What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Hussar]

Amazing, for a game played by millions.

BTW where did they get these playtesters from, the RPGA? (Honestly asking, not trying to be snarky )

IIRC, most of the playtesters were drawn from the RPGA.

Honestly, I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition. Much of the changes, at least in the initial core books, seem geared towards RPGA style play where you will be playing with strangers very often and rules abuse is difficult to control when you only have a limited time frame to play with.

Polymorph a problem? Yoink, gone.
People taking way too much table time because of pets and summonings? Yoink, gone.
Certain vague spell effects that can range from superpowered to pointless (illusioins I'm looking at you)? Yoink, gone.

That sort of thing. Which, IMO, is one of the prime reasons for the issues a lot of people have with 4e. If you have a well established group that can sort these sorts of things out during one of the many bull sessions at the Waffle House after a gaming session, then all of these "fixes" are pretty much superfluous to you.

 

[Jasperak]

IIRC, most of the playtesters were drawn from the RPGA.

Honestly, I've always maintained that 4e is the RPGA edition. Much of the changes, at least in the initial core books, seem geared towards RPGA style play where you will be playing with strangers very often and rules abuse is difficult to control when you only have a limited time frame to play with.

Polymorph a problem? Yoink, gone.
People taking way too much table time because of pets and summonings? Yoink, gone.
Certain vague spell effects that can range from superpowered to pointless (illusioins I'm looking at you)? Yoink, gone.

That sort of thing. Which, IMO, is one of the prime reasons for the issues a lot of people have with 4e. If you have a well established group that can sort these sorts of things out during one of the many bull sessions at the Waffle House after a gaming session, then all of these "fixes" are pretty much superfluous to you.

Interesting, your point jives with my thoughts about 4e. I would have no problem now playing in a one-shot or maybe D&D Encounters, but I would never choose 4e for my regular game. I don't think I will ever go anywhere near the RPGA again though.

 

[Mournblade94]

Amazing, for a game played by millions.

BTW where did they get these playtesters from, the RPGA? (Honestly asking, not trying to be snarky )

My friends were not part of the RPGA, but they are involved in gaming networks throughout the state of NJ. I would give names but I have no business doing so. The playtesters were gathered here in NJ from the Dexcon circuit.

 

[howandwhy99]

You know what would be awesome? If Wizards would OGL all of the pre-2000 game mechanics.

That would win me over pretty much in total. Then they could go on about their business of designing and selling story games. And those of us who love the IP they refuse to print could design and share our own D&D game in peace. The 3.x guys have it and a publisher in Paizo. Why not the older editions?

• Are those rules really so threatening to the company to not have under copyright?
• Is this move not worth the cost to relieve such tension in the community?

It may no longer be in their philosophical game design ballpark, but older games still do have adherents. If Wizards is unwilling to publish older games for money, I think it would be a very classy move on their part.

 

[MerricB]

Yup.

And in the 1e era, DragonLance changed classes and races to fit its concepts. Greyhawk Adventures included rules for 0-lvl characters. Oriental Adventures had new classes and races, new proficiencies, an honor system, etc.

It's actually hard to point to a developed setting (the sketchy Greyhawk Gazetteer is all I can think of) where the setting seems to follow the previously published rules. Even 1e Forgotten Realms didn't.

Erm...

I'm trying to think where 1E FR broke the rules. As I recall, it did so in *one* area, and that was how handled dragons (adding 9 and 10 hit point/die for the really scary ones, and a change in breath weapons). 2E broke more rules, IIRC. Admittedly, FR did redefine the very Greyhawk-y elves to fit its appearance, but ruleswise nothing changed.

Greyhawk boxed set (1983) had one variance with standard rules: certain priests could take an XP penalty in exchange for some mostly minor powers.

Dragonlance in its original incarnation (the modules) changed one thing: halflings out, kender in. Oh, and no orcs. By the time the Dragonlance Adventures book arrived on the cusp of 2e, they added a bunch of new classes and races - some of dubious quality.

Oriental Adventures broke the rules in a big way.

In comparison...

Forgotten Realms (4E) adds in a bunch of FR-only backgrounds and feats, as well as new races and a new class which, although they can be used elsewhere, are more "realmsy".

Eberron (4E) adds in the Dragonmark feats and paragon paths, a bunch of backgrounds and feats that are Eberron-only, and races and the Artificer class which just scream "Eberron".

Both those settings traditionally used pretty much everything that was in the D&D of the time, whilst adding a few of their own elements. This is still true. (In fact, it was a selling point of Eberron when it came out).

The Dark Sun (4E) is being more restrictive - no divine magic from what I hear - is welcome.

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Or, if they have adjusted this philosophy, I haven't seen it.....And would like some info on where to find it.

FWIW, the "Make stuff up to fit the incredibly carefully balanced rules we give you, however you justify it" approach does seem to be on the down slide.

