Please help me with my thesis

[Azrael]

I realize this is not the place to post this topic but since it will receive little to no attention in other areas and a large part of my thesis is essentially about this board and boards like it I hope it doesn't get moved. Having said that here is my request.

I am currently working on my masters thesis on collective intelligence cultures in games and for part of this thesis I am doing a systems analysis on 3.5 and 4.0. What I am looking at here are the failures of 4.0 and the success of 3.5 as a system that promotes online environments for discussing emergent gameplay elements. Essentially, my thesis regarding 4.0 is that one of the reasons it "failed" as a system is its lack of interesting and dynamic gameplay and character building options. It seems to me that very little discussion was necessary in order to "figure out" the system and exploit it to its greatest potential; whereas 3.5 promoted and to this day promotes rich discussion and collaboration. Just by looking at the board it's clear (to me) that 4.0 has failed in terms of promoting an online collective intelligence culture (with 70 posts compared to over 10,000 in the 3.5 area), while 3.5 continues to succeed, even years after the last official material has been published. Moreover, because 4.0 was clearly unacceptable to some, Pathfinder was created in order to carry on the ideas of the 3.5 system and improve upon it in a non-destructive manner.




What I want from you all is to discuss on this thread the reasons you think 3.5 succeeded, and continues to succeed (or not succeed), and why 4.0 has failed (or not failed, if that is your analysis). From a design perspective what are the strengths and weaknesses of each, how does 3.5 promote collaborative discussion where 4.0 does not (or the opposite), and any other thoughts on the flaws or advantages of each system are the questions I would like to focus on addressing. Of course I welcome any other constructive points anyone would like to make about either system as well.

I've been with this board since 2003 and was with many of you on the wizards board before it changed. I have had the great pleasure of seeing this community grow and develop so naturally I want to include your (highly valued) thoughts and opinions in my thesis but since I lack the measures to interview anyone directly this is the best way of going about it. Thank you all in advance for your assistance. 
     

[ShubNiggurath]

Have you considered that comparing posts between the two fora is actually a flawed analysis? You need to consider the relative time they have been around (i.e. 3.5 forum is much older). You could get more meaningful data by starting today and monitoring the number of posts in each forum for the next month or so.

Also, I would differentiate between "mechanically oriented" fora (i.e. min max boards) and "fluff" oriented boards. The second is universal so people might be posting here just because it has been around longer, but doesn't prove your thesis.

Overall, I personally think that your hypothesis is right, I just think that you need to be a bit more rigorous if you want to put it on a Master thesis.

Cheers,

SN

[Azrael]

Keep in mind I'm not really trying to prove anything, just demonstrate an idea.

But to address your points,

You need to consider the relative time they have been around (i.e. 3.5 forum is much older). You could get more meaningful data by starting today and monitoring the number of posts in each forum for the next month or so.

While 3.5 has been around longer it hasn't been around much longer, and I'm more looking at the time it took to announce a new edition (7 years for 3.0/3.5, 2000-2007; and 4 years for 4.0, 2008-2012). This seems to me that Wizard's has recognized the flaws and general unhappiness with 4.0. This is further supported by their desire to make 5.0 closer to the old editions (which is technically a step backwards, at least as far as design is concerned), rather than utilize more of their new 4.0 mechanics. To me this is Wizards acknowledgement that their 4th edition system has failed.

Also this version of the board is new and all the posts in either forum (the 3.5 or 4.0 boards) are only a year and some change old (if I remember correctly). If I were to look at the old board which had over 100,000 posts in the 3.5 section (I think) and compare it to the 4.0 perhaps that would be correct but since the board wipe both have had an equal amount of time to foster discussion.

Also, I would differentiate between "mechanically oriented" fora (i.e. min max boards) and "fluff" oriented boards. The second is universal so people might be posting here just because it has been around longer, but doesn't prove your thesis.

You're correct, the second (fluff oriented boards) should theoretically be present equally in any edition because all that is required for "fluff" to exist is some form of material. For the purposes of my thesis its important to address that fact but not dwell on it. The fact (as far as I see it) does remain that in terms of mechanically oriented discussion 3.5 has promoted more than 100 times the discussion 4.0 has.

[sirpercival]

I would like to refer you to this thread for a discussion of this very topic.

