Is 3E losing traction in the D&D community?

Yugo · Post by **Yugo** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:50 am

Hi guys,

Being in grad school and all, I don't do much gaming nowadays. I've noticed that conversations are more 4E-centric now despite the wide agreement that the system is quite bad. Since I haven't actually looked at 4E material (don't care enough), I'll just take your word for it.

I remain a fan of the d20 system that 3E employs, and I would love to see more discussions on fixing and balancing d20-based D&D games. I think serious discussions on d20-based D&D issues started petering off after 2006 on this board. Is the fact that there are less and less threads on D&D 3.0/3.5E balance issues around here a sign that the general D&D community is simply moving on?

Just wondering.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 2:57 am

Yes, 3e is losing traction. Fans will gobble up whatever turds WotC lets drop from its filthy anus, so 4e will succeed no matter how terrible it is. Furthermore, even if everyone thought that 4e were awful--and even some formerly-intelligent 3e players have been converted--4e plays well enough for most folks. For the people who aren't--and I hesitate to use this term, as I imply no elitism with it--"hardcore gamers"--those who just want to get together, roll some dice, and slay some monsters--4e will suffice. Is it easier to learn than 3e? Yes. Is it more balanced than 3e? Yes. Is it easier to run than 3e? Yes. They're sold.

For those of us who want intricate mechanics for world-building, for those of us who want a strong sense of verisimilitude, for those of us who want interesting classes and interesting mechanics--4e does not suffice. But we're in the minority.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:05 am

Yeah, it is.

Those fiends I spent some time making for a friend's game? He assessed the temperament of his players, and announced they were converting to 4e. Which is cool, he apologized and he should do whatever is the most fun.

And it's not like my effort was completely wasted; He's still using the fiends I made, he's just converting them to 4e.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:06 am

Is it just me or does anyone else think should Psychic Robot never be allowed answer questions about 3e and 4e comparisons?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:13 am

Meh, personally, I don't see anyone playing 4e, only arguing about it. That's fine for me. I'd rather play 3e and argue about 4e then the other way around, or both about one.

Honestly, we have discussed 3e to death. But that doesn't mean when we sit down to play their aren't new things to do.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:15 am

PhoneLobster wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think should Psychic Robot never be allowed answer questions about 3e and 4e comparisons?

Why's that?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:22 am

Losing traction? Yes. Only 60% of the D&D tables at Origins are 3rd edition. Two years ago, it was 95%.

A lot of us really wanted to like 4th edition. A lot of the noises they were making sounded really exciting. It... didn't live up to its hype. Many people were pretty pissed about that.

Paizo said they were going to relaunch 3rd edition with some fixes. A lot of us were pretty psyched about that. And the open playtest. That turned out to be a lie, and it pissed a lot of us off.

Keith and I don't live in the same country any more, so we don't write D&D material together any more.

-Username17

Leress · Post by **Leress** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:32 am

I see conversations on this board move from just 3e and 4e to general game design. There are constant discussions on converting a setting to d20 or Shadowrun in the In my own Invention section. The closest thing I saw to making anything with 4e was Fantasic!. Since we here are pretty much the minority I would say that our discussion don't really reflect the gaming community. The WOTC board has new people showing up all the time asking question about 3e.

It not so much as lost traction as it not the newest thing going on in the community. We have a thread about Pathfinder and grows as they bring out more previews.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:48 am

Is 3.x losing traction from the point when it was the only D&D edition? Sure. However, 4e appears not to be quite the rage WotC thought it was. That and the OGL mean that 3.x and d20 will probably always have a pretty healthy following, at least until WotC (or future licenseholder) releases another decent edition.

I mean, Pathfinder, for all the problems this board has analyzed to death, seems to have a distinct buzz about it. So much so that people were psyched to pay for a hardcopy of the beta.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:30 am

Yugo wrote:I remain a fan of the d20 system that 3E employs, and I would love to see more discussions on fixing and balancing d20-based D&D games. I think serious discussions on d20-based D&D issues started petering off after 2006 on this board. Is the fact that there are less and less threads on D&D 3.0/3.5E balance issues around here a sign that the general D&D community is simply moving on?

With no new 3e material coming out to find hilarious combos in we're reduced to finding bland autowins in 4e.

[Edit]Tags[/Edit]

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:32 am

Pathfinder offers new 3E material. Technically it's compatible with 3E, so it could serve for more combos.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:35 am

Pathfinder is seriously just another 3e supplement. And it has less useful material in it than if you spent your money on, say, Tome of Battle or the Magic Item Compendium. Which cost less. So yeah.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 8:37 am

Caedrus wrote:Pathfinder is seriously just another 3e supplement. And it has less useful material in it than if you spent your money on, say, Tome of Battle or the Magic Item Compendium. Which cost less. So yeah.

