D&D 4E 4E No Focus

[satori01]

I know many people are diehard 4E supporters...but with the Essential line coming out.....this iteration of D&D just suffers from an overall lack of cohesive vision...which coupled with a intensive release schedule is a detriment to the pocket book of the customer.

PHB 2 classes showed a refinement that I wished was in the PHB 1....something I feel might have been possible with more development time.
Overall I feel like, I am paying money for what has been an extended beta test.

Now I like schools of magic....I like the ideas they are presenting...and growth is needed and to be expected.....but frankly more design time could have shook some of this out.

 

[Vaeron]

Well, I think they might have come to that conclusion as well. In fact, they've flat out said their new builds resemble subclasses from previous editions, which suggests they're trying to structure things better. And the previews reflect a class progression that isn't quite as big a departure from 1e/2e/3e as the inital 4e builds were. I think they are trying to focus in more now, since some of the things they've come up with before now are perhaps TOO general from time to time.

However, I do disagree that it costs too much money. Almost everything that isn't a fluff book is in the compendium, the monster builder, or the character builder. I stopped even bothering with the X power books for example, although I still do buy PHBs and MMs cuz I like reading through them. Even the Essentials classes will be in the CB, so there's really no reason to buy them either. (although I will buy the Rules Compendium)

 

[Scribble]

PHB 2 classes showed a refinement that I wished was in the PHB 1....something I feel might have been possible with more development time.
Overall I feel like, I am paying money for what has been an extended beta test.

I think anything released to the public will sooner or later show signs of "how it could have been done better..."

I mean if you look at authors you'll see a growth (usually) as the write more books and learn how to do whatever they wanted to do better.

Same with video games, when a new game by the same company comes out, and now they know how to do whatever function better...

I think what makes it more noticeable in D&D is that everything they release is intended to be used with what came before. Unlike the video game where once you play the second game, you can pretty much forget about the first one.


I kind of like the fact that this time around they're trying to make it continuously evolve, rather then just deal with stuff that could have been done better until they have enough to put out an entirely new edition...

 

[MrMyth]

I know many people are diehard 4E supporters...but with the Essential line coming out.....this iteration of D&D just suffers from an overall lack of cohesive vision...which coupled with a intensive release schedule is a detriment to the pocket book of the customer.

...

Now I like schools of magic....I like the ideas they are presenting...and growth is needed and to be expected.....but frankly more design time could have shook some of this out.

I think any game will evolve as there is feedback from the gamers - feedback that you aren't going to get from playtesting alone, in the end.

In any case, though, I think the 'vision' of 4E is something they discussed from relatively early on. Year One was getting out the basics of the system. Year Two was trying to present more options for fans of older systems who felt that things were missing (and thus we have Half-Orcs and Gnomes in the PHB2). Year Three has a focus on bringing in new gamers and continuing to appeal to lapsed gamers, in the form of Essentials.

I'm sure some elements have changed along the way, but I definitely see an overall plan in action.

 

[Skyscraper]

I think you're complaining about human nature, not about WotC products.

Expect people to learn and improve what they do. I wish you the same in whatever it is you do.

Sky

 

[renau1g]

Not quite sure your point OP? I found the PHB I to be very good, with the exception of the wizard, but out of 8 classes, I found 1 to be sub-par. Of course they're going to improve as anything does with experience, heck even in the game it takes EXPERIENCE to become a better swordsmen or magic-user or thief.

If 4e fails from vision, please explain the vision/focus of 1e, 2e, 3e and 3.5e, if you're going to toss out flame-bait like that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I don't at all comprehend the 'lack of vision' thing. 4e has a very distinct and explicit set of goals and is FAR more designed according to an overall vision than any other version of D&D ever has been. There are a whole set of related goals, but the core unifying theme has always been improving the game experience. I would far more accuse earlier editions of lack of vision than 4e. If anything 4e seems to me to be the visionary version of D&D, albeit somewhat hobbled by the necessity to bow to past conventions.

 

[Arlough]

Personally, I have to agree that 4e seems to lack a cohesive vision, but I am not about to say that other editions had this vision either.

It seems, from the stuff released, that there are two groups of development at Wizards. There is the group that asks "What can we do to expand market share of our publishing empire?" and one that asks "What can we do to enhance the entertainment of our game system?"

Much of the stuff they release has a "publisher" aspect to it, similar to the way a trading card game company who has gotten into books would react. A general approach of "what cool thing can we invent that will make someone need to buy the next booster pack or book or whatever. The desired result being "I have to go get X so my Ranger (or whatever) can totally own the battlefield." Basically marketing to the DPR focused guys.

Then there are the releases that have had a lot attention put towards making something that blends perfectly with the system that is there, so that you can't even really imagine the two as not having always been part of the same whole. The result there is more of a "I don't have that book? Check again. Really? Well I better go buy it, you can't do without that." These aim more at the people who are willing to blow a feat on character development.

So the end result is a system that at times seems to focus on munchkining, and at other times seems to lack the battle ompf but has an over abundance of utility functions.

If I had to choose a focus, I would prefer they focus on the latter. But, my real desire would be if they could focus on, instead of giving us more stuff to add (tattoo magic slot) give us more entertainment (interconnected quality map packs that can eventually build a world, or high quality figs that are not randomly packaged, or, hell, just about anything they promised would be in DDI by now when we first signed up two years ago.) and keep us coming back by providing content that is thought out enough to have a good chance of lasting more than a week before the updates start coming in.

 

[the Jester]

I know many people are diehard 4E supporters...but with the Essential line coming out.....this iteration of D&D just suffers from an overall lack of cohesive vision...which coupled with a intensive release schedule is a detriment to the pocket book of the customer.

I still haven't seen a gun to anyone's head forcing anyone to buy anything.

That said, the Essentials line is supposedly designed for a cheaper buy-in for a group of new gamers.

 

[Dice4Hire]

If the game were not different and frankly better after 24 months, I would hen question WOTC's abilities.

As for the usual dead horse of sufficient playtesting, let it rest. No company can playtest something so complicated before release. It just is not possible. 4E was well playtested. It plays well with just the first three books, and someone who plays in a group who does not read the forums like this can have a lot of fun with them.