[Endarire]

Consider this:  3.5 is more of the 'old guard,' where it's normal to have ambiguous rules up for debate, where it's normal to see oneupmanship and gentleman's agreements, and where it's normal to have likely nonsensical throwbacks to previous editions for whatever reason.

Why did 3.x succeed?  It provided enough of what the audience wanted.  They wanted D&D.  To them, 'D&D' meant imbalance and simulationist gameplay.

D&D 3.5 provided so many weird things (and just look at all the source material there is!) because balance wasn't the #1 concern:  'Fun,' simulation, or wackiness was.  (I'm speaking from a designer's perspective.)

D&D 3.5 was still meant very much for the 'in-club' of people who were into tabletop games, who attended conventions, and who could laugh at the stuff in the Munchkin game for being able to relate to it.

4.x was a game that admitted it was a game, and people knew it.  WotC knew it.  They may have said in tears, "They cried for balance, and we gave them balance!  They cried for ease of use, and we gave them ease of use!  Why don't they love it?"  In short, 4.0 was a very different game.  It turned away from (and debatably was a slap to the face of) previous editions.  It was a tabletop RPG that focused on combat and felt like World of Warcraft on paper.

My character options were now limited to whatever the book said I could do, instead of being able to use my imagination as a player to solve problems.  (That's the feeling I got when I heard that flour wouldn't let me find nor track invisible foes in 4E.)  It was very simple.  Very streamlined.  And to my veteran senses, very gutted.

I was no longer playing in a logical, plausible world.  I was playing a tabletop version of Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest or some other JRPG.  (On a good day, it may feel like an Elder Scrolls game or other WRPG.)  The simulationism, the plausible world, the logical reactions were all gone.  Now, it was a video game on paper.  Why?

3.5 ran the gamut in terms of power level from ineffective to omnipotent.  It's a lot of GM and player effort to determine what's most comfortable at a given time.  An all-Commoner game can work, and I've seen it done.  An all-'I wanna be God and not in the Batman Wizard sort of way' game can work, and I saw the startings of it.  Being able to solo a 3.5 game meant for a balanced party of 4 tells me that 3.5 is far more versatile than 4.x will ever be.

Yes, I fully admit 3.x is nowhere near balanced out of the box, considering the 100+ books available.  Core isn't even balanced!  But if you consider the notion of what 3.x was going for, a simulation of a fantasy world, it succeeded.  Just don't look too closely at the seams of the world (NPCs, I'm lookin' at you) and you'll be fine.  Besides, 4.x doesn't let me exercise my power fantasies of controlling maxsive Undead or extraplanar hordes of creatures, nor of seeing how far I can get on a single spell loadout.

In short, 3.5 gives you a lot of options and has you sort them out.  4.x knows what it does and warns against straying from the 'one true path.'

This may soon turn into a 3.x vs. 4.x thread.  I don't mean to incur anyone's ire.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

This Azrael?  Either way, it's an egregious example of what 3.5 does better than 4th. 

I won't mention that bit of 4E Essentials errata that made 4th even more broken than 3.5.

[Dkonen]

There are a number of very good ludology texts that study the effects of society and gaming, in fact I believe one is even titled "Culture and Gaming" (I could be off, it's been a few months and the book was borrowed for a paper). The basics of the foundation of how gamers interact and just what they seek out of any system are in there and it would be a great place to start to get an idea of what constants (well, near constants) apply for a successful system, in order to compare against the philosophies and system/s used in 4th edition.

There are, indeed, a number of threads about fourth edition and many many reasons why people didn't buy it. Ranging from the lack of creativity in the system, to setting specific complaints (there's actually a lovely letter on candlekeep-well lovely insomuch that it'll provide excellent quotations for a paper-from Ed Greenwood, beseeching the fans of FR to stop sending hate mail to the WOTC offices-I believe it's also the one where it's confessed that the development of fourth edition involved a lot of yelling. It's worth looking up, if only to provide an insight to the audience about the creative process involved.

I have my own personal reasons why I loathed it and refused to even permit it in our house, but they are very long and a great many, and I have to go to class here shortly. If you're looking for specific examples, maybe you could start a thread asking for 4e complaints? There should be a decent response... if not a veritable flood.

Good luck on the paper!

[Jackinthegreen]

Said letter can be found here from the looks of it.

