A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Bluenose]

I'm not in agreement with the metaphor of one edition as fillet, the other as hamburger, or either as KFC.


To use a food related analogy, 3e was a full meal (including fillet mignon, mashed potatoes, salad, and -ugh- brussel srpouts). 4e is like fillet mignon, lots of it, a whole plateful, but no sides at all.

The intensity of the focus on combat (and I'll agree that all editions had as their "main dish", so to speak, combat) has shifted the balance of the "meal".


Or, to put it another way, I think wizards realized that cake is delicious...and then proceeded to feed us cake for every single meal. It's really really good cake, but one gets tired of cake.

Two questions come to mind. What are these 'side dishes' that 4e no longer provides? Were they well cooked in 3e?

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure that's 100% true though. 2e and 1e saw a split that, at least anecdotally, was just as wide as 3e to 4e. I've seen estimates as high as 50% of groups not making the switch over. And there are many, many examples of people talking about how they skipped over 2e to start again with 3e.

That's not much different than the 3.0 v. 3.5 situation. The thing is, 3.0 and 3.5 were similar enough to continue using most sourcebooks and modules, and they were nearly 100% compatible in fluff (I don't like gnomes with banjos, but I survived). And options were left open to make either game your own. 1e v. 2e was very similar; you actually cannot tell the statblocks apart in many cases, and even most PCs can be converted with a pencil and an eraser (bards being the exception). 3.0/3.5 did not split the fanbase, although it undountedly derailed sales and ghetto-ized certain rules discussions.

3e to 4e is much like 2e to 3e with one big exception; the vast majority happily converted from 2e to 3e. Some people playing AD&D never converted to 3e, but they were probably never convertible. Going from 3e to 4, there are a lot of holdouts, and even the people who buy into 4e are not necessarily setting 3e aside.

Some people blame Pathfinder, but that is rewriting history. As soon as 4e was announced, people started cranking out alternative logos for 3e third party support. Paizo announced their project pretty early, first of all in order to capture a lot of playtest data, but I think secondarily to scare anyone else out of the field who might be considering a somewhat updated rules-system rather than a straight continuation. Paizo or no, the 3e engine was going to keep running. If someone was willing to publish Labyrinth Lord, you can bet someone would happily port the 3.0 and 3.5 rules over.

In other words, Pathfinder was "sufficiently D&D," perhaps even sufficiently 3e, to win a large segment of 3e holdouts which 4e was unable to attract. It seems a no-brainer that WotC could be more successful with any product than a third party publisher would be. It is my hunch that 4e became popular ONLY by virtue of it being branded D&D, otherwise it would be in the Runequest/Warhammer 3e niche. It follows then that if WotC had published, say, Pathfinder, that alternate universe version of Pathfinder would be even more popular than Pathfinder is now, probably a near complete capture of the 3e market. Some people obviously were burned out on 3e but not enough to tank the line, particularly if you offered a Pathfinder-esque reboot.

The so-called "edition treadmill" is a good thing. I never balked at, every few years, picking up some errata, some minor changes, and oh yes, expansions. Those near-compatible versions are a good chance to clean house, just as 3.5 got rid of the Weapon Master and assorted other things. I was happy to buy Pathfinder; new art (even though it's not precisely my favoriate style), refreshed mechanics, and a chance to review all that has gone before.

Why was 4e less popular than it could have been? Well, let's see, your target markets are:

1. people who liked 3e before but don't like it as much now, and would welcome a game that was NOT very similar to what they've been playing, and
2. people new to D&D

I think WotC figured #2 was where the money was, but you know what? 4e is too bulky and arcane. And someone who isn't playing D&D now may not be likely to do so in the future.

 

[shadzar]

a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play

I'm not sure that an added component becomes harder to remove just because of the pressures it creates. The difficulty of removing it is more likely to be related to its overall integration in the rest of the system. For example: removing the Craft and Profession skill from 3E would I think be pretty trivial. Removing hit points, rather non-trivial.

I do think that an added component can be harder to ignore on account of the pressures it creates, precisely because those pressures might become too much to ignore. So the existence of Craft and Profession skills in 3E, in combination with the obvious pressure on many players to make builds that are tactically optimal, tends to make questions like "How did my guy make a living before he started adventuring?" have a salience, and a difficulty of answering, that I'd rather not have in my game. 4e resolves this issue by allowing (for example) the player of the wizard to say "My guy was a pastry chef" without having to expend any character build resources for the privilege. Rolemaster resolves this issue in a different way, by granting lots more character building resources, but also using a type of siloing device to avoid making the player choose between "background" skills and "optimisation" skills.

