@Agradine Sorry if that was too abrasive. Comparing 4E release materials to the full spectrum of 3.5 materials is the best example of an unfair comparison I have ever heard. If we were to compare them at their full capacity or just their Player's Handbooks, the ratio of things-that-could-not-be-used-in-combat-without-serious-creativity vs. things-that-are-for-combat would be similar in both. If your metric is the skill system, I'm not sure where you're coming from, because both Editions are similarly robust. 4E does lack the cool Use Magic Device skill, though. A shame, but nothing you cannot house rule.
As for the "feel" of gameplay, I wouldn't bat an eyelash if Baldur's Gate 3 combat was more turn-based tactical. But, then, I love tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.
@Nifft That is an issue, and I'm not sure how one would go about fixing it. Although, didn't NWN2 have counterspelling? I almost never play Wizards or Clerics, so I can't be sure if that is the case or how it worked, but I imagine there are some solutions there for implementing Interrupts. Though, the easiest way to avoid this would be to simply not include Interrupts that require too much player agency or too much specific timing. Things like the Fighter punishing his mark with a free attack or a Wizard activating Shield just in time to avoid a hit could stay, of course.
4e would be terrible for a real-time video game -- single player or MMO style, doesn't matter. Why?
Interrupts.
4e was a game which relied on the specific kind of communication possible in face-to-face table-top play, which is where one player interrupts the actions of another -- usually a PC's player interrupting the DM's monsters, but sometimes the other way around.
If the game were turn-based, it might be possible, but even then you'd have to have something clunky like making the player confirm every single enemy action, just to ensure he doesn't miss his chance to interrupt the one he wants to interrupt.
From what I've seen so far, 5e ("D&D Next") would be a much better choice.
I think interrupts are workable, though obviously not all interrupts would be suitable for a real time game. We already have casting interrupts in MMOs, for example. All you need to do is have the moves be telegraphed while giving the player time to react. Alternately, you could have them set up passive conditions that will automatically trigger immediate actions when those conditions are met, similar to a Contingency, which is essentially an Interrupt and works just fine in BG2.
No offense taken. I would argue my comparison holds up even just looking st both systems' first PHBs. My main gripes with 4e's skill system were the consolidation and removal of skills and the ESPECIALLY the change from skill points to trained/untrained. Absolutely kills the skill system for me.
3.5!!! Actually as long as i can be a spell slinging sword wielding bad ass (with some thief skills thrown in the mix). 2e, while cool in it's own right, has way too many restrictions.
No offense taken. I would argue my comparison holds up even just looking st both systems' first PHBs. My main gripes with 4e's skill system were the consolidation and removal of skills and the ESPECIALLY the change from skill points to trained/untrained. Absolutely kills the skill system for me.
I like some consolidation, especially with regards to skills that are always used together, or skills that are unusable without first succeeding at a different skill. Hide and Move Silently is the perfect example of this; given how often they are rolled together, it just makes sense to roll them into one skill. You not only save time, but you also make it so that a character who isn't sitting on a boatload of skill points can consider making their character stealthy. I half agree with you on the skill training issue. While I like the simplicity of 4e over 3.X's skill point bean-counting and synergy-piling, the training system does really increase the costs of making a character who's moderately competent at a variety of tasks as opposed to very good at a few.
At any rate, the more cogent comparison for the ability of each system to accommodate non-combat focused gaming might be the DMGs. Comparing them, which edition gives the DM more tools for designing non-combat interactions and determining how to award experience for those (so that the players aren't limited to killing things to level up)?
In all honesty I really couldn't care if BG3 (or w/e they plan to make next) doesn't follow any DnD ruleset. As I have said before, the game should make the rules, and not the rules the game.
Besides, translating turn-based combat into real-time combat is bound to screw everything up anyway. Might as well make something specifically designed for real-time gameplay.
Besides, translating turn-based combat into real-time combat is bound to screw everything up anyway. Might as well make something specifically designed for real-time gameplay.
