The roots of 4e exposed?

Tony Vargas said:

As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form.

Click to expand...

I’m not sure what part of my post you think is an appeal to popularity...

Tony Vargas said:

On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan. It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom. They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game.

4e fans may be disappointed in 5e in some ways, but, past behavior indicates they'll've given it every chance. And, while it's not the best or most ambitious D&D ever, it is studiedly, the most conventional and least offensive, and it is not at all hard to come to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that 4e fans are OK with 5e, I offer the lack of edition warring against 5e as evidence - the harshest critics if 5e are 3.5/PF fans.

Click to expand...

You seem to keep forgetting that I am a 4e fan. I know very well what it meant, and what it still means. And yes, I, like many other 4e fans, gave 5e its fair shake, and came to understand and appreciate it for what it is. Heck, I’ve probably run more 5e than I have 4e at this point. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t leap at the promise of a game that continues to improve on the innovations 4e made instead of throwing them out with the bathwater. And I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Tony Vargas said:

If an alternative that was kinda maybe a bit like 4e were to appeal more, 13A was out before 5e, anyway. So I would not expect disgruntled former 4e fans to be anxious to move to PF2, for, like 13A or 5e, being maybe a bit like 4e.

Click to expand...

Lots of 4e fans did adopt 13th age. I would consider that evidence that many 4e fans are eager for a game that builds on 4e’s best ideas. 13th age just didn’t happen to be that game for me. The ways in which it is like 4e we’re not the ways that are important to me. PF2 is looking like it might resemble 4e in ways that do matter to me.

Tony Vargas said:

It would be deeply ironic.

Click to expand...

That’s all I’m saying. That’s all I’ve been saying. That’s all I originally said. I don’t know why it had to turn into an argument, when so far everyone who has argued the point with me has agreed with it once they finally listened to what I actually said.

Actually, yes I do. Because it’s about 4e. With any luck, that will be another thing PF2 has that 4e doesn’t. The ability to mention it without starting an argument.

Charlaquin said:

I’m not sure what part of my post you think is an appeal to popularity...

Click to expand...

The "lots of..." I keep hearing in these discussions.

yes, I, like many other 4e fans, gave 5e its fair shake, and came to understand and appreciate it for what it is. Heck, I’ve probably run more 5e than I have 4e at this point. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t leap at the promise of a game that continues to improve on the innovations 4e made instead of throwing them out with the bathwater.

Click to expand...

I see no indications of PF2 being that game in any sense... certainly 13A was closer, and it wasn't close, at all.

And I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Click to expand...

You'd be in good company, but little if it. D&D is just the easiest game to pull a groupbtigether around. Want to play something better, there's no shortage of games, the problem is finding a few other former-D&Ders who've found the same something better.

Lots of 4e fans did adopt 13th age. I would consider that evidence that many 4e fans are eager for a game that builds on 4e’s best ideas

Click to expand...

I do not consider "lots of" evidence, since it's just a turn of phrase, not any kind of statistic, let alone a valid one.

That’s all I’m saying. That’s all I’ve been saying. That’s all I originally said.

Click to expand...

I like me some irony, too...

Tony Vargas said:

As I've said, I'm suspicious of appeals to popularity in any form. On top of that, consider what it meant to be a 4e fan. It meant you gave the new ed a fair chance, even when negative reviews cane out, even as the edition war heated up, and misinformation became common wisdom. They gave it enough if a chance to come to understand and appreciate a very different game.

4e fans may be disappointed in 5e in some ways, but, past behavior indicates they'll've given it every chance. And, while it's not the best or most ambitious D&D ever, it is studiedly, the most conventional and least offensive, and it is not at all hard to come to understand and appreciate. If you doubt that 4e fans are OK with 5e, I offer the lack of edition warring against 5e as evidence - the harshest critics if 5e are 3.5/PF fans.

Click to expand...

Yup

If an alternative that was kinda maybe a bit like 4e were to appeal more, 13A was out before 5e, anyway. So I would not expect disgruntled former 4e fans to be anxious to move to PF2, for, like 13A or 5e, being maybe a bit like 4e.

Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't one who thought 13A did any scratching of my 4e itches. I honestly think it is much closer in nature to 5e than to 4e.

Fans of the classic game have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the OSR. Fans of 3.5 have, and had even when 4e was the current ed, significant support in the form of 3pp product, most lavishly, Pathfinder.

Click to expand...

Sure would be nice if we could get it!

4e fans do not now, and have not had since 2012, that luxury. It may be just an artifact of WotCs business missteps leaving the system in a legal mess, but it does mean that what 4e fans want: 4e, simply does not matter.
Because they're not going to get it.