I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.

Ignoring and removing are the same thing. If you aren't using it, then it pretty much doesn't exist. Out of sight out of mind. When you can easily ignore and remove a component, then you say it isn't much of a problem. Mechanically it can be removed. It will leave questions for SoD if you remove crafting.

4e resolves this issue by allowing (for example) the player of the wizard to say "My guy was a pastry chef" without having to expend any character build resources for the privilege.

This was no problem in 3rd edition. You didn't have to use the Craft system if you didn't want to. For those wanting their RAW games that required it, then I give you it was a problem, but with the players not the rules....

So mechanically the system COULD be removed very easily.

Back to the assertion: a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play

So since mechanically, Craft could easily be removed, why not a setting? If there was a default one, and you didn't like it and wanted your own with JIT or whatever method....why couldn't you just remove that and substitue yours in its place?

The presence of the Craft system caused you problem and in the presence of 4th edition, the system with the Crafting subsytem is NOT popular to you. Likewise to those looking for a setting in the game to begin with 4th edition, in the presence of EVERY game/system with a clear setting, is not popular with them.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm not sure what you mean by "sim" here - I've read your exchange with LostSoul, and I tend to agree with him that what you're describing seems something like what the Forge calls High Concept Simulationism (ie play that conforms to genre tropes and expectations).

Anyway, I'd like to avoid debating the merits of the Forge if we can (and given terms like "simulationism" are being used I'm not 100% sure we can). But my response to your comment about "simming any genre" is this:

*If you try to use Spacemaster (Rolemaster's sci-fi sibling) to play a game with a Dune or Star Wars feel I think you'll be pretty disappointed - purist-for-system simulationism will have a lot of trouble delivering that sort of experience in play;

*If you start to tweak the purist-for-system mechanics to make them "simulate the narrative events" you'll get a game more like Pendragon or Cthulhu - which will guarantee the genre experience, but which aren't really narrativist games. They deliver an experience that is, in some sense, predetermined or prepackaged - it's someone else's idea (the game designer's, mostly) of what that genre is.

Ok, I never said any game or style of game engine was ideal for the purpose. That is not my position. I am saying that for any given narrative purpose, there is an engine that simulates the same desired outcomes.

*Whereas if you pick up a non-sim game like The Dying Earth, and play it with the "tag line" reward rule, you should get an experience which isn't like reading a Dying Earth novel in an especially intimate way, but more like authoring a new Dying Earth novel.[/indent]

The Dying Earth is full of simulation elements. For instance, you recover your vitality by indulging your particular vice, reflecting the trope that in DE, when the going gets tough, the tough take a bath. Tag lines are also a simulation element; whether you intend to narrate or not, if you want the advantages of fulfulling a tag line, you will use it, imitating the action present in a Dying Earth story. That is an example of what I am talking about when simulation and storytelling converge because you are simulating a literary universe rather than a physical one.

That's a bit of a rough-and-ready description, but my own RPGing experience has led me to believe there are real differences here - in particular, between being rewarded for conforing to someone else's conception of the gameworld/genre, and making one's own creative contribution.

That's a tough proposition to demonstrate. As I've said above, I would say that Dying Earth is precisely an example of rewarding someone for conforming to genre expectations. You classify it as a non-sim game.

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?:

Any given Narrativist/storytelling game more closely resembles a High Concept Simulation/genre-emulating game than it does a classic style game based on exploration in a probabilistic game environment.

If so, doesn't that suggest that narrativist games simulate? If not, what is a genre-emulating game simulating?

 

[shadzar]

Erm, not quite true. When 2e was released 1e was still in print and Basic was either still in print or had just gone out of it. 1e and 2e overlapped by about 2 years, if memory serves: TSR was in essence competing with itself.

2nd edition AD&D also faced overlap when D&D was rereleased in the form of Rules Cyclopedia in 1991, right when 1st edition stopped being supported and Rules Cyclopedia was supported with modules and accessories and adventures.

Well I think until 3rd edition you could pretty much say D&D was ALWAYS around making an older edition always present in the face of newer ones, until WotC chopped it all down to one, making AD&D 3rd edition, but only calling it D&D.

So I would have said....

This is the first time that WotC, in trying to transition to a new D&D edition, have faced commercial competition from their old edition.

TSR always left the competition of the older edition in place.

