The biggest problems with 3.X were caster supremacy, too many skills, and the idiotic OGL that let any idiot publish their own splatbook and inundate the community with completely imbalanced even for 3.X classes/spells/feats. 4E's backsliding some with some power creep but their gaming license, while still incredibly open, prevents the worst of the OGL's offerings. And casters don't obviate entire encounters anymore. That's a plus; if I wanted to be playing a game where casters were the best and everyone else was windowdressing I'd play Mage.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E What's so bad about 4th edition? What's so good about other systems?
- Thread starter Majin
- Start date
catastrophic
First Post
Yeah, the whole idea that he 4e devs were really mean to 'the fans' in the lead-up is just another of the big 4e-bashing myths that don't stand up to close scrutiny.
Basically they laid out a bunch of criticisms of 3e, to explain why they made the choices they did. It was very reasonable, and correctly unapologetic about the need to fix things.
There was nothing offensive or exagerated about it, and for isntance the main thing that they overtly made fun of in the videos was the grab/grapple mechanics, which everyone agreed were crap.
But in the furor that followed, a lot of the really hardcore shrieking 4e haters decided that wotc had been really mean to them, and part of the fantasy was that they'd been really disrepectful and snarky and brash when criticising 3e, and hence had insulted 'the fans' in a way they deserved heavy criticism for.
Since then, since 4e hate has been tolerated to such a broad degree, that myth has been repeated so often many people just assume it's true, or accept their greviance without thinking about how absurd it is to take offence on that level- especially considering how often 4e bashers sink into personal attacks about the kind of people 4e is aimed at, the kind of games they play, and often, the special qualities they supposedly lack.
The whole claim is a hysterical acusation that only shows how far people stretched to rationalise their hostility to the new edition, and how tolerant and permissive the comunity was towards that kind of behaviour. People chose to take offence to a ridiculous degree, and everyone chaose to tolerate their offence to the point of making it dogma.
Argyle King
Legend
Considering that I'm not hostile toward 4E nor a 4E hater, yet I still found some of the 4E lead up articles to be somewhat snarky, I personally feel there's more to it than some sort of fantasy born of hysterical reaction.
Even if you simply just look at the mechanics of how 4E is built, it's difficult to deny that there is a particular playstyle upon which the ideals behind the design were based. I'm not even claiming that is a bad thing; I think it's good that D&D has a more defined identity. However, some of the ideals upon which 4E are built clash very heavily with the ideals I have about gaming.
As for grapple, I've come to miss it. Unfortunately, for me, I like to play characters who grapple; while I can create a grab focused character in 4E, it typically doesn't turn out to be a very good character. I always had more trouble remember how 3E's undead turning rules worked than I ever did with grapple. As a DM, when it came to grapple (and other more robust subsystems,) I had one table rule which was stated at the beginning: if you plan to use something a lot with your character, know how it works.
Even if you simply just look at the mechanics of how 4E is built, it's difficult to deny that there is a particular playstyle upon which the ideals behind the design were based. I'm not even claiming that is a bad thing; I think it's good that D&D has a more defined identity. However, some of the ideals upon which 4E are built clash very heavily with the ideals I have about gaming.
As for grapple, I've come to miss it. Unfortunately, for me, I like to play characters who grapple; while I can create a grab focused character in 4E, it typically doesn't turn out to be a very good character. I always had more trouble remember how 3E's undead turning rules worked than I ever did with grapple. As a DM, when it came to grapple (and other more robust subsystems,) I had one table rule which was stated at the beginning: if you plan to use something a lot with your character, know how it works.
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
A lot of the, "WotC told me my version of D&D sucks!" meme came from WotC allowing their designers to speak their unfiltered minds to bloggers and sites like this.
There was a lot of enthusiasm on the part of these designers for the new stuff they were starting to tease out to the public and some impolitic things were said, but most were innocent comments taken waaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion (this is the interwebs after all) and it put peoples backs up.