[Azrael]

This may soon turn into a 3.x vs. 4.x thread.  I don't mean to incur anyone's ire.

I wouldn't mind that as long as people keep the questions in mind.

This Azrael?  Either way, it's an egregious example of what 3.5 does better than 4th. 

Oh you found my baby! Thanks! I've been wanting to fix him up an repost him on "you break it" for a while now but I haven't had the time.

Egregious as first or second definition...surprisingly enough they mean the exact opposite. I don't think my character is a bad example of what I am essentially talking about, if anything it is a good example of the vast possibilities of the system. I'm not sure what you mean by 4.0 being more broken than 3.5...in 3.5 you can create characters even the DM cannot kill without a fiat, or manipulate the system so your character theoretically knows whats happening before even the DM does (I'm talking CoP of course), to my knowledge 4.0 has no such brokenness. However, even if it did, its certainly less exploitable and less mailable of a system than 3.x.

There are a number of very good ludology texts that study the effects of society and gaming, in fact I believe one is even titled "Culture and Gaming" (I could be off, it's been a few months and the book was borrowed for a paper). The basics of the foundation of how gamers interact and just what they seek out of any system are in there and it would be a great place to start to get an idea of what constants (well, near constants) apply for a successful system, in order to compare against the philosophies and system/s used in 4th edition.

There are, indeed, a number of threads about fourth edition and many many reasons why people didn't buy it. Ranging from the lack of creativity in the system, to setting specific complaints (there's actually a lovely letter on candlekeep-well lovely insomuch that it'll provide excellent quotations for a paper-from Ed Greenwood, beseeching the fans of FR to stop sending hate mail to the WOTC offices-I believe it's also the one where it's confessed that the development of fourth edition involved a lot of yelling. It's worth looking up, if only to provide an insight to the audience about the creative process involved.

I have my own personal reasons why I loathed it and refused to even permit it in our house, but they are very long and a great many, and I have to go to class here shortly. If you're looking for specific examples, maybe you could start a thread asking for 4e complaints? There should be a decent response... if not a veritable flood.

Good luck on the paper!

I have read a bit of Homo Homo Ludens, and Homo Ludens by Huizinga but I'll have to look for Culture and Gaming, though perhaps some of it's material is covered in Rules of Play or Digital Culture, Play, and Identity.

I'm sure there are plenty of 4.e complaint threads already, I have already been linked to one and I would appreciate other links if anyone has them. I want to try and keep this thread more on topic but if it devolves into that I suppose that's also saying something about the system and people's hatred of it.

Said letter can be found here from the looks of it.

Thanks, that's actually a big help, I would have had difficulty finding that...as always pertinent links are appreciated

[Captnq]

3.5: I walk into a dungeon and the first room has four goblins and the next room has four more goblins. I attack the goblins in the first room, the four goblins in the next room charge in to help.

4.0: I walk into a dungeon and the first room has four goblins and the next room has four more goblins. I attack the goblins in the first room, the four goblins in the next room stand there and pace back and forth staring at the open archway grumbling, "DAMMIT! I wish we could figure out how to get into that other room to help!" The Goblins in the first room shout in unison, "SHUT UP! You aren't supposed to even be able to hear what's going on in here!"


3.5: It's a role-playing game with rules.

4.0: It's a bunch of rules with a role-playing game tacked on as an afterthought.


3.5 Forgotten Realms: Well... The plot lines were... odd, but ya know, they had a sense of internal consistency. I can run with that.

4.0 Forgotten Realms: The god of law-and-justice dates the chaotic and flaky goddess of Good-Luck, thinks his best friend the god of keeping-your-god-damn-word-no-matter-what is trying to steal his babe BEHIND HIS BACK, so without so much as a TRIAL or presenting evidence, the God of JUSTICE kills his friend, goes, "Oh fuck, I'm a idiot!" and kills himself, because, what better way to make up for killing your best friend then ABANDONING THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN YOUR CHURCH WHO DEPEND ON YOU.

Dear WotC,
WTF???
Sincerely,
LOGIC.


3.5 Is like... Protestantism and 4.0 is Catholicism.

In 4.0, you are treated like an idiot. You cannot directly approach god. There are many layers of the church that must be navigated to reach the almighty. These layers of the "church" protect you from your own foolishness. The church is here to guide you and help you over come your "sins".

