The roots of 4e exposed?

[Charlaquin]

Respectfully, I'm going to somewhat disagree with you here, a little, Kobold Boots. They merchandised and promoted an online game to TT
gamers, and whored out all the manuals and miniatures. After all, if it's an ONLINE version, don't you want the manuals to be PDFs or IRLs?
And what do you need miniatures for, at all?

IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base. In the ensuing confusion,
they lost a lot of people to Pathfinder, outright, and tarnished their image to many others, like me. They gave themselves this black eye, by trying
to exploit the situation for profit, at the cost of not only the version, but also their loyal TT gamers. There are a couple things they could have done. One was hold the release date till the VTT was better.

To be fair, WotC didn’t really have much choice but to try to maximize profits in any and all ways possible. The alternative was to have D&D shut down, and I don’t think 3e fans would have been any happier with that outcome. A lot of the blame for 4e’s marketing missteps falls to unrealistic expectations set by Hasbro pushing WotC into an unwinnable scenario.

The other was to provide the TT gamers with a less half-baked version, which initially came off as a well polished, abbreviated children's version.

Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.

I think I'd put it like this while trying to keep the opinion neutral on any particular thing.

1e was the standard that everyone was playing. Love it or not, it was what was.
2e polished it up but introduced the world to the concept of "a lot of content, isn't always a good thing."
3e introduced the world to "why does this run so slow?" and the concept of "a lot of options, isn't always a good thing"
4e introduced the world to a "world without D&D" for many. The concept of "videogames are not tabletop games" or "a lot of visuals, isn't always a good thing".
5e apologized to the world, and brought back the concept of "love it or not, it is what it is."

I'm happiest in between 4th and 5th I think, or just give me 1.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison.

The distinction is between qualities of the product, vs reactions of the marketplace.

That D&D is 'too slow' to play is subjective - I've happilly put in 6 or 8 hr sessions of D&D, even 12+ back in the day, and thoroughly enjoyed it; but I've know people who, having seen how long we spent playing it, couldn't fathom holding interest in such a thing for so long.

But how long it takes to play D&D is something you can time with a stop watch if you wanted to.

1e was the standard that everyone was playing. Love it or not, it was what was.

Except no one played to that standard, everyone played some variant or sub-set or whatnot of it.

2e slowly started to change that, as it got more and more elaborate.

But, with 3.0, it really /did/ become a standard. The 3e community was obsessed with RAW, and with the chargen/level-up 'build' meta-game that required a commonly-accepted RaW as a foundation.

4e's crime against gaming was to do a little too good a job in fixing up that standard and making it readily accessible to new player and even (horrors) somewhat balanced. While that didn't eliminate the CharOp meta-game, or make it impossible to run a wide variety of different campaigns, it did change things for both. The former got a much lower pay-off, and the latter became more about players re-skinning to get what they wanted, than about DMs re-writing rules.

5e brought back the concept of "love it or not, it is what it is."

5e brought back the idea that it was just a 'starting point,' so fix it up how you like.

 

[Kobold Boots]

The distinction is between qualities of the product, vs reactions of the marketplace.

That D&D is 'too slow' to play is subjective - I've happilly put in 6 or 8 hr sessions of D&D, even 12+ back in the day, and thoroughly enjoyed it; but I've know people who, having seen how long we spent playing it, couldn't fathom holding interest in such a thing for so long.

But how long it takes to play D&D is something you can time with a stop watch if you wanted to.

The more I read Tony's stuff the more I wonder if we've ever been in the same group. (I know we havent, it's just fun to see similar experiences.)

I think one of the major drawbacks of the game is that often, content in published material doesn't pace well against how the game actually plays for the majority of groups.

During 4e, I went out of my way to use the published modules. More because we were all in our 30s or 40s, all had full time jobs and families and we wanted to get together twice a month and get to max level eventually. This meant it could take us 3 months to get through a module if we averaged 3 main encounters a session while using those modules. How long did it usually take us to get through those three encounters, plus roleplay, plus side things that make D&D the game we want to play.. about 8 hours. That's right, Keep on the Shadowfell, was about two months. Thunderspire was about three. Same with Pyramid of Shadows.

I imagine that many folks never got through the modules and many that did, made serious changes to them. We also played through Zeitgeist, and that was a much better experience due to how sandboxey it was from the start (kudos to Wickett and co.)

Anyway, a good rule of thumb should be that a session of D&D should never have to be longer than 4 hours in order to split a good module up into between 2-3 sessions to play to finish on average. If the game plays slower than that.. tune it up.

Be well,
KB

 

[Tony Vargas]

The more I read Tony's stuff the more I wonder if we've ever been in the same group. (I know we havent, it's just fun to see similar experiences.)

It's my actual name, so, yeah, you'd know. I wouldn't.

I think one of the major drawbacks of the game is that often, content in published material doesn't pace well against how the game actually plays for the majority of groups.

