D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

Kai Lord · Jul 12, 2014

Hey guys,

As I mentioned in another thread I was very active in playing 3E and then "real life" pulled me away from role-playing games from about 2005 until now. I'm really psyched about getting back to D&D and 5E looks like it will be extremely cool. But with regard to 4E it's like I'm coming out of suspended animation and completely missed the entire experience. The announcement, the overall reaction, the sneak peeks, and then of course the actual release of core books and so on. 3rd Edition was so much fun to anticipate through this site and then I had a blast playing both it and 3.5 with my friends.

I see that 4E was polarizing in a number of ways. But can someone give me the "jist" of the whole thing? Or maybe point me to a site that has already broken it down?

Specifically:

1. How did everybody (or most people) here react to the news of a new edition in the first place? Excitement or trepidation? Didn't 3.5 still have a good amount of momentum in 2007? Or were people ready for an overhaul?

2. How impressive were the early sneak peeks? Were people shocked at some of the changes from the get go? Or were people who didn't like the new game mostly blindsided once they picked up the core books?

3. I see that that having the option of playing "Pathfinder" fragmented the fanbase somewhat. Was that a good thing or bad thing for this forum? Or did it have a minimal effect at all?

4. What else was noteworthy about 4E? Was there some product that was particularly awesome or infamous?

If any of my questions trigger memories of frustrating times then that's not what I'm going for. I guess I'm more curious about reading a bit of a forensic breakdown of how the whole thing played out. Just for my own curiosity. Thanks in advance for anyone who indulges me.

thexar · Jul 12, 2014

Personal experience. Our first read through reaction was: meh, I don't get it. We played through the launch title Shadowfel (something or other), and it was a lot of fun. We were happy and thought, ok we get it now. Then we played some more games, got some levels, and it quickly became uninteresting. My usual group didn't want any more to do with 4th. We had enough 3.5 to keep us going for years. We still never got through it all (plus Exalted, Savage Worlds, and a few others).

I was determined to find the fun in 4th, so I joined another group on a different day. With that group I played: wizard, rogue, warrior, and warlock, levels 1 through 15, and it was never fun (I enjoyed the company, and I was determined). The content is weak to annoying, character maintenance was a nightmare, and there was no flavor between the classes.

But -they- liked it, and that was ok with me.

I don't think PF split the players. I think there were a lot of people like me who just didn't like the new version, and PF stepped in to fill that desire.

My read-through of the playtest and basic D&D went very well. This is more like the game I want to play. I hope it goes well, and PF is able to merge back to D&D.

Dungeoneer · Jul 12, 2014

Kai Lord said:
I see that 4E was polarizing in a number of ways. But can someone give me the "jist" of the whole thing? Or maybe point me to a site that has already broken it down?

You are putting it mildly. For some folks the sheer mention of 4e makes them crazy. I don't know if you can get a "tl;dr" version without being dragged through 5+ years of bad blood.

I'll just say that 4e was an edition that wasn't afraid to try some new things and slaughter some sacred cows. It may have erred too much in this direction; there were some that felt it wasn't truly D&D.

That said I think 4e and Pathfinder players got along just fine for the most part and I know many people who played both.

Every new edition is "too soon."

GSHamster · Jul 12, 2014

The biggest thing about 4E was that it wasn't OGL. It had a much more restrictive license, which most third party publishers felt they couldn't work with.

So that gave the 3PP a lot of incentive to keep their OGL games going, rather than transitioning to 4E variants along with WotC. And as we saw, that eventually led to Pazio overtaking WotC (at least in traditional sales metrics).

I still think that if 4E had been OGL, the 3PP would have switched to 4E as well. They probably would have published alternate rules which toned down the game mechanics that caused the most dissension. But I think that the D&D community would all be playing a recognizable version of 4E today if 4E had been OGL.

Henry · Jul 12, 2014

Dungeoneer has a good synopsis. I think the biggest contention is that so MANY things had changed, from rules, to presentation, to marketing and business strategy, that for many it was N + 1 bridges too far (varying per customer).

Then the OGL got put to its greatest test with Pathfinder - and Pathfinder according to some sources like ICV2 started selling better than D&D. Enough people were unwilling enough to follow 4e that Pathfinder made a business model off of continuing to support it. Had it lower needs for Return on Investment, I believe D&D4 would have maintained enough market share to be quite viable - but given the company structure, the timing, and the investment, enough people moved to Pathfinder or other systems like the OSR games or Savage Worlds, etc. that it just didn't have the market share to thrive.