This stumble out of the marketing gate was followed up by what I consider the greatest failing of 4e, the GSL. The punitive and overly aggressive clawback of 3rd party rights doomed us to the Paizo/WotC D&D split.
Whatever your position on the OGL (greatest thing since sliced bread, ultimate evil in the universe, or something in between) WotC was correct in thinking that the OGL was too permissive. At the same time the GSL was not the answer because it pretty much killed 3rd party support that drove sales of their core product (the core rules) during the 3rd edition years.
I love me some 4e as a DM and a player. But the stagnation of innovation in adventure design and application of the rules is what has really held this game back from the popular support it richly deserves.
I personally don't love the premise of the 4th Core movement but they really did show that 4e was elastic enough to support some very creative play options without breaking it. Imagine if the energy and raw enthusiasm of 4th Core had been tempered and amplified by companies like Paizo, Necormancer, Green Ronin, Mongoose, etc.
The key to saving 4e is bringing us and 3rd party publishers back into the mix. Crowd sourcing play tests, open design and publisher safe harbors, more flexible online tools that allow us to play the 4e game WE want to play, not just the core rules that WotC provides us are the stepping stones to survival.
But that is all crazy talk from this Organizer/DM/Player who dreams of us sharing our love of D&D without destructive backbiting we have been so prone towards these last few years.
Welp, back to my D&D Encounters organizing, my 4e DMing and playing, and come August my first foray into Pathfinder as a player...
There was a lot of enthusiasm on the part of these designers for the new stuff they were starting to tease out to the public and some impolitic things were said, but most were innocent comments taken waaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion (this is the interwebs after all) and it put peoples backs up.
This stumble out of the marketing gate was followed up by what I consider the greatest failing of 4e, the GSL. The punitive and overly aggressive clawback of 3rd party rights doomed us to the Paizo/WotC D&D split.
Whatever your position on the OGL (greatest thing since sliced bread, ultimate evil in the universe, or something in between) WotC was correct in thinking that the OGL was too permissive. At the same time the GSL was not the answer because it pretty much killed 3rd party support that drove sales of their core product (the core rules) during the 3rd edition years.
I love me some 4e as a DM and a player. But the stagnation of innovation in adventure design and application of the rules is what has really held this game back from the popular support it richly deserves.
I personally don't love the premise of the 4th Core movement but they really did show that 4e was elastic enough to support some very creative play options without breaking it. Imagine if the energy and raw enthusiasm of 4th Core had been tempered and amplified by companies like Paizo, Necormancer, Green Ronin, Mongoose, etc.
The key to saving 4e is bringing us and 3rd party publishers back into the mix. Crowd sourcing play tests, open design and publisher safe harbors, more flexible online tools that allow us to play the 4e game WE want to play, not just the core rules that WotC provides us are the stepping stones to survival.
But that is all crazy talk from this Organizer/DM/Player who dreams of us sharing our love of D&D without destructive backbiting we have been so prone towards these last few years.
Welp, back to my D&D Encounters organizing, my 4e DMing and playing, and come August my first foray into Pathfinder as a player...
catastrophic
First Post
To be honest, it was a lot more than the gsl that drove away third party support. Fred hicks did a nice little postmortem when shutting down his 4e line, one bad egg, which he and some other decent devs were doing.
Notable was the online character builder, but what was really interesting is that he found that 4e was much harder to design for- I wrote up an entire 4e sourcebook a couple of years ago, and I agree with him.
Frankly, one of the upsides of designing for 3e is that 3e is a pretty crappy, unbalanced game and that makes it easy to design for. Pathfinder's new classes display this pretty clearly- they're a mixed bag, some overpowered and dominating, others so pointless you wonder why they bothered. But this is ok in 3e, because 3e is like that, it's an undemanding, hobbyists sort of design. Some of it's fans call this a bonus but, let's be frank, it's not.
