What will happen to 4th edition?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Whether it's best is irrelevant. The only people who care about that are uber-geeks who like to argue on the internet. All that matters to most D&D players is whether they have fun playing it.

Look, if D&D's place as the top RPG in unassailable because of these network effects, and if the player-base really are reactionary troglodytes, then the system reformists and indie game advocates should just move on and find something else to occupy their energy besides trying to turn D&D into the game they want it to be. And if it isn't unassailable, if there's a chance another game system might take its place as the most popular tabletop RPG, then that's where their energies would be best applied. But I'd suggest narrowly-focused indie games aren't going to be the ones that topple D&D.

At some point, you would think people would stop trying to turn D&D into the game they want it be, and recognize it is what it is and either embrace it or move on.

I bristle at being told to 'move on'. I mean its a game, its not like I'm all steamed about it or something, but I think everyone has a legitimate right to have equal input into what is available within the rubric of actual D&D. Nobody has suggested that YOUR version of the game should not exist, so I'd think you wouldn't want to suggest that other people's version shouldn't either. I understand, you think we should play some game with a different name, but frankly D&D is synonymous with RPGs and "some other game" is rarely as easily sold to players or has the same attraction and ready available groups, etc as D&D. Even if I say decided to run a Traveller campaign it would be pretty hard to find other people that have the books and know the rules, at least compared with D&D, and Traveller is arguably in the top 5 of RPGs.

 

[Imaro]

I bristle at being told to 'move on'. I mean its a game, its not like I'm all steamed about it or something, but I think everyone has a legitimate right to have equal input into what is available within the rubric of actual D&D. Nobody has suggested that YOUR version of the game should not exist, so I'd think you wouldn't want to suggest that other people's version shouldn't either. I understand, you think we should play some game with a different name, but frankly D&D is synonymous with RPGs and "some other game" is rarely as easily sold to players or has the same attraction and ready available groups, etc as D&D. Even if I say decided to run a Traveller campaign it would be pretty hard to find other people that have the books and know the rules, at least compared with D&D, and Traveller is arguably in the top 5 of RPGs.

Yeah but ultimately if what you want is incompatible with I want out of D&D... we're both saying one of us should move on... aren't we?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Oh I don't know... discussion, something you keep pretending it's your job to moderate...

I love how you keep trying to put words in my mouth. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again, eh Imaro?

 

[Imaro]

I love how you keep trying to put words in my mouth. If at first you don't succeed, try and try again, eh Imaro?

Lol, what am I your new obsession?? This is getting a little creepy man.

Removed because of mod warning...

 

[Umbran]

Gentlemen,

Do you really need a moderator to step in here to tell you to cut it out? You can't tell for yourselves (or perhaps don't care) that you've stopped treating someone with respect?

Well, if that's the way it is - I'm going to strongly recommend you stop replying to each other. We have an ignore list feature to help you with that, if you need it. But continue in this fashion, and I expect you'll end up rather unhappy.

 

[billd91]

I bristle at being told to 'move on'. I mean its a game, its not like I'm all steamed about it or something, but I think everyone has a legitimate right to have equal input into what is available within the rubric of actual D&D. Nobody has suggested that YOUR version of the game should not exist, so I'd think you wouldn't want to suggest that other people's version shouldn't either.

I understand, you think we should play some game with a different name, but frankly D&D is synonymous with RPGs and "some other game" is rarely as easily sold to players or has the same attraction and ready available groups, etc as D&D. Even if I say decided to run a Traveller campaign it would be pretty hard to find other people that have the books and know the rules, at least compared with D&D, and Traveller is arguably in the top 5 of RPGs.

But, since WotC was only going to support one version of D&D during the 4e years, guess what situation we were in? Either your version of the game was going to exist as a supported game or mine was (or, if we were both disappointed, like I presume Dragonsfoot holdouts probably were, a third person's game was). And the argument about not wanting to go out for a third party game because of the D&D network applies just as strongly to us as it does to you. Is there any wonder there was (is/will be) an edition war?

 

[prosfilaes]

if the player-base really are reactionary troglodytes

Can you stop putting words in my mouth? If you want to bad-mouth D&D players, that's on you, not me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah but ultimately if what you want is incompatible with I want out of D&D... we're both saying one of us should move on... aren't we?

I've never really been that sold on the 'hopelessly incompatible' meme. 5e could have suited my needs with some changes. I think if people would be somewhat accommodating instead of utterly rigid in what they will accept, then that would make it possible to all get what we want, but instead I got told that what I wanted was badwrongfun by a very large number of people who don't seem to be able to accommodate much of anything at all. This is why I'm not exactly thinking much of the D&D Community any more.