Well BG was (more or less) real-time, and it used a ruleset that was normally turn-based. And I think most people would agree that combat in BG turned out alright.
I think interrupts are workable, though obviously not all interrupts would be suitable for a real time game. We already have casting interrupts in MMOs, for example. All you need to do is have the moves be telegraphed while giving the player time to react.
Pick a list of Interrupts which works just as well in real time against a party of zero mages as it does against a party of six mages.
Besides, translating turn-based combat into real-time combat is bound to screw everything up anyway. Might as well make something specifically designed for real-time gameplay.
Well BG was (more or less) real-time, and it used a ruleset that was normally turn-based. And I think most people would agree that combat in BG turned out alright.
BG does work pretty well. However, some things do feel quite odd at first. 1 spell/round would make more sense in a turn-based scenario, esp. when everything takes a different amount of time to cast.
"Screw everything up" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but translating gameplay in that sense is pretty much guaranteed to have some sort of unwanted side-effects, whether they make the game a bit clunky or extremely difficult to work with.
For example, you wouldn't try to turn HoMM-style combat into real-time because at best only retaliation would be screwed up. I don't even want to consider something like Chess.
No offense taken. I would argue my comparison holds up even just looking st both systems' first PHBs. My main gripes with 4e's skill system were the consolidation and removal of skills and the ESPECIALLY the change from skill points to trained/untrained. Absolutely kills the skill system for me.
I can't imagine you sincerely advocate keeping Stealth separated as Hide/Move Silently. That was the absolute best of the consolidations. Thievery encompassing Sleight of Hand, Pick Pocket, Pick Lock, and Disarm Trap is certainly more questionable, but considering rogue archetypes and certain prestige classes were the only ones who could even make a dent in mastering those skills, they might as well be one thing. After all, the "thief practice" the thief guilds in both BG1 and BG2 employ encompass all of those things. Trained/Untrained versus skill points is similarly debatable as a matter of taste, but they ultimately accomplish the same thing anyway.
@Kaigen Without question, I would say the 4E DMG and DMG2 gave me the best advice and easiest tools for devising content and adjudicating the unexpected. Where the 4E DMG shines is with player agency and helping me figure out what the player should roll if they want to do something that isn't on their character sheet or isn't a skill. The example they give is perfect, too, the Rogue wants to swing on a chandelier and kick an ogre into a fireplace instead of just moving up and attacking, something everybody wants to do at one time or another. The DMG provided not only a method for determining a balanced attack roll, but a table with suggested damage for the action if successful. The best systems, D&D or otherwise, provide clear advice, examples, and tables for officiating things that aren't strictly by-the-book or by-the-character-sheet.
Pick a list of Interrupts which works just as well in real time against a party of zero mages as it does against a party of six mages.
Go on, try it.
I'll wait.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for. What do you mean by how it works versus mages and versus no mages? Please, elaborate.
Yeah, I'm not sure what you're getting at there. What difference does it make whether or not you're fighting mages? Is it because I mentioned interrupting casting in MMOs? That's just an example of how an action can be telegraphed in order to give a player time to interrupt it in real time. It doesn't have to be a spell, it could just as easily be an attack with a noticeable windup.
Regardless, I'd start any such list with the Opportunity Attack, which has been implemented in other games (I think Project: Eternity might be doing something similar as well) and which is easy to do because there is rarely a reason not to make an OA, so it can be an automatic thing. The Fighter's No Opening and Last Ditch Evasion are two other examples of ones that could be easily implemented and would work both against mages and non-mages (though I'm not sure what the difference is).
@Kaigen I just realized you were talking about which DMG helped more with non-combat encounters. In which case, that would still be 4E, as skill challenges and the design thereof have been a great boon to me if my players are ever in the mood to accomplish something I deem more complicated than one or two skill checks.
only thing i didn't like about 4th edition is that it's almost impossible to solo play or play it with 2 people.. you need at least 4 people....
anyway 4th edition has some good stuff... like the war of the elementals (Genies Vs Titans on the total domination of elemental plane) I also like that the gods and primemordal are in (was) war...