In 3.5, There is no pyramid of carefully planned out rules. No Kissy-face simplified, dumbed down tables or lists. Nobody is gonna hold your hand. It's just you and "God" and if you screw up you will CRASH and BURN. You are responsible for your own sins and you need to fix your own problems, Period.


So, to sum it up, if you like playing video games to win, 4.0 is like a video game, except it's on paper and very very SLOW. Not something someone who likes to play video games enjoys.

If you like playing video games to find ways to break the game and how to make the video game do things it's not supposed to, like figure out a combo that makes it possible for your icon to fly off the grid into the unmapped areas, then you will prefer 3.5.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

This Azrael?  Either way, it's an egregious example of what 3.5 does better than 4th. 

Oh you found my baby! Thanks! I've been wanting to fix him up an repost him on "you break it" for a while now but I haven't had the time.

Egregious as first or second definition...surprisingly enough they mean the exact opposite. I don't think my character is a bad example of what I am essentially talking about, if anything it is a good example of the vast possibilities of the system. I'm not sure what you mean by 4.0 being more broken than 3.5...in 3.5 you can create characters even the DM cannot kill without a fiat, or manipulate the system so your character theoretically knows whats happening before even the DM does (I'm talking CoP of course), to my knowledge 4.0 has no such brokenness. However, even if it did, its certainly less exploitable and less mailable of a system than 3.x.

I was using the 'exceedingly good' definition of egregious, and chose that word so that 4E fans could interpret it using a negative connotation.     Also, kudos for that build.  I was going to ask, possibly rhetorically, if there was a 4th edition build that could achieve anything close to it; but, I recalled a certain thread that describes how 4th edition Essentials characters can use material from all previous editions.

[zioth]

I think using minmaxboards exclusively is going to give you a skewed view of the situation. These boards exist to support old players who like to fiddle with the rules to optimize characters. This means you're getting your information from people who already lean heavily towards 3.5, and who rarely talk about 4.0 because they don't play it very much, if at all. The ability to optimize characters is not the only thing that makes an online community succeed.

You should also post on the wizards.com boards, where you'll find the largest active 4 community.

Your thesis questions why 3.5 succeeded and 4 failed. The answer might be simpler than people here are making it out to be. 3.5 is similar enough 2 and 1 that it inheritted a lot of D&D's large fan base. 4 is different enough that many saw it as a new system altogether, so it didn't inherit all the players. If they wanted to switch game systems, there were plenty of other options. Pathfinder offered them exactly what they wanted - a small update to their favorite system.

Did D&D 4 fail? No. I suspect it did quite well compared to other systems on the market. It just didn't do as well as 3.5. Hasbro wants products that are greater market successes than their predecessors, so WotC is looking for a way to bring those 3.5 fans back in. This is the source of D&D Next.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

4e came out right at the start of Brilliantgameologists.
So most of the action was over there initially.
(yes I know "there" is "here")

It took a little while to get most of the 3e C.O. crowd
over to BG.  The fizzle of 4e interest happened later.

[oslecamo]

Did D&D 4 fail? No. I suspect it did quite well compared to other systems on the market. It just didn't do as well as 3.5.

That's still a fail. D&D was always the leading system on the market, by a large margin.

Yet 4e lost to a direct 3.5 clone (aka Pathfinder), despite all the propaganda machine Wotc created around 4e. That's a fail now matter how you paint it, and no wonder Wotc decided to basically abandon 4e in just 4 years (shortest-lived edition evar)

Extra irony points after wotc spent so much money arguing how 3.5 was so obsolete and flawed when 4e was about to launch.

[veekie]

The big problem there was the 3-way split really, 4E is competitive with PF, but while it did get new players, existing players split between 3.5(and the Season Of Fantasy Heartbreakers that resulted), PF and even the non-d20 games got a small boost from players stuck, frustrated and just trying new shit out.

4E was doomed chiefly because of the extent of the changes and the extensibility of 3.5. If it went with a more gradual transition it'd have gotten much less backlash, especially with the *smugface* "Come and play a superior game" fan type aggravating the split.

[Complete4th]

I think using minmaxboards exclusively is going to give you a skewed view of the situation. These boards exist to support old players who like to fiddle with the rules to optimize characters. This means you're getting your information from people who already lean heavily towards 3.5, and who rarely talk about 4.0 because they don't play it very much, if at all. The ability to optimize characters is not the only thing that makes an online community succeed.