For instance, the Dark Sun Themes are specifically the other way around:

Notice how the power allows the templar to provide an incentive for the next person who hits the target. This is one of the mechanical concepts present throughout the templar. The templar provides incentives for her allies and then rewards the first one to succeed. This reflects the templar’s ability to command others with the authority of the sorcerer-kings, their penchant for encouraging fierce competition between their servants, and their ability to reward those who follow the decrees of the sorcerer-kings. That’s the kind of flavor that went into figuring out what the mechanical concepts were going to be in each theme.

It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Templar's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Templar should offer rewards and encourage competition. Here is a power that actually does that to the players at the table, by giving someone a payoff for doing what the Templar commands before anyone else does."

I think certain aspects of that "rules first" worldview are kind of ingrained into the system itself (healing is a biiiiiiiiiiiiiig one), but it's not everywhere, and it's showing signs of transformation.

 

[Umbran]

Eh, I'm gonna have to say I disagree here... at leats in the 2e era, and now that I'm thinking about it the 3e era as well. As I remember it most campaign settings tweaked, added to and subtracted from the rules so that D&D better fit the setting, so I'm a little confused on your view. As I recall rules were modified to fit setting, not the other way around.

Please, go take a look at the 4e Forgotten Realms and Eberron materials. I'll wait...

*insert Girl From Ipanema Musak*

So, did you notice the races and classes introduced for those settings? Drow as PCs, spellswords, warforged, changelings and artificers, and more?

RC mentioned setting specific races and classes as part of how earlier editions tweaked rules. Well, 4e has those! And the entire point of 4e's exception based design is that the new sub-systems or rules for a given class are buried within its own powers, so there's no need to elucidate an entire new system of resolving particular kinds of actions.

I was figuring you guys ere talking about really fundamental changes (like, say, replacing HP with WP/VP, or somesuch) - but my contention was that in general, if I went to a game in a D&D setting with only my PHB, I'd still be okay, the fundamental rules of the game were still the same, because new settings didn't change the fundamentals.

But now, it sounds more like... you've just missed the fact that there are rules differences, because they're put within the races and classes, instead of spelled out separately.

 

[Umbran]

A springboard tight RAW that requires constant updates, and revisions kind of speaks for itself.

With respect, I don't think it does. To say that it speaks is actually to say that you're divining an intent of the author from the result, and that is not nearly the same as having the authors explicitly say so.

I am not at all sure it is that the RAW needs updates. I think it is that large sections of the player base wants updates. Folks have been screaming about how slow they are with errata since 3e came out. And it sure wasn't like 2e and 1e didn't need them - we just didn't expect them, because TSR had no good way to deliver them.

 

[The Little Raven]

It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Templar's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Templar should offer rewards and encourage competition. Here is a power that actually does that to the players at the table, by giving someone a payoff for doing what the Templar commands before anyone else does."

It seems like the process went: "How can we reflect the Warlord's unique flavor in a combat ability? The Warlord should offer additional tactical superiority to his allies. It has powers that actually do that to the players at the table, by giving someone bonus attacks and additional movement."

 

[Imaro]

Please, go take a look at the 4e Forgotten Realms and Eberron materials. I'll wait...

*insert Girl From Ipanema Musak*

So, did you notice the races and classes introduced for those settings? Drow as PCs, spellswords, warforged, changelings and artificers, and more?.

Sure did, and now that you've had your chance to be snarky I'll try to reply without adding my own.

RC mentioned setting specific races and classes as part of how earlier editions tweaked rules. Well, 4e has those! And the entire point of 4e's exception based design is that the new sub-systems or rules for a given class are buried within its own powers, so there's no need to elucidate an entire new system of resolving particular kinds of actions.

I'm not RC, and I was responding to your post... I didn't mention added races or classes

I was figuring you guys ere talking about really fundamental changes (like, say, replacing HP with WP/VP, or somesuch) - but my contention was that in general, if I went to a game in a D&D setting with only my PHB, I'd still be okay, the fundamental rules of the game were still the same, because new settings didn't change the fundamentals.

Oh, you mean like the rules in planescape for how magic worked differently on different planes... or Eberron 3e introducing action points... or 2e Dark Sun with rules for different weapon materials or maybe something like Ravenloft's fear, terror and madness rules... and so on. Yeah, that was what I was talking about. And as a player you probably could show up with a PHB and still play(though personally I find this hard to believe). Since I am talking about rules that were changed to accomodate the setting that would fall more under the purview of the DM... wouldn't it? Thus whether you could show up with a PHB and play or not would be irrelevant to my point.

But now, it sounds more like... you've just missed the fact that there are rules differences, because they're put within the races and classes, instead of spelled out separately.

No, it sounds more like you aren't addressing my post. The above is bull, those races don't change the rules in any significant way to accomodate the setting... they can and are expected to be used in any and every D&D setting... new races and classes have been a staple of new settings since at least 2e.

the problem I was addressing was with having rules that actually give the feel and enhance the individuality of a setting in play which 4e seems to be lacking in... again rules first, setting second which always wasn't the case as you tried to argue in your previous post.