Ohhh yaaa I like the 4th edition of shadow mage
Shadow mage was it called in 2nd edition Shadowcaster was it called in 3.5 edition and in 4th edition the call shadow mage a Nethermancer
Must say i like the 4th edition of shadow mage the best (Nethermancer)
It like Alterations specialist... you call a Alterations mage a Transmuter
Same goes with shadow mage.. you call them Nethermancer
Does anyone who is familiar with Edition Next know how it might be customized to produce a ruleset that uses the best elements of 2nd edition AD&D, and also incorporates some other features that actually might make the game even better than the beloved Infinity BG series?
Because if that is feasible then I am excited about the prospects for BG3 aka BG: Next.
Does anyone who is familiar with Edition Next know how it might be customized to produce a ruleset that uses the best elements of 2nd edition AD&D, and also incorporates some other features that actually might make the game even better than the beloved Infinity BG series?
Because if that is feasible then I am excited about the prospects for BG3 aka BG: Next.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you're asking for. What do you mean by how it works versus mages and versus no mages? Please, elaborate.
I'm not into MMOs, so I'd like you to tell me what you meant by "casting interrupts".
There are instant use abilities that are designed to interrupt enemies to stop them from using powerful abilities. You have them on a hot key and when you see an enemy winding up an ability, usually indicated by a "casting bar" somewhere on the screen, though it doesn't have to be a spell, you hit the hotkey and your character performs a shield bash or a quick jolt or the like which prevents their ability from going off (or continuing, in the case of a "channeled" ability). So it could be a shield bash in response to an enemy mage preparing to cast fireball, or a small electrical jolt in response to seeing an enemy crank back their two handed sword for a big swing.
Granted, not all 4e interrupts fall into the "stop the enemy from doing that nasty thing" category, but it's an example of how interrupts can be worked into a real time system. So long as you give a slight delay and some indicator when a trigger is going to happen, be it a casting bar or an animation or a sound effect, the player can respond without having to stop the action entirely every time a possible trigger comes up. That's the active version. A passive implementation would be very much like how Contingency is handled in BG; for each interrupt, you set up a simple trigger situation which will cause the ability to be used automatically.
The competition to D&D (and just about all other Fantasy Games) is WoW.
And that is the naked truth - it does not matter if one does not accept it, wish to accept it, or acknowledge it, it is the simple truth.
Compared to the WoW monster, everything else is just miniscule. I personally dislike WoW, myself. But, I have to acknowledge that it has everyone's attention and has set THE standard for online play. The bar is so high, none have found a way to jump over it yet.
Turning back towards 2e vs 3e - 3e simply slaughtered 2e in content. Just look at what is available for NWN, content-wise. Nothing even remotely comparable, thanks to the extremely good toolset. Most probably are not even aware of just how much free content is available for NWN (3e) - it is enough to keep one busy for far longer than the average lifespan, and that is only counting single player content.
2e is not king - 3e is really king. Fact is in the content. NWN is 3e and has the most content.
The competition to D&D (and just about all other Fantasy Games) is WoW.
And that is the naked truth - it does not matter if one does not accept it, wish to accept it, or acknowledge it, it is the simple truth.
Compared to the WoW monster, everything else is just miniscule. I personally dislike WoW, myself. But, I have to acknowledge that it has everyone's attention and has set THE standard for online play. The bar is so high, none have found a way to jump over it yet.
Are you assuming BG3 would be an MMO (or have a heavy multiplayer focus in general)? Otherwise I don't see why WoW would come into play, regardless of it's popularity.
Turning back towards 2e vs 3e - 3e simply slaughtered 2e in content. Just look at what is available for NWN, content-wise. Nothing even remotely comparable, thanks to the extremely good toolset. Most probably are not even aware of just how much free content is available for NWN (3e) - it is enough to keep one busy for far longer than the average lifespan, and that is only counting single player content.
2e is not king - 3e is really king. Fact is in the content. NWN is 3e and has the most content.
