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

[NoWayJose]

In AD&D, and even moreseo in 3E (with it's easy multiclassing) class is a reflection and expression of some ingame state of affairs. And on this approach to class, it doesn't make sense to have a class and class features that don't accurately express some feature of the ingame reality. So a 4e warlord class wouldn't make sense.

But in 4e classes are best seen as "metagame packages/bundles" first, which then determine some ingame state of affairs - but they don't themselves express any ingame natural categories. So whereas, in AD&D and 3E, "fighting men" and "magic-users" are part of the ingame reality, in 4e there are only warriors in the gameworld - fighters, warlords and STR-rangers are simply various metagame devices for playing a warrior in mechanically distinct but balanced ways.

Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame). A child trained as a squire to become a knight may evolve to be a warlord, but a child is not thrown into Warlord Academy. Warlord IS a mantle earned by anyone with the right stripes and experience, and 4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.

In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments. Take away the old 9 alignments and the Outer Wheel collapses on itself, its gamist spine torn out, with no tangible in-game justification left to support itself.

Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.

 

[Jack99]

Several of the WotC people I met at Gencon were outright jerks and I just basically moved on.
--CT

Thats some accusation. But lets hear some names and what happened, because otherwise, I am gonna call nonsense on that story. Bear in mind that alot of them post here, so better have your facts straight.

 

[pemerton]

4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.

In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments.

<snip>

Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.

What you're saying makes perfect sense to me - including that the warlord is just the tip of a total iceberg of "failures of internal logic". It's the nature of a metagame-heavy ruleset that the logic has to be injected from outside.

 

[pemerton]

Costs of providing PDFs

The most recent number of The Monthly - a moderately leftist Australian culture/society magazine - has an article by Malcolm Knox on e-publishing and its effect on the publishing and bookselling industry. Knox writes:

The mindset [that if you're reading it on a screen then it must be free] is quanitatively wrong: the costs of digitisation, file conversion and file management are high . . . One reason e-books were so slow to take hold was that publishers could not make money with the addition of the estimated $400 per title it cost them to digitise.​

Obviously, some of that work has already been done in the case of the WotC and TSR PDFs.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.

If those were my overriding criteria for choosing a ruleset, I would not play any version of D&D at all. I'd either go for a GURPS or Rolemaster-y simulationist system or something like Dogs in the Vineyard. (Which come to think of it I sometimes do).

 

[Bluenose]

Yes, children are trained as squires to become knights, sent off to monastery to become clerics, apprenticed to a mage to become wizards, etc. Most classes at level 1 are modelled on the heroic output of in-game professional training + natural talents. The warlord class has no equivalent in-game meaning and feels artificial and arbitrary in-game (outside of the metagame). A child trained as a squire to become a knight may evolve to be a warlord, but a child is not thrown into Warlord Academy. Warlord IS a mantle earned by anyone with the right stripes and experience, and 4E warped the 'warlord' concept to fit into an artificial gamist framework.

In my ideal 4E, you can only build a 'warlord' using any base class and the right abilities and power selection. Take a knight class and add some tactical powers. Take a cleric and add some inspiration powers. But don't fabricate a warlord class out of relatively thin air and call it a 'warlord'. Creating a warlord class to fit the predefined roles is about as arbitrary and gamist as 2nd edition Outer Wheel designed to personify the 9 old alignments. Take away the old 9 alignments and the Outer Wheel collapses on itself, its gamist spine torn out, with no tangible in-game justification left to support itself.

Furthermore, if this was just about the warlord, it wouldn't affect my view of 4E as a whole. But as I described before, I see many, many other failures of internal logic between crunch and fluff.

Children of 'Knights' train to become knights/men-at-arms. Children of 'Lords' train to lead. The historical precedents are many, and they aren't just from medieval Europe. Alexander the Great is a perfectly sensible example. There are people like that in modern day sports teams at all ages. The title may bother you, but the concept 'inspirational leader' is hardly something that requires much experience.

 

[NoWayJose]

Children of 'Knights' train to become knights/men-at-arms. Children of 'Lords' train to lead.

Because of feudal system, prejudice, etc. That doesn't apply to an equal opportunity medieval reimagining that is D&D.

The title may bother you, but the concept 'inspirational leader'...

It would actually be 'Inspirational Fighter-like Leader'

... is hardly something that requires much experience.

Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.
See, in that way, 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason. See previous posts for elaboration.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason.

Eh, it's the nature of the class system. Pre-3e D&D was often criticised for its arbitrary restrictions. The term 'options not restrictions' became associated with 3e and its loosening of the bonds of class, but imo it went too far in that direction.

 

[Bluenose]

Because of feudal system, prejudice, etc. That doesn't apply to an equal opportunity medieval reimagining that is D&D.

Works perfectly well today. See: sports teams, modern militaries, even some businesses.

Aah, good to know. My cleric, who has better charisma/wisdom/intelligence than your warlord, is easily able to choose warlord class powers with no penalties or restrictions... because, as you state, being an inspirational leader hardly requires much experience.
See, in that way, 4E is like the Soup Nazi. 'No soup for you!' for no logical in-game reason. See previous posts for elaboration.

Congratulations on not understanding the nature of a class-based game.

 

[NoWayJose]

Works perfectly well today. See: sports teams, modern militaries, even some businesses.

Considering that you pick on certain points while ignoring others in your favor and considering that you're trying to set up a terrible analogy between a fantasy uber-hero and a real-life sports athelete, and considering that the warlord issue is just the tip of the iceberg, I won't be distracted by red herrings.

Congratulations on not understanding the nature of a class-based game.

Don't be disingenuous. This isn't black and white, everything is a matter of degrees. I suppose the world will crumble around you when Essentials plays with some of your sacred cows. No soup for you.