragically flawed reasoning, though, because you're probably better off building on your brand identity rather than trying to reinvent it. Especially if you're trying to compete with something you can't actually compete with (they're separate pursuits).

Anyway, flame on I guess. But it's obvious to me that this reasoning was a factor.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 8, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> On the flavor / "feels like D&D" front:
> 
> OK. So I'm probably going to get dogpiled for mentioning this. But I'm going to put this smiley here:  - see him? You can't look me in the eyes because it's the intarweb. But can anyone, whether friend or foe of 4E, look McSmiley in his four eyes and tell me/him that 4E does *not* remind you, in any way, of World of Warcraft?




I can't look at any edition of D&D and honestly say that it looks nothing like WoW.



Korgoth said:


> Because it seems patently obvious to me that 4E is _partly_ the result of someone saying "World of Warcraft has made Blizzard richer than Croesus. It is a fantasy game that has reached dizzying heights of profit and market penetration. We've gotta get in on some of that!" And then proceeded to make D&D more like World of Warcraft. I mean, does anyone really and honestly (if people can be real and honest on a computer) think that there isn't at least some of that operative in the design principles? Because then that would make a lot of design decisions seem like remarkable coincidences.




Since WoW is, itself, based on at least some of the principles that have always powered D&D (and fantasy roleplay more generally), it would be nigh impossible for any game that felt at all like D&D not to have at least a few things in common with WoW.

But, assuming you're specifically talking about elements in WoW that didn't show up somewhere else first, I don't really know. Not having played WoW, I'm not really sure what (if anything) it does that's really original. My opinion of Blizzard games is that generally they don't do a whole ton in the way of innovation; they more commonly polish and balance the motherloving crap out of tried-and-true ideas (in the process often ending up with the best/most popular example of the genre).

So, while some of the things may well have been most recently swiped from WoW, they look to me like a natural progression from late-3E developments (with some pieces of the progression missing because they were thrown out or transmuted during the playtesting of 4E rather than being released as supplements).



Korgoth said:


> I can understand thinking "we need to make this more like what the kids are into these days". I think that's tragically flawed reasoning, though, because you're probably better off building on your brand identity rather than trying to reinvent it. Especially if you're trying to compete with something you can't actually compete with (they're separate pursuits).




I don't see anything in the game that _specifically_ targets WoW fans, but then, I don't play WoW and there might be some.

*Whether or not any given fact about a system is problematic is, of course, up to the individual to decide. But the issues addressed by and large were ones that I know I saw a lot of people on internet message boards complain about. Some of them bugged me specifically.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, yeah, the New Coke thing does grate.  Because it presumes that 4e is somehow a failed product.




I agree. Let's not play coy-- "4e is New Coke" is absolutely being used in the pejorative sense here.


----------



## bouncyhead (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Actually there have been some pretty extensive reasons listed in numerous places, which revolve around actual game play or the books themselves.
> 
> The reason I consider it a step backwards is because of what roleplaying games grew out of and what is unique about them. We all know that RPGs grew out of tactical strategy games, where you were essentially pushing historical army units around on a board, battling other armies to see if you can out-general your opponent. One day Gygax and Arneson decided to apply the basics of that game to allow you to simulate a single character in a fantasy world. His inspirations were fantasy fiction, which I'm not going to cite because we all know the story.
> 
> ...





Hey, I don't need telling . I was just trying to empathise a little. For me it's a flavour thing but clearly the flavour stems from the ruleset and the ruleset is gamist. I was trying (in my own clumsy way) to work out why the whole edition thing is so emotive. There's clearly more to it than just rules - it's an ownership thing. Those of us who feel that 4E has gone the wrong way feel like 'our' game has been taken away from us. That makes these edition discussions quite highly charged and 4E players can't be blamed for feeling put upon. ('You LIKE 4E? But 4E is a travesty! Give it back! I hope it fails and Wizards fail and then we'll get it back!').

I think even the most avid supporter would concede that the switch has not been anywhere near as smooth or universal as WotC would have hoped. They sold a lot of core books (though I was surprised by the Edition Switch Poll - I thought that the D&D 3x players would have almost universally bought the books) but the edition may not have the longevity they hoped for (it's too early to tell, though the ES poll is not great reading).


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

I disagree with a lot of the other things you said Darrin, but as far as this one...



Darrin Drader said:


> the reduced number of character races...




There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.


----------



## knifie_sp00nie (Jan 8, 2009)

One thing to remember about the New Coke- Classic Coke story is that when they brought back Coke Classic, it wasn't the same as the original Coke. They took the opportunity to change over to corn syrup for the sweetener instead of sugar. If you want a true-ish Coke Classic you have to get them from Mexico.


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2009)

billd91 said:


> If people want to have an overwrought sense of offense about 4e being compared to New Coke they should think about one or two things.




That Old Coke tastes like a combo of dish soap and battery acid but some still choose to drink it?


----------



## Herschel (Jan 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.




Unless you count the ridiculous half-races due to templating weirdness. Apparently everything can cross-breed.


----------



## Lackhand (Jan 8, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> On the flavor / "feels like D&D" front:
> 
> OK. So I'm probably going to get dogpiled for mentioning this. But I'm going to put this smiley here:  - see him? You can't look me in the eyes because it's the intarweb. But can anyone, whether friend or foe of 4E, look McSmiley in his four eyes and tell me/him that 4E does *not* remind you, in any way, of World of Warcraft?
> 
> ...




I don't intend this as flame-on, it's meant to be honest disagreement: I don't see it. 
I also don't play WoW, which might not make me the best judge of this, but the specific design principles that they share seem to be shared because they're _clever_ game-design principles.

There have been back-and-forth arguments about this; I don't remember a single mechanic which was sourced exclusively from WoW and not from an earlier source just as reasonably. Doesn't mean there aren't any -- just that I've got a bad memory!


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.




Not if you add in the PC-stated races from the 3.5 MM - all are PC-playable with the 3 core rules, as written, out of that book.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 8, 2009)

> So, yeah, the New Coke thing does grate. Because it presumes that 4e is somehow a failed product. There's been posts in this thread alone talking about how 4e is an "inferior product". It's not inferior though. I may or may not like it and that's fine. But, it's certainly not inferior to anything.




Actually, its not too early to draw parallels, its just too early to draw _conclusions._

New Coke went from success to failure within the space of 2 years.  We're about 1 year into 4Ed's release, and its already doing worse with the existing customer base (again, according to polls) than NC did with Coke drinkers, and its trending _down_ in that demographic.  Sales are higher in comparison to 3Ed's initial release, yes, but that is most probably skewed due to the massive number of pre-orders and new blood being drawn to the hobby (in part drawn in by CRPGs).



> New Coke failed for a number of very specific reasons that have very little relation to 4e. 4e has not failed (yet) and it is still far too early to draw parallels.




The parallels are _clearly_ there.  The respective companies- both market leaders- did extensive _quality _research into how to improve their products.  The data they received showed them they were on the right track, so they proceeded to production, and threw the weight of their names and marketing departments into promoting the new goods replacing the old.

The problem with New Coke- and so far with 4Ed- is that for a variety of reasons, a large and vocal part of the established customer base _didn't want a replacement..._at least, not the one they were offered- one that was based on lots of solid empirical evidence _was_ what they wanted.

New Coke would probably have done fine as a_ supplementary_ product within the Coke line- indeed, its still in production as Coke II, and is more popular outside of the USA than within it- but it failed as a_ replacement_.

Similarly, lots of people have extolled aspects of 4Ed- myself included- but reject the game as a sub for 3.X.  What happens in the next year, though, will tell the tale.



> I agree. Let's not play coy-- "4e is New Coke" is absolutely being used in the pejorative sense here.



Not by me, it isn't.  Again, I'm using it as a cautionary analogy.

The parallels are clear, but the later chapters of 4Ed have yet to be written.

The key difference between New Coke and 4Ed is that an RPG is a much more flexible product than a soft-drink and its recipe.

The next Core 3- or however they're marketing it- could be phenomenal products that cement 4Ed's status as a world-class product, resulting not only in a continued influx of new blood but a changing of more opinions in the existing customer base to the positive.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 8, 2009)

Herschel said:


> That Old Coke tastes like a combo of dish soap and battery acid but some still choose to drink it?




Mmmmmm dish soap and battery acid [/Homer]


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

bouncyhead said:


> Hey, I don't need telling . I was just trying to empathise a little.




Actually I had this all typed out last night in response to a different post and the server took a dive. Due to the nature of messageboards, I generally copy the text before hitting submit if its something that long, just to ensure that I don't lose it.



Scribble said:


> There's actually 1 more race in 4e then there was in 3e.




Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

bouncyhead said:


> There's clearly more to it than just rules - it's an ownership thing. Those of us who feel that 4E has gone the wrong way feel like 'our' game has been taken away from us. That makes these edition discussions quite highly charged and 4E players can't be blamed for feeling put upon. ('You LIKE 4E? But 4E is a travesty! Give it back! I hope it fails and Wizards fail and then we'll get it back!').




Oh yeah, I totally agree with this. Roleplaying games are definitely games where the audience feels a sense of ownership in it. It isn't like other media, such as books, TV, or media, where you simply observe it. People pour their own creativity into RPGs over a span of years and decades. I feel that this underscores the need to be conservative when making changes. While I might be able to accept the fact that I can't directly play a module from two editions ago without doing a lot of converting, there's a pretty good chance that I'm going to want the next edition to feel like a continuation of what I'm used to than a reinvention. I think you're always going to do better making minor but needed changes if you're keeping the same name. Reinventions constitute new products, hence the need for a new name.



> I think even the most avid supporter would concede that the switch has not been anywhere near as smooth or universal as WotC would have hoped. They sold a lot of core books (though I was surprised by the Edition Switch Poll - I thought that the D&D 3x players would have almost universally bought the books) but the edition may not have the longevity they hoped for (it's too early to tell, though the ES poll is not great reading).




I'd agree with your assessment. A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.




Well a lot of that is personal taste. (Which is fine you're obviously allowed that!) I was just commenting on the statement about not as many races. 

As for why include them instead of others? I kind of get the feeling it had more to do with a design focus then change for change.

You know you want the classes to stem from certain "power sources." You also know you have room to do 3 power sources (keeping in mind that you need powers for each class/source plus items geared towards them etc...)

So you know that kind of locks you into certain classes.

Each of the races seems kind of tailored to be the "best" at a certain class.

So now you have a choice... 1/2 Orcs make better paladins then Barbarians? Or introduce a new race (dragonborn) and save 1/2 orc for barbarians?

same with Gnome. Do gnome Warlocks make sense? Maybe, but it seems kind of like a stretch. So again, do we stretch the gnome to be a warlock, or introcue Tieflings to fit the mold a little better?

Sure you can argue that there is enough "white space" that they could have included more power sources... but eh, I think that's subjective. What others call "wasted space" I find helps me use the material in game more easily, and doesn't feel as cumbersome when I look through it. As I've said before... easier on the eyes helps old man Scribble a lot.

p.s. Also I think they saw how popular the 1/2 dragon and 1/2 demon templates were, and wanted to offer something to fill that idea.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'd agree with your assessment. A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.




But the question I have to ask is, were they really still on WoTC's train (or planning to stay on much longer?)


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Actually I had this all typed out last night in response to a different post and the server took a dive. Due to the nature of messageboards, I generally copy the text before hitting submit if its something that long, just to ensure that I don't lose it.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. I'd consider these fine candidates for the PHBII, or a racial writeups in the Monster Manual - and as long as we're going one more than 3.x, even consider including the tiefling - but why sacrifice existing popular core races in favor of ones that either never existed before, or were always peripheral? It just strikes me as a really bizarre design decision that's annoying if you were planning on converting an existing campaign to 4E. It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.




Posts like this serve as perfect illustration of the OPs point. Gamer's (especially on this site) are emotionally so wedded to the traditions (setting and rules) of D&D that they are incapable to rationally evaluate a product that breaks so many of these traditions. Hence their subconscious makes up arguments that rationalize their purely emotional reaction to the new.

Clearly the change of races is not "change for change's sake". A large number of reasons have been provided, discussed and rediscussed why the designers thought thatthe racial tableau needed changing. And certainly their reasons do not have to be agreed with. 
However rationally explaining why Gnomes need to be in PHB, even though almost nobody plays one is much more difficult than saying "this is change for change's sake". And claiming the Dragonborn should not be in the PHB although clearly a large number of players likes playing something draconic is again more difficult than calling it "change for change's sake".  

By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".


----------



## darkseraphim (Jan 8, 2009)

D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere.  The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.

My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI.  Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.

The idea that someone's commercial "system" can replace mine is laughable, in that sense.  I started parting ways with the party line when Gygax was kicked out in 1985.  The fact is, I make better DMing decisions when I am comfortable with the rules, milieu, characters and master framework, so my rules are always the right ones.  My play is noticeably more clunky and inferior with 2E and beyond, even if I'm well-versed with the rules.

Then you add this in to the nostalgia factor - friends, music, movies, culture - of the time when you fell in love with D&D.  I don't care if that's 1974, 1980, 2000 or 2009, it is an inherent and irreplacable factor in the game's atmosphere.

The best edition of D&D is the one that gave you your first "wow" moment, the one you fell in love with.  I used to be mocked for that sentiment but curiously, now that the 3E and 3.5ers are feeling the pinch of 4E and the splintering of the player base, I find that players across the spectrum are more mindful and empathetic when it comes to what is important to you and why.

TLDR - D&D is the players' happiness.  The players' happiness is the DM's skil in presenting the world.  The DM's skill is the comfort with the rules.  The comfort is the first edition you loved.  This is why getting groups that are willing to share the same experience is such a crucial thing.


----------



## Krensky (Jan 8, 2009)

Hussar said:


> e, and right there, that's another reason why the New Coke analogy falls down.  New Coke wasn't Coca Cola.  It was an entirely new recipe.




No, it wasn't. New Coke/Coke II was/is (if I recall right its still sold in some overseas markets) Diet Coke make with sugar. If you never tried it or don't remember and want to know what it tasted like, go get a can of Diet Coke. Coke Zero is Coca-Cola Classic made without sugar. As far as D&D goes, it depends how you define D&D. For some people its a specific edition. For others its anything with the name on it. For most I suspect it's somewhere in between.

The New Coke analogy works for what I've seen it used (other then a few snarky lines) on this discussion for. Discussing the effects of flawed market research running into issues of brand and personal identity. Whether or not and ,if so, to what degree WotC's market research during the development of 4e was flawed is impossible to say without seeing it. It appears some parts of it was based upon the apparent (albeit mostly anecdotal) size and strength of the reaction people have to the result. That both products are running into problems with consumers identity of themselves and the product is accurate. That both are largely facing dislike over intangables is accurate. Like all analogies it only goes so far, however. D&D's two publishers hadn't spent a hundred years convincing the United State and the world of their cultural signifgance. D&D 4e was not a desperate attempt to grab market share back from a competitor. WotC will almost assuredly not bring 3.5 (or any other edition) back as D&D Classic, only to miraculously have the original product explode in popularity and overtake 4e and the competitor in market share. Charlie Gibson will not interupt General Hospital announce the return of D&D 3.5e.

Why? Because no matter how much we care about and have made RPGs and D&D part of our community and personal identity, it is no where near as important ot the average gamer's identity as Coca-Cola was to the average American.


----------



## jensun (Jan 8, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> Not if you add in the PC-stated races from the 3.5 MM - all are PC-playable with the 3 core rules, as written, out of that book.



All of the races in the back of the 4e MM are playable which adds another dozen or so, including Gnomes.


----------



## jensun (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> but why sacrifice existing popular core races



Because they weren't popular.  

I dont think I have ever seen a thread from anyone talking about how cool their gnome or half orc was until 4e came out.  Its some sort of weird geek fallacy at work I am sure. 

WotC took our gnomes, now we must rend our garments and beat our chests in impotent rage at the race no one cared about.


----------



## jensun (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> A sizable chunk of the core audience is getting off the train, and I'm not convinced that it's being replaced by a new core.



Your market research must be impressive to make such claims.

Or you could just be a tiny bit biased.

I wonder which it is.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jan 8, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".



I always find it interesting when people use "evolve" in a context like this.  Evolution involves major and rapid changes of form when the initial form is inadequate to survive in a changed environment.  When it is too weak, too slow, or deficient in some way; rapid evolution isn't the mark of a superior being.  Some forms have barely evolved at all over tens of millions of years, while others are nearly unrecognizable from their ancestors that far back.  Would you say a whale is "better" than a crocodile because it has evolved more rapidly?  Or is the crocodile "better" because it hasn't needed to evolve as much?  What about the horseshoe crab?  _Evolution is not improvement._ If you think D&D needs to evolve, then you are saying that D&D was unable to survive in its prior form. 

Most popular games have maintained a generally fixed form for many years, while others have developed popular new versions as additions rather than replacements (e.g. poker with Texas Hold 'Em, or chess with Speed Chess).  RPGs and video games are characterized by routine replacement of earlier versions with newer systems -- planned obselescence.  Parker Brothers doesn't make money by releasing "all new Monopoly with new rules, throw out your old box and buy this one."  No, you get Star Wars Monopoly or Boston Monopoly or a hundred new "settings" with the same rules.  Rawlings doesn't make money by releasing "Revised Softball equipment," with players having to buy new gear and learn new rules to play the revised game.  (Softball is commonly "house-ruled" in rec leagues, but you can figure those out in two minutes.)  Companies make money off of chess sets without revising the rules.

D&D's earlier business model, selling settings and adventures, would have allowed the hobby to grow while keeping a generally static ruleset.  The later business model, focusing on rules-oriented supplements, inevitably leads to edition churn.  *I think the former approach is better for the hobby, and the latter approach is better for the business. * WotC can make a great deal more money with planned obselescense, but you're going to have fragmentation of the fan base.  Games depend on having people to play with who know the rules or can learn them quickly.  A generally static ruleset, or one with only minor or gradual changes, is more conducive to this than one with regular massive overhauls.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jan 8, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".




Yeah... I'd like that. To me, D&D should change only to adapt to great new stuff in game design.

For example, after 1974 various new RPGs presented a mechanic (call it action points, willpower, hero points, whatever) to help players share with the GM the ability to move the story forward in critical situations. I believe it's really refreshing when a new edition of D&D brings something similar to the core. Other examples like this can be provided.

On the other hand, I believe all those changes related to the implied setting are not only terrible, but a major part of what makes it "not D&D to me". They were never demanded, and create such weird situations that whole campaign settings are being destroyed and rebuilt to adapt to them (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you).

The gamist core is a big deal to me as well, but seeing those weird tiefling and dragonborns all around, evil paladins, ritual-casting rogues and grey elves becoming eladrin was too much.

Some will say that as long as it's a game about adventurers killing mosters and taking their stuff it will be D&D, but I believe the identity of the game (even the vancian spell casting!) is more important, and they really missed the target by a mile with that.

Cheers,


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".




I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism? The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered. 

My design philosophy, where the core rules are concerned anyway, is conservative. I'm not saying things shouldn't move forward. If 4E would have fixed the high level issue, made polymorph easier, incorporated action points, made grappling and other combat actions easier, then I'd probably be thrilled with it. Once you address the problems with the current edition, then look at things like class abilities, spells, magic items, skills, and feats. Figure out which options aren't being used and either overhaul them so people want to use them or replace them with new things. Look for balance issues and fix them. Find other subsystems that are counter-intuitive or difficult to learn and streamline them, but don't go so far with the changes that it's barely recognizable as the same game. That would be my definition of evolution as it applies to an iconic RPG like D&D. It's how I would have done the edition change if I'd had any say in it. I think that if 4E would have been more along those lines, it would be a huge leap forward and it wouldn't be running into the same level of resistance among what was previously the core audience that it is now.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> Oh yeah, I totally agree with this. Roleplaying games are definitely games where the audience feels a sense of ownership in it. It isn't like other media, such as books, TV, or media, where you simply observe it.



