Agreed. Community buyin was a huge issue for 4e. The 4e system is very flexible.
The roots of 4e exposed?
Agreed. Community buyin was a huge issue for 4e. The 4e system is very flexible.
Jester David
Hero
I've often wondered what would have happened had WotC brought Paizo into the fold a little more, using them for playtesting and feedback. Or just getting an OGL out for them sooner.
If in the spring of 2008, Paizo was handed a document for making compatible adventures under the guidelines they had to convert their AP line to 4e and could have that ready at launch, what would have happened? Would Paizo have stuck with a game system they liked more or gone with the presumable "safe bet" of 4e?
Given making their own RPG seemed like such a risk, I think they would have opted for 4e, whether they liked the system or not.
But would that have helped 4e? Probably not much. I think as many people just went back to 3e as swapped to Pathfinder. But with better adventure writers telling different types of story and adventure for 4e, it might have helped more fans try and stretch the system.
If in the spring of 2008, Paizo was handed a document for making compatible adventures under the guidelines they had to convert their AP line to 4e and could have that ready at launch, what would have happened? Would Paizo have stuck with a game system they liked more or gone with the presumable "safe bet" of 4e?
Given making their own RPG seemed like such a risk, I think they would have opted for 4e, whether they liked the system or not.
But would that have helped 4e? Probably not much. I think as many people just went back to 3e as swapped to Pathfinder. But with better adventure writers telling different types of story and adventure for 4e, it might have helped more fans try and stretch the system.
houser2112
Explorer
From what I understand, Paizo built up a lot of goodwill with their adventure paths, and this might have caused people dependent on modules to convert to 4E over staying with 3.5. This wouldn't affect the decisions of homebrewers or people who disliked 4E on its own merits, though. I also don't think that Pathfinder found the success it did because it was "Paizo's RPG", but rather because it was "3.75".
Tony Vargas
Legend
If 4e had been open source from the beginning the way 3.0 was, it could have greatly aided adoption on the 3pp side, which would have been helpful to sales, anyway. (It also would have probably enabled some awesome d20 games, too, since the core system implied by 4e is more suitable for other genres in addition to fantasy - for exactly the reasons it "doesn't feel like D&D" really.)
However, nothing can change the nature of the established fanbase, one segment was still chafing against 3e for not being enough like the TSR era, so the OSR would have happened anyway, even had there been no 4e, and the current come-back would still demand a more traditional, DM-focused, system for the 40th-aniversary edition.
I think a lot of issues 4e had go directly to the murder-suicide by their lead developer on DDI. Relatively small team and *that* happens?
This is not to say 4e didn't have resolvable issues, but I think if that hadn't happened, they would have noticed the larger problems earlier and fixed them. And a lot of that was simply skill challenges+really bad adventures+going to Paizo and saying, "How do we make this work for you?"
This is not to say 4e didn't have resolvable issues, but I think if that hadn't happened, they would have noticed the larger problems earlier and fixed them. And a lot of that was simply skill challenges+really bad adventures+going to Paizo and saying, "How do we make this work for you?"
Joshua Randall
Legend
And yet despite all the messes, 4e still gave us the best monster design ever, and the two best monster books ever. (As actual game books to use in play, and not just collector's items to show off on your coffee table.)
Late 4e adventure design, as seen in LFR and a few standout published adventures (Gardmore Abbey for example), can hold its own alongside any good adventure design from any edition. The lesson here seems to be that it takes everyone, including the publisher, several years to learn how to use their own game. Unfortunately, you have to launch with some adventures... and when they are subpar (like Keep on the Shadowfell) they can taint the entire perception of your game.
Late 4e adventure design, as seen in LFR and a few standout published adventures (Gardmore Abbey for example), can hold its own alongside any good adventure design from any edition. The lesson here seems to be that it takes everyone, including the publisher, several years to learn how to use their own game. Unfortunately, you have to launch with some adventures... and when they are subpar (like Keep on the Shadowfell) they can taint the entire perception of your game.
The real problem with 4e is that it is just too slow.
I just dont see how blaming the community or lack of decent adventures or lack of DDI is going to solve the real fundamental problem with the rules.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
If the game had had a robust VTT--e.g. something like Roll20, but with all powers, feats, etc. pre-coded in just like the CB--that wouldn't have been an issue.
IMO, 4e suffered from five major problems, only one of which was truly system-based.
1. The presentation was bad. It needed another year, and a much more "aesthetic" touch. Even if powers had stayed exactly the same, subtle changes in the graphic design of the books (I'm including "how powers are laid out" in that) would have made it feel more familiar, which people really wanted. The design team took too much to heart the idea that 4e needed to be fresh and new--yes, it needed to be fresh and new under the hood, but the exterior needed to be instantly recognizable, and it frankly wasn't.
