You know 4th edition has succeeded when...

[hectorse]

1. I'm not using spreadsheets for gaming any more.
2. I'm DMing again.
3. My wife is playing again.

Seconded

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I know D&D 4E has succeeded when....
it's still profitable and has a bright future 8 years from now, ie, it outlived 3E*. Cause in the end, it's a business, and longterm sustainability is the surest sign of success.

*Perhaps I should add "for WotC." Go Paizo and every other developer sticking with 3E!

 

[Shadeydm]

When badass goth devil chicks wearing hurtmewear becomes empowering to women.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

When badass goth devil chicks wearing hurtmewear becomes empowering to women.

Do you remember the "No Snark" request in the first post?


I think 4E has become a success for my group the moment one of my players/DMs said he would convert the remaining Savage Tides adventure path.
I think another pointer was that another player that's still running 3.5 is asking me for excel sheets for 4E monsters. I don't know if he's actually planning to do something with them, but he might...

On general success - well, ask me again in 4-8 years.

 

[Ant]

Shemeska is right on the money here. I've played and occasionally even DMed games where the players were so engrossed that no-one remembered (or bothered) to ask for XP. Not one of those systems was 4e. In fact, prepare yourself for a shock here, but most of those games were 3.5e! Insanity! Engrossing story and Save or Die effects! It's like the world's gone topsy-turvy!

Seriously though, Shemie is right, it's all about the DM and players. Sure, some DMs might find a particular system more to their groove but at the end of the day I'd play just about anything if it was with a good bunch of gamers.

Very glad it's work out well for the OP. Nothing like running a session where you know that you've got the players hook, line and sinker.

Players not asking for XP, or being interested in plot development has little to nothing to do with what system you're running a campaign in. It has almost everything to do with having good players and having a good DM. If your players had that reaction to your last session, I have to congratulate you for being a really cool DM who hooked them, but don't water down your success by feeling it's due to a system change.

I've been hooked by a DM who ran various games in Alternity, Shadowrun 3rd, and D&D 3.0. Her ability to craft a wicked story and draw players in was independant of those systems, some of which are mechanical nightmares at times.

I'd like to think I've done a pretty good job with 3e, and I don't see anything improving or going downhill if I switched to 2e, 4e, or a deck of cards and a bent penny. Regardless of running 3e or 4e or Pathfinder or GURPS, I'll gloss around 90% of the system, and there won't be a single NPC with more stats behind the screen than story notes.

 

[Psion]

players are so immersed in ther story arc development that they forget to ask for XP, or leveling up!

So 4th edition was a success back in 1e?

Edit: I guess Shemmy's beaten me to the point.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So 4th edition was a success back in 1e?

Edit: I guess Shemmy's beaten me to the point.

Please note, the OP was apparently talking about his table. It is possible that only 4E changed something with his group. Or that he has the experience that a game has only "arrived" with his group if they stop thinking about XP and GP and focus on the story.

 

[jdrakeh]

Please note, the OP was apparently talking about his table. It is possible that only 4E changed something with his group. Or that he has the experience that a game has only "arrived" with his group if they stop thinking about XP and GP and focus on the story.

But why let a little something like taking posts in context get in the way of a good rant?

 

[Bialaska]

. . . I can create a player character that conforms to every last bit of my mental image after having owned the PHB for only two hours.

Wow, I wish I could do that. I tried for several hours, also after having read the book several times, to construct my first 3e character, but failed. A weapon finesse/two weapon fighting acrobatic rogue wielding main gauche (rapier+dagger). Rogue fit with most of it, but it plainly sucks that Rangers are the only two-blade wielders and they are strength based.

 

[jdrakeh]

Wow, I wish I could do that. I tried for several hours, also after having read the book several times, to construct my first 3e character, but failed.

OPer the topic of this thread, I alluded to a 4e character. Even after several years of owning the 3x PHBs, it took me an hour or more to get a close approximation of the character I wanted (and to get exactly the character I wanted, I had to plan several levels in advanece).

Rogue fit with most of it, but it plainly sucks that Rangers are the only two-blade wielders and they are strength based.

Well, you're incorrect there. . . in D&D 4e, Two-Weapon Fighting is a feat that a member of any class can take, provided that they have a DEX scroe of 13 or higher.