Honestly, SOME of the things people that have been telling me I can't have what I want in their game want plenty of things that I saw as possible improvements, if they were done right.

Today I was just being amused by looking at the 4e Slayer (e-fighter) and comparing it to the PHB1 'weaponmaster' fighter. The humorous part is that if you stop worrying about the slayer's (IMHO bad) presentation, you could simply create this class by having a small power list and a single class feature and it would be exactly a standard 4e class. ALMOST nothing would change and the few very tiny changes would hardly be noticed. Now, this isn't bridging the gap between PHB1 4e AEDU classes and 5e classes, but the point is that much can be done without needing to break anyone's model of design. Nor are IME 4e fans particularly opposed to things like 5e's model of feats, which certainly seems to be a lot cleaner (for now at least).

So, I don't see that there is any reason to declare what we want irreconcilable. The sad part is WotC didn't really make a serious attempt TO reconcile it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, since WotC was only going to support one version of D&D during the 4e years, guess what situation we were in? Either your version of the game was going to exist as a supported game or mine was (or, if we were both disappointed, like I presume Dragonsfoot holdouts probably were, a third person's game was). And the argument about not wanting to go out for a third party game because of the D&D network applies just as strongly to us as it does to you. Is there any wonder there was (is/will be) an edition war?

Yeah, again, I just don't think its as hopeless as people have portrayed it. They just came out with piss and bile at 4e and then they couldn't swallow it and admit that maybe there's a game that could satisfy both camps. That's the way I see it. I mean honestly the way I felt about it was that if people were going to badmouth my preferred game (and believe me a LOT of it was just plain badmouthing with no justification) then I was going to have a hard time feeling sorry for them. It also seems to me that in this one case there is a rather unusual market dynamic with PF.

 

[Imaro]

I've never really been that sold on the 'hopelessly incompatible' meme. 5e could have suited my needs with some changes. I think if people would be somewhat accommodating instead of utterly rigid in what they will accept, then that would make it possible to all get what we want, but instead I got told that what I wanted was badwrongfun by a very large number of people who don't seem to be able to accommodate much of anything at all. This is why I'm not exactly thinking much of the D&D Community any more.

The problem is that D&D is a luxury item so there's very little incentive to be somewhat accommodating... As to being told 4e was badwrongfun by a very large number of people how soon we forget but 4e was created as a response to people continually telling those who enjoyed 3.0/3.5 that they were having broken badwrongfun and that even WotC took a mocking tone towards those who had enjoyed the game... If anything 4e set the precedent for the squeakiest wheels getting the oil.

Honestly, SOME of the things people that have been telling me I can't have what I want in their game want plenty of things that I saw as possible improvements, if they were done right.

But the devil is in the details... I don't think too many people objected to the goals of 4e... in fact I'd say this was one of the reasons 4e sold so well initially with the corebooks... but when the final implementation was revealed the side effects, trade-offs, etc. were enough to sour many on the end result.

Today I was just being amused by looking at the 4e Slayer (e-fighter) and comparing it to the PHB1 'weaponmaster' fighter. The humorous part is that if you stop worrying about the slayer's (IMHO bad) presentation, you could simply create this class by having a small power list and a single class feature and it would be exactly a standard 4e class. ALMOST nothing would change and the few very tiny changes would hardly be noticed. Now, this isn't bridging the gap between PHB1 4e AEDU classes and 5e classes, but the point is that much can be done without needing to break anyone's model of design. Nor are IME 4e fans particularly opposed to things like 5e's model of feats, which certainly seems to be a lot cleaner (for now at least).

So, I don't see that there is any reason to declare what we want irreconcilable. The sad part is WotC didn't really make a serious attempt TO reconcile it.

I'll just say I disagree here. There were things fundamental to 4e... like Skill Challenges, how DC's were computed, the power structure, long set-piece battle fights, and so on that really rubbed people the wrong way but are some of the cornerstones that many 4e fans declared they love about the game... IMO there are some things that are irreconcilable as far as play style goes. And no me heavily house ruling and modding the game to work isn't really an option either... I mean we've got 4e fans in the 5e forum right now that are complaining that some of the monsters don't have cool powers but when it was suggested they design some, the answer was "I shouldn't have to, that's what the designers are paid to do..." D&D is a luxury item and for most people the point of purchasing a luxury item is that it caters to one's wants or desires... just saying.