IDK about the 'majority' that's tricky. I'd guess that the material presented by 1e didn't play at all well for the vast majority of groups - but the DMs in question just ignored the bits that didn't work so well, or changed them, or their styles were twisted around what was presented to make it work for them....

During 4e, I went out of my way to use the published modules. More because we were all in our 30s or 40s, all had full time jobs and families and we wanted to get together twice a month and get to max level eventually. This meant it could take us 3 months to get through a module if we averaged 3 main encounters a session while using those modules. How long did it usually take us to get through those three encounters, plus roleplay, plus side things that make D&D the game we want to play.. about 8 hours. That's right, Keep on the Shadowfell, was about two months. Thunderspire was about three. Same with Pyramid of Shadows.

That doesn't sound too different from my old group (my current ones play much shorter sessions). We played 3.x the full run, 8 years, campaigns running up to 13th or 14th level. In that time, we had 8-hr sessions and got in about 3 combats per sessions (3.5 - I actually had records and took an average). 4e came out and we still had about 3 combats per session, closer to 3, exactly, in fact (a little higher if you counted skill challenges as combats), but our schedules had changed and we only had 6 hrs to devote to each session.

FWIW.

I imagine that many folks never got through the modules and many that did, made serious changes to them. We also played through Zeitgeist, and that was a much better experience due to how sandboxey it was from the start (kudos to Wickett and co.)

We had two campaigns going, alternating DMs. One of them was all modules strung together (including some goofy ones like Scepter Tower of Spellgaurd and Pyramid of Shadows), the other started with KotS, did better with Thunderspire, and stayed away from modules therafter.

Anyway, a good rule of thumb should be that a session of D&D should never have to be longer than 4 hours

Personally, I still enjoy long sessions, 6+ hrs (the campaign I get to play in is once or twice a month, for about 6 hrs). Time to really get into it. IMHO. But, I run weekly 2-hrs sessions, myself, most of the time, due to time constraints - have been doing so for the campaign I'm currently finishing out it's whole run, from the end of 2011 to present.

 

[Kobold Boots]

It's my actual name, so, yeah, you'd know.

We haven't. I'm not fond of hiding behind a nom de guerre online; but I opted to do it at the time because I was going through quite a bit health wise and had a short fuse. While I'm much better now than I was then, I can still be prickly on occasion (as my infraction for calling someone a jerk will attest to in my profile).

Regardless, while I'd like to say I was protecting my professional image (which is true) it's more because I was compensating as a just in case for bad behavior. Though being fair, any of the admins would know exactly who I am any time they felt like it by looking up my email address

Good on you for being up front. Wish more people did it.

Be well
KB

 

[Les Moore]

Could we not with this? “4e was rushed out too soon” is a fair and respectful critique. “4e was half-baked” is not. “4e was too streamlined for my taste” is a reasonable opinion, respectfully stated. “4e was an abbreviated children’s version of D&D” is not.

Well, I don't know how to describe it, otherwise? It had a beautiful layout, incredible art, well synopted general explanations of the overall game, at the front,
and the back end just was hard to describe in it's incomplete complexity.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

TBH the big if here is whether or not Paizo could have written good enough 4e adventures. Frankly the APs I've read and played in do NOT have very well-designed encounters, so I'm skeptical. It would have been a question of whether not they could have grasped the essential 'story first' nature of 4e and created some sort of alternative structure to oppose that of the 2008 vintage HPE stuff (which is not all completely bad, but none of it actually plays to 4e's real strengths).

We will never know. Had they produced such adventures of high quality then its quite possible 4e would have just continued. WotC could have lived with that. I mean, as long as the 3.5e players were still buying their products, and there's no reason they couldn't have kept some of them in print, then why not?

 

[pemerton]

IMO, they were far more interested in maximizing their profits with the new version, than respecting their customer base.

WotC is a commercial publisher - it is always trying to maximise profits!

Every time posters on these boards celebrate the commercial success of fifth edition, they are celebrating WotC's maximisation of its profits.

As far as respect for customer base is concerned - I'm not 100% sure what that means, but 4e did not contain dangerous components, or involve any sort of fraudulent representations. Prior to its release there were a range of explanatory and reflective comments posted from WotC which explained, reasonably accurately, how the game would run. Worlds & Monsters explained how the setting was being reconceived, and how it would work in play, and that was all true.

Offering something for sale that some people don't want to buy might be a commercial mistake, but it's not disrespect.

 

[Shasarak]

To be fair, WotC didn’t really have much choice but to try to maximize profits in any and all ways possible. The alternative was to have D&D shut down, and I don’t think 3e fans would have been any happier with that outcome. A lot of the blame for 4e’s marketing missteps falls to unrealistic expectations set by Hasbro pushing WotC into an unwinnable scenario.

It turns out that the other alternative to DnD getting shut down was to cut down the staff to a couple of guys who put out a couple of books a year. No magazines, no VTT, no novels but DnD is still going.