That might be the case (Given that my own campaign is still technically 3.0, not 3.5, even though we use Tome of Battle, I am not likely to switch to Pathfinder even if it was better than the previews indicate) but I already have most of the other 3.X books, so another new book I might get a useful feat or two out of is not too bad.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:00 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think should Psychic Robot never be allowed answer questions about 3e and 4e comparisons?

Plus Fucking One. He more or less got it dead wrong.

You aren't seeing technical discussions on 3.5 still because they have already been resolved. Especially here where people are generally knowledgeable.

People are talking about 4.Fail, but really just that moniker should tell you everything you need to know. In case it doesn't... do you think the kid who everyone makes fun of is popular because people talk about him a lot? Why or why not?

It is worth pointing out that two years ago at Origins there was one D&D system getting used. Now there's two. And having 60% taken by the system that was supposedly replaced a year ago by the other system is actually pretty good. Because it means there's a maximum of 40% being taken by 4.Fail, which has had... what, a year to saturate the market? That's not a good deal at all.

Similarly, PF gets 'discussed' a lot in the same sense. That is to say, most of the time is being devoted to breaking down exactly how and why they fail by their own standards due to not meeting their own design goals and indeed, actively moving away from them while claiming to try to reach them.

And it's not even useful for dumpster diving purposes. That's how badly they fucked up. Even terrible books like Elder Evils and Blue Magic still have some useful material to power dip from.

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 12:24 pm

Psychic Robot is not allowed to answer 3e/4e comparison threads because after he posts there's a lot less to discuss.

Making up 4e games was fucking simple for me. 3e is at this point no great trouble, but I can't do a full level's worth of 3e stuff start-to-finish with a notepad and a spreadsheet in 45 minutes. Seriously, I would come up with my games on the trainride when I didn't feel like reading or sleeping and it was easy.

The players mostly liked it, because the story component was GM-delivered. When they didn't like it, it wasn't because of their feelings about the system, it was because I didn't do a hot job GMing certain things.

I look at 4e like I look at most of the RPGs I own: meh. They're good at A and bad at B and if people want to play I know how to MINMAX THE SHIT OUT OF MYSELF have fun with the system. I can objectively say, "this is poorly done for the following reasons" but that doesn't matter to me so much because "I got mine", basically.

I'd like a game with easy-to-understand mechanics and tactical choices (which probably means abstracting combat) so that casual gamers can understand what they're doing without me grinding the shit out of them on a 2d grid for a few weeks in the dojo that can support my desire for verisimilitude and sensible mechanics. That game doesn't yet exist but, again, meh. I can have fun, my friends can have fun and I'm working on a home system that will never be finished to satisfy my desire for exactly what I want. Everyone wins.

FatR · Post by **FatR** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:08 pm

In my experience, DnD as a whole loses traction. My favorite non-English gaming forum is nearly dead ever since 4E-related flamewars were stomped out by the moderator. Since bashing of 4E was expressly forbidden, there is just nothing new to talk about anymore, and 4E crowd is seriously like 5-6 people, of which only one can maintain interesting discussion.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 1:26 pm

Look PR shouldn't be allowed to post on the issue because he essentially adopts a position of 4e sucks because... and then outlines a number of actual good points about it. And he regards those as bad things because, well, he is a 2e style loser reincarnated into a weird do over with 3e. (which is just crazy because holy crap 3e just doesn't meet his fantasies the way 2e does)

It's crazier still because the three good points of 4e he outlined are all points I'm pretty sure I've seen Frank and Lago explain to him as being at least somewhat false.

From those discussions I certainly have observed the ways in which 4e is not easy to learn, or run, and the many many ways it is not well balanced.

If it actually were all three of those things I'd probably be running it. Those are all admirable qualities in an RPG and if 4e genuinely delivered on those points it would be made of about 75% of a possible 100% of win.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:06 pm

PL wrote:Look PR shouldn't be allowed to post on the issue because he essentially adopts a position of 4e sucks because... and then outlines a number of actual good points about it. And he regards those as bad things because, well, he is a 2e style loser reincarnated into a weird do over with 3e. (which is just crazy because holy crap 3e just doesn't meet his fantasies the way 2e does)

It's crazier still because the three good points of 4e he outlined are all points I'm pretty sure I've seen Frank and Lago explain to him as being at least somewhat false.

From those discussions I certainly have observed the ways in which 4e is not easy to learn, or run, and the many many ways it is not well balanced.

Are you retarded?

Is Microlite d20 easier to run and DM than 3e? Yes. Is it easier to learn? Yes. Is it more balanced than 3e? Possibly. And yet there's a reason you're not running it.

4e does have some positive aspects to it. Is it easier to learn? Yes. 3e is a nightmare of base attack bonus, saving throws, skill distribution, and other subsystems. 4e uses a much more simplified system--everyone uses the same damn thing, and it's easier to learn because of this. Is 4e more balanced than 3e? Yes. There are no CODzillas or godwizards or fightards to deal with. The RNG is more stable than in 3e. Are there broken combos? Yes, but they've got nothing on a single casting of gate or planar binding. Is it easier to run? Absolutely. The entire CR/EL system in 3e is a clusterfuck of numbers jammed together in an attempt to do something. Putting together a balanced encounter is infinitely easier in 4e than it is in 3e.