Click to expand...

What 'legal mess' would that be? There's no legal mess, WotC owns 4e just as free and clear as they own 1e and 2e (neither of which BTW is covered by the OGL). They can reprint, issue PDFs, create new material, anything they like. Any lack of support for 4e, or lack of interest in it, is purely a choice made by WotC. Now, I expect that it is mostly just ignored as being a fairly recently replaced version of the game. They didn't provide any 2e 'stuff' until recently either, so its not actually any big mystery.

You keep a hobbyist pursuit relatively isolated and basically unchanged for 25 years, folks're gonna get set in their ways. And the trickle of new folks joining it will learn those ways....

Click to expand...

I don't think it is that. It is just there is this weird, and apparently quite prevalent in this day and age, strain of thought which goes around that the contents of the books are to be taken literally, so that if it says "short sword" in the weapons table you cannot, should not, and are to be condemned for, being a player who pretends the short sword mechanics apply to a 'tomahawk' or something.

I mean, like I got drummed clean out of a bunch of threads on that one back in the day. By people whom I believe are still actively posting.

Tony Vargas said:

The "lots of..." I keep hearing in these discussions.

Click to expand...

Im not appealing to popularity there. I’m using the term to describe a nonspecific plurality, and to specifically avoid using terms like “most,” which I would have no way of knowing.

Tony Vargas said:

I see no indications of PF2 being that game in any sense... certainly 13A was closer, and it wasn't close, at all.

Click to expand...

Did your eyes just gloss over the “for me” part? I’m not trying to make any claims about PF2 being some kind of great 4e revival or anything. I just see in it a lot of what I personally liked in 4e. I’ve heard from other 4e fans who have said the same (there, I dropped the word “lots” since that seemed to bother you). I’ve heard from other 4e fans who have said otherwise too. Doesn’t stop me from being excited to see those mechanics in a popular game again, or from being amused at the fact that it’s Pathfinder of all things I’m seeing them in.

Tony Vargas said:

You'd be in good company, but little if it. D&D is just the easiest game to pull a groupbtigether around. Want to play something better, there's no shortage of games, the problem is finding a few other former-D&Ders who've found the same something better.

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why I currently run and play 5e. Fortunately, Pathfinder is also pretty popular. That’s another part of the reason I’m excited to see it adopting 4e-isms I care about.

Tony Vargas said:

I do not consider "lots of" evidence, since it's just a turn of phrase, not any kind of statistic, let alone a valid one.

Click to expand...

[edit] Huh, I guess I did use the word “evidence” there. Poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, “that suggests to me.” I’m not trying to present a case about the preponderance of 4e fans just waiting in line to jump on the PF2 band wagon. I’m saying, in my personal experience, I and some of the other 4e fans I’ve spoken to about it, think PF2 looks pretty neat, and I appreciate the irony in the possibility that I and a not insignificant number of other 4e fans might stop playing D&D and start playing Pathfinder. Is that phrasing precise enough for you?[/edit]

Tony Vargas said:

I like me some irony, too...

Click to expand...

Then, in spite of all of your attempts to prove wrong a point I’ve never been making, we are in agreement.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Well, I wasn't one who thought 13A did any scratching of my 4e itches. I honestly think it is much closer in nature to 5e than to 4e.

Click to expand...

In objectives, for instance, it's quite similar. 13A & 5e are both compromise takes on D&D, harkening back to the classic game; both intent on enabling TotM by default, both trying to balance classes with different resource mixes, and both deflating bonuses...

What 'legal mess' would that be?

Click to expand...

The GSL. 4e can't be cloned.

I don't think it is that. It is just there is this weird, and apparently quite prevalent in this day and age, strain of thought which goes around that the contents of the books are to be taken literally, so that if it says "short sword" in the weapons table you cannot, should not, and are to be condemned for, being a player who pretends the short sword mechanics apply to a 'tomahawk' or something.

I mean, like I got drummed clean out of a bunch of threads on that one back in the day. By people whom I believe are still actively posting.

Click to expand...

3e & 4e were both pretty explicit that players could describe their characters' gear as they like...

Tony Vargas said:

4e fans do not now, and have not had since 2012, that luxury. It may be just an artifact of WotCs business missteps leaving the system in a legal mess, but it does mean that what 4e fans want: 4e, simply does not matter.
Because they're not going to get it.

Click to expand...

In development Forerunner an OGL derivation of 4e concepts and core functionality without IP or copyright issues.

Tony Vargas said:

In objectives, for instance, it's quite similar. 13A & 5e are both compromise takes on D&D, harkening back to the classic game; both intent on enabling TotM by default, both trying to balance classes with different resource mixes, and both deflating bonuses...