You should also post on the wizards.com boards, where you'll find the largest active 4 community.

Your thesis questions why 3.5 succeeded and 4 failed. The answer might be simpler than people here are making it out to be. 3.5 is similar enough 2 and 1 that it inheritted a lot of D&D's large fan base. 4 is different enough that many saw it as a new system altogether, so it didn't inherit all the players. If they wanted to switch game systems, there were plenty of other options. Pathfinder offered them exactly what they wanted - a small update to their favorite system.

Did D&D 4 fail? No. I suspect it did quite well compared to other systems on the market. It just didn't do as well as 3.5. Hasbro wants products that are greater market successes than their predecessors, so WotC is looking for a way to bring those 3.5 fans back in. This is the source of D&D Next.

Your words...right out of my mouth.

@ Azrael: To gain a more balanced perspective, go visit ENworld, RPGnet and the WotC forum. They each have active 4e forums, with forum-goers who can actually speak intelligently of 4e's successes and failures. As I said in the OP of the thread that Sirpercival plugged, I do believe that 3.x fosters more discussion and debate than 4e due to its byzantine structure. But I'd say that this is as often a curse as it is a blessing; because while Paladin threads for example are often entertaining in a two-oncoming-trains kind of way, there's little actual value in them. Even by geek academia standards. Often these 'lively discussions' turn into ranting, argument, and personal attacks.

In summary, BG is a good example of a community that is born of and flourished on a specific edition, but don't focus all of your attention on it. Because seriously, it's a very biased community on the whole.

This thread already has partisans saying that 3e is meaningfully more simulationist than 4e! Because flour that settles on a magically invisible creature turns invisible like the creature's clothing...and that's unrealistic. Riiiight. (I've never even seen that stated, but I'm foregoing my disbelief save for the sake of discussion.) Unless I'm seriously mistaken, we're talking about two editions of a game where a magic spell can make you invisible...until you attack someone. (Because that totally makes sense.) And where you can resist lethal venom by being a sufficiently skilled murderhobo. And another partisan saying that 4e is dumbed down because it's Catholic? Or something...

(Not saying there aren't gamers with intelligent and balanced views here; just that the overall community is biased.)

[Azrael]

I think using minmaxboards exclusively is going to give you a skewed view of the situation. These boards exist to support old players who like to fiddle with the rules to optimize characters. This means you're getting your information from people who already lean heavily towards 3.5, and who rarely talk about 4.0 because they don't play it very much, if at all. The ability to optimize characters is not the only thing that makes an online community succeed.

You should also post on the wizards.com boards, where you'll find the largest active 4 community.

Your thesis questions why 3.5 succeeded and 4 failed. The answer might be simpler than people here are making it out to be. 3.5 is similar enough 2 and 1 that it inheritted a lot of D&D's large fan base. 4 is different enough that many saw it as a new system altogether, so it didn't inherit all the players. If they wanted to switch game systems, there were plenty of other options. Pathfinder offered them exactly what they wanted - a small update to their favorite system.

Did D&D 4 fail? No. I suspect it did quite well compared to other systems on the market. It just didn't do as well as 3.5. Hasbro wants products that are greater market successes than their predecessors, so WotC is looking for a way to bring those 3.5 fans back in. This is the source of D&D Next.

Your words...right out of my mouth.

@ Azrael: To gain a more balanced perspective, go visit ENworld, RPGnet and the WotC forum. They each have active 4e forums, with forum-goers who can actually speak intelligently of 4e's successes and failures. As I said in the OP of the thread that Sirpercival plugged, I do believe that 3.x fosters more discussion and debate than 4e due to its byzantine structure. But I'd say that this is as often a curse as it is a blessing; because while Paladin threads for example are often entertaining in a two-oncoming-trains kind of way, there's little actual value in them. Even by geek academia standards. Often these 'lively discussions' turn into ranting, argument, and personal attacks.

In summary, BG is a good example of a community that is born of and flourished on a specific edition, but don't focus all of your attention on it. Because seriously, it's a very biased community on the whole.

