With 5e here, what will 4e be remembered for?

pemerton · Jul 14, 2014

As an episode in RPG design and publishing, I'll remember 4e for endless threads full of threads about "dissociated mechanics" and "how does it make sense that a fighter can only use his best move once per day" (answer - he can try and use it as many times per day as he likes - but the game doesn't model all those attempts the same way, and the game also stipulates that not all of those attempts will be successful).

As an RPG that I played, I'll remember it for giving me my best campaign, and my best GMing experiences, to date - and I've run some other campaigns that I've been pretty pleased with!

pemerton · Jul 14, 2014

Ichneumon said:
I find it amusing that a D&D edition often derided as "video-gamey" should be so unamenable to being used to create actual video games with.

I've never understood this. I don't play "videogames" or MMOs but have friends who do, and I've watched over their shoulders from time-to-time. Playing them doesn't look much like playing 4e to me.

In mechanical terms, I think 4e is distinguished by a willingness to embrace flagrantly metagame action-resolution mechanics, perfecting ideas that Gygax began to articulate in his DMG (hit points as a victory/momentum marker; saving throws as "fortune-in-the-middle"; the action economy as a gameplay abstraction; etc). For me, this created characters and NPCs/monsters who are among the most memorable I've seen at the table in over 30 years of RPGing.

DonAdam · Jul 14, 2014

4th edition can virtually guarantee an epic boss monster fight.

Ruin Explorer · Jul 14, 2014

pemerton said:
I've never understood this. I don't play "videogames" or MMOs but have friends who do, and I've watched over their shoulders from time-to-time. Playing them doesn't look much like playing 4e to me.

The only videogames 4E resembles are turn-based tactical games (and then only in combat), which it is rarely compared to. Final Fantasy Tactics would be a somewhat fair comparison. WoW or the like would be ludicrous and empty.

pemerton said:
In mechanical terms, I think 4e is distinguished by a willingness to embrace flagrantly metagame action-resolution mechanics, perfecting ideas that Gygax began to articulate in his DMG (hit points as a victory/momentum marker; saving throws as "fortune-in-the-middle"; the action economy as a gameplay abstraction; etc). For me, this created characters and NPCs/monsters who are among the most memorable I've seen at the table in over 30 years of RPGing.

The big deals for my groups were:

1) Every PC is good in a fight. This was a huge change, totally awesome, and ensured 4E's popularity with my group.

2) Every PC has skills and they actually work, even for non-specialists. Plus the innate bonus ensured no-one becomes totally irrelevant. This was also a huge change - it actually felt like 4E was the first D&D with an actual skill system to us.

For me, as a DM:

3) The return to writing an adventure (including monsters etc.) in four hours. That was gigantic and ensured my love.

Umbran · Jul 14, 2014

TrippyHippy said:
The OP asked what 4e would be remembered for - people are entitled to express their thoughts on the matter.

Yeah, be careful with that word, "entitled". As in any social arena, there are some strings attached to your entitlements.

Folks can have opinions, and state them. But we expect opinions to be presented with a modicum of respect, and a couple of posts so far have been a tad lacking. Let us avoid using the thread as a venue to vent - while venting can be healthy, that really only holds among close friends, not on internet forums.

I'd suggest making sure thoughts are targeted as constructive criticism, rather than saying, "that sucked".

Raith5 · Jul 14, 2014

Ruin Explorer said:
The only videogames 4E resembles are turn-based tactical games (and then only in combat), which it is rarely compared to. Final Fantasy Tactics would be a somewhat fair comparison. WoW or the like would be ludicrous and empty..

But I think these turn based games also capture earlier editions well - there are a hold slew of popular computer games based on 1e, 2e and 3e and licensed by TSR.

I have liked and played quite a few fantasy computer games and dabbled in MMOs. Personally I dont see a rpg being compared to computer game like Skyrim, Dragon Age or The Witcher as being a slight. These computer games were great experiences IMO and sold millions of copies each. Unfortunately the comparison falls flat because of the essential part of RPGs: sitting down with friends and working as a team was not a part of these experiences. I think 4e took teamwork up to a new level in the history of D&D, rather than took it out.

Quickleaf · Jul 14, 2014

I definitely concur with what you guys said [MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION] and [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION].

4e will be remembered for... fun dynamic combat encounters which could be created fairly easily by the DM.

For me personally, I'm all over skill challenges. Despite their many implementation flaws, that mechanic inspired so many awesome scenarios once I finally *grokked* it... Carving Thru Trolls, Breaking the Hag's Curse, Navigating Dragon Mountain, Escaping the Collapsing Mine, and on, and on...

pemerton · Jul 14, 2014

Ruin Explorer said:
Every PC is good in a fight. This was a huge change, totally awesome, and ensured 4E's popularity with my group.

For me, this on its own is not crucial. I have run FRPGs where some PCs are combat specialists and others are not. And you could achieve the goal of making every PC good in a fight simply by giving them all comparable expected damage, which probably wouldn't make for a good game.

For me, and relating to my comment upthread about "memorable characters", what really matters is that characters have flair. They stand out - from the scenery, and from one another. And so players can make their mark. In a social game, based around hanging out with the same group of people for hour after hour, this is important. 4e delivers it.

Ruin Explorer · Jul 14, 2014

pemerton said:
For me, this on its own is not crucial. I have run FRPGs where some PCs are combat specialists and others are not. And you could achieve the goal of making every PC good in a fight simply by giving them all comparable expected damage, which probably wouldn't make for a good game.

For me, and relating to my comment upthread about "memorable characters", what really matters is that characters have flair. They stand out - from the scenery, and from one another. And so players can make their mark. In a social game, based around hanging out with the same group of people for hour after hour, this is important. 4e delivers it.

It's important to PLAYERS though, that when the game says "U R A DANGEROUS KILLAR!", as Rogues, for example, have always been described by D&D, that it's actually true. 4E was the first edition where it was, I would say. Certainly my player who has been playing Thieves/Rogues in D&D for 20-odd years felt so.

Also in a social game where a session can easily be 50%+ combat (true in any edition, if rarer in some), it's important that no player have to be scrabbling to find anything useful they can do, merely because of the class they chose.

Same for non-combat actually, again 4E did better than previous editions (though had issues).

pemerton · Jul 14, 2014

Ruin Explorer said:
Same for non-combat actually, again 4E did better than previous editions (though had issues).

I agree completely with this. In my view it's the only version of D&D with workable non-combat rules. And I find them more than workable - they're actually quite good, in my opinion.

Ruin Explorer said:
It's important to PLAYERS though, that when the game says "U R A DANGEROUS KILLAR!", as Rogues, for example, have always been described by D&D, that it's actually true.

No dissent on that score either. Flavour text is no substitute for mechanics: in a game based around the mechanical resolution of players' action declarations the touchstone must be "show, don't tell".