Compare that to 4e. A bad mechanic in 4e sticks out like a sore thumb, wether it's something a 3pp comes up with, or something wotc comes up with. People playing 4e very quickly came to understand it's problems, because it's a very lucid, coherent design- from overpowered or underpowered powers, to entire classes, to systems like skill challenges, 4e asks more of it's desginers because it's a better core design.
I suspect even the modules, apart from the key errors made in them (too many fights, ect), are being judged more harshly in part because the system works better, and so is more obviously broken when it doesn't work.
There have even been 3pp providers who have fallen foul of this, people who put huge time and effort into major projects, only to find a lot of people calling them out for what they saw, with some good reason, as poor desgin. I'm not trying to start anything with anyone by saying that, but it has happened.
The reason i'm talking about this isn't just to toot 4e's horn, it's a clear part of why 3pp is harder for it- it has higher barriers for entry for anyone trying to design for 4e, for real.
All factors taken together- even if 3pp had access to the cbuilder, and other forms of support- i'm just not sure that anyone could expect to match the products that we saw with 3e, in part because making those products properly, is harder for 4e, and fans of 4e are more demanding of the system.
Notable was the online character builder, but what was really interesting is that he found that 4e was much harder to design for- I wrote up an entire 4e sourcebook a couple of years ago, and I agree with him.
Frankly, one of the upsides of designing for 3e is that 3e is a pretty crappy, unbalanced game and that makes it easy to design for. Pathfinder's new classes display this pretty clearly- they're a mixed bag, some overpowered and dominating, others so pointless you wonder why they bothered. But this is ok in 3e, because 3e is like that, it's an undemanding, hobbyists sort of design. Some of it's fans call this a bonus but, let's be frank, it's not.
Compare that to 4e. A bad mechanic in 4e sticks out like a sore thumb, wether it's something a 3pp comes up with, or something wotc comes up with. People playing 4e very quickly came to understand it's problems, because it's a very lucid, coherent design- from overpowered or underpowered powers, to entire classes, to systems like skill challenges, 4e asks more of it's desginers because it's a better core design.
I suspect even the modules, apart from the key errors made in them (too many fights, ect), are being judged more harshly in part because the system works better, and so is more obviously broken when it doesn't work.
There have even been 3pp providers who have fallen foul of this, people who put huge time and effort into major projects, only to find a lot of people calling them out for what they saw, with some good reason, as poor desgin. I'm not trying to start anything with anyone by saying that, but it has happened.
The reason i'm talking about this isn't just to toot 4e's horn, it's a clear part of why 3pp is harder for it- it has higher barriers for entry for anyone trying to design for 4e, for real.
All factors taken together- even if 3pp had access to the cbuilder, and other forms of support- i'm just not sure that anyone could expect to match the products that we saw with 3e, in part because making those products properly, is harder for 4e, and fans of 4e are more demanding of the system.
Argyle King
Legend
I actually feel the exact opposite. Personally, one of (but not the only) the reasons it takes a lot more to impress me (as a customer) enough to actually buy a 4E product is because I find that it's so easy to create my own content. Combine that with a general kinda blah attitude toward the current direction the game is currently going, and you get the situation I have now where I haven't bought anything 4E related since somewhere around Manual of The Planes.
That being said, there are some things I think WoTC are working on which interest me. There are also a few products which have tempted me. However, one of the things that holds me back is not being very satisfied with the direction the game is continuing to go, and with some of the ideals the current edition is based upon. When I design my own content --especially since I stopped buying the official stuff early in 4E-- I can tweak the game to go into a direction I like more.
However, there's still only so far I can stray from the core structure and ideals of the game. Likewise, one of my gripes is that there are certain types of things I want to do in an rpg as a player which 4E doesn't do very well, and there are certain types of stories which I want to tell as a DM which I don't feel the mechanics of 4E (even when tweaked) support very well. Suffice to say that (as best I can tell) I'm not intended to be part of the D&D target audience anymore.
I'm not adverse to playing 4E; I regularly play. I also regularly play with the status quo version of the game; the 'tweaks' I speak of are only in play when I'm here at my home table. I would even say that I generally enjoy playing. However, I have no desire to buy anything else.