But you said it yourself, the massive amount of content for NWN is due to its toolset. If Baldur's Gate had a toolset, maybe it'd have just as much content. This seems less about which D&D edition the game uses, and more about how accessible the game is to modding/creating custom content.
3.5!!! Actually as long as i can be a spell slinging sword wielding bad ass (with some thief skills thrown in the mix). 2e, while cool in it's own right, has way too many restrictions.
In other words, you want a jack of all trades, not a character. (joke... no offense intended).
I never really knew 1e, because it was do quickly eclipsed by 2e, under which the game flourished. Rules extensions, game worlds, novels, you name it. People complain that the volume of materials was vomitous, but the fact is that scores of good writers were able to write scores of interesting and imaginative books. TSR was selling product like never before or since... not to mention all of the d20-style alternatives (and ripoffs) that sprung up back then. Eventually the engine burnt itself out, a new generation of players came up, and we got 3e.
That's not exactly true. The peak of D&D's popularity was during 1e (BECMI was also being published as a separate line). It was also around that time that the whole controversy about it being a "satanic" game happened. This was the closest D&D ever got to be a mainstream hobby, since the whole media frenzy put it in the spotlight and sales skyrocketed for a short period. No such thing as bad publicity, I guess.
So 2e isn't when the game flourished - in fact, during those years (1989-1999) (A)D&D's popularity waned and TSR finally went bankrupt. This was due to several factors, but it also had to do with a lot of other games (Storyteller being the most successful) entering the market.
Then came along WotC and 3e. Regardless of how one feels about that edition, it's a fact that it revamped D&D's popularity. That's also when D20 and the OGL were created.
BG itself caused WOTC to be insecure in the future of their PnP product, and they started tinkering to try to head off the perceived threat from computer games.
I'm not sure that's true either. BG itself didn't really affect the PnP market (but it certainly made cRPGs commercially viable again). Videogames didn't only pose a threat to RPGs, but to "analog" gaming in general. It's just the way the world works, with newer technologies taking the spotlight.
Although it's inevitable, I'd argue WotC handled it well, at least for a while. NWN came out and it was a huge hit. BG2 also did good.
I am among those who's only knowledge of D&D comes from Baldur's Gate 1&2, Icewind Dale 1&2 and Neverwinter Nights. I love Baldur's Gate 2 most of them all, but I musdt say that the system for IWD2 was nicely done - intuitive and easy to grasp. What made BG2 so great for me is the story and characters. The only thing is missed from the IWD2 system was items that could max out your stats (gauntlets of ogre strength makes you 18/00, rather than giving you str+3 or something).
As far as I know the new systems are even more simplified tna NWN (3ed?), which might make pnp suffer, but might actually make game adoption easier? If the story, characters and world is well made, the ruleset will be more an aftertought - if is easier to use then it is only a bonus in my book.
I'm not into MMOs, so I'd like you to tell me what you meant by "casting interrupts".
There are instant use abilities that are designed to interrupt enemies to stop them from using powerful abilities. You have them on a hot key and when you see an enemy winding up an ability, usually indicated by a "casting bar" somewhere on the screen, though it doesn't have to be a spell, you hit the hotkey and your character performs a shield bash or a quick jolt or the like which prevents their ability from going off (or continuing, in the case of a "channeled" ability). So it could be a shield bash in response to an enemy mage preparing to cast fireball, or a small electrical jolt in response to seeing an enemy crank back their two handed sword for a big swing.
Granted, not all 4e interrupts fall into the "stop the enemy from doing that nasty thing" category, but it's an example of how interrupts can be worked into a real time system. So long as you give a slight delay and some indicator when a trigger is going to happen, be it a casting bar or an animation or a sound effect, the player can respond without having to stop the action entirely every time a possible trigger comes up. That's the active version. A passive implementation would be very much like how Contingency is handled in BG; for each interrupt, you set up a simple trigger situation which will cause the ability to be used automatically.