Remathilis · Jul 12, 2014

Kai Lord said:
1. How did everybody (or most people) here react to the news of a new edition in the first place? Excitement or trepidation? Didn't 3.5 still have a good amount of momentum in 2007? Or were people ready for an overhaul?

Come 2007, 3.5 was still strong, but the momentum of dozens of splat-books was dragging it down some. They tried several "same but more" books (Monster Manual 5, Complete Mage) and several "new and different" (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Book of Nine Swords) but the system was starting to strain under the weight of its options and the balance issues that came with dozens and dozens of options.

There was a need for a change, or at least a house-cleaning.

Kai Lord said:
2. How impressive were the early sneak peeks? Were people shocked at some of the changes from the get go? Or were people who didn't like the new game mostly blindsided once they picked up the core books?

For some, there was a LOT of alienation about the leadup to 4e. A lot of early material gave people a feeling of "3e was wrong, 4e will do it right" The debate culminated in a post known as "cloud watching" which many people took offense to. (The jist was, we have seen the whole picture and you haven't, so don't complain until you see it all).

That said, it wasn't all doom and gloom: the preview books (Worlds and Monsters and Classes and Races) were excellent, and the Tiefling and the Gnome video was well-received.

[video]www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqFPujRZWo[/video]

Kai Lord said:
3. I see that that having the option of playing "Pathfinder" fragmented the
fanbase somewhat. Was that a good thing or bad thing for this forum? Or did it have a minimal effect at all?

The Pathfinder/4e split is still bad in some places, but its died down some here.

Kai Lord said:
4. What else was noteworthy about 4E? Was there some product that was particularly awesome or infamous?

I can't comment on it too much: I was out shortly after PHB2 came out. I've heard the Essentials line (a update to 4e's rules) are generally liked, while many of the original books (esp the Adventurer Vaults, Monster Manuals, and X Powers books) were dull lists of powers. The DDi is generally well received.

cavalier973 · Jul 12, 2014

I see that 4E was polarizing in a number of ways.

Some one just threw a "4th Edition is Dead" Party, complete with book burning (he took pictures)

So, yeah, there was some polarization.

Healing Surges seemed to be a factor of high annoyance. At least, people's misperceptions about what Healing Surges actually were seemed to cause grief.

Still, many who played it had fun. Piratecat had a big honkin' thread describing the game he was running.
I still listen to the "Acquisitions, Inc." podcasts; if for no other reason, D&D4e should be respected for bringing us Omin, Binwin, and Jim Darkmagic.

evileeyore · Jul 12, 2014

Kai Lord said:
Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

Opinions varied from:

"Best Edition Ever! It even made me a ham sandwich on it's way out the door!"

to

"Worst Edition Ever! It kicked a puppy/killed my fav edition/gave me herpes!"

M.L. Martin · Jul 12, 2014

Welcome back, Kai Lord! It's been a long time; I owe you a belated thanks for inspiring elements of my Dragonlance Anti-Canon.

I didn't get as much play experience with 4E as I would have liked, but something that hasn't been mentioned is that the game made a lot of changes to the D&D mythology--and produced a lot of good fluff. The three Planes books (Manual, Below and Above) and Underdark seem to be particularly popular, as was the revision of Dark Sun they did. The changes to the Forgotten Realms, by contrast, were not at all welcomed.

You might also get a kick out of the two Draconomicons, if only for the fact that aside from Bahamut and a few other outliers, there are no good dragons in 4E.

Tequila Sunrise · Jul 12, 2014

Kai Lord said:
I see that 4E was polarizing in a number of ways. But can someone give me the "jist" of the whole thing? Or maybe point me to a site that has already broken it down?

Others have answered your specific questions, so I'll just link you to my Why 4e Fans Love 4e blog post.

Hope it helps.

cavalier973 said:
Some one just threw a "4th Edition is Dead" Party, complete with book burning (he took pictures)

Wow, that is some serious nerdrage.

cavalier973 said:
Still, many who played it had fun. Piratecat had a big honkin' thread describing the game he was running.
I still listen to the "Acquisitions, Inc." podcasts; if for no other reason, D&D4e should be respected for bringing us Omin, Binwin, and Jim Darkmagic.

Didn't know about that one; I'll have to check it out!