Recent Chat Activity (Main Lobby)
Join Chat

Loading Chat Log...

Prefer not to see ads? Become a Community Supporter.
View RSS Feed

Azatoth

DnD vs DnD

Rate this Entry
I don't understand where all the hostility comes from when people talk about 4th edition. I don't recall the reaction going from 2nd to 3rd or 3rd to 3.5

Yes, it's a new edition ... So what?

Yes, they no longer print 3.5 ... So what?

Yes, it has an MMO feel to it ... That isn't a bad thing in my opinion, course that is probably because Im an MMOer

Submit "DnD vs DnD" to Digg Submit "DnD vs DnD" to del.icio.us Submit "DnD vs DnD" to StumbleUpon Submit "DnD vs DnD" to Google

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. fmitchell's Avatar
    4th edition is for all intents and purposes a whole new game. There's no upgrade path, so anyone with a pre-existing campaign is SOL.

    On top of that, the game centers on tactical battles and dungeon delving, with only a token nod to other activities. Nearly every other RPG on the market (and there are some) covers investigation, intrigue, and social conflict as well as combat.

    But then, a bunch of people have reiterated these arguments ad nauseam on these boards. Maybe you should search through some old threads.
  2. TAROT's Avatar
    If you didn't see the hostility when going from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd or 3rd to 3.5, then you weren't looking very hard.

    Why the hostility? Because, when they print a new edition, they send out the game police to collect up all the copies of the old edition for destruction. (Which isn't actually such a big deal, because by that point the old, obsolete books are mostly broken and no longer functional.)
  3. saiyanslayer's Avatar
    The issue I had with it was that they changed the way the game felt. I understand 4th is a new game, and it is fun; it doesn't have the same feel though. 4th is more of a miniatures game with planning where 3rd had much more character development. You had to be careful of the kind of character you made in 3rd because they could be weak and useless in combat, but have abilities that could get the group out of trouble. 3rd had some issues that needed fixing, and 4th has a lot of great ideas.

    In short: 4th is a new game that caters more (much more) to combat than the previous edition. IMO anyways.
  4. yukonhorror's Avatar
    Agree with saiyanslayer, but with this.

    I think the nice thing 4e has done with skills (or at least has attempted) is simplify them. Back in 1e, there was no skill allocation or DC's or whatever (at least we didn't use them). It was:
    Player: "I want to ..."
    Dm: thinks to himself for a sec, "umm, roll a d20"
    Player: 5
    DM: "seems low enough, you succeed"

    No tables, just the DM playing by gut. 4e lets you have the mechanics of 3e, but the simplicity and pragmatic feel of 1e. Also, the numbers of 4e allow for people to be good in combat and out of combat. In 3e fighters sat on their bums (practically) while the bards and rogues did the non-combat stuff.

    As for your original question, people are afraid of new things and understanding new things and accepting new things. I am sure people thought email was much less personal and too complicated compared to postage mail or IM could never replace a personal phone call. But look at us today. People are just more opinionated now (and can share said opinion) than they could back when the other editions were updated. The anonymity allows more hostility.

    It is similar to the problems with paradigm shifts, if you know anything about historic scientific paradigm shifts.

    As for MMO's, all RPG video games have some basic ties to the original D&D games, so if they borrow concepts from MMO's, they are borrowing from themselves in a way.
    Updated 03-23-2009 at 04:25 PM by yukonhorror