Yeah, people don't get worked up about TV shows or (comic) books at all... 



Darrin Drader said:


> People pour their own creativity into RPGs over a span of years and decades. I feel that this underscores the need to be conservative when making changes. While I might be able to accept the fact that I can't directly play a module from two editions ago without doing a lot of converting, there's a pretty good chance that I'm going to want the next edition to feel like a continuation of what I'm used to than a reinvention. I think you're always going to do better making minor but needed changes if you're keeping the same name. Reinventions constitute new products, hence the need for a new name.



So 3e D&D isn't D&D, then?  You can hardly label the 3e change conservative.  It happens to jibe with your preferences (and many others), but aside from the ability scores, HP, and vancian casting, it's a completely different game from what came before.  Which caused a lot of players to jump off the train - you just don't see them here because this (and many other current D&D sites) were created to cater to people interested in 3e.

(incidentally I think 3e had it much easier in terms of reception, in that the state of D&D was not very good when it came out - it's much harder to followup a success)



Giltonio_Santos said:


> On the other hand, I believe all those changes related to the implied setting are not only terrible, but a major part of what makes it "not D&D to me". They were never demanded, and create such weird situations that whole campaign settings are being destroyed and rebuilt to adapt to them (Forgotten Realms, I'm looking at you).



Yes, I agree with this myself, but at the same time there's plenty of people who love the changes.  Taste issues are hard to gauge, but I wonder if there would have been less resistance if WotC wasn't so pushy about completely changing the implied setting.  Which frankly, the designers are a little bit too enamored with, and evangelical about.  In any case, it creates an additional aspect for people to object to.  It probably would have been better IMO to quietly retcon stuff than to trumpet loudly and often how the D&D world you've known is no longer in existance.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 8, 2009)

Spatula said:


> So 3e D&D isn't D&D, then?  You can hardly label the 3e change conservative.  It happens to jibe with your preferences (and many others), but aside from the ability scores, HP, and vancian casting, it's a completely different game from what came before.  Which caused a lot of players to jump off the train - you just don't see them here because this (and many other current D&D sites) were created to cater to people interested in 3e.




I'm not sure I completely agree that the change to 3E was radical. Yes, there were obvious structural changes, like AC becoming a positive number, thief abilities becoming skills, making classes progress at the same rate, and transforming weapon and non-weapon proficiencies into skills and feats. However, I feel that the first few changes were fairly intuitive and made gameplay easier. The later ones incorporated elements that existed in other games that were fairly successful and made those systems work with D&D. One of the major things 3rd edition did that players really wanted was to make the character rules flexible enough to accomodate their character concepts, even if they don't stick strictly to existing fantasy archtypes. I think the balance between the new and the old was innovative while being conservative enough to hold on to its core identity. The fact that it became a huge success suggests that Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet knew what they were doing.



> (incidentally I think 3e had it much easier in terms of reception, in that the state of D&D was not very good when it came out - it's much harder to followup a success)



No doubt about that. This is exactly what the Star Wars prequels and the new Indiana Jones movie ran into. Expectations were high based on Lucas's previous work but he went off in another direction. For what it's worth, I like two out of three of the prequel movies and I like the new Indiana Jones.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism? The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered.




I think this is definitely a big factor in my dislike of 4e.  I never played wargames and have never been interested in them.  IMHO, 3e was at the cusp of as far as I wanted to go with the tactical boardgame aspects...but 4e for me, just went too far.  Every combat is like pausing the "real" game to play a combat sub-game that lasts way too long and is so gamist as to take you even further away from immersion than the interruption to the "real" game does.  I kinda knew this would happen (though technically the designers were truthful, they didn't create a 4e that *requires* minis) with the DDM popularity, but I don't have to like it.  I also am not sure I like where I see D&D going with the DDI and subscription based models either...but that's just me and probably should be discussed in a separate thread.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I disagree. Is it really evolution to take a roleplaying game, which is the fusion of fantasy simulation with strategic combat and strip out the simulationism?




If the end result works more smoothly/efficiently sure. In my opinion it does. Yours might differ.



> The race objection is a minor one with me really, my largest objection is that 4E gets away from what makes D&D different than strategic wargames or miniature games or computer games. 4E is a fantasy combat game not a fantasy roleplaying game. Perhapse one of the things that needs to be done is to define precisely what makes D&D its own entity. This would help inform current and future designers which sacred cows should and should not be slaughtered.




I dissagree. I don't think it gets away from what makes D&D. 

I think the second part of this would be pretty hard to do. How do you define what makes D&D D&D? Who gets to make that call? I think part of what makes RPGs so great is that we can each tailor them to exactly what we think they should be.  I mean what if someone had decided long ago that only humans can be paladins was part of what makes D&D D&D? 

Is 4e OD&D? Obviously not. But what makes it still D&D (in my opinion) is the ability to follow the trail back to where it started. 



> My design philosophy, where the core rules are concerned anyway, is conservative. I'm not saying things shouldn't move forward. If 4E would have fixed the high level issue, made polymorph easier, incorporated action points, made grappling and other combat actions easier, then I'd probably be thrilled with it.




In my opinion they did. I think you just dislike the way they did it. (Which is your right.)



> but don't go so far with the changes that it's barely recognizable as the same game.




I think this is a subjective thing again. It's completely recognizable to me. I think because I like the changes. I hink because you don't you don't see it as D&D... Just like people who didn't like the changes 3e made say the same. (It ain't D&D.)


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 8, 2009)

jensun said:


> All of the races in the back of the 4e MM are playable which adds another dozen or so, including Gnomes.




I'll take your word for it on the gnomes, but I thought more was needed to make them a playable race than what was in the 4E MM.

Oh, the 3.5 MM has 46 playable races.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> But the question I have to ask is, were they really still on WoTC's train (or planning to stay on much longer?)




i was on the train. i was probably in one of the lead cabins. although, i was not a fan of d02 i held out hope that WotC was producing a product i could convert to my preferred game. or even more hopefully they would start producing product for my game too.

they kicked me off the train when they started cutting loose the stuff i liked from 3pp which was tied to them still.
and even told me in a post they were glad to see me go.

i bought 2 new cars and paid off my mortgage since i stopped buying from WotC.

diaglo "i never joke about D&D" Ooi


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

diaglo said:


> they kicked me off the train when they started cutting loose the stuff i liked from 3pp which was tied to them still.
> and even told me in a post they were glad to see me go.




What stuff? (out of curiousity)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 8, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> I can't look at any edition of D&D and honestly say that it looks nothing like WoW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Having never played WOW means than you have no chance at noticing any similarities at all.

I understand what Korgoth is talking about very well. I play WOW (80 troll shammie FTW) and I am currently playing in a 4E campaign. Some of the things I have noticed, to be fair were in 3E as well so its not just a 4E = WOW generalization. Here are some specific MMOisms that affect flavor:

Magic items: Starting with 3E magic items were changed from an art to a science. No longer were items mysterious and rare, they were to be cranked out and sold like any other commodity. All you needed (per RAW) was raw materials, time, gold, and xp and presto-a magic item.
WOW (and possibly some other MMO's) work on a similar principle. The player gets the materials, and gold (no xp cost in WOW) and crafts the item. No chance of failure, no mystery, its strictly business. 
4E continued this and dispensed with any remaining mystery by listing items as actual gear in the PHB. Another 4E addition to the magic item situation is the ability to disenchant unwanted magic items into residum.
This is a direct WOW import as items in WOW are routinely disenchanted into materials that fuel item enchantments.

Aggro mechanics: There have been tank, glass cannon "striker" , and healbot archetypes long before any MMO. The computer games simply used the archetypes that were already in use on the tabletop. Not having a live DM meant giving the AI mobs a reason to attack the toughest target even if that would be a far from intelligent choice. It allowed players to use teamwork to "tank and spank" a monster. This is a game mechanic that is not needed for a tabletop game. This goes back to the oldest rules of game design: The rules serve the game and not the other way around. Aggro based mechanics are good example of a game serving the rules. The rules say something works despite any logic or reason so either the game changes or the world simply obeys the rule without question. 

Retraining: 3E had this before 4E and its a common occurence in WOW. Some WOW players "respec" or retrain daily depending on if they are grouping or playing solo. This has the benefit of letting players tinker with different bits of the rules but the constant overwriting of skills and abilities makes a chartacter feel more like an avatar or toon than a part of an ongoing living fantasy world. The concept of "bad" decisions being judged so because they were not optimized for job X even though the player had fun with that choice is one that seems more at home in tabletop battle games than in a roleplaying game.

There are major flavor changes that align 4E (and parts of 3E) with MMO style games. The largest overall flavor change that may be causing the most resistance is that of genre tone.

4E is not an MMO of course. It is a superhero tabletop roleplaying game wherein the protagonists dress in robes and armor rather than capes and tights. The move from swords and sorcery to supers is I think, the cause of a great deal of the resistance. It would be like taking the marvel supers RPG and turning the heroes into fighters, mages, clerics, and rogues in feel, and leaving them in the trappings of capes and spandex.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 8, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm not sure I completely agree that the change to 3E was radical.




The system consistency changes, like a bagillion different rolls for different things (1d10 for initiative, 1d6 for surprise, d% for thief skills, etc.) being rolled into a core resolution mechanic (d20) paired with mathematical consistency ("higher is better" as opposed to "higher is better except when lower is better"), are the biggest change ever made to D&D's system since AD&D was created. That's a change to something like 75% or more of the math used in the game.

Then we have the removal of racial restrictions (suddenly, after three decades of fiction and game rules stating otherwise, elves can have paladins), the standardization of experience (no more charts for every class), damage reduction ("impossible to hurt" becomes "harder to hurt"), spells (full-time casters all get 9th-level spells, not just wizards), the scale of ability scores with the removal of caps (which merited +2 bonuses/-2 penalties, a 100% increase over previous editions), the massive change to the multiclass system (from 2e's two separate versions, multi- and dual-)... there's tons of stuff (like Monte Cook's "Ivory Tower Game Design" journal entry) that show that, objectively, 3e was a radical departure in game design from 2e and earlier (and you are correct in that much of it was just bringing in ideas that other games had innovated years before, which could be why they seem less radical to you: familiarity from other games).

The difference, as I see it, is that you like the changes from 2e to 3e more than you like the changes from 3e to 4e, which makes the 3e-4e changes seem far more radical.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 8, 2009)

Exploder:

I think a lot of this is because videogames and MMOs have progressed to the point where they're not just stealing from TTRPGs, and are instead adding new elements to games. Design elements and thoughts that can/should be applied in other games as well.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 8, 2009)

Scribble said:


> What stuff? (out of curiousity)




Sovereign Press -- Dragonlance
Paizo -- Dungeon and Dragon Magazine
KenzerCo -- Kalamar
White Wolf -- Ravenloft
L5R -- Rokugan aka Oriental adventures


edit: Midnight Syndicate
Code Monkey
Jinx.com


----------



## Scribble (Jan 9, 2009)

diaglo said:


> Sovereign Press -- Dragonlance
> Paizo -- Dungeon and Dragon Magazine
> KenzerCo -- Kalamar
> White Wolf -- Ravenloft
> L5R -- Rokugan aka Oriental adventures




Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but I'm not sure I see these as putting you on their train so much...

I mean I own a scion (Toyota) but I don't really deal with Toyota at all. Anytime I need service I go to a local mechanic I know and trust. Any upgrades I've added to the car I've gotten from 3rd party companies, and I don't even get my oil changed using official toyota air filters and what not... So am I really a toyota customer?

So even if you play 3e, but you're buying all your gaming stuff from some other company, are you really on the WoTC train? Or did you just hop on briefly to get to another railway?

Maybe the caturtle express?


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm not sure I completely agree that the change to 3E was radical. Yes, there were obvious structural changes, like AC becoming a positive number, thief abilities becoming skills, making classes progress at the same rate, and transforming weapon and non-weapon proficiencies into skills and feats.



Character classes are completely different.  Multiclassing is completely different, and that was one of the big flamewar topics back in 2000, IIRC.  Saving throws - no relation to what came before.  Monsters are completely different.  The nature of the game itself changed to focus on stacking up buffs and ambushing un-buffed foes.  Characters were assumed to be carrying the wealth of a not-so-small nation on them in magic items, which was another big flamewar topic.

You say the balance between new & old works because you don't particularly care about the areas where 3e departed from the past.  But it was a big change, mechanically to be sure but also stylistically.  A lot of people had problems with 3e's emphasis on high fantasy - if you played D&D where +1 swords are rare & precious and the characters are not super-heroes, then you probably think that 3e abandoned D&D's core identity.  You're (I'm guessing) fine with the high fantasy elements but still want some simulationist trappings.  But people who never played D&D as a simulationist game have no issues with 4e de-emphasizing that style of gameplay; it's not D&D's core identity to them.

I will say that 3e was rather conservative when it came to trying to capture the "feel" of previous editions, despite being an almost completely different game.  Whereas 4e has basically done a DC-style Crisis event where you see a lot of the familiar elements but they're scrambled and different.  That has little to do with the mechanics of 4e, though, and much to do with the radical setting changes.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Exploder:
> 
> I think a lot of this is because videogames and MMOs have progressed to the point where they're not just stealing from TTRPGs, and are instead adding new elements to games. Design elements and thoughts that can/should be applied in other games as well.




I agree that MMO's are certainly adding elements and lot of them are great elements.............for an MMO. Elements that serve a computer game very well need to be considered very carefully before being applied to a tabletop game, thats all. I play computer and tabletop games and enjoy both for very different reasons. When differences begin to blur and move closer to similarities then its time to step away and re-evaluate things.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Maybe I misunderstand what you mean, but I'm not sure I see these as putting you on their train so much...
> 
> I mean I own a scion (Toyota) but I don't really deal with Toyota at all. Anytime I need service I go to a local mechanic I know and trust. Any upgrades I've added to the car I've gotten from 3rd party companies, and I don't even get my oil changed using official toyota air filters and what not... So am I really a toyota customer?
> 
> ...



Er... doesn't diaglo also own (or used to own) pretty much every single WotC--published book up to a certain point (when they... pushed him off their train)?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I agree that MMO's are certainly adding elements and lot of them are great elements.............for an MMO. Elements that serve a computer game very well need to be considered very carefully before being applied to a tabletop game, thats all. I play computer and tabletop games and enjoy both for very different reasons. When differences begin to blur and move closer to similarities then its time to step away and re-evaluate things.




Depends on the element in my opinion. I think the big question is why the design element works. Like is it an element that makes playing a game more fun, or is it an element that overcomes a problem computers have.

Even then, sometimes problems that computers have, the average human DM will have as well.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 9, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> The system consistency changes, like a bagillion different rolls for different things (1d10 for initiative, 1d6 for surprise, d% for thief skills, etc.) being rolled into a core resolution mechanic (d20) paired with mathematical consistency ("higher is better" as opposed to "higher is better except when lower is better"), are the biggest change ever made to D&D's system since AD&D was created. That's a change to something like 75% or more of the math used in the game.
> 
> Then we have the removal of racial restrictions (suddenly, after three decades of fiction and game rules stating otherwise, elves can have paladins), the standardization of experience (no more charts for every class), damage reduction ("impossible to hurt" becomes "harder to hurt"), spells (full-time casters all get 9th-level spells, not just wizards), the scale of ability scores with the removal of caps (which merited +2 bonuses/-2 penalties, a 100% increase over previous editions), the massive change to the multiclass system (from 2e's two separate versions, multi- and dual-)... there's tons of stuff (like Monte Cook's "Ivory Tower Game Design" journal entry) that show that, objectively, 3e was a radical departure in game design from 2e and earlier (and you are correct in that much of it was just bringing in ideas that other games had innovated years before, which could be why they seem less radical to you: familiarity from other games).
> 
> The difference, as I see it, is that you like the changes from 2e to 3e more than you like the changes from 3e to 4e, which makes the 3e-4e changes seem far more radical.




That's a fair statement. Game design is not science (except when you're talking about computing statistical probability, but that's a different discussion). When I say that my design philosophy is conservative, you do have to ask the question _conservative relative to what?_ So when I say that my bias is that 3.5 was about as close to D&D perfection as we've seen so far, it makes sense that I'd see things in the manner you described. And to put some history on my bias, when 3E came out, I was still playing a houseruled version of 2E, and I was really not intending to switch to the new system. I bought the PHB, decided to give it a spin, and I ended up absolutely loving the way it worked so I switched my group over immediately. It inspired me to see what kinds of new stuff I could come up with to add to the system. I approached 4E more or less the same way, but with opposite results. I actually liked it on paper at first, but just didn't like how it played.

So yeah, I can agree that there is no scientific and definitive right and wrong in this discussion. My opinion is that the design process for 4E might have benefitted by someone being a little more aggressive in asserting that people might not follow if they go this far afield of 3.5, and that might have produced a game that a lot of people, including me, would have preferred. 

If you're happy with 4E, the question then becomes whether there's some middle ground that would have made players like you and players like me happy. Maybe the answer to that is that no, we're too far apart. We're better off playing entirely different games.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 9, 2009)

Sammael said:


> Er... doesn't diaglo also own (or used to own) pretty much every single WotC--published book up to a certain point (when they... pushed him off their train)?




Thats why I said maybe I was misunderstanding... Because it seemed like he was saying he was on their train but only because 3pp he bought from were associated with WoTC in some way, and not because he was buying actual WoTC books?


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Having never played WOW means than you have no chance at noticing any similarities at all.




That strikes me as incredibly dubious. Especially given that, as you quoted, I *do* notice similarities. In all editions of D&D.



ExploderWizard said:


> 4E continued this and dispensed with any remaining mystery by listing items as actual gear in the PHB. Another 4E addition to the magic item situation is the ability to disenchant unwanted magic items into residum.
> This is a direct WOW import as items in WOW are routinely disenchanted into materials that fuel item enchantments.




This concept was in games and fantasy fiction well before the existence of WoW. That I know. And yes, I knew that this was in WoW as well, even without having played it. So while it is a similarity with WoW that did not exist before, I still don't see evidence that it was actually a "direct WOW import".



ExploderWizard said:


> Aggro mechanics: There have been tank, glass cannon "striker" , and healbot archetypes long before any MMO. The computer games simply used the archetypes that were already in use on the tabletop. Not having a live DM meant giving the AI mobs a reason to attack the toughest target even if that would be a far from intelligent choice. It allowed players to use teamwork to "tank and spank" a monster. This is a game mechanic that is not needed for a tabletop game. This goes back to the oldest rules of game design: The rules serve the game and not the other way around. Aggro based mechanics are good example of a game serving the rules. The rules say something works despite any logic or reason so either the game changes or the world simply obeys the rule without question.




This is an MMOism? People have been complaining about things happening in D&D without (sufficient for the individual in question) logic or reason for as long as I can remember. I _was_ one of these people, a good 10+ years before MMOs were invented.



ExploderWizard said:


> Retraining: 3E had this before 4E and its a common occurence in WOW. Some WOW players "respec" or retrain daily depending on if they are grouping or playing solo. This has the benefit of letting players tinker with different bits of the rules but the constant overwriting of skills and abilities makes a chartacter feel more like an avatar or toon than a part of an ongoing living fantasy world. The concept of "bad" decisions being judged so because they were not optimized for job X even though the player had fun with that choice is one that seems more at home in tabletop battle games than in a roleplaying game.




That this is similar to WoW I can't deny, but since, as I said above, every edition of D&D is similar to WoW, I'd like to know why people think it _necessarily_ came from WoW instead of simply being a clever mechanic that happens to show up in more than one game.

