The horror of Yukon
4e vs. 3.xe argument
by , 03-23-2009 at 07:02 PM (826 Views)
This is starting to really irritate the crap out of me. I was reading someone's blog (sorry if I can't remember your name) who was asking what is up with DnD vs. DnD.
This rant is not an argument for 4e or against 3.x DnD. This is a rant on peoples argument for 3.x. As a PhD candidate, we are trained to hold our arguments, and provide logic for our viewpoints. So serious mistakes in logic and weak arguments really piss me off.
I may be misinformed, and will probably be called on it as a results, but the main argument I see is 3.x is better because of the non-combat aspects. Although this may be true, DnD in general has a mediocre non-combat aspect compared to other systems out there. It's not bad, but it ain't that great.
Again, I am not well-informed, I have only played non DnD systems a couple of times. But my minimal experience with other systems tells me, the non-combat aspect of DnD isn't as good as those other systems.
It's like saying the burgers at burger king are better than the burgers at mcdonald's. Although that may be true, as far as burgers go, neither are amazing.
If you want to argue GURPS has better non-combat mechanics than 4e DnD, you would most likely win. But it doesn't seem like a huge selling point for 3.5e DnD.
"Want a burger, buy Whoppers because they are better than big macs." ??WHAT??? NO! If I want a good burger, I am going to fricking red robin or ruby tuesdays.
If was an avid GURPS player and was deciding on what edition of DnD to play and had to base it off of the arguments presented, I wouldn't even play, because GURPS has a better non-combat system.
Aside from how little that contributes to the validity of your argument, if you like the 3.x non-combat system so much better thane 4e, don't frickin play 4e. Simple. Why are you so ready to start an argument or "prove" you are right and your system is the best?
Many have said WOTC has put a lot of focus on combat in 4e. I think one would be in a losing battle to say the combat aspect of 3.x is better than 4e. Why not take the best of two worlds? Why not replace the 4e skill system/non-combat aspect with your precious 3.x skill system/non-combat mechanics?
Seriously, why not? As you have said, that aspect doesn't have a huge impact in 4e, so why not replace it with something you like and think works. I tried to figure that out, but came up empty.
First I thought, maybe they are lazy. But how much time does a GM/DM spend on a game. According to Farcaster's poll, there is not too many out there that spend absolutely no time on the game outside of playing it with their players.
If that is not your "thing", there are plenty on this site who love messing with mechanics. I love working with mechanics, and I know kirksmithicus does too. Do our ideas always work, no, but that's what playtesting is for. Point is, I am sure if you asked the right people, you could get the proper input.
And it can't be lack of intelligence or creativity. 3.x DnD is kind of complicated, and if you can fully understand it, you can't be that stupid. As for creativity, you come up with crazy worlds, personalities for hundreds of NPCs, intricate plot lines, but can't figure out how to bring the skill/non-combat mechanics of 3.x into 4e. I don't buy it.
I can only attribute it to fear of something new/unknown.
Maybe more on that later, but must move on to main argument point number 2. WOTC wants to make more money/has to stop publishing 3.5 material.
They are a company, they need to make money. Should square-soft stop making sequels to final-fantasy? I think people would riot. To get people to buy more stuff, they need more new stuff to offer.
As for publishing more on 3.5, how much more crap do you need? There is only so many condiments you can put on a hamburger before it becomes ridiculous. How much would a new supplement really add to your current game (assuming you allowed the content anyway). There is a lot of 3.5 content out there, a lot of nooks and crannies are covered.
Then the final big one, MMOs. Now I have never played one nor will I ever play one. Again I go back to, if you don't like it, don't play it. Also, MMOs are just like D&D, so why is this a problem?
If it is style of play, then [players] don't play the game like that. How you play your character is up to you, not the system. Same goes for DMs, you are in charge of how the game plays, don't play it like an MMO.
I vaguely remember someone saying the concept of roles is borrowed from MMO's and that's why people think this. Is that a problem? Also, there was always the implicit roles in 3.x of healer, fighter, skillful guy, and magic guy. Now they have made it explicit, so what. Except now, you don't NEED to have a healer, it is just nice to have. But I am not here to argue for 4e, just ranting about peoples perception of 3.x superiority and how 4e sucks.
I will have a blog (later not today, need to work), about my arguments for 4e (cause I like to exercise my logic and argue).
But those are my rebuttals towards the 3.x argument.
And I am serious about replacing the 4e skills with 3.5 skills. It wouldn't be that hard to outright replace it, and I don't think it would break the balance of the game.
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