This thread already has partisans saying that 3e is meaningfully more simulationist than 4e! Because flour that settles on a magically invisible creature turns invisible like the creature's clothing...and that's unrealistic. Riiiight. (I've never even seen that stated, but I'm foregoing my disbelief save for the sake of discussion.) Unless I'm seriously mistaken, we're talking about two editions of a game where a magic spell can make you invisible...until you attack someone. (Because that totally makes sense.) And where you can resist lethal venom by being a sufficiently skilled murderhobo. And another partisan saying that 4e is dumbed down because it's Catholic? Or something...

(Not saying there aren't gamers with intelligent and balanced views here; just that the overall community is biased.)

I do plan on looking at the other forums but for the purposes of my thesis I am mostly focusing on this one. I'm looking for communities that have fostered successful rules-based system manipulation (i.e. min-maxing) and as you pointed out in most 4.0 forums and min-maxing discussion typically devolves into arguing rather than a lively discussion. Where there is lively discussion on 4.0 there also seems (and this is based on my current perspective, please show me counter-examples if you have them) to be less of it because there is only so much you can do with the system, that fact in itself supports my thesis (or this part of my thesis).

In essence I am trying to show that when a more permissible system is created (i.e. 3.x) it engenders higher-quality communal activity, whereas when a more closed system is created that limits user creativity and contains less emergent elements (i.e. 4.0) it engenders less communal activity, which in-turn has a negative impact on the evolution of thought. 3.5 vs 4.0 is merely a good example that I think demonstrates this hypothesis.

This supports one of the central questions of my main thesis (which can be broken down into two parts).

1. Why are people better problem solvers when playing games (or what aspects of games lend themselves to efficiencies in problem solving).

2. Why do people solve problems (in games) better collectively, rather than as individuals.

The second one could be a no-brainer answer such as "two heads are better than one" but even so I have to demonstrate that and show examples.

Essentially I am looking at four dimensions to show this.

1. Trust in games

2. Fear in games (i.e. less fear of failure adds to better problem solving)

3. Games have clear goals/purpose; flow (Csikszentmihalyi).

4. Competition as a motivator.



Hope that gives everyone a better understanding of my thesis, everyone has been really helpful thus far so thank you and keep it up! 

[Complete4th]

I do plan on looking at the other forums but for the purposes of my thesis I am mostly focusing on this one. I'm looking for communities that have fostered successful rules-based system manipulation (i.e. min-maxing) and as you pointed out in most 4.0 forums and min-maxing discussion typically devolves into arguing rather than a lively discussion.

Not at all. I said that rules discussions that involve ambiguous wording or rules that are based on fluff often devolve into arguing rather than discussion. And that 3.x has more of those discussion/arguments because it has more ambiguous wording and fluff-based rules. (See: "Does Fortification protect me from sneak attack?" and just about every 3.x paladin thread ever.)

Where there is lively discussion on 4.0 there also seems (and this is based on my current perspective, please show me counter-examples if you have them) to be less of it because there is only so much you can do with the system, that fact in itself supports my thesis (or this part of my thesis).

Agreed. 4e, being a tighter game, doesn't have quite as much room for purely rules-related disagreement.

In essence I am trying to show that when a more permissible system is created (i.e. 3.x) it engenders higher-quality communal activity, whereas when a more closed system is created that limits user creativity and contains less emergent elements (i.e. 4.0) it engenders less communal activity, which in-turn has a negative impact on the evolution of thought. 3.5 vs 4.0 is merely a good example that I think demonstrates this hypothesis.

I think I fundamentally agree with you here, if not in specifics. I note that you're looking at 3.x in a very glass-half-full way ("permissive system") while looking at 4e in a very glass-half-empty way ("closed system"). Any 4e fan will see the water glasses the other way 'round: that a more consciously-designed game (4e) doesn't require as much discussion because there are fewer problems to solve, whereas a more haphazardly-designed game (3.x) requires more discussion in order to bring it to the same level of playability as a better-designed game.

Take that for what you will.

2. Fear in games (i.e. less fear of failure adds to better problem solving)

If you mean "The consequences of failure in a game are minimal, compared to say, the consequences of failing to escape a rabid grizzly. Because the fear of failing in a game doesn't trigger the adrenaline rush (fight or flight instinct) that makes creativity and problem solving nearly impossible in more dire circumstances, people are naturally better problem solvers when playing games," then I think you have an excellent point which ties in nicely with "Why are people better problem solvers in game?"

