• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 3E/3.5 The design processes from 2e to 3e, 3 to 3.5, and 3e to 4e.

Atlatl Jones

Explorer
It's occurred to me that the design processes for each of the past couple editions have had different basic goals, leading to different ways of going about things.

From 2e to 3e, the goal was to rationalize and standardize the D&D game. 2e was a jumbled mishmash of independent subsystems that all worked in different ways. 3e was designed to bring them all together into a coherent, logical whole. The d20 system was born, monsters worked the same way as characters, and detailed rules were created so DMs no longer needed to make up stuff on the fly to get around vague or absent rules.

One side effect of this was that the designers created a game that was a bit too complicatd, and didn't yet fully understand the emergent properties of what they had created, so there were balance problems.

From 3.0 to 3.5, the goal was to make the D&D game more balanced. Broken spells were fixed (mostly), classes were rebalanced (mostly), and new options were created to patch the flaws of character design, like multiclass spellcasters. But aside from tweaking for balance, the core of the game was fundamentally the same.

From 3e to 4e, the goal seems to be to make the D&D game more fun to actually play, in practice. The designers understand now not only what isn't balanced, but what parts of the game make it less fun. They also understand when the "rationalized" parts created in 3.0 hurt the game, like CR and EL calculation, and mathematical item creation guidelines.
More attention has been paid to how the game plays, how DMs and players actually use it.

The overall goal is to improve the D&D gaming experience, from preparation to play. The previous editions were obviously also interested in how the game played, but didn't address it directly. Instead, they looked at it through the proxies of "coherent, logical system" and "game balance."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The Souljourner

First Post
Great post. I think you have it 100% right. In addition to making 4e more fun to play I think they're also trying to make the game more balanced across the levels... the big things being more gradual and smooth gains in power, more viability of low level characters, and less difference between characters at mid-high level (think 9th level fighter with a few ranks in spot vs. 9th level rogue with 12 ranks in hide + high dex + equipment). They'll hopefully do the same thing for saving throws so that at high levels it's not auto pass for the rogue's reflex save and not auto fail for the fighter's.

I can't wait to see what they come up with. 3.x was a great start to a new D&D with more cohesive rules, but I think they needed the 6+ years of playtesting to figure out exactly what needs to be tweaked to make D&D a fantastic game.

-Nate
 




Atlatl Jones

Explorer
The Souljourner said:
Great post. I think you have it 100% right. In addition to making 4e more fun to play I think they're also trying to make the game more balanced across the levels... the big things being more gradual and smooth gains in power, more viability of low level characters, and less difference between characters at mid-high level (think 9th level fighter with a few ranks in spot vs. 9th level rogue with 12 ranks in hide + high dex + equipment). They'll hopefully do the same thing for saving throws so that at high levels it's not auto pass for the rogue's reflex save and not auto fail for the fighter's.
That does seem to be one of the great playability goals: to make high level play as fun and easy to play as the low level "sweet spot". It's relatively easy to see the source of the problem too: when the designers created 3e, high level magic was a straighforward port of 2e magic, with changes to the spells to all work in the same rationalized way, but not changes to what the spells actually did. The problem was that 2e high level magic was inherently unbalanced, and changing it over made it even more so. The rational progressions of ever increasing iterative attacks and increasingly disparate saving throws created the other problems you described.
 

Nyaricus

First Post
Great post, OP - I'm just personally wondering how big of a change we'll see in the 3e to 4e transition, as opposed to the 2e to 3e transition - will it be big? It seems it might, really.

cheers,
--N
 

Ry

Explorer
I think it's important to keep in mind that 3e was going strong for WotC into this period. For the first time in maybe 20 years, we're seeing an edition made from a company in a position of strength. They're not trying to save the game, because it doesn't need saving: they want to make it better, and they have the tools, the long design cycle, the feedback about the previous edition, and the talented designers to do it.
 

Atlatl Jones said:
One side effect of this was that the designers created a game that was a bit too complicatd, and didn't yet fully understand the emergent properties of what they had created, so there were balance problems.

You could say that about ANY Rpg out there. Period.
 

Agamon

Adventurer
I've come to a similar conclusion as the OP after seeing all the new interviews and such. Olgar and Ryan are both correct, too. I still have issues with some of the decisions, though. But I'm willing to wait until I see the whole picture before passing judgment.
 

Remove ads

Top