What you're describing is actually implemented in BGEE -- you can interrupt a spellcaster by targeting him with some speedy weapon. So I guess 2e is the WoW edition. ;-)
But that's not the same thing as the 4e Interrupt action. In 4e, a Wizard might use Shield to give himself a higher AC, but he makes that decision after he sees what AC the attack would hit! He doesn't get a lot of uses of Shield, but neither does he waste those uses when they wouldn't help.
The Wizard gets another interrupt power which allows him to teleport 20 ft. in response to an attack. That one I save to negate a critical hit. Raising my AC wouldn't help vs. a crit, but being elsewhere works great.
The Fighter, on the other hand, has an Interrupt which allows him to attack his chosen opponent if that opponent tries to attack anyone other than the Fighter. He interrupts the attack action before the opponent's attack is rolled -- as soon as the attack is declared, he must decide if he pulls the trigger.
Those three different effects are very easy to describe, and very easy to use in play, but from a programming perspective they'd be a nightmare.
I am among those who's only knowledge of D&D comes from Baldur's Gate 1&2, Icewind Dale 1&2 and Neverwinter Nights. I love Baldur's Gate 2 most of them all, but I musdt say that the system for IWD2 was nicely done - intuitive and easy to grasp. What made BG2 so great for me is the story and characters. The only thing is missed from the IWD2 system was items that could max out your stats (gauntlets of ogre strength makes you 18/00, rather than giving you str+3 or something).
As far as I know the new systems are even more simplified tna NWN (3ed?), which might make pnp suffer, but might actually make game adoption easier? If the story, characters and world is well made, the ruleset will be more an aftertought - if is easier to use then it is only a bonus in my book.
Many old school D&D players have trouble accepting that simplicity isn't always bad, unfortunately.
There are systems out there, such as FateRPG, where player-characters are nothing but a list of ~5 character traits the player makes up (such as "Wizard Private Eye" or "Better Dead Than Red") and a couple of skills alloted with point-buy, and that system does more to encourage roleplay than D&D probably ever will. Besides, the systems gets more cohesive and comprehensible with each edition, not more simple. 3E and 4E characters have infinitely more permutations in playstyle and mechanics than a character in the previous two Editions.
If WOTC decides that the mission of D&D is to defeat MMOs and CRPGs it is doomed to failure. THAT is naked truth. To remain relevant, D&D needs to carve out a different set of hours from a customer's week.
Helm yeah.
And that, folks, is the big problem with 4e - disfiguring the game in order to cater for MMO audiences.
But I'm beginning to think WotC learned their lesson. 4e fans can argue as much as they'd like about how it's actually the better edition, but from a marketing perspective, it backfired. The proof is on the D&D Next playtest. It's all about going back to what worked previously, and catering to the people they previously alienated - the long-time fans who are going to keep playing D&D no matter what novelty the videogame industry comes up with.
What games and campaign settings have been produced - and sold - under the D&D brand lately? [huge list of settings] These things sold, they achieved commercial success in a real market. 3e and everything that followed gave us... Eberron, and a slow spiral into irrelevance.
As much as I agree with you, 3e contributed in other ways. The OGL made sure a shit-ton of supporting material was produced and helped keeping the game relevant for almost 10 years. It actually spawned a monster when Paizo became almost as big as WotC in the RPG market.
Some folks might even say that's what motivated them to make 4e - to close the market again. I don't know about that, but the revised OGL for 4e products was a lot stricter this time around.
But putting 4e aside, the reason why WotC didn't invest so much in settings is because although having all that content is nice for players, it did hurt TSR financially. There were too many lines competing with one another and it hurt sales.
Comments
Sorry if that was too abrasive.
Comparing 4E release materials to the full spectrum of 3.5 materials is the best example of an unfair comparison I have ever heard. If we were to compare them at their full capacity or just their Player's Handbooks, the ratio of things-that-could-not-be-used-in-combat-without-serious-creativity vs. things-that-are-for-combat would be similar in both. If your metric is the skill system, I'm not sure where you're coming from, because both Editions are similarly robust. 4E does lack the cool Use Magic Device skill, though. A shame, but nothing you cannot house rule.