I've never had a "cartoon"-feeling when using the retraining rules, or even letting people "retrain" feats and stuff before the rules for such in 3E ever came out. This might be just because I used them with some restraint. When my 3E Dwarf Wizard retrained his Toughness feat for something else, he didn't lose any hit points, because retraining only happens on level-up. He just gained fewer hit points than he would have at other levels and ended up with one more other feat.

Likewise, if I retrain my skill training in a typical 4E game, it's usually because I just haven't been using the one skill and think I'd like to gain another. So there's no disconnect where my character used to be spouting off random Nature facts and suddenly can't tell poison ivy from crab-grass - if the skill was being used all the time, I'd hardly have reason to retrain out of it. And since I can still only retrain on level up, you notice me learning the new skill around the same time everyone is learning new things. So you might notice that I learned more than someone else, but that happens to people in real life all the time and doesn't seem like it should be immersion-breaking.

When a wizard realized he learned a spell that turns out to be less good than he hoped, he may decide to seek out another one. And even though he probably still is casting his crappy spell all the time, when he learns that substitute spell (read: levels up, retrains) why would he go back to preparing that crappy spell in the slot instead? If it's not one of his "slotted" spells, why would he use that crappy spell in place of one of his other at-wills or encounters? It makes a reasonable amount of sense that the unused one will atrophy.

I can totally understand that it _can_ be done in radically immersion-breaking ways, and that someone reading the book can go "that's ridiculous! People can do that in totally immersion-breaking ways! It needs to be saddled with some justification so that people can't break the immersion!" But I've found in play that generally, people don't try to break immersion, and asking them politely not to when they do works. YMMV of course.



ExploderWizard said:


> There are major flavor changes that align 4E (and parts of 3E) with MMO style games. The largest overall flavor change that may be causing the most resistance is that of genre tone.
> 
> 4E is not an MMO of course. It is a superhero tabletop roleplaying game wherein the protagonists dress in robes and armor rather than capes and tights. The move from swords and sorcery to supers is I think, the cause of a great deal of the resistance. It would be like taking the marvel supers RPG and turning the heroes into fighters, mages, clerics, and rogues in feel, and leaving them in the trappings of capes and spandex.




I'm not sure how to respond to this other than that I really don't see it (yet). I haven't played a lot of 4E (yet) so some of this might start to ring true. But it doesn't look to me terribly different from BO9S stuff, which I adore, so I doubt it.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> You say the balance between new & old works because you don't particularly care about the areas where 3e departed from the past.  But it was a big change, mechanically to be sure but also stylistically.  A lot of people had problems with 3e's emphasis on high fantasy - if you played D&D where +1 swords are rare & precious and the characters are not super-heroes, then you probably think that 3e abandoned D&D's core identity.  You're (I'm guessing) fine with the high fantasy elements but still want some simulationist trappings.




Yes, I do generally a run high fantasy when I run D&D. However, even I agree that the assumption that the characters would be overloaded with magic items in order to keep up with their opponents was a little much, especially at higher levels. I liked to run games where magic items were a little more rare and PCs couldn't just go out and create every magic item they wanted to own because I would keep their gold piece awards on the low side. This means that I had to look at their opponents and make sure that they were equipped to fight those things, and if they weren't make some modifications to the monsters. Later on, it meant that the default CR for monsters was a little high, so that was one of the things I'd compensate for.

One of the reasons that 3.5 works for me is that the system was flexible enough that you could make changes like this with relatively little difficulty (to me at least, your results may vary). 4E feels a lot more rigid to me, even if the assumed power level is back on track for what I consider _fantasy normal_. 



> I will say that 3e was rather conservative when it came to trying to capture the "feel" of previous editions, despite being an almost completely different game.  Whereas 4e has basically done a DC-style Crisis event where you see a lot of the familiar elements but they're scrambled and different.  That has little to do with the mechanics of 4e, though, and much to do with the radical setting changes.



Yeah, absolutely true.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> OK. So I'm probably going to get dogpiled for mentioning this. But I'm going to put this smiley here:  - see him? You can't look me in the eyes because it's the intarweb. But can anyone, whether friend or foe of 4E, look McSmiley in his four eyes and tell me/him that 4E does *not* remind you, in any way, of World of Warcraft?



I think someone already beat me to this, but WoW reminds me of D&D (and also Warhammer).  And before WoW existed, EQ was even more blatant in stealing major chunks of D&D.  That's because a lot of people making these computer games also play (or have played) D&D.



ExploderWizard said:


> Magic items: Starting with 3E magic items were changed from an art to a science. No longer were items mysterious and rare



Perhaps someone can point you in the direction of MerricB's breakdown of the 1e modules from a few years back, wherein magic items were not at all rare.  And the "mystery" is spoiled as soon one reads the DMG section on magic items, or sees enough items to know what they are generally capable of.  You only have one first time.



ExploderWizard said:


> they were to be cranked out and sold like any other commodity. All you needed (per RAW) was raw materials, time, gold, and xp and presto-a magic item.



Magic items had gp values in 1e DMG, and yes we (and many other people) used those values in the 80's to buy items in interdimensional bazaars.  And all you needed to make items (per RAW) was raw materials, time, gold, and some percentage checks and presto - a magic item.



ExploderWizard said:


> Another 4E addition to the magic item situation is the ability to disenchant unwanted magic items into residum.



Artificer class, 3e Eberron Campaign book.



ExploderWizard said:


> Aggro mechanics



...don't exist in 4e (but did in 3e! in the Knight class, PHB2).  Monsters still have free will and aren't computer controlled.  Defender types provide disincentives for opponents to attack other targets; otherwise intelligently-played monsters skip over the tin cans and eat the wizard, and there's nothing that the tin-can can do to stop it.



ExploderWizard said:


> Retraining: The concept of "bad" decisions being judged so because they were not optimized for job X even though the player had fun with that choice is one that seems more at home in tabletop battle games than in a roleplaying game.



What about "bad" decisions that looked like fun but turned out not to be?  "Sorry, you made a mistake, you're stuck with it for the life of the character."  "OK, I commit suicide and introduce the character's previously unrevealed twin."  It's a game, the purpose is to have fun, not to suffer.



ExploderWizard said:


> 4E is not an MMO of course. It is a superhero tabletop roleplaying game wherein the protagonists dress in robes and armor rather than capes and tights. The move from swords and sorcery to supers is I think, the cause of a great deal of the resistance.



That move happened in 3e, if not sooner.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> If you're happy with 4E, the question then becomes whether there's some middle ground that would have made players like you and players like me happy. Maybe the answer to that is that no, we're too far apart. We're better off playing entirely different games.




Couldn't you ask that same question about 3e in regard to all the 3e is not D&D people?


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 9, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I'll take your word for it on the gnomes, but I thought more was needed to make them a playable race than what was in the 4E MM.




They're _playable_ as is. They aren't considered kosher for the RPGA yet.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> One of the reasons that 3.5 works for me is that the system was flexible enough that you could make changes like this with relatively little difficulty (to me at least, your results may vary). 4E feels a lot more rigid to me, even if the assumed power level is back on track for what I consider _fantasy normal_.




Which is strange to me... Because 4e feels way easier to modify then 3e ever felt to me. (Maybe our brains work differently.)


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> One of the reasons that 3.5 works for me is that the system was flexible enough that you could make changes like this with relatively little difficulty (to me at least, your results may vary). 4E feels a lot more rigid to me, even if the assumed power level is back on track for what I consider _fantasy normal_.



The funny thing is, a lot of people here have said the same about 3e (too rigid, didn't like elements of it but was afraid to tinker with it).  I don't see it in either case.  Especially if you're an old-school D&D player, tinkering should be in your _blood_. 

Personally I think 4e is even easier than 3e to tinker with (and 3e was pretty easy) because you know exactly what the system is trying to achieve with the numbers.  Whereas 3e was still largely constructed on a "make stuff up" basis.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> One of the reasons that 3.5 works for me is that the system was flexible enough that you could make changes like this with relatively little difficulty (to me at least, your results may vary). 4E feels a lot more rigid to me, even if the assumed power level is back on track for what I consider _fantasy normal_.




Um, drop monster attacks and defenses by 1 per 5 levels? Cut monster hp by an amount I can't calculate right now (probably around 2 per 5 levels)?

I mean, you probably have a lot of experience modding out 3.x, so I'm not surprised it's really easy for you to do the modding there, but I'm really seeing 4E as being difficult.

EDIT: On the increasing side, for every 5x _multiplier_ you put on PC wealth, increase monster attacks and defenses by the same amount.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 9, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Um, drop monster attacks and defenses by 1 per 5 levels? Cut monster hp by an amount I can't calculate right now (probably around 2 per 5 levels)?
> 
> I mean, you probably have a lot of experience modding out 3.x, so I'm not surprised it's really easy for you to do the modding there, but I'm really seeing 4E as being difficult.




There's no question in my mind that 4E is easier in that respect. DMs really get it easy in 4E, and that's one of the strengths of the system. Player-side modding is where I see the rigidity. Suppose I wanted to reintroduce Vancian magic to 4E. How would I do that? Say I wanted to ditch powers and go back to traditional class abilities? How would that work? Exactly how much work would be involved in creating a new class? If the system as a whole worked the way I like, maybe I'd find it easier, but I did make the decision not to get too heavily invested in it based on my opinion of the way it actually plays. I think it's easier to take the stuff I like and mod it in to 3.5 than it is to take the stuff I don't like out and mod the stuff I do like from 3.5 back in. Again, your results may vary.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Thats why I said maybe I was misunderstanding... Because it seemed like he was saying he was on their train but only because 3pp he bought from were associated with WoTC in some way, and not because he was buying actual WoTC books?




when they cut the other companies loose it pretty much made me realize my hope of getting anything for OD&D(1974) was not gonna happen.

i asked. and they confirmed it.

i wasn't on the train b/c of the 3pp. i was on the train for WotC coming thru for me.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Perhaps someone can point you in the direction of MerricB's breakdown of the 1e modules from a few years back, wherein magic items were neither rare nor particularly mysterious.




Modules? A completely different animal from a well judged campaign to be sure. 


Spatula said:


> Magic items had gp values in 1e DMG, and yes we (and many other people) used those values in the 80's to buy items in interdimensional bazaars. And all you needed to make items (per RAW) was raw materials, time, gold, and *some percentage checks* and presto - a magic item.




Emphasis mine. Magic item creation isnt something that should never happen but a degree of uncertainty helps keep it from feeling so much like automated production. The MMO part is the guaranteed success.



Spatula said:


> Artificer class, 3e Eberron Campaign book.




A lot of things started in 3E that were taken farther in 4E. Never got any Ebberon stuff, didn't know about that one.



Spatula said:


> ...don't exist in 4e (but did in 3e! in the Knight class, PHB2). Monsters still have free will and aren't computer controlled. Defender types provide disincentives for opponents to attack other targets; otherwise intelligently-played monsters skip over the tin cans and eat the wizard, and there's nothing that the tin-can can do to stop it.




Technically correct but a "disincentive" without an acceptable explanation is customarily known as BS to a lot of people.



Spatula said:


> What about "bad" decisions that looked like fun but turned out not to be? "Sorry, you made a mistake, you're stuck with it for the life of the character." "OK, I commit suicide and introduce the character's previously unrevealed twin." It's a game, the purpose is to have fun, not to suffer.




It really depends on the nature of said "mistake". If the mistake was not taking feat X at level Y because they had no idea that the Splattboox of Uber-pwnage would be coming out so soon and they cant get the powerz of dooom without that feat at level Y then I wouldn't be having fun at that game. Why should they?


Spatula said:


> That move happened in 3e, if not sooner.




To certain degree I think you're right.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> There's no question in my mind that 4E is easier in that respect. DMs really get it easy in 4E, and that's one of the strengths of the system. Player-side modding is where I see the rigidity. Suppose I wanted to reintroduce Vancian magic to 4E. How would I do that? Say I wanted to ditch powers and go back to traditional class abilities? How would that work? Exactly how much work would be involved in creating a new class? If the system as a whole worked the way I like, maybe I'd find it easier, but I did make the decision not to get too heavily invested in it based on my opinion of the way it actually plays. I think it's easier to take the stuff I like and mod it in to 3.5 than it is to take the stuff I don't like out and mod the stuff I do like from 3.5 back in. Again, your results may vary.




Fair enough. That is an issue I may have, as I'm building some 4E classes now. To be honest, I had no idea in 3.x what kind of thing I should even be shooting for as a baseline of power since it seemed kinda all over the place, whereas in 4E my plan is to basically rip powers I like from existing classes and reskin them at first. After a while of doing that I expect to be proficient enough to create my own.

But swapping back to a pure-vancian system (for some classes and not all) would be really problematic, especially if you were trying to keep the balance that's come out of making the classes follow the same structure. If you figure "eh, good enough is good enough" you can probably actually still use something like a 4-encounter day as a baseline (again, haven't played enough to know exactly, but I gather that's _roughly_ when a party starts to run out of surges) and work from there.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Emphasis mine. Magic item creation isnt something that should never happen but a degree of uncertainty helps keep it from feeling so much like automated production. The MMO part is the guaranteed success.



MMOs invented the concept of being able to build something in a game without an arbitrary chance of failure?  Somehow I don't think that concept is in any way unique or distincitive to MMOs...

In WoW, there's no chance of failure when you set out to craft an item.  The arbitrary chance is elsewhere in the system, in that you're usually making items to increase your crafting skill, and you won't always get the increase (in which case the raw materials, gold, time, etc. put into making the item is pretty much wasted from your point of view).  However, there's no reason that the crafting has to be reliable.  If it wasn't, WoW would not suddenly become not an MMO or any less (or more) like D&D.  It's a mechanic that says nothing at all about the gameplay.

In 3e, there's no chance of failure when you set out to craft a magic item.  That's because the designers were trying to get away from the DM vs the players mentality present in earlier editions.

Just because you take damage from falling in both games, doesn't mean that one is copying the other.



ExploderWizard said:


> It really depends on the nature of said "mistake". If the mistake was not taking feat X at level Y because they had no idea that the Splattboox of Uber-pwnage would be coming out so soon and they cant get the powerz of dooom without that feat at level Y then I wouldn't be having fun at that game. Why should they?



It's amazing how you know what's going on in everyone's mind as they play.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> MMOs invented the concept of being able to build something in a game without an arbitrary chance of failure? Somehow I don't think that concept is in any way unique or distincitive to MMOs...
> 
> In WoW, there's no chance of failure when you set out to craft an item. The arbitrary chance is elsewhere in the system, in that you're usually making items to increase your crafting skill, and you won't always get the increase (in which case the raw materials, gold, time, etc. put into making the item is pretty much wasted from your point of view). However, there's no reason that the crafting has to be reliable. If it wasn't, WoW would not suddenly become not an MMO or any less (or more) like D&D. It's a mechanic that says nothing at all about the gameplay.




Its nothing to do with gameplay or balance, or really mechanics at all. Its all about feel.




Spatula said:


> It's amazing how you know what's going on in everyone's mind as they play.




Whats even more amazing is the assumtion that such information could only be learned from mind reading.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 9, 2009)

I think one reason the 4e has caused such controversy was the time-frame it was released.

The 3e situation.

Since 1st and 2nd Edition AD&D were pretty much the same, we can say D&D used the same game base for about 25 years.

TSR was in financial trouble and might have gone under.  People were actually worried about the survival of the game.

WoTC swooped in.  WoTC showed a lot of respect for the fan-base.  While there were controversial decisions, they did things like make overtures to the various creators, invited them to the announcements, etc.  A lot of the TSR culture still existed, so you had people like Monte Cook (2nd Ed) and Skip Williams (1st Ed) working on it.  D&D still had a lot of the elements we expected, such as vancian magic, etc.

WoTC tried a radical thing with third-party publishers.  I'm in disagreement with the way it was done--the OGL was a little too liberal, as I agree with most of Gary's assertations in my signature--but they were working with third-party publishers, a far cry from the 2nd edition culture.

Contrast to the following 4e situation.

This new edition came only 8 years after the new 3e game.  With a game as big as D&D it seems way too soon.  I would say for a game the size of D&D you'd need at least 12 years before releasing such updates.  There was also a somewhat mixed reaction to the "3.5" edition.  I believe a lot of the fan-base saw this as completely unnecessary.

Very few of the "old guard" are left.  Most went to form their own companies.  There is less traditionalism left at the core of WoTC.  A lot of things have been rebooted, such as monsters, cosmology, etc.  It seems to be more based on brand building.  

The games presentation is a lot different.  It's a boring read IMO.  It may be well balanced but it doesn't seem like the same thing.  With 3e a wizard was a wizard, we still had the concepts of magic resistance, we still had most of the spells and magic items we grew up with.

Third-party publisher support seems to be in Limbo right now.  Legal and Executive forces have ended up giving us a red-tape scenario.  I agree that the OGL was too permissive, but the way they handled the GSL rollout and communication with third-parties was very poor. 

So--I believe this is why you still have a lot of fighting over this stuff.  With the 3e rollout the only major complaints I saw were changes in the campaign settings--Greyhawk was sort of "absorbed" into the core and changes to lore affected that setting most.  I didn't see a lot of people complaining about the mechanics and the way things have gone.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> So--I believe this is why you still have a lot of fighting over this stuff. With the 3e rollout the only major complaints I saw were changes in the campaign settings--Greyhawk was sort of "absorbed" into the core and changes to lore affected that setting most. I didn't see a lot of people complaining about the mechanics and the way things have gone.




I have no doubt that the relatively short time between editions was the biggest source of resentment for some, but not me.

The problems with feel and genre confusion would be present and it wouldn't matter if that happened now or another 10 years from now. Despite what the OP of this thread is asserting, there are some gamers that want to play sword and sorcery fantasy and not supers fantasy and the passage of time will see them playing other games rather than playing something that they don't want.


----------



## merelycompetent (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no doubt that the relatively short time between editions was the biggest source of resentment for some, but not me.
> 
> The problems with feel and genre confusion would be present and it wouldn't matter if that happened now or another 10 years from now. Despite what the OP of this thread is asserting, there are some gamers that want to play sword and sorcery fantasy and not supers fantasy and the passage of time will see them playing other games rather than playing something that they don't want.




It is very clear to me, now, that there are multiple sources of resentment.

The OP, IMO, describes one; you have very succinctly and accurately described two more. I would add another from my own experience:

Edition shock. The degree of mechanics, fluff, and setting change in editions is too much. "My campaign has to end before I can use the new edition."

I seem to recall a lot of comments about people winding down their campaigns because of the 4E release. Heck, I recall mention from various WotC staff flat out saying that there would be no real way to go from previous editions of D&D to 4E, mechanics-wise. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong in my recollections.) The cosmology and setting changes, linked to those rules differences, only increased the edition shock.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 9, 2009)

I knew this thread had potential. Granted, it took the involvement of a wotc marketer to really take off but it did deliver… edition bashing, indignation, coloured text, coke metaphors, and major drifts!



Umbran said:


> Discarding it as a (or the) major reason out of hand is also glib.  Do not throw out hypothesis that are consistent with the evidence out of hand.  You don't need to be bound by them - just keep them in mind as possibilities.
> 
> I am not, personally, one who holds to most models that human reactions work in "stages".  That does not mean the model does not hold some goodly wisdom you can extract, and use to your own benefit.



The thing is, I believe this model is accurate, for the most part. At any rate, irrational resistance to change is a common phenomenon. I know I experience it all the time. But, like most psychological interpretations, it is just not applicable to every situation. More often than not, many more parameters come into play.

In this case, one of the op's faulty assumptions is that reactions can be “independent of how much better or worse the new thing is”. Unlike the software products in his analogy, a game is not a means to an end, it’s an end in itself. Edition wars are very much about content, you can’t just hand wave that away. And since it’s a matter of preference, not efficiency, gamers have no reason to assume by default the new edition is an improvement, even if it “worked for a bunch of people”.