If you disagree with these things, then you are flat-out wrong, and you're just looking for a reason to hate 4e. Like I said, there are plenty of reasons to hate 4e, but it does have some positive qualities. The following are not examples of these:

1. Blandification and lack of diversity.
2. Lack of internal consistency. (Verisimiliwhat?)
3. Ritual system is retarded.
4. Adjective nounverber monsters.
5. Lack of developer cooperation with playtesters.
6. Lack of actual playtesting.
7. Mongols.
8. Flying monster with a bow breaks the game.
9. Classes based on mechanics rather than fluff + mechanics. (Stat combos are not classes. "Does damage" is not a class concept.)
10. Freakonomics.
11. Overzealous fantards caused by fracturing the fanbase via moneygrab. Ridiculous apologetics, as seen by people like Hotpants Joe and Crimson Lancer. ("Nine pages of errata within three months is a sign of professionalism!")
12. Blatantly obvious RNG-raping powers that were somehow overlooked.
13. Fragile system: play like the devs or break the game.
14. Dragonboobs. (This is a legitimate complaint.)
15. Exception-based design wanking, plus shit like "evil eye" variations.
16. Fluff deprivation, and the fluff that's there is poorly-written tripe.
17. Miscellaneous shit like the removal of hardness, nerfing of coup de grace, lack of nonlethal damage.
18. Monster generation system that amounts to "pull it out of your ass."
19. Usage of page 42 to replace actual rules.
20. Shoehorning the game into hackan 'n' slashan mode.
21. Healing surges; cartoon-character healing.
22. Skill challenges.
23. Solo encounters.
24. HP bloat resulting in grinding.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 5:32 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:3. Ritual system is retarded.

This has always struck me as strange when people consider rituals something from 4th. It's really just scrolls from 3.x:

Spend a feat, buy a book, pay a cost for every ritual used.

Spend a feat, buy a UMD item, pay a cost for every scroll used.

Not saying it's good in either system.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:22 pm

The cost wasn't rape-worthy in 3e, though. 4e rituals are supposed to eat about 10% of the caster's wealth-by-level (if memory serves; correct me if I am mistaken), and they take forever to cast.

Compare scry in 4e to scry in 3e. Weep profusely.

Previn · Post by **Previn** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:34 pm

Psychic Robot wrote:The cost wasn't rape-worthy in 3e, though. 4e rituals are supposed to eat about 10% of the caster's wealth-by-level (if memory serves; correct me if I am mistaken), and they take forever to cast.

Compare scry in 4e to scry in 3e. Weep profusely.

Ah yes, the 'always fixed wealth' of 4th does a lot to make it even worse.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:09 pm

Precisely. Even something like a scroll of Gate that you can use to call in a level 20 or higher creature to fight for you comes out to (9 * 17 * 25) + (1,000 * 5) = 9,075 gold. At level 17, this takes about 3% of your cash. For it to take 10% of yoru total cash you'd have to get this at level 12. And seeing as it calls a level 20 or higher creature that's pretty much an 'I win' button against anything and everything you would fight at that level, balanced out by the fact that you're likely breaking even or worse cash wise after that. So sure you can beat them... but you aren't making any headway gear wise and sooner or later the enemy will get a turn before you to make you regret that.

Regardless, the point is that if you're spending 10% of your total cash on something, it's actually doing something you really fucking care about as opposed to opening a door 9.9 minutes slower than some guy with an axe can for free and about 5 minutes slower than the Wizard who would be casting Knock in the first place could punch it down for free, since there are no hardness rules in 4.Fail. Now the apologetics will attempt to counter with Oberoni, so I will preemptively counter that counter with 'You need the Blue Key to open the Blue Door.'

Or better yet 'spend 10 minutes casting to check something a hundred feet away'... because walking over there is so hard and so much more likely to ruin whatever you felt the need to do recon for.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:10 pm

I don't find 4e easier to play. It's gobs of +1s and repetitively named abilities which you can totally shoot yourself in the foot with from level one.

At least the shoot yourself in a foot abilities in 3e would give you something for it.

-Crissa

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:11 pm

And don't forget the "well, the whole party can chip in!" excuse. Because I really want to spend my money paying for the wizard to unlock the door when the rogue can just pick the lock, or I can bash it in, or we can hire someone to pick the lock, or I can try to pick the lock.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:29 pm

11. Overzealous fantards caused by fracturing the fanbase via moneygrab. Ridiculous apologetics, as seen by people

I'm not sure that this issue is at all specific to 4e.

I would go so far as to say it is a near-universal problem of RPG systems, especially in internet discussions.

The Gaming Den

Is 3E losing traction in the D&D community?

Is 3E losing traction in the D&D community?

Re: Is 3E losing traction in the D&D community?