As for the "feel" of gameplay, I wouldn't bat an eyelash if Baldur's Gate 3 combat was more turn-based tactical. But, then, I love tactical RPGs like Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea.
@Nifft
That is an issue, and I'm not sure how one would go about fixing it. Although, didn't NWN2 have counterspelling? I almost never play Wizards or Clerics, so I can't be sure if that is the case or how it worked, but I imagine there are some solutions there for implementing Interrupts. Though, the easiest way to avoid this would be to simply not include Interrupts that require too much player agency or too much specific timing. Things like the Fighter punishing his mark with a free attack or a Wizard activating Shield just in time to avoid a hit could stay, of course.
At any rate, the more cogent comparison for the ability of each system to accommodate non-combat focused gaming might be the DMGs. Comparing them, which edition gives the DM more tools for designing non-combat interactions and determining how to award experience for those (so that the players aren't limited to killing things to level up)?
Besides, translating turn-based combat into real-time combat is bound to screw everything up anyway. Might as well make something specifically designed for real-time gameplay.
Go on, try it.
I'll wait.
"Screw everything up" might be a bit of an exaggeration, but translating gameplay in that sense is pretty much guaranteed to have some sort of unwanted side-effects, whether they make the game a bit clunky or extremely difficult to work with.
For example, you wouldn't try to turn HoMM-style combat into real-time because at best only retaliation would be screwed up. I don't even want to consider something like Chess.
@Kaigen
Without question, I would say the 4E DMG and DMG2 gave me the best advice and easiest tools for devising content and adjudicating the unexpected. Where the 4E DMG shines is with player agency and helping me figure out what the player should roll if they want to do something that isn't on their character sheet or isn't a skill. The example they give is perfect, too, the Rogue wants to swing on a chandelier and kick an ogre into a fireplace instead of just moving up and attacking, something everybody wants to do at one time or another. The DMG provided not only a method for determining a balanced attack roll, but a table with suggested damage for the action if successful. The best systems, D&D or otherwise, provide clear advice, examples, and tables for officiating things that aren't strictly by-the-book or by-the-character-sheet.
Regardless, I'd start any such list with the Opportunity Attack, which has been implemented in other games (I think Project: Eternity might be doing something similar as well) and which is easy to do because there is rarely a reason not to make an OA, so it can be an automatic thing. The Fighter's No Opening and Last Ditch Evasion are two other examples of ones that could be easily implemented and would work both against mages and non-mages (though I'm not sure what the difference is).
I just realized you were talking about which DMG helped more with non-combat encounters. In which case, that would still be 4E, as skill challenges and the design thereof have been a great boon to me if my players are ever in the mood to accomplish something I deem more complicated than one or two skill checks.
you need at least 4 people....
anyway 4th edition has some good stuff... like the war of the elementals (Genies Vs Titans on the total domination of elemental plane) I also like that the gods and primemordal are in (was) war...
Ohhh yaaa I like the 4th edition of shadow mage
Shadow mage was it called in 2nd edition
Shadowcaster was it called in 3.5 edition
and in 4th edition the call shadow mage a Nethermancer
Must say i like the 4th edition of shadow mage the best (Nethermancer)
It like Alterations specialist... you call a Alterations mage a Transmuter
Same goes with shadow mage.. you call them Nethermancer
Because if that is feasible then I am excited about the prospects for BG3 aka BG: Next.
And most importantly can you be a Nethermancer or Shai'r???? they should be core book classes....
Granted, not all 4e interrupts fall into the "stop the enemy from doing that nasty thing" category, but it's an example of how interrupts can be worked into a real time system. So long as you give a slight delay and some indicator when a trigger is going to happen, be it a casting bar or an animation or a sound effect, the player can respond without having to stop the action entirely every time a possible trigger comes up. That's the active version. A passive implementation would be very much like how Contingency is handled in BG; for each interrupt, you set up a simple trigger situation which will cause the ability to be used automatically.