The proposed explanation is not that “consistent with the evidence” either. Many h4ters simply don’t follow the pattern described in the SCM.
Some early adopters of 3e violently rejected 4e. What made them change their behaviour patterns if not the game's content?
Some weren’t satisfied with 3e anymore and expected serious changes. They just happened to hate the way 4e “fixed” things. Their arguments certainly don’t come down to “I like what I have now. Please don't take it away from me”

And most of all, you don't need “resistance to change” to explain edition wars. Like I said previously, online wars happen all the time, over many things that don’t involve changing habits. Enworld is a fan site, this is what fans do. And like you said, “the internet medium creates, amplifies, and sustains the reaction.”



Umbran said:


> Either people lack basic notions of polite discussion, or there's more than that going on. Given that we are collectively capable of polite discussion about most other topics, the former reason does not explain the behaviour.
> Ergo, there's more than "love of debate" going on.  Probably several things.



This is mostly a dnd site. What could be more polarizing than a new edition?
Even though people here had different tastes and played other games, 3e was the shared experience that made them stick together, the common language if you will. Like it or not, at some point, one “side” or the other will feel excluded from this community (there can only be so many diaglos) or even from the dnd “scene”, depending on where they live. So of course it’s an emotionally charged debate and some posters will get bitter or irrational at times. But I don’t think the causes themselves are that irrational.

...if that makes sense.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 9, 2009)

bouncyhead said:


> The reason that there are so few edition discussions that focus on specifics/mechanics is that very few non-adopters (in my experience) have rejected 4E for specific/mechanical reasons ('I would play it but for the multi-classing rules', 'It's great but I can't bring myself to like minions'). They just don't like the taste. Asking them 'but what do you specifically dislike about the taste?' probably won't elicit any kind of constructive response ('I dunno... it's just... different' or the classic 'It just doesn't FEEL like D&D').




I don’t know that I agree with your premise. But I will say that if the dislike was as simple as “I would play it but for the multi-class rules” then that person would just house-rule the multi-class rules and move on. The dislike has to be lots of things, something that is pervasive, or feel. (Though I’m not sure that a change in “feel” isn’t most likely due to one of the other two things.)



Korgoth said:


> But can anyone, whether friend or foe of 4E, look McSmiley in his four eyes and tell me/him that 4E does *not* remind you, in any way, of World of Warcraft?




Yeah, I can. Because I know little about WoW other than it’s name. Never played it. Never seen it played. Never visited the website. ^_^

Yes, games like WoW are like D&D. But what Korgoth is saying, I believe, is this: «Look at the ways that WoW is _not_ like pre-4e D&D. (...Korgoth & I might rather say pre-3e...) Doesn’t 4e look more like those parts of WoW than earlier editions?»



Darrin Drader said:


> Yes, but instead of gnomes and half-orcs, we get eladrin, tieflings, and dragonborn. [...] It strikes me as change purely for the sake of change.




Hey, look! I’m going to defend 4e now!

There has long been a contingent that never found gnomes or half-orcs attractive. (Or maybe two contingents with significant overlap.) I think since the 1e PHB was released.

Plus, I think it’s clear that the designers thought that tieflings and dragonborn rounded out the set better than gnomes and half-orcs. Especially from a mechanical point-of-view.

While I’m not sure I would agree with the decision, I can’t really call that change for its own sake.



> By the argument Darin raises here D&D could never evolve, we would be forever wedded to the concept and ideas of Gygax and co because finding ideas that may work better in a game are "change for change's sake".




The problem is that people who don’t like bits of the game or who misunderstand bits of the game get this idea that their way is _better_ when all it really is is _different_.

Nigh every person who has ever played D&D has ideas about how to “improve” it. Yet good luck getting even two of them to agree on an exact set of changes.

(I’d be surprised if this weren’t true among the 4e designers themselves. I’m betting the game isn’t a consensus among the designers. Rather authority or majority decided which way things went.)

While products do develop, the rate of change should slow down and the product become stable.

Of course, then they say that it is “evolve or die”. D&D would whither on the vine just like TSR let it.

1. People who know late 2e much better than I do often point out that much of 3e has its roots in late 2e. So, TSR _was_ trying to make it evolve as it was dying on the vine.

2. People said Steve Jobs was crazy for starting the Apple Stores because Gateway and all the other failures had _proved_ that they wouldn’t be a success. The Apple Stores are now the most successful retail stores per square-foot. So don’t hand me such a simplistic analogy. The incompetence of TSR at the end was legion. Just because TSR failed at something doesn’t mean it can be done successfully.

Rather than changing the mechanics of D&D, they should focus on better explaining the mechanics that are there. That’s the sort of change D&D really needed. A simple game that introduces people to the hobby and emphasizes the hobby’s strengths.

Games as complex and experimental as 3e and 4e should be separate games that would sell _better_ if D&D was doing a better job of growing the hobby.

Of course, I’m betting my livelihood on network security devices instead of role-playing games, so my opinion carries zero weight. But this country was founded on Monday-morning quarterbacking, right? ^_^


----------



## Umbran (Jan 9, 2009)

lutecius said:


> The thing is, I believe this model is accurate, for the most part. At any rate, irrational resistance to change is a common phenomenon. I know I experience it all the time. But, like most psychological interpretations, it is just not applicable to every situation. More often than not, many more parameters come into play.




I agree (and have already stated) that this should not be taken to explain 100% of every individual's reactions.  However, I also think that with a group this large and diverse, no single explanation will cover everyone.  Not this, nor any other simple, glib statement about people.

Try it as, "This may explain some of what you see from some people," and think of it as a contributor to the overall dynamic of the place, and it has some usefulness.  Like most generalizations, it has little application to particular individuals. 



> In this case, one of the op's faulty assumptions is that reactions can be “independent of how much better or worse the new thing is”. Unlike the software products in his analogy, a game is not a means to an end, it’s an end in itself.




I think this is inaccurate.  When people get together with friends, sit down, and play D&D, they have some desires and expectations that are not "play D&D" - the game is a means to one or more ends, a tool we use to reach the ends.  We sometimes broadly generalize this to "I play to have fun" - where "fun" is a highly variable thing.




> And since it’s a matter of preference, not efficiency, gamers have no reason to assume by default the new edition is an improvement, even if it “worked for a bunch of people”.




Even in the working world, one generally has no reason to assume that a new tool is an improvement to your particular work.  So, that's not really a difference.



> The proposed explanation is not that “consistent with the evidence” either. Many h4ters simply don’t follow the pattern described in the SCM.




Again, please drop the idea that this 100% explains everything for all people.  While the OP may or may not have intended that, every time I've suggested it not be discarded out of hand, I've tried to phrase it as a possible contributor, not the whole explanation.  




> And most of all, you don't need “resistance to change” to explain edition wars. Like I said previously, online wars happen all the time, over many things that don’t involve changing habits.




I think you need something a bit more potent than "the internet is like that" to fully explain a *year long* war among people who had previously been shown to have their heads by-and-large screwed on straight.  




> This is mostly a dnd site. What could be more polarizing than a new edition?...
> 
> ...if that makes sense.




As a long-time poster here, I feel we should be seeking ways to understand each other, such that we can work around and through such disruptions more quickly and easily.  As a moderator this is more than a feeling - it is a responsibility.

I find your explanation to be rather more absolute than the OP's, and yours is also rather more simplistic - so much so that it gives us no real handles to work with.  To me, you seem to be saying, "The internet and fans are like that, there's nothing to be done about it."   

It is possible that what you are saying is part of the problem.  But it is also saying that it is a part of the problem that is thoroughly outside any of our influences.  I'm not going to worry much about problems I cannot fix - I'll deal with the ones I might be able to help, thank you.

Meanwhile, I'm looking at a model here that does seem to explain at least some of the reaction, and that gives me some thoughts to work with, both as a moderator and as a fellow poster on these boards, that might lead to more constructive patterns of behavior in the long term.

Which, then, should I be paying attention to?


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 9, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I knew this thread had potential. Granted, it took the involvement of a wotc marketer to really take off…





yeah, and after it took off, he took off, never to be seen again.  

I feel bad for the guy.  It's a tough situation he is in, trying to keep people on a train that appears to be shedding passengers left and right. 

I don't know what's in his, or anyone else from WOTC's minds when they post here. I don't know if what they say is something they have to say because of corporate demands, or something from the heart, or both. But you can't get mad or frustrated with them. We've probably all been in that situation with a company we worked for before.  These guys have mouths to feed, bills to pay, and careers to grow.  

I was chatting with someone from the board the other night, and discussed my desire to have a 100% spin-free forum where we can ask questions and get answers without the corporate BS, ra-ra, or spin, and without the "We can's divulge that info at this time" type answers.  But it will never happen, and I understand why.  

I just try and keep in mind that it's not the fault of the individual reps/posters from WOTC who come on here and interface with us.  It's just a corporate thing.  It is what it is.   

I know its hard not to direct your anger or frustration with WOTC at the WOTC guys who show up here,  But we have to keep in mind they are just gamers--like us, just trying to do their job, pay the bills, and get by---like us.

Just my 2 cents, after some afterthoughts about some of my comments coming out harshly against Mr. Rouse, rather than where they should have been directed against. 

Sorry man.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 9, 2009)

RFisher said:


> 2. People said Steve Jobs was crazy for starting the Apple Stores because Gateway and all the other failures had _proved_ that they wouldn’t be a success. The Apple Stores are now the most successful retail stores per square-foot. So don’t hand me such a simplistic analogy. The incompetence of TSR at the end was legion. Just because TSR failed at something doesn’t mean it can be done successfully.




Um, you might want to reconsider that analogy.

People said Jobs was crazy to open stores for selling computers, because Gateway and all the other failures had proved that they wouldn't be a success.

Note how they opened the first Apple store in may of 2001.  The iPod was introduced in October of 2001.  Ever been in an Apple Store?  The computers are typically in the back - the front is all iPods and iPhones.  

So, basically Jobs _didn't do_ what Gateway and the other computer sellers did.  He turned his computer company into a personal electronics company, and succeeded by _not doing what the failed companies did_.

Thus, by your own analogy, if you don't want to end up like TSR - take that same expertise, and do something other than what TSR did with it...


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2009)

Darrin Drader said:


> There's no question in my mind that 4E is easier in that respect. DMs really get it easy in 4E, and that's one of the strengths of the system. Player-side modding is where I see the rigidity. Suppose I wanted to reintroduce Vancian magic to 4E. How would I do that? Say I wanted to ditch powers and go back to traditional class abilities? How would that work? Exactly how much work would be involved in creating a new class? If the system as a whole worked the way I like, maybe I'd find it easier, but I did make the decision not to get too heavily invested in it based on my opinion of the way it actually plays. I think it's easier to take the stuff I like and mod it in to 3.5 than it is to take the stuff I don't like out and mod the stuff I do like from 3.5 back in. Again, your results may vary.




But that's not entirely fair either.

How easy would it be to strip out Vancian casting from 3e?  Say I wanted to add powers to 3e.  How would I do that?  It took two entire books, Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle to do even a half assed job of doing it.  Five hundred pages of rules is not exactly a light lifting job.  

You're basically complaining about the lack of backwards compatibility.  But, 3e is barely compatible with what came before either.  Try adding a clerical Sphere system to 3e and watch how much work you have in front of you.  Try bringing in racial level limits into 3e and watch what happens to your game.  How about using a 1e era initiative system with the 3e combat rules?  Not exactly an easy fit.

Can you mod 4e to look like 3e?  Probably.  It'd be a huge amount of work, but you could probably do it.  Can you mod 3e to look like 2e or BD&D?  Again, probably but it'd be a huge amount of work.  What's the difference here?  

And, the better question in my mind is, why would you bother?  If you want to play 3e, do so.  For years on En World, the standard answer to those who didn't like a given game was to try a different game.  Why should 4e be any different in that regard?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 9, 2009)

This thread has been working at my subconscious a bit, I guess.

I think the friction between pro-3E and pro-4E people, more than anything, is analogous to a breakup of a group of close college friends.  Most people who had a really close-knit group of friends in college, and lost them to the Real World, may have some idea of what I'm talking about.

It's a sense of feeling you are weaker and lesser when you're not with your friends than when you are.  (And by "with," I don't mean physically present, but rather sharing the same experiences in a very close way.)  It's a very real feeling of wondering if you'll ever have friends like those again.

When I was in undergrad and law school, I had friends like that, and when we were in the process of being pulled apart by Real Life, some of us quarreled.  (To a lawyer, BTW, an "argument" and a "quarrel" are very, very different things.)

I remember thinking -- ridiculously, with the benefit of perspective -- that they were deliberately breaking up the group.  And -- again with 10 years to look back on it -- I'm sure they felt the same about me.  And we fought.  And fractured.  And the loss of friendship, in some cases, became total instead of partial.

Is that "resistance to change"?  I suppose it is.  But it's a very specific kind of resistance to change, and it feels to me (obviously) that it fits much better than the model presented.  I didn't want to lose this mass of 3.5-playing "friends."  I felt that by moving to 4E, people were choosing to "break up the band."  And it made me -- well, angry's not the right word -- but something heading in that direction.

My point is that, IMO, I didn't do my (limited) snipping at pro-4E people because I was resistant to the change between 3.5 and 4E.  I "warred" with them because I felt they were breaking up the largest D&D group ever.  And they warred with me because they felt _I_ was.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jan 9, 2009)

joethelawyer said:


> yeah, and after it took off, he took off, never to be seen again.
> 
> I feel bad for the guy.  It's a tough situation he is in, trying to keep people on a train that appears to be shedding passengers left and right.




I agree, the Rouse got it a lot harder than he deserved. I'm at least partially responsible for that, and I apologize for venting my frustrations as strongly as I did. I still like WotC - honestly. Doesn't mean I'm not frustrated, but it seems like there's plenty of that to go around these days.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Um, you might want to reconsider that analogy.




^_^ See, it just is _not_ that simple. The success of the Apple Store is _not_ just because they have iPods in the front. (I can see the articles that would’ve been written if they’d just called in the iPod store. Probably even more negative.) Yeah, I’ve been in one. I happen to know quite a lot about them beyond what you see from just walking in one. I happen to have a bit of experience with the retail business myself.

Likewise, the failure of TSR is much deeper than they had too many products or they didn’t listen to their customers. (Though the latter is a greatly more important factor than the former.)


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Which, then, should I be paying attention to?




I certainly wouldn't presume to summarize the whole thread. But what I see as cardinal to this discussion is that the OP presumes, as others have before, to explain resistance to 4e in terms of psychology rather than the content of 4e itself. I believe that is simply wrong. There are probably those who exhibit irrational resistance, but I do not think they are the heart of the ongoing tension. Partisanship is simply not that interesting. While someone could label the debates as post hoc defenses of opinions already formed, that is not my impression. 

I believe that most 4e resistors are motivated more by perceived loss than actual resistance. Loss of publication and development, loss of being the WotC flagship game, loss of new players, loss of the third party market. Most importantly, loss of being the target demographic. Many people have found that things were "fixed" that they preferred as they were. 

If ENWorld really wants to come to peacable terms, it will have to be accepted that the 3e/4e rift is permanent and irrenconciliable. That is not to say that people cannot be friends or that you cannot play and enjoy both, simply that there are two significant fan bases that are not going to merge. It is not simply going to blow over. I remember many people boasting that everyone would change over to 4e, eventually, just as everyone left AD&D behind for 3e.... I believe that is just not going to be the case. 

That puts ENWorld in an interesting position. A fanbase that was before fairly united now has two factions that exist for more than arbitrary reasons. Some people will not be switching to 4e. Ever. If the site remains friendly, no problem. Everyone benefits from the shared enthusiasm for gaming. But if it turns into endless sniping, one side will eventually find itself in the weaker position, and will likely move on to other sites. Most likely, that means 3e gaming will head elsewhere.

I think that would be a real poverty for the 4e fans. Other 4e enthusiasts are likely to have similar thoughts about gaming. But players who prefer 3e or other games entirely are fairly likely to bring a different set of preferences to the table, which brings with it different approaches to gaming. 

It would be a big hassle for the 3e players, too. I don't know anywhere on the net I'd consider equal to ENworld in terms of traffic and quality of the posts for third edition gaming. 

To bring it around... while the OP may have been intended as interested  musing on the edition shift, it reads as saying people who don't want to play 4e are irrationally resisting. Furthermore, it implies that people who resist 5e will be irrational, too.

I feel that there is such a thing as good game design. The result is not something you can meausre with a stick, or vote on, or compare sales figures for. But there is an art, and each game makes tradeoffs in order to best accomplish its goals. Some games are more successful than others. 

It is not necessary to argue 3e or 4e is better in order to simply argue they are _significantly different_ and that there are reasons to prefer one to the other. That's a topic I consider germane to this website. Baseless conjecture flying under the banner of marketing conventional wisdom is not really helpful to gamers.

Every post that says, "Yes, there is a reason to love your favorite game," helps ENWorld be a better place. Every post that says, "You prefer your favorite edition because you are a drone," makes it a worse place.


----------



## RFisher (Jan 9, 2009)

I don’t think I’m the only one who keeps coming back here for reasons other than 3e, d20, or 4e.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Modules? A completely different animal from a well judged campaign to be sure.



Game supplements written by the game's author are incompatible with a "well judged campaign"?  Anyway, the point is that 3e wasn't a break with tradition in terms of the commonality of magic items, it was going back to 1e.



ExploderWizard said:


> Technically correct but a "disincentive" without an acceptable explanation is customarily known as BS to a lot of people.



There's loads of BS in D&D, and always has been.  The dual-classing rules in 1e.  Multi-classing not being available to humans.  Level limits.  No one but humans and half-humans being to take the clerics class. etc. etc.



ExploderWizard said:


> Its nothing to do with gameplay or balance, or really mechanics at all. Its all about feel.



A feel that has nothing to do with MMOs.  You could fail at crafting items in UO, EQ, and possibly other online games as well.



ExploderWizard said:


> Whats even more amazing is the assumtion that such information could only be learned from mind reading.



Yes, retraining rules could be used to powergame.  *Any* player option can be used to powergame.  Some players find fun in that, and if that's what they & their group enjoy, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.  Some players use options to try and find a better expression for their character.  The shift from cookie-cutter disposable heroes in the early days of D&D, to highly customized characters that are expected to stick around for long periods of time, has necessitated that their be some allowance for players to be happy with the choices they make for their character.  Experienced & decent DMs will say, "It's alright, go ahead and change it" but newbie DMs will not necessarily get that.  The retraining rules let everyone know that if you make a bad choice, you don't have it dragging your character down for the months (and possibly years) ahead.


----------



## jensun (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The problems with feel and genre confusion would be present and it wouldn't matter if that happened now or another 10 years from now. Despite what the OP of this thread is asserting, there are some gamers that want to play sword and sorcery fantasy and not supers fantasy and the passage of time will see them playing other games rather than playing something that they don't want.



Really?

Because i am finding it significantly easier to run a Sword and Sorcery Elric/Conan inspired game in 4e currently than I ever did with 3e.  

Past about level 8 3e too easily resembles caped crusaders.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 9, 2009)

On my WOW digression (which we can leave aside if folks prefer, since it is a digression), people have pointed out that some of the WOWish elements (retraining, disenchanting, etc.) were also elements of the latter days of 3.5. I probably bailed on 3.5 before many or most of those were introduced, so they're not really on my radar.

Unlike a lot of people who don't find 4E to be very much like what they consider to be D&D, I also don't care for 3E. Now, 3E (core) seems _more_ like D&D than 4E... I'd say (personal estimation, here) that 4E is really a new game that's merely named D&D. I still think 3E is D&D, although it diverts from and even inverts some of the core assumptions in ways that I feel make it not worth playing.

I still think that if 4E had been marketed not as "D&D" but as something like "Dungeons and Dragons Presents: Worlds of BattleArtifice" or "Dungeons & Dragons Legends" or something like that, people would be less annoyed. They could have left the core of 3E in print in some form if they wanted (some people are pretty into that, though it doesn't matter to me).

Consumers like options. At one point from TSR you could D&D in the 1974 white box (OCE), the blue Holmes book, the Moldvay magenta and cyan boxes *and* the AD&D hardcovers. And this is when the popularity of the game was surging. Heck, I'd like it if they'd reprint OD&D 1974 right now... all the easier for me to recruit players to my games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2009)

Krensky said:


> The New Coke analogy works for what I've seen it used (other then a few snarky lines) on this discussion for. Discussing the effects of flawed market research running into issues of brand and personal identity. Whether or not and ,if so, to what degree WotC's market research during the development of 4e was flawed is impossible to say without seeing it. It appears some parts of it was based upon the apparent (albeit mostly anecdotal) size and strength of the reaction people have to the result. That both products are running into problems with consumers identity of themselves and the product is accurate. That both are largely facing dislike over intangables is accurate.




I think its more fair to say that there wasn't a flaw in WotC's research, but there may have been a flaw in its interpretation.  And, like New Coke, that flawed conclusion may have been undetectable until 4Ed was released into the marketplace as a replacement to 3Ed.

(OTOH, even _without_ access to WotC's data, I was raising the NC comparison on this site while we were still getting the occasional preview of the game- that is, before it had actually hit the market.  I can't have been the only one to have similar misgivings.)



> The difference, as I see it, is that you like the changes from 2e to 3e more than you like the changes from 3e to 4e, which makes the 3e-4e changes seem far more radical.




That 3Ed was as radical a change from 2Ed as 4Ed was from 3Ed I find to be non-controversial.

The differences between the transitions, though, are crucial:

1) WotC tried to make it possible to transition 2Ed PCs and campaigns into 3Ed campaigns with as little pain as possible, even going so far as to publishing a conversion manual (of which I own 2).  With 4Ed, we were told conversions were essentially a waste of time, and that starting anew would be preferable.  This means that those of us who had campaigns dating back many years (like mine which started in the 1980s) were essentially given a date certain after which those campaigns would no longer be supported by the new version of the game.

2) 3Ed changes were largely mechanical, not fluff, and the mechanical changes were, by and large significantly positive changes to the earlier editions.  The math, for instance, became much more intuitive.

3Ed didn't touch the fluff by excising classes or races.  It didn't alter the cosmology significantly.  Instead, it was about expanding possibilities- hence, the elvish paladins and more open multiclassing structure.

In contrast, the mechanical differences weren't inherently superior, just different.  Racial or Class options that existed in the 3Ed PHB were gone.  The alignment system was truncated (and in an oddly unbalanced fashion).

3) 3Ed was all about freeing up character options.  Within a small set of restrictions, you could have your PC of any race have any combination of any classes...even if it was mechanically sub-optimal.  The designers of 3Ed trusted the DMs and players to be able to design fun PCs and campaigns.

4Ed's design favoring a mechanical preference for balance is inherently more restrictive.  A sub-optimal PC is much less possible.  The 4Ed designers tightening of PC design restrictions (especially in multiclassing) amounts to a lack of trust in player decisions.

IOW, whereas in the 3Ed transition, WotC tried to ensure backwards compatibility, maintained many thematic touchstones of the game's previous incarnations, and _expanded_ options within the Core releases as compared to its predecessor, 4Ed was decidedly NOT backwards compatible, killed or maimed many sacred cows, and _reduced_ Core options as compared to 3Ed.

Obviously, that didn't sit well for many.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2009)

Scribble said:


> But the question I have to ask is, were they really still on WoTC's train (or planning to stay on much longer?)




I can't speak for everyone, but I was.

I purchased most (but not all) of the 3Ed and 3.5Ed products, and I pre-ordered my Core 3 4Ed books.  I had ZERO intent on "exiting" WotC's train.

Then I got to see the train...exit, stage left.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> [...]  I pre-ordered my Core 3 4Ed books.  I had ZERO intent on "exiting" WotC's train.
> 
> Then I got to see the train...exit, stage left.



Me, too.

I had more warning that I was losing my Amtrak ride than most, because the DDM 2.0 rules were released so much earlier than 4E.  But even then, I was thinking (and saying) things like, "Hey, maybe these rules are simplified for miniatures play.  That would make sense.  These can't really be what they intend for 4E."

I'd still be buying 3.5 stuff, or I would have become a 4E completist ... if 4E were different.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed's design favoring a mechanical preference for balance is inherently more restrictive.  A sub-optimal PC is much less possible.  The 4Ed designers tightening of PC design restrictions (especially in multiclassing) amounts to a lack of trust in player decisions.



Removing options that are actually hidden traps is positive advancement, IMO.  Your viewpoint on this is probably going to be colored by who you game with - if your group is all people who like reading game rulebooks in their free time, putting those hidden traps into the game is fine (note: such people are not the norm).  As someone who games with a few low-information players who just want to sit down at the table once a week and have fun roleplaying & killing stuff, the myriad of actively harmful 3e character options is a minefield and a headache.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 9, 2009)

I posted this in another thread but thought it was relevant to the discussion of why 4E sometimes feels like WOW or other videogames and why this doesn't work for a PnP RPG.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with defining a "feel" as in "videogame feel", is that the person actually experiencing that feeling is not always aware of what particular set of stimuli has triggered that reaction. So defining it becomes a game of cat and mouse with your own unconscious. Add in twelve people on ENworld telling you, " you're wrong and you have the ingredients for a flame-war.

Also, to those of you like TwinBahamat, who feel that the comment "too videogamey" is negative to video games, I would say this. Some computer RPG conventions are NOT appropriate for porting into PnP based RPGs. They are fine in a computer game but don't belong in some people's PnP games and here is why I think this is the case. 

A computer game is essentially an audio-visual experience, it does not happen primarily in the imagination. This is why we can accept many conventions like complete healing after a short rest, daily powers, etc that bother many people about 4E. The audio-visual cues, in a CRPG, are stimulating enough that they allow us to get past any feelings of disbelief so that we are still immersed in the world/story. Essentially what we are seeing is overiding our own internal sense of the world and reinforcing the game world.

In a PnP based game, the imagination is where the action happens for many people and in this type of game any "flag of disbelief" is much more serious. The pictures and feelings are being formed from cues in the unconscious mind so it can literally ruin the atmosphere if something doesn't "feel" right. You can't start logical arguments with your unconscious and so the feeling of the game becomes all important in a PnP RPG where vermisilitude has to be a vital component of the game.

The disageements about 4E probably arise because, for many people, imagination is NOT where the D&D primarily happens for them. These kinds of people tend to be strategically or tactically involved in the game and love the combat most of all. They use battlegrids and view the whole game as about killing things and winning. Their imagination only happens in short flashes and then they are back to planning their next tactic. This style IMHO goes back to Gygax himself, as it seems to me that his games ran this way. 

I like both types of games but feel that the true potential of PnP RPGs lies in the use of the imagination; after all, no computer yet has one. So when I say D&D is becoming too video-gamey I mean that elements of the 4E mechanics, ported from video games for reasons of game balance or playability, are intruding into the narrative/storytelling aspect of the game and ruining my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Removing options that are actually hidden traps is positive advancement, IMO.  Your viewpoint on this is probably going to be colored by who you game with - if your group is all people who like reading game rulebooks in their free time, putting those hidden traps into the game is fine (note: such people are not the norm).  As someone who games with a few low-information players who just want to sit down at the table once a week and have fun roleplaying & killing stuff, the myriad of actively harmful 3e character options is a minefield and a headache.




My main game group largely consists of relatively experienced gamers who are married with kids.  One guy has ADHD.  At least one is a casual gamer.  Most don't have time to kick back in a wing-back by the fire with an RPG book and a glass of sherry.

Me?  I'm the guy who has been playing since '77, and could (at one time) design a HERO PC without the books.  (I haven't tried that in a while...)

For me, having more options is ALWAYS good, even if some are sub-optimal.  Every option gives me something- some combo I haven't explored, a new kind of PC I haven't played, a character with a new set of motivations- suboptimal or not.  (And yes, I routinely do a 20 level extrapolation on each 3.X PC to ensure he or she goes where he's supposed to.)

So what if my PC is mechanically suboptimal?  As long as the PC makes sense to himself- is true to his own internal logic- its all good.

Your "hidden traps" are my pathways to roleplay treasure.

I'm not looking to adventure with a bunch of supertweeked turbocharged PCs, I'm looking to adventure with a bunch of unique and interesting individuals.  If someone is having trouble designing a PC, I help them out.  If someone is working in a suboptimal direction (and _doesn't know it_), I inform them of this and point out other options to them.

I _don't_ design anyone's PC for them...and 3Ed recognizes that adults should be able to make their own PC design decisions.  But 4Ed doesn't trust gamers the same way 3Ed did.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 9, 2009)

On being "videogamey":

Personally, I don't play any of the multiplayer online CRPGs, so I can't say "4Ed mechanic X is so WoW-like!"

My main observation in this this particular arena was that Healing Surges reminded me of combat games like Tekken and Mortal Kombat.  I love those games, but I don't like that mechanic in RPGs.

OTOH, many of the guys in my group are not only big fans of those CRPGs, at least one programs games professionally.

_THEY _found elements of 4Ed, like "marking" to be distastefully videogamey for their tastes.  In their opinion, things like that were for computers to keep track of, not flesh-and-blood players.

I think its OK- unavoidable, really- for RPGs and their computer counterparts to cross-pollinate each other.  Problems can arise, however, when the influences are both 1) mechanical and 2) obvious to the player in question- nobody cares too much when the influence is a storyline or a bit of fluff.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 9, 2009)

The only video game influence I fear is plots that the players can't really affect, and things you just can't do because the designers forgot the feature (like climbing in general, or merely getting behind a certain wall to see what's there) But as long as we have a DM, we can avoid that in RPGs.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2009)

RFisher said:


> I don’t think I’m the only one who keeps coming back here for reasons other than 3e, d20, or 4e.




you are not alone.

diaglo "been coming back to D&D since 1979 even tho they don't make OD&D anymore" Ooi


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jan 9, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by PaulMaclean
> What surpises me this time around is the level and duration.






Truename said:


> I suspect that there was just as much reaction to the 2e->3e change (and the 1e->2e change), but there are now more people online and in this forum, so you see more of the reaction than before. (I can't prove this at all, so take that guess for what it's worth--not much ).




However my personal observation also includes 'real world' activities as well. I can only speak locally, but I do not remember this depth and length of reaction in 1e->2e and 2e->3e. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just that's what's happening in my area. I find it unusual in light of past experience.

However, the 4th ED DMG certainly is popular becuase of its advice on dealing with players in general. I know copies have sold just because of that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Game supplements written by the game's author are incompatible with a "well judged campaign"?




Yes, by the game's designers as well as other authors. I remember reading a quote from Gary about the amount of magic items awarded in published modules, including his, to be well above what should have been awarded.



Spatula said:


> There's loads of BS in D&D, and always has been. The dual-classing rules in 1e. Multi-classing not being available to humans. Level limits. No one but humans and half-humans being to take the clerics class. etc. etc.




Sure there is BS and you are correct that its always been there. Arbitrary rules exist in all editions. The number of these rules that would cause a character to scratch his head when observing the effects (marking?) has grown in the most recent editions.

Some rules changes would cause both a character and the player to take psychic damage when thinking about them.

Confusion anyone? How does inflicting brain damage along with a dose of short term domination come to be called confusion? Its because confusion is a recognized spell name that players expect to be in D&D. Uncertainty about taking actions, and against whom for any measurable duration simply doesn't fit into the precisely measured crap called game balance.

So, instead of doing away with the power (which would be fine if it didn't fit the design) they kept the name intact and attached it to effects that don't cause confusion for anyone but the reader. The gutting of all the flavor from recognized spell names is a lame attempt to hide whats been taken from the game. 



Spatula said:


> A feel that has nothing to do with MMOs. You could fail at crafting items in UO, EQ, and possibly other online games as well.




Great examples and true of earlier MMO games. Notice how this got cast aside with the later games and then made the trek back into tabletop gaming. What makes for a better play experience in one medium can ruin the flavor in another.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2009)

PaulMaclean said:


> However, the 4th ED DMG certainly is popular becuase of its advice on dealing with players in general. I know copies have sold just because of that.




I borrowed a copy from a friend to read for that very reason.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 9, 2009)

PaulMaclean said:


> I can only speak locally, but I do not remember this depth and length of reaction in 1e->2e and 2e->3e.




i can. but i can remember this kind of reaction to OD&D from Chainmail.

"you punk kids" was a common reaction from the wargamers.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 9, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> My point is that, IMO, I didn't do my (limited) snipping at pro-4E people because I was resistant to the change between 3.5 and 4E.  I "warred" with them because I felt they were breaking up the largest D&D group ever.  And they warred with me because they felt _I_ was.




Well said.  This fits me as well.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So what if my PC is mechanically suboptimal?



If that's what you're aiming for, great.  I have a fondness for weird characters myself - optimizing for damage or one-trick ponies isn't interesting to me.  I'd much rather create unusual concepts out of the available options.

If you got there through no fault of your own, not so great.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not looking to adventure with a bunch of supertweeked turbocharged PCs



Neither am I.  The point is to be able to contribue & have fun.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I _don't_ design anyone's PC for them...and 3Ed recognizes that adults should be able to make their own PC design decisions.  But 4Ed doesn't trust gamers the same way 3Ed did.



So you can't make your own PC design decisions in 4e?  I see plenty of options...


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Great examples and true of earlier MMO games. Notice how this got cast aside with the later games and then made the trek back into tabletop gaming.



3e's reliable crafting predates WoW by four years.  And the 3e designers (probably Monte Cook) have said that they made that change to, as I said previously, remove the DM vs the player potential.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My main observation in this this particular arena was that Healing Surges reminded me of combat games like Tekken and Mortal Kombat.



This has me scratching my head, so perhaps you can explain.  Granted it's been a long time since I've seen a fighting game.

Healing surges are an expansion of a mechanic from SWSE, btw.  CRPGs still pretty much use the nonsensical healing model of earlier editions of D&D: healing that comes in set amounts applied to larger and larger HP pools.  So, basically the opposite of "videogamey," if your yardstick is computer RPGs, anyway.


----------



## Stereofm (Jan 9, 2009)

Thank you to the OP for opening this wonderful thread.

I think some of my reasons (not all) for not wanting anything to do with 4e is indeed resistance to change.

Darrin earlier mentioned workspace change. A few years back, the company I worked with introduced a new process for handling certain client requests. 

I had to use this process, so I did but quickly realized all its flaws (especially bottlenecks) and the damage it could cause to my team. So instead, I kept the old one active in parallel to the new, without warning anybody.

Guess what : two months later, my team was the ONLY one in the company to have met its objectives. Two months again later, the author of the new process was fired due to the disaster of the heavy losses we took thanks to this abomination.

I got a bonus.

Change is not always good.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 9, 2009)

Spatula said:


> This has me scratching my head, so perhaps you can explain. Granted it's been a long time since I've seen a fighting game.
> 
> Healing surges are an expansion of a mechanic from SWSE, btw. CRPGs still pretty much use the nonsensical healing model of earlier editions of D&D: healing that comes in set amounts applied to larger and larger HP pools. So, basically the opposite of "videogamey," if your yardstick is computer RPGs, anyway.




Yeah, that's a head-scratcher for me, too. I'm not aware of _any_ video game that uses Surge-like mechanics. And I play a lot of video games.

Full-heal on rest is sorta "videogamey" in that it's in nearly every video game out there - including the ones based on 2E D&D, which just have you rest twice as long while the cleric auto-casts all his spells as healing spells.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 9, 2009)

> And they warred with me because they felt I was.




I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I "warred" with anti-4e people because I kept getting directly insulted by them with their claims that only a 13-year-old with ADD would like 4e, despite me being neither 13 years old nor suffering from ADD, or that I wasn't a real roleplayer if I liked it better than previous editions. I don't care if people don't like things that I do, but I do care when they get insulting or dismissive.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 9, 2009)

Halo 3.  Call of Duty 3,4, & 5.  Rainbow Six Vegas. Many others.

Rather than the earlier "HP models" where you needed to pick up the med-pack (i.e. healing potion) to heal (regain HP), today's games often have a "healing surge" when you avoid taking damage for a period of time taking you back to full health.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 9, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Halo 3. Call of Duty 3,4, & 5. Rainbow Six Vegas. Many others.
> 
> Rather than the earlier "HP models" where you needed to pick up the med-pack (i.e. healing potion) to heal (regain HP), today's games often have a "healing surge" when you avoid taking damage for a period of time taking you back to full health.




WOW is similar. When not fighting you gradually regain health. If you sit down the rate of healing increases and if you eat its faster still. 

I don't see this as a healing surge though. The amount of health you can regain isn't limted in any way. Its not like you can only regain so much health per hour then thats it. D&D healing surges are a finite resource that can be used up quickly during rests but can eventually run out until the character takes an extended rest. Healing surges are not really videogame-like in this respect although I find them to be a highly gamist concept.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 9, 2009)

> Halo 3.




Halo 3 - Shield System
- Automatic, with no input on the part of the player.
- Unlimited use, with no maximum cap on how many times it can recharge in a single encounter/mission/chapter.
- Independent of other resources; no need for health kits, special abilities, or the like.
- No secondary use.

D&D 4th Edition - Healing Surge
- Manual, with the player having to choose to spend a healing surge.
- Limited use, with a finite amount that can be spent in a single day.
- Dependent on other resources; potions or powers are required to use; the one exception is a five-minute rest to use them.
- Can be used to fuel abilities other than healing, such as magic items.

The only real point of similarity is that the shield's "don't take damage for several seconds" recharge quality can be compared to the healing surge's "spend as many as you want during a five-minute rest," since they both allow you to heal to full outside of combat (technically, the shield recharges inside of combat). Other than that, they are worlds apart.

This claim also doesn't deal with the fact that healing surges are far more akin to the Earthdawn healing system than any video game.


----------



## rounser (Jan 9, 2009)

> I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I "warred" with anti-4e people because I kept getting directly insulted by them with their claims that only a 13-year-old with ADD would like 4e, despite me being neither 13 years old nor suffering from ADD, or that I wasn't a real roleplayer if I liked it better than previous editions. I don't care if people don't like things that I do, but I do care when they get insulting or dismissive.



No Mourn, don't play victim here.  I've done neither of these things to you, yet we've argued a fair deal.  You've responded to near any suggestion that 4E has a flaw, and have a well deserved reputation for doing so.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 9, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Halo 3.  Call of Duty 3,4, & 5.  Rainbow Six Vegas. Many others.
> 
> Rather than the earlier "HP models" where you needed to pick up the med-pack (i.e. healing potion) to heal (regain HP), today's games often have a "healing surge" when you avoid taking damage for a period of time taking you back to full health.



wut?  Healing surges don't let you avoid taking damage.  They're simply a measure of your total health (25% of your total, normally) that allows healing to scale up as your HP total does.  This decouples healing from level-based distinctions and allows, say, a _cure light wounds_ spell to always heal light wounds on the target, regardless of how powerful the target is.


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 9, 2009)

rounser said:


> No Mourn, don't play victim here.




I'm not doing anything of the sort. He said that pro-4e people edition warred because they felt he was "breaking up the group," and I was pointing out that this is not true of all of the pro-4e edition warriors. I'm saying that people start  and I'll get my hands dirty. It's not in my nature to insult people for having different opinions (different strokes and all that), but it's perfectly in my nature to insult people in response to being insulted. Before the moderators really jumped on it, when the edition war was waging its hottest, many anti-4e posts were insulting towards people that actually liked the game (or were looking forward to it, before release), so I would respond in kind. Recently, you'll see my posting has fallen off (holidays, work schedule, and whatnot) and what posting I have been doing has been much less harsh.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> wut?  Healing surges don't let you avoid taking damage.  They're simply a measure of your total health (25% of your total, normally) that allows healing to scale up as your HP total does.  This decouples healing from level-based distinctions and allows, say, a _cure light wounds_ spell to always heal light wounds on the target, regardless of how powerful the target is.




Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage.  I said that in video games, once you've gone without taking damage for a period of time, the healing-surge-like effect occurs.  Obviously, the mechanics of a video game and a 4e healing surge will not be the same.  People have drawn comparisons based on similarities.  The similarity lies in that spontaneous healing occurs.  While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points.  With the healing surge, I can see where the comparison arises.  Mechanics like this have caused the video game comparisons.  If you don't see the comparisons, that's a valid viewpoint but it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint of those who do see the parallels.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 10, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> I'm not doing anything of the sort. He said that pro-4e people edition warred because they felt he was "breaking up the group," and I was pointing out that this is not true of all of the pro-4e edition warriors. I'm saying that people start  and I'll get my hands dirty. It's not in my nature to insult people for having different opinions (different strokes and all that), but it's perfectly in my nature to insult people in response to being insulted. Before the moderators really jumped on it, when the edition war was waging its hottest, many anti-4e posts were insulting towards people that actually liked the game (or were looking forward to it, before release), so I would respond in kind. Recently, you'll see my posting has fallen off (holidays, work schedule, and whatnot) and what posting I have been doing has been much less harsh.




On the flip side, many that were not 4e fans were shouted down or driven away by, shall we say, "overenthusiastic" responses by some of the pro-4e crowd.  The crap being flung came from both sides of the aisle.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 10, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage.  I said that in video games, once you've gone without taking damage for a period of time, the healing-surge-like effect occurs.  Obviously, the mechanics of a video game and a 4e healing surge will not be the same.  People have drawn comparisons based on similarities.  The similarity lies in that spontaneous healing occurs.  While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points.  With the healing surge, I can see where the comparison arises.  Mechanics like this have caused the video game comparisons.  If you don't see the comparisons, that's a valid viewpoint but it doesn't invalidate the viewpoint of those who do see the parallels.




See now this is kind of what I was talking about.

At heart is simply a mechanic for allowing a player to take his licks, and then get back into the action.

If you don't like the mechanic fair enough, but what difference does it make what inspired that mechanic?

What about the fact that it's used in a number of computer games has any relevance whatsoever?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That 3Ed was as radical a change from 2Ed as 4Ed was from 3Ed I find to be non-controversial.
> 
> The differences between the transitions, though, are crucial:
> 
> ...




This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e.  They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e.  They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.




It's a new edition. By not offering a new set of concepts and ideas, they'd be basically just selling me everything I already had. That pissed me off when they did it with 3.5


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> This has me scratching my head, so perhaps you can explain.  Granted it's been a long time since I've seen a fighting game.
> 
> Healing surges are an expansion of a mechanic from SWSE, btw.  CRPGs still pretty much use the nonsensical healing model of earlier editions of D&D: healing that comes in set amounts applied to larger and larger HP pools.  So, basically the opposite of "videogamey," if your yardstick is computer RPGs, anyway.




In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever).  In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.

Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.

Its a simple change, but it radically alters the game dynamics.  Parties in previous editions were somewhat like naval carrier groups- each unit type had its unique capabilities, and they depended upon each other to cover each others' weaknesses.

The healing surge somewhat weakens that interdependence.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> WOW is similar. When not fighting you gradually regain health. If you sit down the rate of healing increases and if you eat its faster still.
> 
> I don't see this as a healing surge though. The amount of health you can regain isn't limted in any way. Its not like you can only regain so much health per hour then thats it. D&D healing surges are a finite resource that can be used up quickly during rests but can eventually run out until the character takes an extended rest. Healing surges are not really videogame-like in this respect although I find them to be a highly gamist concept.



Indeed. That sounds more like a healing rate mechanic, like the 1 hp/level per day of rest (more with total rest and a healer tending to wounds) that was present in 3e.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 10, 2009)

Azgulor said:


> Nor did I say that healing surges let you avoid taking damage.



Ah, I see, I misintrepreted your wording.  You're mixing up healing surges with 4e's rest mechanics, which confused me.



Azgulor said:


> While the argument will likely devolve into the whole "what do HP represent argument", prior editions required rest or magical healing to restore hit points.



As does 4e, with the caveat that there is non-magical "healing."


----------



## FireLance (Jan 10, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> This was one of my biggest disconnects with 4e.  They tried very purposefully to kill all ties to previous editions, not just in mechanics, but in fluff, going so far as to flat out destroying Forgotten Realms to ensure there's absolutely no connection between their version and every previous version.



I think the intention was to start new players and older players on more or less the same footing. It's just another expression of the aim of making 4e more friendly to new players.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever).  In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.
> 
> Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.
> 
> ...



I think you can blame SWSE (that is, the game that many people say they wish 4e was more like...) for the second wind mechanic, rather than particular moves restricted to a handful of characters in fighting games.

I don't agree that the mechanic weakens the need for a balanced party, or at least not any moreso than UMD + healing scrolls & wands does in 3e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Scribble said:


> It's a new edition. By not offering a new set of concepts and ideas, they'd be basically just selling me everything I already had. That pissed me off when they did it with 3.5




I think its more like babies & bathwater.

I would have been fine with 4Ed if it were fundamentally like 3.5, but with the clunkier subsystems reworked, and the ambiguous terminology clarified.  For instance, if 4Ed was a 30 level system with 30 levels of magic where 1st lvl PCs get 1st level powers, 4th lvl PCs get 4th level powers, etc....but it was still substantially the same spells & mechanics as in 3.5 (moving spells up and down the chart for internal balance), that would have been more intuitive.

Instead, they changed things that, in many people's opinions, didn't need changing.  4Ed gave us the 30 levels of powers available at the level of the same nomenclature...but they gave them to _every class_.  And the mechanics of the spells were quite different.

Some people didn't like Gnomes because they felt they didn't have a distinct identity.  The 4Ed response:  ditch 'em from the PHB!  And while we're at it, add extra elves, scaly-folk and hornheads!

Couldn't they have just given gnomes a distinct identity?  Made elves (or gnomes) a bit more fey or something?

And even when the change was interesting, it often begged questions.  I can understand (though I don't agree with) the assertion that the 9 point alignment system wasn't good.  But the 4Ed system looks like someone just broke off some points.  A simple Good-Unaligned-Evil spectrum would have been cleaner and less puzzling.

I can understand bringing in Tieflings as a PC race...but I hate the idea that there are no Aasimar (or equivalents by any other name)- however rare they might have been- as a playable counterpart in the PHB.

As I read the 4Ed pre-release "leaks," such decisions left _me _scratching _my _head.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I think you can blame SWSE (that is, the game that many people say they wish 4e was more like...) for the second wind mechanic, rather than particular moves restricted to a handful of characters in fighting games.




The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.

I personally think that it is inevitable for RPGS and computer games to cross-pollinate each other, but I don't have to like it when I find the resultant hybrid breaking my willing suspension of disbelief.


> I don't agree that the mechanic weakens the need for a balanced party, or at least not any moreso than UMD + healing scrolls & wands does in 3e.




Except the scrolls and wands are in the hands of spellcasters and someone with UMD- healing surges are available to every PC in 4Ed.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In certain combat games (sometimes limited to only a few characters), it is possible to heal yourself in combat...assuming, of course, you avoid taking hits while you're taking the necessary actions (joystick wiggling, button mashing, whatever).  In addition, there is no damage carryover from combat to combat.
> 
> Admittedly, the 4Ed version of this inherent healing ability is more limited as a resource and yet more flexible (you can use it to do more than heal), but the parallel is there.
> 
> ...




An other example of an irrational argument fathered by an emotional reaction to the new edition. 

Ask yourself: How often do characters in RAW 3.x go into fights without being fully healed, or at least at 90% hp? Given that usually the first purchase is a wand of CLW (which can be used by more than half of all character classes) you observe exactly the same hp trajectory in both games. The only difference is the fluff. And I prefer "the heroes gather their breath, bind their wounds grit their teeth and press on" to "the bard touches each of you with his wand and everyone is right as rain again." But tastes differ.

The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think its more like babies & bathwater.
> 
> I would have been fine with 4Ed if it were fundamentally like 3.5, but with the clunkier subsystems reworked, and the ambiguous terminology clarified.  For instance, if 4Ed was a 30 level system with 30 levels of magic where 1st lvl PCs get 1st level powers, 4th lvl PCs get 4th level powers, etc....but it was still substantially the same spells & mechanics as in 3.5 (moving spells up and down the chart for internal balance), that would have been more intuitive.
> 
> Instead, they changed things that, in many people's opinions, didn't need changing.  4Ed gave us the 30 levels of powers available at the level of the same nomenclature...but they gave them to _every class_.  And the mechanics of the spells were quite different.




Yeah, I think this came out of the idea of how does one balance characters if they're not on the same page to begin with. It ends up leading to weird results.

IE if the fighter gets most of it's "extra power" from feats, how do you balance a feat with a spell? (Especially when another class else can also take that feat in addition to a spell?)

Or skills? If you are the skill monkey, how do we then balance you to another class? Are extra skill points as good as a spell or a feat?

Also when you add a new feat, can you really reliably have a way to tell how powerful this would be in the hands of the various classes all opperating through different mechanics?

I think they decided the answer was no. Just make all classes build similariliy, and allow their unique powers and options to differentiate them. (A similar idea thats been used in other games to great sucess.)

To me it's kind of similar to saying you know what, lets just make all classes use the same XP table, and find other ways to balance them out rather then rate of XP.



> Some people didn't like Gnomes because they felt they didn't have a distinct identity.  The 4Ed response:  ditch 'em from the PHB!  And while we're at it, add extra elves, scaly-folk and hornheads!
> 
> Couldn't they have just given gnomes a distinct identity?  Made elves (or gnomes) a bit more fey or something?




I talked to Darrin about this earlier. I don't think it was just about getting rid of the gnome. I think that was part of it, but a large part of it was informing which class/race combos to put in the PHB.



> And even when the change was interesting, it often begged questions.  I can understand (though I don't agree with) the assertion that the 9 point alignment system wasn't good.  But the 4Ed system looks like someone just broke off some points.  A simple Good-Unaligned-Evil spectrum would have been cleaner and less puzzling.




Eh... I kind of see where they were going with it. They wanted to show the difference between someone who's generally good or eveil and a fanatic of either ideal... But eh, I could take the new alignment system or leave it really.



> I can understand bringing in Tieflings as a PC race...but I hate the idea that there are no Aasimar (or equivalents by any other name)- however rare they might have been- as a playable counterpart in the PHB.




I think the idea that tiefling and dragonborn should be the new races is slightly the result of 1/2 dragon and 1/2 demon being so popular.

But again I think a lot of the reasons for the race/class drops was based on the idea of power sources. (see my post to darrin if you care. )


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> An other example of an irrational argument fathered by an emotional reaction to the new edition.




*Seriously,* watch the directing of the words "irrational" and "emotional" at your fellow posters.  Someone less even tempered than myself might report you for that.


> Ask yourself: How often do characters in RAW 3.x go into fights without being fully healed, or at least at 90% hp?




This is clearly a playstyle issue.

In the years I've been playing 3.X, with the possible exception of the initial combat of a given session, PCs _rarely_ go into battle with 90%+ of their HP.  Sometimes, we even start the next session all scratched up.  Substantial healing may not be available for 6+ combats.

Why?

Wand of CLW is almost nonexistent in our games.  Ditto scrolls.  If we have healing items, its most likely potions.  Our casters almost never take the Item Creation feats.  In addition, the magic available for sale is not the entire laundry list of items in the DMG or MIC, but rather it is what was either randomly determined or is part of a set encounter.

And no, we don't have the "15 minute day" problem, either.



> The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.




In 3Ed, if your healers go down, you're in trouble.  Thus, it behooves you to act- carrier strike group like- to protect most fiercely those healers who are in trouble.

4Ed PCs, OTOH, almost always have at least one innate heal available to them per day.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

> I think they decided the answer was no. Just make all classes build similariliy, and allow their unique powers and options to differentiate them. (A similar idea thats been used in other games to great sucess.)
> 
> To me it's kind of similar to saying you know what, lets just make all classes use the same XP table, and find other ways to balance them out rather then rate of XP.




My top 3 all time favorite RPGs are- in order- HERO, M&M, and 3.5Ed.  So I'm not only familiar with using essentially identical building blocks to design a wide variety of characters, I LOVE it.

I just don't think that 4Ed does it well.

If you look at a host of 250pt HERO PCs, you're not going to see them all with X many daily powers, Y encounter powers, and Z at will powers.

Instead, some of them will have nothing but a suite of at-will powers.  Some will have a few HUGE powers and some minor, limited-use powers.  Some will have a pool of raw potential they can shift on the fly (subject to restrictions).  Some may be virtually impervious to the damage the world can throw at them, while the guy standing right beside him might be as brittle as crystal, but a danger nonetheless.

M&M is substantially the same, but with a little bit of mathematical simplification and a tiny loss of flexibility.

4Ed PCs?  They're "fill-in-the-blank" balanced.  Basically, if you know the level, know the number of dailies, encounters, and at will abilities the PC will have, regardless of class and race.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *Seriously,* watch the directing of the words "irrational" and "emotional" at your fellow posters.  Someone less even tempered than myself might report you for that.




I don't mean to insult, I'm just using posts in this discussion to illustrate the original point of the OP, and how the pattern he describes can be seen in this discussion.

Btw, for a social scientist, this thread would probably be a very interesting read .



Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is clearly a playstyle issue.
> 
> In the years I've been playing 3.X, with the possible exception of the initial combat of a given session, PCs _rarely_ go into battle with 90%+ of their HP.  Sometimes, we even start the next session all scratched up.  Substantial healing may not be available for 6+ combats.
> 
> ...



Yep we seem to be having the same playstyle. My 3.x games ran the same way. Which means we both ignored a substantial part of the rules as written.

I am curious if you are running into some of the same issues I did (But that is a different topic).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> In 3Ed, if your healers go down, you're in trouble.  Thus, it behooves you to act- carrier strike group like- to protect most fiercely those healers who are in trouble.
> 
> 4Ed PCs, OTOH, almost always have at least one innate heal available to them per day.




So the extent of the cooperation in 3.x is that you want to protect the healer? How is that more cooperation than 4th edition?

I'm not arguing whether a group in 4th can survive better with  a healer than a 3rd edition group (Because I'm not sure about this). However the idea that such dependence makes cooperation for 3.x parties more important than for 4th parties is false (maybe based on lack of experience with 4th edition play).


----------



## Spatula (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.
> 
> I personally think that it is inevitable for RPGS and computer games to cross-pollinate each other, but I don't have to like it when I find the resultant hybrid breaking my willing suspension of disbelief.



...but the second wind is an attempt to emulte action-adventure fiction (most notably in film & tv), not Mortal Kombat.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except the scrolls and wands are in the hands of spellcasters and someone with UMD- healing surges are available to every PC in 4Ed.



Everyone in 4e has UMD.  *shrug*  I don't see what the distinction has to do with anything - is a fighter with UMD a spellcaster?  No?  Then what does being a spellcaster have to do with anything?  How do you train at randomly "tricking" magic items into working?  (UMD being another good example of ExploderWizard's BS game elements that don't make much sense.)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Wand of CLW is almost nonexistent in our games.  Ditto scrolls.



That's cool and all, but it's not the standard 3e game or the standard experience.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed PCs?  They're "fill-in-the-blank" balanced.  Basically, if you know the level, know the number of dailies, encounters, and at will abilities the PC will have, regardless of class and race.



...and?  I know how many spells a caster has at a particular level in previous editions.  What does that matter?  You're just complaining about random surface elements that mean nothing, it seems to me.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 10, 2009)

Scribble said:


> See now this is kind of what I was talking about.
> 
> At heart is simply a mechanic for allowing a player to take his licks, and then get back into the action.
> 
> ...




Personally, I could give a rat's behind.  However, the video game comparison came up again and the question was asked what video games had a similar mechanic.  I provided a list of video games.  Personally, I could care less where the mechanic came from even though I can see where a video-game-influence conclusion can be drawn.

I really don't wish to single you out, but I'd like to use your post as an example of the "edition debate" that drives me nuts.  Someone on the pro-4e side says "I don't see X", someone provides information to illustrate and all of a sudden motives are being assigned to that person.  And while I'm sure the anti-4e side does it, too, that was a prime reason I abandoned ENWorld for 2 mos.

Personally, from a game perspective, I'm not fond of healing surges and it's one of the 4e turnoffs for me.  If others think it enhaces their game, great.  

If you don't see video game influences in 4e, nothing posted by anyone on these boards will likely change your mind.  In my mind, some influences can be good, others should be left on the PC/console, but they're definitely there.

Side Note: I vaguely recall a WotC admission that the DDI subscription model was an acknowledgement of the success of WoW and a desire to tap into that kind of revenue stream.  I could be totally misremembering and perhaps it was pure speculation by posters here.  If I'm remembering wrong, you have my sincere apologies.

And while it can argued who influenced what first from now to Armageddon, it's pretty darn obvious that 4e was trying to tap into popular fantasy tropes like WoW (Tiefling = Drenai, I'm looking at you).  3E got slammed for tapping into the Dungeonpunk/anime aspects so it's hardly a new concept.  Only this time around, suggesting that it was done is far more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> I think you can blame SWSE (that is, the game that many people say they wish 4e was more like...) for the second wind mechanic, rather than particular moves restricted to a handful of characters in fighting games.
> 
> I don't agree that the mechanic weakens the need for a balanced party, or at least not any moreso than UMD + healing scrolls & wands does in 3e.




Actually, Unearthed Arcana introduced Reserve Points first. And here's a little secret: Reserve Points, Healing Surges and the like are all just hit points in disguise.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, Unearthed Arcana introduced Reserve Points first. And here's a little secret: Reserve Points, Healing Surges and the like are all just hit points in disguise.




Yep. Which makes it particularly funny if the same people that don't bat an eyelash at hp claim that healing surges break immersion into the game.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> Actually, Unearthed Arcana introduced Reserve Points first. And here's a little secret: Reserve Points, Healing Surges and the like are all just hit points in disguise.



Yep.



Azgulor said:


> 3E got slammed for tapping into the Dungeonpunk/anime aspects



...which was another silly argument.  3e also got "slammed" for being too videogamey.  If WoW was around at the time, I'm sure 3e would have gotten "slammed" for being just like Warcraft, too.  It's all pretty stupid and reductionist.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> It's all pretty stupid and reductionist.




All?


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Yep. Which makes it particularly funny if the same people that don't bat an eyelash at hp claim that healing surges break immersion into the game.




I don't quite see the "funny" part, since there are a zillion ways to do hit points.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

> So the extent of the cooperation in 3.x is that you want to protect the healer? How is that more cooperation than 4th edition?




No, but that need definitely influenced in-game tactics.


> ...but the second wind is an attempt to emulte action-adventure fiction (most notably in film & tv), not Mortal Kombat.




While that may have been part of the intent, I looked at Healing Surges and immediately saw warriors with little green/yellow/red bars over their heads (or near their feet, or hearts being drained of red)...

And I wasn't the only one.







> Everyone in 4e has UMD. *shrug* I don't see what the distinction has to do with anything - is a fighter with UMD a spellcaster? No? Then what does being a spellcaster have to do with anything? How do you train at randomly "tricking" magic items into working? (UMD being another good example of ExploderWizard's BS game elements that don't make much sense.)




The point is that in 3.X, pretty much your only meaningful sources of healing came directly or indirectly from spellcasters.  They go comatose, you have no magical medics.

