An amusing article from yesteryear

[heffroncm]

I'm pretty sure I had 3.5 pdfs a good month before the books were in stores.  I remember getting into an argument with a friend about using Gate to get a Titan, and chaining Gates until my little l17 Wizard took over the multiverse.

As to 'powercreep', of course there will be builds that 'break' the game.  That's true of any system.  I find myself more hopeful about 4e, though, as the few breaks available so far will not simply win the game for you, and they are less numerous than in 3.x (see: half the 7th-9th level spell list).  Applying eratta to the 4 or 5 truly abuseable powers is a lot easier to stomach than rewriting 20 or 30 spells.

[Treantmonklvl20]

*Shrug*  You call it deja vu; I call it selective memory.  I don't recall anyone claiming that third edition was "too simple." 

I took those examples from the linked article - check out the response from jpowers regarding how it was too simple due to getting rid of Thac0

"Not D&D anymore," I'll grant you.

And a valid reaction - that's kind of the point of a new edition is to change things up (except 2e which was more to "clean up").  However - my point is that it is a reaction to both 3e and 4e.

  "I don't like change" is a totally valid statement, and it's silly to hold it up as some sort of example of hypocrisy.

Wow - how is "I heard this last time" suggesting hypocrisy? 

I'm not suggesting hypocricy - I'm suggesting that I've heard this all before, and that the complaints on 4e are to a large extent not significantly different than the complaints about 3e - whether valid or not. 

People are absolutely allowed to not like change - hell - it's human nature. 

  "I spent too much on the current edition" is also a valid complaint

No question.  I also spent too much on 3rd, 2e, 1e, basic - but when I think about how much enjoyment I've had out of the system - still probably cheaper than going to the movies all those times   

Personally, I've come to realize that roleplaying is NOT a one time investment.  I could be - if you want to play the same thing for the rest of your life - and your friends want to play the same thing for the rest of their lives.  One guy I roleplay with goes to Gencon and plays 1e there every year.  For them - one time investment - for me - ongoing.

; the fact that there are people now with a substantial investment in 3.5 doesn't invalidate the fact that there were people with an equally-substantial investment in second edition.

Yep - I had substantial investments in both (actually - my 2e investment wasn't that big - I was more into GURPS at that time) - however, the complaints repeat themselves.  If 5e is the creates RPG possible - there will be complaints about investment in 4e.  It's natural - but nothing to dwell on.

As for "the final nail in the coffin of D&D," that's a particularly subjective recollection, as there was a very real fear immediately post-TSR that there would be no D&D at all.  The general opinion when 3e was announced was relief. "Thank god, D&D isn't dead" was far more common than "This will kill D&D."

Actually - the most common reaction to 3e in my group was,

"Why 3e?  2e is just fine thank you.  I had to replace my entire collection when they did that, I'm not doing it again to fix something that isn't broken."

All those people (and I mean every one) has an extensive 3.0 and 3.5 collection now.  They did resist for months though.

Wow - dejavu again.

2. A lot of the complaints were fundamentally different.  "It's just a money grab!" was not a major criticism of 3e; "It's too soon!" was not a major criticism of 3e.

Well - I think we can all agree 4e is a financial decision.  WOTC of course, is a business - and business decisions tend to be financially motivated on some level.

The way it seems to work (or has in the past) is you release an edition and it sells well.  You release a set of splatbooks and they sell well, you release a 2nd set of splatbooks and they sell OK.  You release a 3rd set of splatbooks and they sell so-so, and so on until the books stop making money at all (see any of your 2e books in blue - or the "player option" series.  .  Eventually the system gets so saturated - that the market for new support material just isn't there anymore.

Refusing to update killed TSR - and if WOTC did not go to 4e, it would eventually kill them too.  The survival of D&D requires change to unsaturate a saturated market.

3e definitely wasn't too soon - but it was too late for TSR.

[Caelic]

Most of what you say is true; I'm not disputing that 4e was necessary.  (I predicted 4e by 2008 when 3.5 was released, based on the conclusion that 3.5 represented WotC hitting the saturation point unexpectedly soon and not having 4e ready to roll.  As it turns out, I was 6 months off in my prediction; ah, well.)

I am, however, disputing the following:

1. The reaction is exactly the same.
2. The reaction is of similar magnitude.
3. The reaction is insignificant and should be ignored.

[Treantmonklvl20]

1. The reaction is exactly the same.

I agree it's not, just noting some similarities.

2. The reaction is of similar magnitude.

I dunno.  3e was taken pretty well - but if I remember, people were not happy about 2e at all.  I was one of them at the time (though I came around eventually).  I actually left D&D for quite a while before dipping my toes back in near the end of TSR and 2nd ed.  No big loss IMO.

3. The reaction is insignificant and should be ignored.

Whenever you have a significant portion of your fanbase upset you would be stupid to ignore it.

I do think this will blow over in time though (not months, but years).  I could be wrong, but that's what I'm expecting.

[heffroncm]

I think Wizards has learned their lesson about oversaturation this time.  They seem to be deliberately moving slower, so as not to overdo it too quickly.  Maybe that's just my perception though, as I did not buy much 3.5 until it was already oversaturated.