2. The rules were, unfortunately, a little too fiddly for players. While I absolutely loathe 5e turning 99% of bonuses/penalties into Ad/Dis (the end-of-the-line has become the weapon of first resort, and thus the game leaves DMs high and dry for giving further (dis)advantages to players who already have (Dis)Advantage), 4e did go overboard with them. It also went overboard with number of powers, number of feats...it wasn't a LOT overboard, but it was ENOUGH. It's worth noting, though, that a robust VTT would've taken care of all of this by itself, making system fiddly-ness invisible.
3. The digital tools team took a huge blow from the murder-suicide involving its lead DDI guy, and from what industry people (including Dancey) have said, the team never recovered. The digital tools had already been behind schedule; losing the team lead (and, as far as I can tell, never properly replacing him) made it impossible to catch up, and was a major factor in WotC eventually dropping the price of the DDI subscription.
4. The adventure-writing was ABSOLUTELY AWFUL. The first and third "introductory" adventures (Keep on the Shadowfell and Pyramid of Shadows) are widely reviled as some of the worst adventures made for 4e, and arguably D&D generally. Rather than published adventures drawing new players in and showing off what the new system could do, they were bland, dry, grindy affairs that front-loaded literally every clunky thing you could find about the system ON TOP OF railroady, terrible narrative design.
5. The initial lack of a new license, and subsequently the EXTREMELY anti-3PP replacement (the GSL), drove any 3PP support 4e might've enjoyed out to the furthest edges, and it took years for non-WotC developers to provide anything. That, coupled with the near-impossibility of bringing non-WotC rules into the official tools, meant WotC directly created a great deal of competition.
Imagine, if you will, an alternate universe. In this universe, the rules of 4e are almost perfectly identical, apart from putting out (say) about 1/3 as much splat content, cutting out all the crappy, rarely-used powers, feats, etc. and somewhat reducing the amount of bonus bloat. Further, extreme caution was taken with the presentation, such that people don't know whether to heap higher praise on the *game* design or the *graphic* design. In this universe, the 2007 economic downturn doesn't cause closures of major bookstores. Unlike our universe, 4e launches with a fully-integrated digital tools suite: a virtual tabletop, monster and character builders, even that silly "character visualizer" (with, naturally, a link to a WotC-owned or -licensed miniature-making company). Said VTT is better than Roll20 is now, and comes pre-built to use unofficial/3rd party rules content if coded in the right form (and with a tool for DMs to write their own powers/feats and package them up as "mods"). WotC keeps the OGL, and instead of cutting ties with Paizo, asks *them* to write the introductory adventures for 4th edition. A little ways down the line, Kingmaker launches as a deluxe digital adventure path, complete with voice acting from well-known figures like Mark Hamill and Ali Hillis (though purely pen-and-paper versions are also produced).
In this alternate universe, it's hard to imagine Pathfinder ever comes into existence, and debatable as to whether Roll20 does either. Especially if WotC had been open to providing its VTT space to non-D&D rulesets (or even just allowing prior editions on it as well as 4e).
I'm not saying even the sum total of this would have made 4e definitely so successful that Hasbro wouldn't still can it for failing to meet Core Brand standards (which may have been impossible even if 110% of everything 4e did was INSANELY successful for a TTRPG). But I am saying that the combination of *relatively subtle* changes to the books themselves (whether in rules or in presentation) plus 4e not having literally every venture attempting to improve the line (cutting ties with Paizo, dropping the OGL, pushing digital tools) blow up in its face...well, I don't think 5e would be four years old if that were the case. I'm not even sure we'd have 5e at all.
Last edited:
Right. I think if the 4e team makes the presentation that Mearls did for the 5e team — have a playtest for a couple of years, do surveys, etc...
They end up with a simple Fighter, a simple Rogue, simple Barbarian and MM3 math. I'd bet they'd end up with inherent bonuses and the current rarity system. And the presence of a simple strikers makes for both a faster game and makes a certain group of players a lot happier.
This is btw, essentially what they did for 5e. Implemented the above and used 4e/2 math throughout the system. And killed transparency so people wouldn't recognize what they had done.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
The only tweaks I would have with this are:
1. I think it was actually very good that 4e offered a complex Fighter. They just should've offered a simple Fighter much sooner than they did (ideally, one complex build and one simple build in the PHB1) and a simple caster (a la the Elementalist) very early.
2. Killing transparency? No, I don't really think that's wise. Being less aggressively transparent, maybe I can grant you. Leave the information there, just don't connect the dots. People who aren't interested in that stuff won't see it, and the ones who are interested will almost certainly approve.
Similar Threads