As for UMD, its a classic simulation of the action-adventure trope of the crafty/weasely/smart guy poking and prodding and twisting the McGuffin until it works...sometimes not as intended.



> > Actually, Unearthed Arcana introduced Reserve Points first. And here's a little secret: Reserve Points, Healing Surges and the like are all just hit points in disguise.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Which makes it particularly funny if the same people that don't bat an eyelash at hp claim that healing surges break immersion into the game.




Reserve points are an optional rule (which we didn't use).  Healing surges are not.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> I don't quite see the "funny" part, since there are a zillion ways to do hit points.




The funny part is if we are calling healing surges hit points, it means that you can die with 90% of your hit points intact.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 10, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> The funny part is if we are calling healing surges hit points, it means that you can die with 90% of your hit points intact.




That IS the funny part.  It reminds me of one of my players, who has made a sacred vow never to die with a _dimension door_ still prepared.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 10, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> The funny part is if we are calling healing surges hit points, it means that you can die with 90% of your hit points intact.




So a game construct that allows you to survive multiple sword blows is acceptable but a game construct that allows you to survive multiple sword blows but requires a short rest between each blow destroys realism?

I would say both constructs shove realism and verisimilitude aside to allow for a good game. And calling one less realistic than the other is the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 10, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> The funny part is if we are calling healing surges hit points, it means that you can die with 90% of your hit points intact.




See also: massive damage.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> Yep.
> 
> ...which was another silly argument.  3e also got "slammed" for being too videogamey.  If WoW was around at the time, I'm sure 3e would have gotten "slammed" for being just like Warcraft, too.  It's all pretty stupid and reductionist.




While I sit in awe of your editing skills, I never said it was a good argument.  I was, once again, merely providing an example.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> So a game construct that allows you to survive multiple sword blows is acceptable but a game construct that allows you to survive multiple sword blows but requires a short rest between each blow destroys realism?
> 
> I would say both constructs shove realism and verisimilitude aside to allow for a good game. And calling one less realistic than the other is the pot calling the kettle black.




Dude I wasn't insulting you or your game, I was trying to make Pawsplay laugh.

I play 4E I didn't say anything about realism or being more real than version x. Seriously get a grip man.

My least favorite thing about 4E is definetly it's rabid fanbase.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> If you got there through no fault of your own, not so great.




That's when a player more familiar with the system- the DM perhaps- should speak up and inform the player.


> > I don't design anyone's PC for them...and 3Ed recognizes that adults should be able to make their own PC design decisions. But 4Ed doesn't trust gamers the same way 3Ed did.
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't make your own PC design decisions in 4e? I see plenty of options...




Of course I can, but I can't choose something _some _would consider suboptimal if I should choose, even though it might have been fun.

As for options- they do exist, but they are fewer in number than 3.X.  The one I routinely point out is that most of my PCs in previous editions were multiply multiclassed.  4Ed's truncated multiclassing system means my preferred *D&D* PC design choices get headed off at the pass.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 10, 2009)

> The point is that in 3.X, pretty much your only meaningful sources of healing came directly or indirectly from spellcasters. They go comatose, you have no magical medics.



So your problem is with Second Wind and the ability to self heal without magic?  If that's the case, you should probably stop claiming that healing surges bother you.  Its not what you're talking about, and its confusing everyone else.  We're all trying to figure out how having a maximum amount of healing per day, and healing amounts based primarily on the recipient's stamina instead of the healer's skill, turns hit points into a little green bar over a character's head.  And we're coming up dry.

For what its worth, I can see having a problem with non magical self healing.  If you envision damage as always involving visible physical injury (instead of nebulous movie style injuries like being battered around and then shaking it off), then any healing needs to actually close wounds and remove arrows.  4e hand waves this, allows healing to represent regained determination, and just assumes that you're doing whatever needs done in some sort of nebulous down time.  I do see this as a meaningful break from previous editions, and one which people might validly dislike.  

Personally I prefer to handwave these sorts of details, but then again, I was part of the two person crusade to have arrows handwaved just like a wizard's components.

3e also had crazy unrealistic non magical healing, but it never came up so no one cared.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 10, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> So your problem is with Second Wind and the ability to self heal without magic?  If that's the case, you should probably stop claiming that healing surges bother you.  Its not what you're talking about, and its confusing everyone else.  We're all trying to figure out how having a maximum amount of healing per day, and healing amounts based primarily on the recipient's stamina instead of the healer's skill, turns hit points into a little green bar over a character's head.  And we're coming up dry.




Oh really? Correct me then.  Oh wait...


> 4Ed Wiki
> A healing surge heals approximately 1/4th your max health when you use it.







> Escape: 4th Ed D&D - Healing Surges
> 1. You can spend a healing surge as a standard action to heal yourself up to 1/4 of your hit-points through an action called a "second wind". So, essentially, any character can sacrifice one standard action in an encounter to self-heal. You can also use healing surges when resting between encounters (one can't help but think of pausing to 'mana up' in WoW between pulls)




So, yes, I still continue to see the little bar gaining a little green...



> 3e also had crazy unrealistic non magical healing, but it never came up so no one cared.




Where?


----------



## Umbran (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> An other example of an irrational argument fathered by an emotional reaction to the new edition.





Dude, irony.  In the context of this thread, there's absolutely no reason for you to think this sort of approach is going to be constructive.  You could hardly have been more dismissive.  

Folks, in general, if you aren't going to treat your fellow posters and their opinions _with respect_, just don't post.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, yes, I still continue to see the little bar gaining a little green...



Right, I'm sure you do.  It just doesn't make sense that you do.

I still think that your real objection is non magical self healing, and you're just blaming healing surges either due to inaccurate terminology, or a tendency to lump things together.  I mean, you basically just quoted a bunch of information confirming my suspicions.


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Where?



Healing with a doctor and a full day's rest fixed 4 hit points per level per day.  That's 48 hit points per day on a level 12 character.

A level 12 barbarian with a constitution of 22 and who rolled 12s for every single level up will have 216 hit points.  He can heal from zero in 4.5 days.

A more plausible barbarian will heal from zero in about 3 days.

A level 12 wizard with a constitution of 22 and who rolled 4s for every single level up will have 120 hit points.  He'll heal in 2.5 days.

A more plausible wizard will heal from zero to maximum in less than 2 days.

The number stays nearly constant across your career, except for if or when your constitution score increases.

Its not particularly realistic to go from "bleeding out and going to die unless you get medical attention NOW" to "doin' fine!" in 2 days.  Or even 3.  Real world medicine certainly can't accomplish that.

But this didn't create meaningful problems in 3e because few people used non magical healing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Ask yourself: How often do characters in RAW 3.x go into fights without being fully healed, or at least at 90% hp? Given that usually the first purchase is a wand of CLW (which can be used by more than half of all character classes) you observe exactly the same hp trajectory in both games. The only difference is the fluff. And I prefer "the heroes gather their breath, bind their wounds grit their teeth and press on" to "the bard touches each of you with his wand *six or seven times each* and everyone is right as rain again." But tastes differ.




On the ball, with a slight adjustment.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 10, 2009)

Spatula said:


> ...but the second wind is an attempt to emulte action-adventure fiction (most notably in film & tv), not Mortal Kombat.




Which would make it a simulationist game mechanic!

I think the use of the Healing Surge is to restrict the amount of healing in any particular encounter, forcing meaningful (gamist) choices on the players - who do you heal, and when?  It also can provide more meaningful (gamist, maybe simulationist) choices when you don't have secure access to an Extended Rest.

Wandering monsters work well in 4E.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jan 10, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 4Ed's design favoring a mechanical preference for balance is inherently more restrictive.  A sub-optimal PC is much less possible.  The 4Ed designers tightening of PC design restrictions (especially in multiclassing) amounts to a lack of trust in player decisions.



I do recall when playing 3.5E, being hauled over (from near & far) for not 'optimising' my character, still managed to muddle through though.

In our 4th ed games we just kept getting TPK'd so often it was a turn off (and my favourite game is _Call of Cthulhu_).

So, does that mean in 'balanced' game design that that balance must be predicated against optimised characters (or in 4e - whole parties) - and if you don't that doesn't bode well?

Does this make min/max a requirement for successful play? I hope not!


----------



## Hussar (Jan 10, 2009)

ShadyDM said:
			
		

> My least favorite thing about 4E is definetly it's rabid fanbase.




But, there is a pretty understandable reason for it.  Actually, there are several understandable reasons for it.

Right before the announcement of 4e, you had the reaction to the ending of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon.  People went off the deep end for a bit, and then Gen Con hit and we learned of 4e.  Even before we knew anything about 4e, people were massively over reacting.  Heck, there's a few names that used to be common around here *cough Razz cough* that exploded into spontaneous nuclear flames right after the announcement.

So, it's not surprising that there might be a fairly equal and opposite reaction.

Also, there are more than a few criticisms that have been leveled at 4e that were basically rehashes of the criticisms we saw for EIGHT YEARS over 3e.  Heck, you STILL see people claiming that 3e isn't really D&D.  It's too [insert whatever term you like here] got chucked around pretty constantly.

So yeah, people got very, very defensive.  And, people are still defensive about it.  Because, you still see post after post of people claiming that 4e isn't "real" D&D.  Heck, earlier in this thread people are claiming it's not even a fantasy role playing game.  Add to that claims that it's an "inferior" product (also claimed in this thread) and do you honestly not see why people come out swinging constantly?  

Think of how insulting it would be to a fan of any hobby to be told that the thing that he or she likes/enjoys isn't even really what he claims it to be.  "Oh, yeah, it's not like a SS is a real muscle car, it's just a cheap knock off wannabe"


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 10, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> The idea that PCs in 4th are less interdependent than PCs in 3.x is even less based on facts. If you scan these boards you will find multiple reports of groups in 4th that only succeed because they work together. In my experience, most of the cooperation in 3.x is in the buffing before combat, while most of the cooperation in 4th is during the action. And outside of combat, the idea of skill challenges is exactly designed to increase cooperation between players.




The 4E encourages cooperation crap is getting old. Pc's have needed to cooperate to succeed since OD&D and before a lot of buffing was common. By tightening up the focus of the various roles all 4E has done to really "encourage" working together is make character building more combat performance based than ever before. When the focus of the game becomes centered around the combat grid certain optimal cookie cutter builds become standard and it greatly reduces the number of viable character options that are seen as acceptable. 

Skill challenges? These mechanics are designed to exclude rather than include certain PC's. The skill challenge system encourages characters without the appropriate skills to sit down, shut up or all join hands and aid the one character who can make the check. Thats not really inclusive to me. I like the concept of a skill challenge but the current implementation doesn't reward actual participation.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 10, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Skill challenges? These mechanics are designed to exclude rather than include certain PC's. The skill challenge system encourages characters without the appropriate skills to sit down, shut up or all join hands and aid the one character who can make the check. Thats not really inclusive to me. I like the concept of a skill challenge but the current implementation doesn't reward actual participation.




While I have observed similar outcomes in the skill challenges at our table to be fair how is this any worse than depending upon a skill monkey to make everything right?


----------



## Altalazar (Jan 10, 2009)

I know how people can resist change.  That's part of why probably my whole group gave 4E a real shot - we played it for several months as we went through the first module.  We ultimately just decided we didn't like it and now we're back to 3.5E.  (I wrote about this in detail on my blog and probably in a few other posts here, so I won't repeat it).  

I think it isn't fair to really judge a system without playing it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 11, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> While I have observed similar outcomes in the skill challenges at our table to be fair how is this any worse than depending upon a skill monkey to make everything right?




It isn't. The skill monkey solution to non-combat challenges is even worse .I am all for the skill challenge concept, just not the implementation. For the system to be inclusive it needs to reward participation more than expertise. Everyone in the party getting involved in the challenge is whats important. The mechanics behind the concept need to reward this behavior if PC's are expected to actually become involved. 

I think that skill challenges would be better if they became skill challenges for the player rather than the character. Individual skill check situations and combat offer plenty of opportunity for the abilities of the character to shine. Skill challenges are a great chance for players to get really involved in whats going on without worrying about bringing failure to the team because thier character isn't optimized for the task at hand. Its the player at the table who is getting involved in the action and having fun not the character. Why should the opportunity to participate in fast and furious non combat action be dictated by character build choices. 

Skill choice has plenty of applicable situations already. I think skill challenges would be better if replaced with a resolution system called the action challenge. Perhaps the action challenge could be resolved by either skill use if the PC has an appropriate skill to apply or trying something stunt-like on the fly. The overall challenge would depend more on every party member trying something than the actual resolution rolls. Success on the outcome rolls can lead to a greater degree of accomplishment and the biggest actions leading to failure would be doing nothing. A system like this would encourage universal participation and get players who sit out because they don;t want to mess up the party a reason to dive in and DO something. Anyhoo, my two coppers.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 11, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> It isn't. The skill monkey solution to non-combat challenges is even worse .I am all for the skill challenge concept, just not the implementation. For the system to be inclusive it needs to reward participation more than expertise. Everyone in the party getting involved in the challenge is whats important. The mechanics behind the concept need to reward this behavior if PC's are expected to actually become involved.
> 
> I think that skill challenges would be better if they became skill challenges for the player rather than the character. Individual skill check situations and combat offer plenty of opportunity for the abilities of the character to shine. Skill challenges are a great chance for players to get really involved in whats going on without worrying about bringing failure to the team because thier character isn't optimized for the task at hand. Its the player at the table who is getting involved in the action and having fun not the character. Why should the opportunity to participate in fast and furious non combat action be dictated by character build choices.
> 
> Skill choice has plenty of applicable situations already. I think skill challenges would be better if replaced with a resolution system called the action challenge. Perhaps the action challenge could be resolved by either skill use if the PC has an appropriate skill to apply or trying something stunt-like on the fly. The overall challenge would depend more on every party member trying something than the actual resolution rolls. Success on the outcome rolls can lead to a greater degree of accomplishment and the biggest actions leading to failure would be doing nothing. A system like this would encourage universal participation and get players who sit out because they don;t want to mess up the party a reason to dive in and DO something. Anyhoo, my two coppers.




Have you seen Mike Mearls article on skill challenges in the dragon. He advocates setting up challenges so that each PC has at least some of the skills necessary to contribute.

In general, I agree with you that skill challenges have a lot of room to be developed, and i hope that the DMG 2 will contain more meat on this idea.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 11, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Have you seen Mike Mearls article on skill challenges in the dragon. He advocates setting up challenges so that each PC has at least some of the skills necessary to contribute.
> 
> In general, I agree with you that skill challenges have a lot of room to be developed, and i hope that the DMG 2 will contain more meat on this idea.




Thats one possible way to go about it but it requires designing elements of an adventure to be artificially set up to be custom tailored to a specific group of PC's.This is hard to accomplished with published adventures. A specific skill might not fit some situations. If making things up as you go along and flying by the seat of your pants can work for Indiana Jones it can work for a PC. I like the idea of rewarding interest and involvement that comes from the player rather than anything on the character sheet at times. 

Having a part of the game that rewards decisive action from the player without precalculated odds is a good thing. Some decisions are more enjoyable when made with a "just do it" attitude. As Lord Flashheart once said, " This isn't a reasonable use of my time or resources but I'm going to do it anyway!"


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 11, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Right, I'm sure you do.  It just doesn't make sense that you do.
> 
> I still think that your real objection is non magical self healing, and you're just blaming healing surges either due to inaccurate terminology, or a tendency to lump things together.  I mean, you basically just quoted a bunch of information confirming my suspicions.




It makes sense to me.

I quoted those sources for 2 reasons- 1) my 4Ed books are packed away due to a full-house renovations and 2) there is no 4Ed SRD.

In what way are they inaccurate?



> Healing with a doctor and a full day's rest fixed 4 hit points per level per day.  That's 48 hit points per day on a level 12 character.
> _<snip>_




That's OK by me- HP are abstract.

I have no problem with healing that much over a period of days.  I _do_ have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 11, 2009)

The Little Raven said:


> I "warred" with anti-4e people because I kept getting directly insulted by them with their claims that only a 13-year-old with ADD would like 4e



Any possibility of you providing a link to the post where this was said?


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 11, 2009)

darkseraphim said:


> D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere.  The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.
> 
> My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI.  Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.
> 
> ...




Edit: this was _the most_ right post in the thread.  There are a few other good ones.


----------



## jensun (Jan 11, 2009)

> Originally Posted by darkseraphim
> D&D is a game of cameraderie and atmosphere. The way the game "feels" to you is just as important, if not more than, the actual rules themselves.
> 
> My systems of choice are (in order) AD&D1E, Moldvay D&D, Holmes D&D and BECMI. Pieces of later editions serve to clarify rules, offer new monsters or magic items, or to be mined for great ideas.
> ...




I agree with this with the exception of the last part.  The DM's skill comes from both comfort with the rules, practice and a bit of natural flair. 

Your best edition might be your first or your last.  

I loved playing 1e.  I loved running 2e.  My system of preference is 4e.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 11, 2009)

By the way, *thedungeondelver*, for an example of what exacerbates edition wars, have a look at your sig. There's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that 4e plays like a videogame, but comparing the various ability score generation methods throughout the editions, and misrepresenting the 4e process (even though it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the game) makes it seem less like a valid criticism and more like a statement deliberately intended to antagonize people who like 4e.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 11, 2009)

FireLance said:


> By the way, *thedungeondelver*, for an example of what exacerbates edition wars, have a look at your sig. There's nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that 4e plays like a videogame, but comparing the various ability score generation methods throughout the editions, and misrepresenting the 4e process (even though it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the game) makes it seem less like a valid criticism and more like a statement deliberately intended to antagonize people who like 4e.




With respect, when D&D goes from 3d6 in order, to three methods of which random generation is only one and the DM has the ability to change your scores generated to match his campaign preferences, D&D has dropped any thought of allowing true random generation. This in the name of game balance.

That is what I see in thedungeondelver's signature.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 11, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> With respect, when D&D goes from 3d6 in order, to three methods of which random generation is only one and the DM has the ability to change your scores generated to match his campaign preferences, D&D has dropped any thought of allowing true random generation. This in the name of game balance.
> 
> That is what I see in thedungeondelver's signature.



If the point was simply about random generation, I do not see the need to attribute "<+<+<+^+^+RS+RS+START" to 4e, when "40 points, 1:1 up to 15, 2:1 thereafter" was attributed to 3e.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 11, 2009)

FireLance said:


> If the point was simply about random generation, I do not see the need to attribute "<+<+<+^+^+RS+RS+START" to 4e, when "40 points, 1:1 up to 15, 2:1 thereafter" was attributed to 3e.




I don't mean to speak for thedungeondelver but I can say that the ability score generation in the PH 3.0e and 3.5e is fine. 4d6 drop thew lowest and arrange as desired. If the player wishes to point buy, then take 25 points and run with it. You'll be stuck with something like the standard array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 but you'll be sure to not get stuck with an unplayable character.

I do not like point-buy systems for abilities as a matter of personal preference. I don't have anything against them mechanically. 

TDD's use of 40 points etc... calls to mind a case of designed power creep by the DM by means of stat inflation. Give the players more ability bonuses at first level and they can face more stuff. Each ability bonus is equivalent to a level bonus. (A strength of 18 is a equal to a +4 BAB compared to an average score.) It will eventually not matter as the characters reach higher level but it does give them a little kicker.

TDD's use of what reminds me of Konami's cheat code starts characters off with something close to 32-point-buy from 3e instead of 25 introducing an immediate jump in power for starting characters. Not a great one but one none-the-less. But between the increase in base ability scores and other new systems (healing surges I'm looking at you). D&D characters now have an extreme amount of power compared to earlier editions. 

