The roots of 4e exposed?

[Gilladian]

I still play and run variants on 3.5e. It can work, with some house rules. My current campaign is Tier2 and lower - no wizards, no clerics. The pure fighter is the strongest PC by far, and the ranger is close behind. The henchman healer and sorcerer are 2 levels behind the PCs, and can’t hold a candle to them. The 4 pcs are 10th level; this is literally the highest level vampaign Ive run in years, since my normal mode is E6.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's not 1:1 but it's still an amusing parallel. 4e spurned 3e fans, they turned to PF1. 5e spurned 4e fans, they may end up turning to PF2.

The irony certainly is there. I don't think PF2 is nearly as far afield from 3.PF as 4e is though. At least not from what I can see so far. It still has basically a Vancian casting system with full-casters, half-casters, and non-casters, with each following entirely different resource rules and using completely different 'power' mechanics. It doesn't seem, so far, to have any real hints of provision for a story first kind of play, though I don't think that is entirely determinable at this point. It does have a 4e-like skill system, which helps. I do find the inclusion of things like Craft and Perform and the notions of 'downtime activities' to be at odds with 'Story Now' kind of concepts.

There are also things about the PRESENTATION of 4e that I liked. It was clear, and it pretty much insured that the players would know what they were getting. I'm doubting PF is going to adopt that sort of presentation, universal keywording, explicit universal exception-based design, and extreme transparency.

Anyway, I'm certainly not prejudging it. There is also every chance it might break new ground in directions I haven't thought of yet.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If that were more a factor in 4e's failure than Ted Serious's want of fans, then 5e would never have been green-lit. There's no real prospect of 5e meeting that standard either, but there was the real prospect that it would do significantly better than 4e and that's a function of bringing in more fans - old and new - than 4e.

I would actually interpret 5e as what you get when Hasbro pulls the plug on D&D because of that failure and WotC says "Yeah, OK, we'll just call it another toy/game brand and put 3 guys on it and see if we can make some money." That's basically what happened. They have maybe 1/5 of the staff of 4e at its peak, and 1/8th of the product. Now, maybe the ROI on that is better, it would seem so, so good for them. Neither 4e nor 5e was ever going to hit that $50 million mark though, and trying surely lead to a lot of grasping at revenue straws which were best left ungrasped. It certainly was A factor.

Nor did I actually perceive some vast lack of fans. I found tons of people to play with and packed tables in stores all the time. The business model was a little crazy though. ALL of the people that were players in my games just bought a couple of core books and then one person at each table got a DDI subscription and filled out everyone's sheets. It is EASY to see how that could halve your book sales right off the top, and that's all it took. The same group that had 2 4e PHBs now has 4 5e PHBs and several people have copies of the DMG and some of the newer books. With 4e NOBODY but me bought supplements, nobody, not one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I still play and run variants on 3.5e. It can work, with some house rules. My current campaign is Tier2 and lower - no wizards, no clerics. The pure fighter is the strongest PC by far, and the ranger is close behind. The henchman healer and sorcerer are 2 levels behind the PCs, and can’t hold a candle to them. The 4 pcs are 10th level; this is literally the highest level vampaign Ive run in years, since my normal mode is E6.

Right, and E6 basically exists to deal with 3.x's problems in a different way that appeals to fans of lower level play. I would have found it frustrating to be stuck with lower-level powers forever myself (I don't think I was in one of your 3.5 games long enough to get to that point). The 5e game we did was fun, and didn't break down at any point, which is a point in 5e's favor IMHO.

Maybe you should take a look at PF2! I know though that you guys say you're just happy with what you have and don't want to change anymore. I feel the same way about 4e basically. 5e is not some bad game, nor probably is PF2, but 4e is the one I enjoy now.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK, so someone did it once, someone ran a 12 STR fighter in 4e once too, no doubt. It isn't the way either game envisages characters being built and it isn't even remotely close to the norm. So is it really that relevant to a discussion of the game? I mean, yes, it is, if we're talking about how each game handles edge cases etc. In terms of how they normally play though? I'm not guessing the 3e or 4e designers were losing sleep over that.

Well, more than once, if I’m honest. “Edgelord” character players are like roaches- if there’s one, there are more.

It’s not an issue designers are going to “lose sleep over”, but it is part of a peripheral concern about how robust a system is. How many playstyle variants it can support. The more flexible the system is in that regard, the more replayability it has. Part of WHY I play characters like that is because I’ve been playing D&D since 1977. I’ve played most of the archetypal characters, so playing something different- sometimes radically so- helps keep me interested. Furthermore, my doing so demonstrates broader possibilities to players who haven’t seen the outside of the box. It is not an exaggeration to say I’ve had other experienced gamers ask me about my character design processes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I have seen this stated on the forum a couple of times by 4e fans but I'm wondering where did this information (D&D no longer needing to be a core brand and 4e being ended because it didn't make core brand money) come from?

It’s not that D&D no longer needed to be a core brand, it’s that Hasbro changed its policies regarding core brands and what is required of them. And I believe the information came from WotC.

And if 4e was doing good to great why not just keep it rolling if D&D no longer needed to make core brand profits? Or at least iterate on the design with the next edition since the pressure was no longer there. In other words while the above may be true I don't see how that rules out something like 4e not having enough fans to be sustainable... and if it did...why such a radical departure in design?

Because while 4e did have its fan base, it did not grow the brand as much as would have been expected given the coinciding rise of geekdom in the mainstream. So they went back to the drawing board in hopes of devising an edition that would be more approachable to the mainstream geek audience, as well as to win back the long-time DMs (who unfortunately are too often needed as a way to bring new players in). And it worked. Very well.

 

[Zeromaru X]

Nor did I actually perceive some vast lack of fans. I found tons of people to play with and packed tables in stores all the time. The business model was a little crazy though. ALL of the people that were players in my games just bought a couple of core books and then one person at each table got a DDI subscription and filled out everyone's sheets. It is EASY to see how that could halve your book sales right off the top, and that's all it took. The same group that had 2 4e PHBs now has 4 5e PHBs and several people have copies of the DMG and some of the newer books. With 4e NOBODY but me bought supplements, nobody, not one.

In my table, I was the guy with the DDI account. And the only one who bought suplements, as well. The other people playing in the store I used to play at the time, they only had the first DMG, PHB and MM. They relied on me for any other book.

Anyways, PF2 seems intriging, but I'm also one of those who enjoys playing 4e over other editions/systems. I mean I tried playing 5e (and not only once; I genuinely tried to give 5e a chance), but it doesn't work for me.

 

[Maxperson]

You don't seem to want to hear it, but there's nothing you can say to deny it. Sure, you can say that you had fun in particular game X, Y, and/or Z. That is STILL NOT THE SAME THING as when I as an RPG designer sit down and try to do things with 3.x. I HAVE to confront and deal with the fact that casters are simply utterly dominant to a level where playing a non-caster past 5th level is actively contrary to the notion of being effective in play. Thus ONLY notions under which non-casters are not effective (except at the lowest levels) doesn't fly in 3.x! This isn't disputable Max. It is iron clad fact of the system.

You are the one that doesn't seem to want to hear. These are the facts about 3e with regard to caster vs. non-caster, at least with regards to this discussion. 1. there is a significant power disparity between the two in favor of casters. 2. casters are more effective than non-casters. That's it. Them's the facts. There is no objective point at which non-casters become ineffective. That idea is purely subjective and if you feel that non-casters are ineffective, that's your personal issue, not mine. I've played 3e non-casters to 20th level and not once was I ever ineffective. Depending on the build I was more or less effective, but never ineffective. Nothing you say can change that. It's a simple fact that I wasn't ineffective.

I also reject your Appeal to Authority. Your being a game designer doesn't suddenly make my PCs ineffective.

And a REALLY large part of what made 4e so great for many of us was the opening up of this space in both story terms and mechanical terms. 30th level fighters that hang toe-to-toe with their wizard bretheren and can look them in the eye and honestly say they pull equal weight, that is a really big thing. Big enough that, in the end, it spelled the doom of all the 3.x based systems.

Yes. I absolutely get that the power disparity shrank with 4e. It did not, however, spell the doom of 3.x based systems. Pathfinder did very well as a 3.x based system.

 

[Henry]

If we take Paizo at their word, that PF2 has been in development longer than 5E has been out in the wild, then I doubt PF2 would be all that "5e-like TSR-era-evoking".

Actually, they didn’t - in one of the Paizocon seminars, either Erik Mona or Jason Buhlman said it had been in active development for about two to two and a half years.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel like you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make. I’m not saying PF2 is 4e 2.0. I’m not saying there will be a mass exodus of 4e fans from 5e to PF2 (are there even that many 4e fans playing 5e?). I’m saying there are a lot of 4e fans who don’t like 5e, and PF2 looks like it may appeal to 4e fans - it does to me, as a 4e fan. And I will find it amusing if a not insignificant number of 4e fans adopt it in leu of other systems, because Paizo very much made their brand on the promise of being a haven from 4e.

Frankly, if PF2 succeeds in appealing to 4e fans, it's more or less doomed.

The level of h4ter bigotry in the community is that overwhelming.