[Caelic]

Honestly, I think WotC's main errors this time around have been in marketing, not design...and the worst marketing errors have centered around the WotC discussion forums.  Given the relatively small percentage of their customer base that frequents those, the mistakes are not at all insurmountable.

[heffroncm]

Honestly, I think WotC's main errors this time around have been in marketing, not design...and the worst marketing errors have centered around the WotC discussion forums.  Given the relatively small percentage of their customer base that frequents those, the mistakes are not at all insurmountable.

Agreed.  Then again, even niche gaming megastar Blizzard did a HORRIBLE job marketing WoW.  The whole of gaming culture has become much more mainstream than most designers realize, not just the fratboy gamer xBox demographic.

[Eepop]

I am, however, disputing the following:
1. The reaction is exactly the same.
2. The reaction is of similar magnitude.
3. The reaction is insignificant and should be ignored.

1. Not exactly the same, but sharing similarities.
2. While there has been more outcry, you also have to ask whether other factors might play more of a role than just "its of a larger magnitude because its a poor game"
      a) the proliferation of the internet leading to more people able to complain.  The number of people able to frequent message boards has certainly increased.
      b) the fact that more people were playing 3E when 4E came out than were playing 2E when 3E came out
3. Well thought out reactions should never be ignored.  But there have been reactions on both sides of the argument that are no where near well thought out, and those should be ignored.

[Caelic]

1. Not exactly the same, but sharing similarities.

It would be fairly difficult for it not to share at least some similarities.  I'm not really sure that the similarities are meaningful, though.  It seems a little like saying, "There are similarities between a Camaro and a Toyota." 

2. While there has been more outcry, you also have to ask whether other factors might play more of a role than just "its of a larger magnitude because its a poor game"

Given how much of the outcry predated the release of the game, I think it would be foolish to conclude that it's of a larger magnitude because it's a poor game.  Clearly, a great deal of the response was due to factors independent of game quality.

a) the proliferation of the internet leading to more people able to complain.  The number of people able to frequent message boards has certainly increased.

I might give you this one if we were talking about a '95 release...but 2001?  I really don't think the percentage of gamers online has increased all that much since then; most gamers of my acquaintance were firmly ensconced online by 2001.

b) the fact that more people were playing 3E when 4E came out than were playing 2E when 3E came out

Certainly this is part of it.  It may be the most important part, in fact--it certainly speaks to the notion that there were more complaints because a lot of people weren't ready for a new edition.

3. Well thought out reactions should never be ignored.  But there have been reactions on both sides of the argument that are no where near well thought out, and those should be ignored.

Certainly.  "I've heard this song before," however, is typically a convenient rhetorical means of dismissing arguments regardless of how well-reasoned or well-founded they may be.

[ronyon]

Nice article ...
Strangely, it was the very things that many 2.0 grognards where pissed about that got me to come back to dnd.
I was busy playing Hero System and Gurps. I wanted choices, and things to do other than killing.Late modle 2.0 had some of that, but was clunky.
3.X offered that to me, and more each year until recently I have found  ways to play characters that I could have played in other systems 20 years ago...but Im happy, cause Im actually playing them, and not just building them.
So when I see this new simplified system, I think"Maybe in X number of years you will be worth playing."
In fact, I would still be playing Gurps(or Hero), if my crew hadn't moved on.I just want to play, and Im somewhat flexible.
But as long as I can get a game with my friends, why would I wast my money on something that cant help but offer less than what Ive got.
Let me put this another way.A 2008 Hybred  is probably better in most ways than my 1994 Honda. But my '94 Honda  civic is paid for, gets me where I need to go, and I know how to deal with its quirks and work on it my self.There is also a huge amount of infrastructure dedicated to Hondas in general and Civics in particular.When Hybreds have been on the road as long as Civics have, I will probably own one. Meanwhile, many other people will be driving all electric, fuel cell powered,drive by wire  Mecha, and telling me they are better. They will be right, and  I will buy one of those Mechs when I cant drive my old Hybred and the anti-gravity air rafts start looking feasible. I wont stop riding the horse I like of the breed i like with the tack I like in order to buy a model T in any color I like, as long as its black.

Look ,I was at Origins today, and talked to the Hero systems guys. From what they said, nothing has really changed since the last time I played, 2 editions ago.Sounded good to me.If they had changed all of their basic mechanics, and still called it Champions Hero System, I might have been miffed, but intrigued.If I found that The game didnt play the same, I would have been pissed.Well in theory. I dont play it any more so...The point is, change can be good or bad. gurps has had at least one major shift in mechanics, probably two, but I find both to be improvements. Incremental improvments.

4th edition has the stated aim of playing differently. Most reports say it has succeeded in this.It has wiped out huge swaths of fluff .I really dont care about either of those things, I just want to play  my favorite kind of Necromancer, and the game just wont support that.It might be a great game, but that doesnt make it my game. Just as 3.0 isnt for 2.0 grognards.I hope 4th edition grows into a lush garden of significant choices, so that I will one day find it worth playing.Till then, make mine Marvel.

[Kuroimaken]

As someone who has been trying to be reasonable in these discussions, I gotta say that its not really fair to slam all of the people who will be playing 4E.  There are assholes on both sides of this edition "war".

Aye. But you gotta hand it to them: their lack of arguments is astounding. Only time will tell which edition was "best". Until then, we're stuck with the asshats.