Granted his representation for 3e and 4e may not be subtle, but for players that continue to enjoy earlier editions they are accurate and represent what some feel is a near exponential growth in power for characters as the edition has "evolved "

Even though I hate analogies: OD&D/BD&D/AD&D : Contra with 3 lives :: 4e : Contra with 30 lives 

Anyway, who played Contra without using the cheat code


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 11, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In what way are they inaccurate?



Its your terminology that's inaccurate.  "Healing surges" and "non magical healing" are not the same thing.  

When you say, "I hate healing surges, they remind me of a little green health bar" we hear "I hate a system whereby the amount of healing is calculated based on the healed target's base hit point value with a capped amount of healing per character per day, possibly as opposed to previous edition's methods of basing healing almost purely upon the skill of the caster of a healing spell, it reminds me of a little green bar."

Which is _ludicrous._

And based upon your later statements, after some investigation, it probably isn't what you actually hate, either.  What you seem to actually hate is


Dannyalcatraz said:


> I _do_ have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.



that.

Which I've already said, twice, in direct reply to you, I get.  I don't agree, but I can get why you might feel that way.  I don't see the "little green bar" comparison, it seems like you're taking "4e healing I don't think is appropriate" and "videogame healing that wouldn't be appropriate in 4e" and just declaring an equivalency.  But whatever, its not that important.  I get that you don't like it, and I get why you don't like it.

I'm only saying that if you keep going around expressing that opinion by saying "I don't like healing surges" people will keep having no idea what you mean because "healing surge" and "large influx of non magical healing during combat" are not the same thing.  Its like saying that you hate 3e's spell slots, when what you really mean is that you hate conjuration spells.  Even if your point is valid, no one will understand.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 11, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It makes sense to me.
> 
> That's OK by me- HP are abstract.
> 
> I have no problem with healing that much over a period of days.  I _do_ have a problem with a huge influx of healing within a combat round without the use of magic.




That is the point. HP are abstract, they mean almost anything. 

HP have always been an extremely gamist concept, and from the 1st edition DMG onward they did not represent physical injury only (or at all).Tthis leads to a whole host of issues with verisimilitude, from falling over poisoned blades to coup de grace situations. 

Hence it is hard to understand how one way of recovering these abstact units of survivabillity is inherently superior to an other way of recovering them. How fast does luck return to you after it kept you alive? Or divine protection? Or will to live? 
So there is nothing objectively superior to recovering hp one way or the other. 

Of course we are all used to the warts and boils of the old OD&D-3.x system, so those don't appear as a big deal to us, we had 20+ years to get used to them. On the other hand, every inconsistency of 4th edition is new, so this different set of warts and boils looks really frightening, even if those new problems are actually smaller than the old ones.


----------



## PaulofCthulhu (Jan 11, 2009)

So looking again at my copy of the 4e DMG it does say on page 104 that if you give the players "perfectly balanced" encounters all the time it will get stale (true, I think) - so it's up to the DM to mix it up. That seems fair!


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 11, 2009)

Summon Monster IX

Moderator LG
Grognard, Barbed LE
Fiendish monstrous fanboy, Gargantuan NE
Powergamer (demon) CE
Elemental, homebrewer (any) N
Fiendish dire snark NE
Hater (demon) CE
Celestial game designer CG


----------



## The Little Raven (Jan 11, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The second-wind mechanic in fighting games predates SWSE by at least a decade.




Let's see an example of a fighting game that allows all characters to heal themselves during combat.



> Any possibility of you providing a link to the post where this was said?




If I had the search feature in order to go back 6-14 months in order to dig through the thousands of posts that have happened in the mean time, yes. Since I don't, no.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, there is a pretty understandable reason for it.  Actually, there are several understandable reasons for it.
> 
> Right before the announcement of 4e, you had the reaction to the ending of the print versions of Dungeon and Dragon.  People went off the deep end for a bit, and then Gen Con hit and we learned of 4e.  Even before we knew anything about 4e, people were massively over reacting.  Heck, there's a few names that used to be common around here *cough Razz cough* that exploded into spontaneous nuclear flames right after the announcement.
> 
> ...




This is how I see it.  The few times I failed my own will save and starting frothing at the mouth have always been in reaction to some chucklehead being insulting towards fans of the new edition.  Doesn't excuse the times I've overreacted myself, but my own diatribes have always been in reaction to rude anti-4e folk.  I've also noticed this behavior in some other posters as well, they are calm and rational until provoked with the ignorance and snark of a hater.  My blood pressure still rises a bit when certain *ahem* posters post at all as they have insulting and inaccurate comparisons of the various editions in their sigs.

I've never seen a 4e fan START a flamewar (throw more fuel on the fire, oh yes).  I'm sure it's happened, and maybe my own biases have gotten me to "not see" it when it happens, but that is my experience.

To try and get back to the thread topic, while I do think that many who are not fans of 4e have valid and honest criticisms and problems with the game (and post here accordingly) . . . the most vocal 4e detractors tend to have irrational and inaccurate beefs with the edition.  And while anyone is free to like or dislike 4e for whatever reason they wish, I do think in large part this is a classic example of resistance to change that has little to do with the change itself (4e).


----------



## FireLance (Jan 12, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> Granted his representation for 3e and 4e may not be subtle, but for players that continue to enjoy earlier editions they are accurate and represent what some feel is a near exponential growth in power for characters as the edition has "evolved "



I'd say that the lack of accuracy in the representation of the 4e ability score generation system (and perhaps the 3e and the 2e one as well - I'm fairly sure neither of these were recommended as the standard method by the books) is more troubling than the lack of subtlety. If you wanted to make a point about numbers inflation, comparing the average hit points of a 1st-level fighter in each edition would bring the point across in a clear, and more importantly, factually accurate way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> When you say, "I hate healing surges, they remind me of a little green health bar" we hear "I hate a system whereby the amount of healing is calculated based on the healed target's base hit point value with a capped amount of healing per character per day, possibly as opposed to previous edition's methods of basing healing almost purely upon the skill of the caster of a healing spell, it reminds me of a little green bar."
> 
> Which is _ludicrous._




I know that certain classes can initiate healing via a PC's healing surge.  I know that items can initiate healing via a PC's healing surge.

Can a PC in 4Ed use a healing surge without the aid of another PC?  As I recall, the answer is "yes."

If that is true, then that is _EXACTLY_ why I'm reminded of the combat games, and is thus, not ludicrous.

So what do I see when I look at the 4Ed D&D Wiki?



> Healing surge - Dungeons & Dragons 4.0 Wiki - a Wikia Gaming wiki
> Outside of combat you can usually use healing surges freely. After combat you must take a short rest before spending surges, and then you can spend any number you desire.
> 
> However, you cannot simply use a healing surge any time you please during combat. The following situations allow you to use one:
> ...




(_emphasis mine_)

There is my green bar.



> Hence it is hard to understand how one way of recovering these abstact units of survivabillity is inherently superior to an other way of recovering them.




I didn't say "superior."  I said they remind me of certain combat games, and I don't care for that.  By echoing that videogame mechanic, it disrupts my immersion in the game, and thereby interferes with _my_ enjoyment of the game, so I count that as one of the reasons I don't play 4Ed.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 12, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> I've never seen a 4e fan START a flamewar (throw more fuel on the fire, oh yes).



Bwah ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... gasp... ha ha ha ha!

And I say that as a fan of 4e, too.  

No bickering or baiting please, folks (and that's directed towards everyone.)  I know it's a self-referential topic, but we want to keep the discussion friendly.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm saying one thing, you're responding to something entirely different.  I take pains each post to point out that I get what you mean to be saying, but that you're not saying what you mean to be saying.  And each time you just say it again, as if I were contradicting you.  There's nothing left for me to say except to read what I've already written, because your responses clearly indicate that you haven't.

What can I do except repeat myself, now with numbered paragraphs!

1. Healing surges are just a system of calculating healing amounts based on the recipient rather than the healer, and capping healing per day.  Obviously this isn't like a video game in any meaningful way.

2. You dislike non magical in combat healing.  That's fine, I can get that even if I disagree.  That isn't the same as not liking healing surges.  That's, at best, not liking second wind and certain other martial healing surge triggers.

3. I don't care about the video game comparison.

4. But the fact that you keep saying that you don't like healing surges, when you really mean that you don't like non magical in combat healing, is confusing people.

5. When you don't seem to make sense (because you're saying something other than what you mean), people start wondering if you're just a grognard without a legitimate complaint.  Because we get those around here, and they usually introduce themselves by making video game comments.  Its the hip new thing for counter culture warriors to do these days.

6. You could fix that by saying what you mean- that 4e has a lot of non magical healing, and you don't like it.  People might not agree, but at least they won't think that you're a crazy guy who doesn't make sense.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There is my green bar.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say "superior."  I said they remind me of certain combat games, and I don't care for that.  By echoing that videogame mechanic, it disrupts my immersion in the game, and thereby interferes with _my_ enjoyment of the game, so I count that as one of the reasons I don't play 4Ed.




D&D invented the green bar. When a fighter is hit by 6 arrows and looses 20% of his life energy rather than kneel over and die, there is your green bar.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> 1. Healing surges are just a system of calculating healing amounts based on the recipient rather than the healer, and capping healing per day.  Obviously this isn't like a video game in any meaningful way.



It's only a matter of time. Once a video game that uses healing surges is launched, healing surges will be vidoegamey again!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> I'm saying one thing, you're responding to something entirely different.  I take pains each post to point out that I get what you mean to be saying, but that you're not saying what you mean to be saying.  And each time you just say it again, as if I were contradicting you.  There's nothing left for me to say except to read what I've already written, because your responses clearly indicate that you haven't.




I've read what you've posted.*  It doesn't alter my position one whit,* and its you who are having the "understanding" issue.

That a PC can heal himself without the aid of others via his surges- as the Wiki points out he can- reminds me of combat videogames, and that is disruptive to my enjoyment of the game.


> What can I do except repeat myself, now with numbered paragraphs!




I can repeat myself too!


> 1. Healing surges are just a system of calculating healing amounts based on the recipient rather than the healer, and capping healing per day.  Obviously this isn't like a video game in any meaningful way.




Except that with a 4Ed healing surge, the healer & recipient can be one in the same, without the use of magic.  The PC just uses his second wind or a particular power within his class...and as I recall, all the base classes can use their healing surges to heal themselves.

Yes, there are ways that "real" healers can do healing surge effects on other PCs.  That doesn't bother me at all.



> 2. You dislike non magical in combat healing.  That's fine, I can get that even if I disagree.  That isn't the same as not liking healing surges.  That's, at best, not liking second wind and certain other martial healing surge triggers.




OK, I dislike a certain subset of of the ways in which Healing Surges can be initiated and used.  Happy?



> 3. I don't care about the video game comparison.




But I_ do._  That's at the core of what bugs me about this particular aspect of 4Ed.



> 4. But the fact that you keep saying that you don't like healing surges, when you really mean that you don't like non magical in combat healing, is confusing people.




I think its perfectly clear English.  "I." "don't." "like." "Healing." "Surges."

I'm sorry you feel otherwise.



> 5. When you don't seem to make sense (because you're saying something other than what you mean), people start wondering if you're just a grognard without a legitimate complaint.  Because we get those around here, and they usually introduce themselves by making video game comments.  Its the hip new thing for counter culture warriors to do these days.




OoOOOOoooh, the *"G"* word.

As I've said elsewhere, I pre-ordered my 4Ed Core 3 as soon as my FLGS let me.  I had _hoped_ to upgrade my campaigns to 4Ed, but found that the game's design precluded that.

The "videogame" complaint for me was relatively minor.  Its just the thing about healing surges reminding me of combat video games- I have no frame of reference to compare 4Ed to WoW or other CRPGs as most people who voice that kind of complaint about 4Ed do (like my buddies who program computer games).  

I have _many_ problems with 4Ed.  Healing surges weren't a major concern at all, just another brick in the wall.


> 6. You could fix that by saying what you mean- that 4e has a lot of non magical healing, and you don't like it.  People might not agree, but at least they won't think that you're a crazy guy who doesn't make sense.




I can't help your perceptions any more than I can help mine.

Healing surges that can be initiated merely by the PC taking non-magical actions remind me of the green bar in combat video games.  The exact details of how & why & whatever justifications don't matter.



> *Harlekin*
> When a fighter is hit by 6 arrows and looses 20% of his life energy rather than kneel over and die, there is your green bar.




There is _your_ green bar.

_Mine_ pops up when he can heal himself without the aid of others or magic.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 12, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I'd say that the lack of accuracy in the representation of the 4e ability score generation system (and perhaps the 3e and the 2e one as well - I'm fairly sure neither of these were recommended as the standard method by the books) is more troubling than the lack of subtlety. If you wanted to make a point about numbers inflation, comparing the average hit points of a 1st-level fighter in each edition would bring the point across in a clear, and more importantly, factually accurate way.




I don't see any lack of accuracy in the representation of 4e ability score generation in his sig. To me it is an absurdist response to what I feel is a bad attempt at balance. TDD may have something different to say but here again is my take.

When the first method for generating ability scores is a standard array that is arranged by the player, it reminds me of games like Ultima, Final Fantasy, and Dragon Warrior, where you may have the ability to arrange the scores or put points wherever you like, but in reality there is only one or maybe two ways to arrange your scores. 

What person is going to not put their highest score in Strength if they want to play a fighter since all of the Fighter's attack powers use Strength. What would happen to the game's balance if someone decided to put their 10 in Strength instead of their 16? In every other edition of D&D you could put that 10 into Strength and the 16 into Dexterity and not be gimped, you'd just be a ranged Fighter. Not so here. If you want to put that 16 into Dexterity you better pick Ranger or Rogue.

Since the ability scores are not expected to be randomly determined and those scores are tied so closely to the classes' powers, why bother even having them as a separate entity? I think the game is built expecting +3 bonus to go into the Fighter's Strength. I mean it is the equivalent of six levels.

Just counting up the bonuses for the default array 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 (+7/+3) and counting the bonuses from the table for method two, they go from (+6/+4) to (+8/+2) where the first number in the parenthesis is the total bonus and the second number is the highest bonus. Not much variation there.

And if balance if so important to the game that it allows the DM to arbitrarily lower your scores if their bonuses are too high (higher than +8), or raise them if they are too low (lower than +4), why bother allowing players to roll for them in the first place.

This is a far cry from 3d6 or even 4d6 drop the lowest.

As for the numbers inflation, that is something that bothers me but not necessarily implied by TDD's sig.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

For me, Healing Surges are more Pulp than Video Game. Indiana gets the crap kicked out of him, then gets his second wind and boffs some Nazis (minions of course!). In my opinion, 4E owes a more to cinematic pulp action than MMORG action.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 12, 2009)

FireLance said:


> It's only a matter of time. Once a video game that uses healing surges is launched, healing surges will be vidoegamey again!




D&D never had people stand around for 5 minutes and be back up to full health.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> For me, Healing Surges are more Pulp than Video Game. Indiana gets the crap kicked out of him, then gets his second wind and boffs some Nazis (minions of course!).




I can see that...its just not the first image that pops up in my head.

(I don't like the "minions" mechanic either, FWIW.)


> In my opinion, 4E owes a more to cinematic pulp action than MMORG action.




Again, I don't play computer RPGs of any kind, so I have no way of making that comparison.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

FireLance said:


> "<+<+<+^+^+RS+RS+START"




I'm a 4E die hard, and I thought this was pretty funny. Made me smile. 

Accurate? Naw. But we're all big kids and can take a little good-hearted teasing. Besides, if you ever play with Delver, it gives you the excuse to make him roll 3d6, no drop, no arrange, and live with the results. 

When your best stat is a 13 Charisma, 4E starts looking all right.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, I don't play computer RPGs of any kind, so I have no way of making that comparison.




Me neither. But if they are as fun as 4E, I should start.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> For me, Healing Surges are more Pulp than Video Game. Indiana gets the crap kicked out of him, then gets his second wind and boffs some Nazis (minions of course!). In my opinion, 4E owes a more to cinematic pulp action than MMORG action.




And here is where I ask are more people going to come to D&D because of Indiana Jones and comic book movies (Batman, Spider-Man, The Watchmen ), or WOW and the like? Where new players come from will color their impressions of healing surges.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> When your best stat is a 13 Charisma, 4E starts looking all right.




In BXCMI I had a Magic-User with an 11 Int and 14 Charisma. I have about 1 1/2 year's worth of adventures to tell you about if you'd like.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

> Where new players come from will color their impressions of healing surges.




I'm sure it will.  In fact, it will color every aspect of their experience with the game and/or penci & paper RPGs in general-have you seen this thread?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/248441-sign-things-come.html


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 12, 2009)

You people are going to give me a goddam aneurysm, you know that?*











*=*IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT MOST OF YOU DO, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING FOR*


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> You people are going to give me a goddam aneurysm, you know that?




I'm not touching you...

Am I bugging you?


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (I don't like the "minions" mechanic either, FWIW.).




 See, for me it dates back to AD&D's "minion" mechanic found in the Unearthed Arcana, page 22. 

To a grognard like myself, minions are old news.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> And here is where I ask are more people going to come to D&D because of Indiana Jones and comic book movies (Batman, Spider-Man, The Watchmen ), or WOW and the like? Where new players come from will color their impressions of healing surges.




Well, even the term "second wind" is a pulp/noir trope. But so long as new players come, I'm not worried about how they justify the "healing."


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

And while my AD&D UA is open, I'm going to roll up a cavalier (page 74)...

Lesse, 

8d6 for Str
6d6 for Int
4d6 for Wis
7d6 for Dex
9d6 for Con 
3d6 for Cha
5d6 for Com

Old school starting stats are pretty BA. Of course, like 4E, my cavalier improves his stats as he goes up in level. Page 74 even has recommended starting HPs, that look a lot like 4E.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not touching you...
> 
> Am I bugging you?


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> And while my AD&D UA is open, I'm going to roll up a cavalier (page 74)...
> 
> Lesse,
> 
> ...




And we know how not broken AD&D UA is.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> And with my AD&D UA is open, I'm going to roll up a cavalier (page 74)...
> 
> Lesse,
> 
> ...





Except that's not the whole story: the generation method isn't to generate stats from (in the case of STR) 8-48.  The actual rule is:



> After the player's selection of a class is approved, he or she rolls a certain number of six-sided dice for each ability score to be generated, as indicated on the following table.  *The best three die rolls fo each ability are added together to produce the score.  (For example, a fighter's strength is determined by rolling 9d6 and keeping the three highest results.)*



(emphasis mine)

Moreover, use or not of *METHOD V* is wholly the purview of the Dungeon Master, as it is in the DM's section.  Like the other methods that precede it in the *DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE*, whether or not it gets used is up to the DM to suit his or her specific campaign.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

thedungeondelver said:


> Except that's not the whole story: the generation method isn't to generate stats from (in the case of STR) 8-48.  The actual rule is:
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> ...




Delver, give me the benefit of a 6 Int, please. My case is that 4E didn't invent these concepts. 

And it bears noting that, on average, AD&D's Method V will give you better start stats than any other edition.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Jan 12, 2009)

Edit: never mind: I see what you did there.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 12, 2009)

Filcher said:


> See, for me it dates back to AD&D's "minion" mechanic found in the Unearthed Arcana, page 22.
> 
> To a grognard like myself, minions are old news.




I've been playing since '77.

I simply don't like the minion mechanic, old news or not.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 12, 2009)

Before I give myself Delver's aneurysm, I'll go to bed, having noted that:

AD&D gave us: minions, better stats than any other edition, static starting HP, progressive stats according to level, the aggro mechanic*, and a lot of other 4Eisms, I'm sure.  

















*All right, I'm lying about this one. Poor taste on my part.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 12, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> D&D never had people stand around for 5 minutes and be back up to full health.



Technically true. You had to kneel down in Neverwinter Nights. But perhaps that's not D&D because it is a video game.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 12, 2009)

Okay, we're done. Warning + snark = klunk.


----------

