The roots of 4e exposed? - Page 3
Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 372
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    NE Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,497
    Quote Originally Posted by Les Moore View Post
    PERHAPS, if WoTC had let the TTRPG crowd in on the little "online play" secret, INSTEAD OF PATRONIZING US, AND TREATING US LIKE A BUNCH OF
    MINDLESS THREE-YEAR-OLDS, AND TRYING TO LEAD US AROUND, BY THE NOSE, they would have done better with their highly touted, long awaited
    release, of the new version of the game.
    I doubt it. The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
    What WoTCs customers wanted was to spend $ on an improved 3x. Or in some cases an improved AD&D. What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.
    XP Les Moore, houser2112, Dannyalcatraz, 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Aldarc View Post
    I would be hestitant to use this language. You can't be truer than what happened, and 4e did evolve out of the late 3e materials. But right now we are seeing multitude of reactions to the Pathfinder 2 preview materials akin to "that looks like 4e," and "that looks like 5e," with other fans noting "that was already in late PF1 so this still looks like PF." So it does seem that 3.X d20 system remains the backbone for Pathfinder, 4e, and 5e.
    Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5. 4e was a radical change. The article did make sense though. That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.

    It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is. No way to know. The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.
    XP 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    5,510
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Serious View Post
    The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.
    Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fear not the slugman https://slugsandsilver.blogspot.com/

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Serious View Post
    Truer to the direction established by 3.0 and 3.5. 4e was a radical change. The article did make sense though. That established direction would not have brought in the desired subscription revenue in the short term.

    It might have by now that the technology has arrived be doing better than 5e is. No way to know. The editions since 3.5 seem to be performing based on marketing and trends, not content.
    As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e.

    This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle.

    * Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.
    XP heretic888, 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,172
    Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post
    I doubt it. The vast majority who passed/bailed on 4e did so because it mechanically just wasn't a version of the game they wanted to play.
    What WoTCs customers wanted was to spend $ on an improved 3x. Or in some cases an improved AD&D. What we GOT was a 3/4 baked board game designed to be played on a computer that was niether.
    The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.

    But I really appreciate 4e as a game. We played as a proper roleplaying game and it worked as well as previous editions or 5th - we didnt get so hooked that we "dwelled on the grid" as the article noted. It was a complicated game but I liked giving everyone powers and it changed my expectations of what I want to see in martial characters and monsters in particular.
    XP 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    33,116

    Folks,

    Legitimate criticism of a game is fine. But I'm seeing things that look more like caged vitriol. So, here's the one warning the thread will get: Keep that up, and the discussion will end very quickly. Mudslinging is not critique, and patience for ugliness of the past will be in short supply now.

    If you like 3.Xe, got play it (or Pathfinder). If you like 4e, go play it. If you like 5e, play it. But stop beating dead horses. Keep it to cool analysis. Keep the emotionally charged language and colorful hyperbole out of this thread.

    I hope that's clear.
    XP 76512390ag12, Garthanos, Dire Bare gave XP for this post

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Aldarc View Post
    As per the article and my own experience? Not so much. If you only picked up the 3.0 and 3.5 PHB? I could definitely see that. But in the context of the post-3.5 PHB publishing cycle? You could definitely see the trend towards 4e, and there was already a call for portions of the design philosophy of 4e. And though Pathfinder fans would loathe to admit it, such voices were still prominent in their own community, because PF1 did not somehow magically erase the core weaknesses of 3e.

    This is again one reason why I find a lot of the "recent" d20 D&D-derived systems fascinating -- e.g., 13th Age, Pathfinder 2, 5e D&D, Shadow of the Demon Lord, etc.* -- because many now seem to exist within a continuum between 3e and 4e. You can see design elements of both and many have designers from one or both systems, though these elements from 4e tend to be more muted or subtle.

    * Though not properly the d20 system, Numenera/Cypher System arguably belongs in this category as well, especially given the role of designer Monte Cook and a few other D&D 3e era names at MCG: Bruce Cordell, Sean K Reynolds, etc.
    You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.

    I'm saying it was an aberration.

    If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.
    XP 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Ancalagon View Post
    Now trends and marketing counts for a lot yes... but is may just be possible that people who play 5e *genuinely* like it you know...
    If they had started with Pathfinder or Dundeon World or even 1e reprints under exactly the same circumstances they could feel exactly the same way.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Serious View Post
    You're saying 4e was far ahead of its time.

    I'm saying it was an aberration.

    If some future edition is just like 4e, we'll know you're right.
    Have you seen the PF2 previews?
    XP heretic888, Aldarc gave XP for this post
    Laugh MoonSong laughed with this post

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    8,504
    Quote Originally Posted by Raith5 View Post
    The other thing that struck me about early 4e was how poor some of the early adventures were. It just seemed that even the designers didnt seem to know how the game was meant to work.
    I blame the "delve format" for that. Even the late 3e adventures that used that were pretty terrible.

    It makes sense on paperóinclude all the statblocks and everything needed to run the encounteróbut giving each encounter area 1-4 pages was awkward. Small roleplaying rooms only needed half or a quarter of a page, so were horribly padded or you were discouraged from including them. And having all the statblocks included for combat encounters meant interesting features or descriptions were omitted.

    That said, Keep on the Shadowfell was weak and problematic, being written as the rules were being finalised. (Tyranny of Dragons is weak for the same reasons.) And there's some terrible encounter math in sections. Thunderspire Labyrinth was weak because it was a Rich Baker adventure. Sure he's a decent dude and his mechanics are solid, but his adventures tend to be terrible: weak hooks with moving goalposts, no puzzles, and boring dungeons.
    Last edited by Jester David; Friday, 29th June, 2018 at 05:45 PM.
    Read my webcomic & blog at:
    http://www.5mwd.com
    XP 76512390ag12 gave XP for this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. Bring back the exposed boobs on the Monsters!
    By foolish_mortals in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Friday, 13th January, 2012, 06:19 AM
  2. Heroes #18: Exposed--Season 3/2009
    By Truth Seeker in forum *Varied Geek Talk & Media Lounge
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Thursday, 5th March, 2009, 12:26 AM
  3. Smallville- Exposed (11/3/2005)
    By DanMcS in forum *Varied Geek Talk & Media Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Tuesday, 8th November, 2005, 12:58 AM
  4. [MEG-AU] Siege on Ebonring Keep---Exposed!
    By MEG Hal in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Saturday, 3rd May, 2003, 02:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •