What is the essence of 4E?

[pogre]

I had a weird experience with 4e. I enjoyed it quite a bit. My group were playtesters. I thought it was a well put together game, and for me, the essence of 4e was trying to bring some measured balance to the PC classes. Encounters were also fun and easy to put together.

Slightly off-topic:
About half my table really disliked it and our next campaign was in Pathfinder. I never could pin down why some of my players disliked it so much, and the reason it was a weird experience for me was - If I brought a game with enthusiasm to the table it was always embraced by the players. Even some of my goofy homebrew rpgs. However, I think 4e just did not match the experience my players were expecting from a game named D&D.

 

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] , [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] , @ anyone else...

I feel like digging down really deeply on the TLJ/4E tradition deviation comparison may (a) not be something that anyone else in this thread cares about and (b) while works into 4e’s “essence”, it may push the bounds of threadcrapping (and my next response would be long).

What do you guys think? Anyone else care about that topic?

I'd say it might be worth a different thread rather than flooding this one with a tangent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] , [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] , @ anyone else...

I feel like digging down really deeply on the TLJ/4E tradition deviation comparison may (a) not be something that anyone else in this thread cares about and (b) while works into 4e’s “essence”, it may push the bounds of threadcrapping (and my next response would be long).

What do you guys think? Anyone else care about that topic?

I'm afraid I must insist that you continue posting on this topic in this thread. I probably won't, but I can't, in good faith, allow you not to. I am expecting a timely resumption, so hop to!

 

[darkbard]

What do you guys think? Anyone else care about that topic?

I don't have much invested in TLJ discussion (though I find your analysis enlightening), but I will say that I have bookmarked the Pathfinder/Starfinder/Older D&D Editions subforum with the 4E filter applied, and, almost without fail, discussion on 4E topics has a way of wandering off topic, and most participants seem to have little objection.

 

[Emerikol]

As for your group, yeah, I mean that's cool. I certainly didn't mean to imply it was nonsense either. I had a couple players in one campaign of mine that just were goofballs and everything they did was slapstick. I guess they enjoyed it though!

I never knew that 4e was rushed out the door until after the fact. Up until well into that game, I had massively embraced every new edition of D&D. I've been accused of hating it before giving it a chance but honestly I almost forced my group to try it. I just discovered my issues with it after the fact.

So when I say what I say now, I'm not saying this fixes it for me. I am saying these things to indicate that I believe improvements could be made that many people would have liked and the game would have done better perhaps. I believe if they'd spent more time on the names of the powers the game would have been better. Some of the names seemed goofball to me. So more "serious" names would have made it less bad. Just my take on it.

 

[Emerikol]

I have no problem at all with the Tunnels and Trolls approach where it boils down to "We slayed them". I have a problem when the wizard is talking in terms of spells and the fighter isn't going into more detail. I also have a problem with cookie cutter warriors who are so lacking in personality that they all describe their fights in the same way.

In my ideal game, there would be a way to always make passive choices for the fighter so that you can essentially just hit and hit really hard if that is all you want. Then there would also be a fighter with more maneuver like abilities. Those abilities would likely have to be activated in a way that is different from most games today. On the flip side, I wouldn't mind a simple wizard in my game but I don't know anyone who'd play it. Whereas, in my game I am certain I'd get takers for the simple fighter. Not sure on the maneuvers fighter but maybe.

If I made a game, I'd really only need four classes. Fighter (Simple), Wizard (Vancian), Rogue (that is a much better fighting class), and Cleric. The ranger is really just a fighter flavored differently to me. My groups over the years have been so old school they really almost never played anything but the core 4 and the paladin. I had one monk once and I had a 2e psionicist once (which by the way was the biggest mistake I ever made letting that class in from Dragon).

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my ideal game, there would be a way to always make passive choices for the fighter so that you can essentially just hit and hit really hard if that is all you want. Then there would also be a fighter with more maneuver like abilities. Those abilities would likely have to be activated in a way that is different from most games today. On the flip side, I wouldn't mind a simple wizard in my game but I don't know anyone who'd play it. Whereas, in my game I am certain I'd get takers for the simple fighter. Not sure on the maneuvers fighter but maybe.

Your players might surprise you; 4e eventually came up with the Elementalist Sorcerer which basically did elemental blasts and controlled their element. No long list of spells, and I had two players happier with it than they'd ever been with a caster before. "I burn it" and "I set them on fire" can be quite fun for the combat (no weapons needed unless the monsters were flame resistant) - and out of combat they basically could Affect Normal Fires whenever they wanted but had almost no other magic (other than to set things on fire), and the player of the fire mage had an absolute blast. One player had been trying mages on and off for years but this was the first one he really clicked with.

 

[Emerikol]

Your players might surprise you; 4e eventually came up with the Elementalist Sorcerer which basically did elemental blasts and controlled their element. No long list of spells, and I had two players happier with it than they'd ever been with a caster before. "I burn it" and "I set them on fire" can be quite fun for the combat (no weapons needed unless the monsters were flame resistant) - and out of combat they basically could Affect Normal Fires whenever they wanted but had almost no other magic (other than to set things on fire), and the player of the fire mage had an absolute blast. One player had been trying mages on and off for years but this was the first one he really clicked with.

4e wasn't well received by my group.

Again, I'd have it in the game just to have a variety of options. I think it would be interesting to see how many people play each class and each race in D&D. For some weird reason my groups are almost all human and dwarf. When I play I play elves but nobody else does. None of us like or play any of the new races. We may be grognards .

 

[Ted Serious]

@Pauper

I’m doing a poor job of communicating.

There is clearly a large outcry over TLJ from SW traditionalists/the base. I’m not referring to them.

I’m invoking a specific cross-section of folks who:

1) Identify as part of the SW base.

2) Identify as a part of the D&D base.

3) Decried 4e for failure to embrace tradition/history and produce a game that appeals specifically (if not exclusively) to those interests; failure to meet entrenched expectations.

4) Simultaneously lauded TLJ for “subverting expectations.”

Hope that communicates more clearly.

I see. You're finding some hypocrisy in holding one franchise to a different standard than another.

I haven't seen TLJ.

But I think 4e corresponds to the extended universe materials that got cut.
The current movies to 5e.

 

[Ted Serious]

4e wasn't well received by my group.

Again, I'd have it in the game just to have a variety of options. I think it would be interesting to see how many people play each class and each race in D&D. For some weird reason my groups are almost all human and dwarf. When I play I play elves but nobody else does. None of us like or play any of the new races. We may be grognards .

Fighters have always been the most popular.

They've always been pretty bad choices.
Big numbers, no vesatility.

They're Timmy Cards.