Click to expand...

Well, I didn't see in 13A the things that were mechanically characteristic of 4e in contrast to 5e. Like 5e it has a mix of different resource models and class implementation mechanics. It lacks a power/role classification structure, even implicitly, etc. It lost the explicit resource framework of short and long rest refresh cadence as well, though not entirely. It does have a pretty story focused feel to it, which is a respect in which it is more like 4e.

The GSL. 4e can't be cloned.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but my understanding of what you said was it was an implication that there was some sort of impediment to support, which isn't really the case. I mean, people have basically cloned 1e without much trouble and it lacks anything even as permissive as GSL! WotC could certainly provide some support. Anyway, in the industry, it is widely understood that 4e is basically a flavor of d20 and thus OGL can be leveraged to support it in most respects, as long as you're not putting any 4e compatibility graphics on your product. That's how 1e was cloned. Beyond that, with PF, and now PF2, and 13A, and Radiance RPG, etc. etc. etc. all out there under the OGL I think we can safely say its applicability has become pretty darn broad. I think you can 'clone' 4e fairly closely. I would avoid exact replication of things like stat blocks and power formats, but you can certainly design a game which is numerically 4e compatible and no more than reasonably tweaked rules-wise. You'd need to generate new power lists with different names, probably a slightly different mix of powers, perhaps change a few terms. I wouldn't sweat it. In fact if you go over to rpg.net in the d20 forums you will find that said game exists! It is more of a 'toolbox' which you would flesh out with 4e material to play 4e itself, or supply other sets of content to create other '4e-based' or '4e-like' games. Anyway, it cleans up and repackages a lot of the rules in a fairly nice way too.

3e & 4e were both pretty explicit that players could describe their characters' gear as they like...

Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir on that one my friend. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.

AbdulAlhazred said:

You're preaching to the choir on that one my friend. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes, the Edition Cold War, when the Coastal Wizard Nations declared an Edition Ceasefire while they negotiated the Next Treaty, and the Edition Soldiers began to employ euphemism as a way to fight proxy Edition Battles. “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.

Charlaquin said:

Ahh yes, the Edition Cold War, when the Coastal Wizard Nations declared an Edition Ceasefire while they negotiated the Next Treaty, and the Edition Soldiers began to employ euphemism as a way to fight proxy Edition Battles. “Simulationism” became the stand-in for 3e and “gameism” and “narrativism” for 4e. Dark times indeed.

Click to expand...

Dogs and cats began living together.

AbdulAlhazred said:

Yeah, but my understanding of what you said was it was an implication that there was some sort of impediment to support, which isn't really the case

Click to expand...

The GSL, compared to the OGL is an impediment to 3pp support. And, of course, the threat of renewed edition-war hostilities (it's not like they've really stopped, just tapered off), is an impediment to WotC.

I mean, people have basically cloned 1e without much trouble and it lacks anything even as permissive as GSL! WotC could certainly provide some support. Anyway, in the industry, it is widely understood that 4e is basically a flavor of d20 and thus OGL can be leveraged to support it in most respects, as long as you're not putting any 4e compatibility graphics on your product. That's how 1e was cloned.

Click to expand...

I thought OSRIC got some kind of permission? I've glanced at it, bits look to be virtually verbatim.

. I think you can 'clone' 4e fairly closely. I would avoid exact replication of things like stat blocks and power formats, but you can certainly design a game which is numerically 4e compatible and no more than reasonably tweaked rules-wise. You'd need to generate new power lists with different names, probably a slightly different mix of powers, perhaps change a few terms

Click to expand...

There's hundreds of powers - per class - compared to yoinking the srd and having a game ready to go.

I wouldn't sweat it. In fact if you go over to rpg.net in the d20 forums you will find that said game exists! It is more of a 'toolbox' which you would flesh out with 4e material to play 4e itself, or supply other sets of content to create other '4e-based' or '4e-like' games. Anyway, it cleans up and repackages a lot of the rules in a fairly nice way too.

Click to expand...

I checked that boy and found a thread bombed by "nononono NO nothing will ever come of this"

Direct link to the thing itself?

. There are still a very substantial section of the D&D community who consider that to be anathema. Any suggestion that this was a feature of 4e back in the heyday of the Edition Wars was literally drummed off the forums. EnWorld is relatively well policed and you could almost discuss it here, but it definitely required a whole bunch of ignore list! On the WotC D&D forums it was absolutely impossible, any thread containing a suggestion of all but the most trivial reflavoring would get 100 hate posts per hour until it was locked. Some of the responses were pretty eye popping.

Click to expand...

I think that attitude must have shifted. Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did: Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion. Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally. Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!