That being said, there are some things I think WoTC are working on which interest me. There are also a few products which have tempted me. However, one of the things that holds me back is not being very satisfied with the direction the game is continuing to go, and with some of the ideals the current edition is based upon. When I design my own content --especially since I stopped buying the official stuff early in 4E-- I can tweak the game to go into a direction I like more.
However, there's still only so far I can stray from the core structure and ideals of the game. Likewise, one of my gripes is that there are certain types of things I want to do in an rpg as a player which 4E doesn't do very well, and there are certain types of stories which I want to tell as a DM which I don't feel the mechanics of 4E (even when tweaked) support very well. Suffice to say that (as best I can tell) I'm not intended to be part of the D&D target audience anymore.
I'm not adverse to playing 4E; I regularly play. I also regularly play with the status quo version of the game; the 'tweaks' I speak of are only in play when I'm here at my home table. I would even say that I generally enjoy playing. However, I have no desire to buy anything else.
Saracenus
Always In School Gamer
So you are telling me that Pazio, who is full of ex-WotC guys and gals plus quite a few of their freelance crew that has worked directly for WotC or freelanced for them, couldn't work magic in the 4e design space?
I call shenanigans.
Sure there would be missteps. It happened a lot in the beginning of 3e too. Folks had to figure out the design space. Heck it took me 2 years of solid judging and play to really feel comfortable in claiming expertise in the 3e rules.
I posit that if the design space opened up beyond WotC and was encouraged we would see some interesting things, not perfect but stuff that would break out of the rut folks have felt that 4e has been stuck in.
If we take into account Mr. Mearls' design musings as possible new direction for D&D, then it becomes even more powerful and argument to open up the design space because a modular system that can be stripped down and levels of "complexity" added back in would be perfect for 3rd Party folks.
Again, this is all predicated on a change in policy at WotC regarding the GSL. Nothing we have seen from the big black box that is WotC indicates this is changing...
My Two Coppers,
I call shenanigans.
Sure there would be missteps. It happened a lot in the beginning of 3e too. Folks had to figure out the design space. Heck it took me 2 years of solid judging and play to really feel comfortable in claiming expertise in the 3e rules.
I posit that if the design space opened up beyond WotC and was encouraged we would see some interesting things, not perfect but stuff that would break out of the rut folks have felt that 4e has been stuck in.
If we take into account Mr. Mearls' design musings as possible new direction for D&D, then it becomes even more powerful and argument to open up the design space because a modular system that can be stripped down and levels of "complexity" added back in would be perfect for 3rd Party folks.
Again, this is all predicated on a change in policy at WotC regarding the GSL. Nothing we have seen from the big black box that is WotC indicates this is changing...
My Two Coppers,
delericho
Legend
The OGL was an absolute masterstroke. It gave a huge swath of fans, many of whom had been alienated by TSR's actions, a sense of ownership of the game, and the ability to (try to) realise that secret fantasy many of them had harboured: to publish their own stuff for the game.
While there were a lot of stinkers, there was also an awful lot of good stuff came out of the OGL: Mutants & Masterminds, Ptolus, Freeport... and, of course, Pathfinder. Also, the entire retro-clone approach is only (legally) possible because of the OGL.
The price of getting that good stuff was having to filter out and ignore the stinkers. That's a price worth paying, IMO.
And the OGL was good for WotC as well, even if they don't currently see it. It is very likely that without it, 3e would not have been the success that it was. It nullified a lot of the competition, channelling competing designs into using the same d20 system as D&D (and from there, it was a short hop for groups to move to D&D). And it vastly opened up the pool of people working on game materials - Mike Mearls being the most obvious example.
You must have had your head in the sand in the lead up to 4E then. Even the first intro youtube video trashed earlier editions. In 2007 and early 2008, 4E "marketing" was little more than bashing earlier editions of D&D and certain playstyles.