1. Trust in games

4. Competition as a motivator.

Not sure what you mean here. You mean trust between players? I'm not sure why you're citing competition in relation to a game that is mostly devoid of it. (At least in comparison to other games.)

[awaken_D_M_golem]

@ Azrael: To gain a more balanced perspective, go visit ENworld, RPGnet and the WotC forum. They each have active 4e forums, with forum-goers who can actually speak intelligently of 4e's successes and failures.

To reiterate ... early on 4e got lots of attention over here.
It's just that "over here" was BG at the time.  Plenty of
the guys were posting at 4e C.O. too.  There were even
some of the 4e playtesters here and there. 

iirc - the volume of posts on the BG 4e board was higher
than the BG 3e board for a while.
The exact same thing can be said of D&D as a whole.
Over time, the volume of posts dropped over here,
and a small migration back to wotc 4e C.O. occurred.


It's an entirely separate issue, about how well the game
is understood.  Non C.O. thinking about 3e and 4e is
fine ... there's nothing wrong with it.  It's normal.  But it
can not possibly be the case, that 4e C.O. somehow
has less of an understanding as to how 4e works,
compared to say the casual 4e poster at the other wotc
boards or ENworld or RPGnet. 

( Mind you, extensive use of the fluff texts of 4e, is not
something C.O. does ; so there's no claim nor any attempt
to do so, that C.O. is where it's at, about fluff. )

The perspective those boards have is NOT C.O. at all.

[Captnq]

I seem to have failed to get my point across.

I don't "play" 3.5. I run it. I haven't played a RPG in decades. I've run every system you can think of, but the fact of the matter is, nobody else wants to run. So, for me, I can make any system work. I've run TWIRPS. I've run a paranoia CAMPAIGN. Yes. It's true. Someone played more then one session with Paranoia.

You wanna play some twisted rules? Play Battlelords of the 23rd century. I helped write that one. And for several years I had one expansive White Wolf Vampre/Werewolf/Mage game, with a very disappointed month spent trying to make Wraith work. Ever look at WW's LARP rules? There's a frickin' NIGHTMARE. I made that work. Several months running a LARP. The only successful one in the area... ever. Many imitators, never duplicated.

A good GM/DM can make anything work. Except for 4e. I couldn't make that work. I've ran some horrible systems. I've had some horrible sessions. I've never had players react as negatively as they did about 4e. It wasn't reactionary. We were running 2nd edition, not 3.0 when it came out. I hadn't run out of Forgotten realms adventures when 3.0 came along so I resisted going to 3rd. When we finally considered the jump, 4th was coming out. For us, it was 3.5 or 4.0 FROM 2nd edition.

4th insulted my players. They told me so. It offended them. I've ran "Chart"-master fer crying out loud and THAT didn't give me as much of a headache as 4e. Gamma World was more fun. Gamma world. Where a player can become a nearly indestructable one legged, six armed, mutant idiot savant who can destroy city blocks with a thought, just by strolling around in a radioactive crater.

4th Smelled of Committee. It Reeked of focus groups. It wasn't written by gamers and you could tell. It had no internal consistency. It had rules consistency, true, but it had no heart. My player's don't play RPGs to "win". They play them to experience the political intrigue of trying to unify the entire Moonsea under one nation ruled by their patron god while trying to figure out what five different Gods are up to while assassin's appear to kill key NPCs... so they can KILL said assassin and take his really Bitchin' equipment!

You see, 4e was geared for the PLAYERS. They asked PLAYERS what they wanted and gave it to them. WotC forgot that someone needs to RUN for those players. As a DM, 4e was nothing but headache. That headache was reflected in my attempt to run it. Players want to PLAY, they don't want to run. So if the DM hates the system, well... Guess what system we're playing?  I made it clear I'd play 4th if someone else ran it. Nobody else did.

You want me to put a finger on why it had a poor showing? They sold the product to players nobody in my group wants to play with and insulted me, the DM. If they did that repeatedly to gamers all over the nation, I seriously can't think of how it managed to make it four years.

And 5th edition? They say, "We're looking for input from the players." HA! Don't trust them. Don't believe them. Just a bunch of buzz words from some empty suits in my opinion. I'd run 5th edition PARANOIA before I played 5th edition D&D.