And that is the naked truth - it does not matter if one does not accept it, wish to accept it, or acknowledge it, it is the simple truth.
Compared to the WoW monster, everything else is just miniscule. I personally dislike WoW, myself. But, I have to acknowledge that it has everyone's attention and has set THE standard for online play. The bar is so high, none have found a way to jump over it yet.
Turning back towards 2e vs 3e - 3e simply slaughtered 2e in content. Just look at what is available for NWN, content-wise. Nothing even remotely comparable, thanks to the extremely good toolset. Most probably are not even aware of just how much free content is available for NWN (3e) - it is enough to keep one busy for far longer than the average lifespan, and that is only counting single player content.
2e is not king - 3e is really king. Fact is in the content. NWN is 3e and has the most content.
So 2e isn't when the game flourished - in fact, during those years (1989-1999) (A)D&D's popularity waned and TSR finally went bankrupt. This was due to several factors, but it also had to do with a lot of other games (Storyteller being the most successful) entering the market.
Then came along WotC and 3e. Regardless of how one feels about that edition, it's a fact that it revamped D&D's popularity. That's also when D20 and the OGL were created. I'm not sure that's true either. BG itself didn't really affect the PnP market (but it certainly made cRPGs commercially viable again). Videogames didn't only pose a threat to RPGs, but to "analog" gaming in general. It's just the way the world works, with newer technologies taking the spotlight.
Although it's inevitable, I'd argue WotC handled it well, at least for a while. NWN came out and it was a huge hit. BG2 also did good.
As far as I know the new systems are even more simplified tna NWN (3ed?), which might make pnp suffer, but might actually make game adoption easier? If the story, characters and world is well made, the ruleset will be more an aftertought - if is easier to use then it is only a bonus in my book.
But that's not the same thing as the 4e Interrupt action. In 4e, a Wizard might use Shield to give himself a higher AC, but he makes that decision after he sees what AC the attack would hit! He doesn't get a lot of uses of Shield, but neither does he waste those uses when they wouldn't help.
The Wizard gets another interrupt power which allows him to teleport 20 ft. in response to an attack. That one I save to negate a critical hit. Raising my AC wouldn't help vs. a crit, but being elsewhere works great.
The Fighter, on the other hand, has an Interrupt which allows him to attack his chosen opponent if that opponent tries to attack anyone other than the Fighter. He interrupts the attack action before the opponent's attack is rolled -- as soon as the attack is declared, he must decide if he pulls the trigger.
Those three different effects are very easy to describe, and very easy to use in play, but from a programming perspective they'd be a nightmare.
There are systems out there, such as FateRPG, where player-characters are nothing but a list of ~5 character traits the player makes up (such as "Wizard Private Eye" or "Better Dead Than Red") and a couple of skills alloted with point-buy, and that system does more to encourage roleplay than D&D probably ever will.
Besides, the systems gets more cohesive and comprehensible with each edition, not more simple. 3E and 4E characters have infinitely more permutations in playstyle and mechanics than a character in the previous two Editions.
And that, folks, is the big problem with 4e - disfiguring the game in order to cater for MMO audiences.
But I'm beginning to think WotC learned their lesson. 4e fans can argue as much as they'd like about how it's actually the better edition, but from a marketing perspective, it backfired. The proof is on the D&D Next playtest. It's all about going back to what worked previously, and catering to the people they previously alienated - the long-time fans who are going to keep playing D&D no matter what novelty the videogame industry comes up with. As much as I agree with you, 3e contributed in other ways. The OGL made sure a shit-ton of supporting material was produced and helped keeping the game relevant for almost 10 years. It actually spawned a monster when Paizo became almost as big as WotC in the RPG market.
Some folks might even say that's what motivated them to make 4e - to close the market again. I don't know about that, but the revised OGL for 4e products was a lot stricter this time around.
But putting 4e aside, the reason why WotC didn't invest so much in settings is because although having all that content is nice for players, it did hurt TSR financially. There were too many lines competing with one another and it hurt sales.