 

[pawsplay]

These skills all exist in 4e as well (Sense Motive renamed as Insight). It's the way they're used that's different. Skill challenge resolution is very different from "free form" social skill resolution, and from making a single roll against a single DC to see whether you influence the person or not.

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.

That is a marked contrast to combat, where you can have a precise idea of how many squares you can push a hydra if you hit with your daily.

The fact that each system has such markedly different characteristics says something about the design priorities of the 4e writers.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?:

Any given Narrativist/storytelling game more closely resembles a High Concept Simulation/genre-emulating game than it does a classic style game based on exploration in a probabilistic game environment.

If so, doesn't that suggest that narrativist games simulate? If not, what is a genre-emulating game simulating?

Don't own the Dying Earth game, so pardon me if I missed some crucial build up. But I'd say that with genres, emulating and simulating are not the same thing. Sure, there is a sense in which all such games are simulating something, but at some point that takes all the useful meaning out of discussing "simulation".

Burning Wheel games aren't simulating much. In BW revised, the combat mechanics are not simulating actual combat. (The final resolution of combats will often be strikingly similar to gritty fantasy stories. So there is a kind of macro simulation. But any micro-simulation of process is really mainly a thin veneer of tags attached to skills and equipment.) Rather, BW is emulating a particular facet of combat--namely that it intends to make you sweat over the fate of the character the way real combat makes a person sweat over their life (with the obvious caveat that the stakes are much smaller in a game).

And BW isn't even a narrativist game. I know Luke Crane has considered Forge theory, because there are some credits to Forge folks in the books. But I get the distinct impression sometimes that he doesn't even care about it on the theory level, beyond any practical tools or rules of thumb that he happens to pick up. He merely wanted as one of his goals for BW that it be a game where combat made you sweat. So he picked mechanics to emulate that. Anything else is rather an accident of preferences, genre, theme, etc. (Also, see Mouse Guard, with similar goals but somewhat different preferences, genre, etc.)

Apparently, there are also some influences from Riddle of Steel on BW, which I understand to have somewhat of a simulation bent, though that is somewhat misleading with the way the drives of the character dictate effectiveness. It's another one I don't own, though.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge. I'm trying to imagine a situation in 3e where, scene to scene, you couldn't be sure if your character could walk a tightrope, or how much they could carry. In 4e, you do not know how persuasive your character is.

Is this objection based solely on unfixed difficult class targets, or is it something else? Because I'm still not seeing it.

 

[shadzar]

There was no overlap between 1st & 2nd edition AD&D. The final products of the BECMI line, Immortals and the Rules Cyclopedia were published in 1991, so there a two-year overlap between 2nd edition AD&D and BECMI/RC D&D. TSR had been competing with itself for 14 years by 1991 with the split between D&D and AD&D.

No, TSR logo used under WotC (some using WotC logo) was still producing, sporadically, D&D Rules Cyclopedia material all the way up until 3rd edition was released.

There were MANY products with the band atop "for use with 1st and 2nd edition AD&D". There was a definite overlap between 1st and 2nd.

Some later D&D material for use with Rules Cyclopedia, was ALSO usable for 2nd edition even.

Please get your history right.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... there's one serious problem IME with trying to write down examples of skill challenges the way I use them. It's like trying to bottle lightning. The specific PC ideas help determine the DCs at least as much as what skills they are using. And I must get round to finishing writing up my guide to skill challenges.

Yes. That is part of the difficulty, and one of the reasons why it has not been adequately addressed by those of us on the outside who sense the problem.

I think the only way to signficantly increase understanding would be to have an extended, detailed set of related examples covering all aspects of play. To convey skill challenges properly, you must also give enough examples of the encounters and other play to show the context of the skill challenges. And to really do it justice, you'd even have commentary to the side explaining why the skill challenge went a particular way. I'm further hampered by the fact that I'm bringing some home design ideas into my 4E games, and not all of those relevant to helping explain 4E to other people, though they certainly contribute to the fun I'm having with it.

There is a sense in which skill challenge examples written in isolation only serve to fully explore the concept for people who have first gotten over the initial humps.

It is also true that 4E is one of those things that some people aren't going to really grok until they do it for awhile. But if they don't see something attractive, they won't bother. A set of extended examples might convey, "Play like this is what you can expect to see once you've made the effort," which is a lot bigger sell than, "Do this. After mucking around with it for awhile, you might like it." This is doubly true because so many people can and will enjoy 4E as nothing but a tactical skimish game with a thin veneer of roleplaying. They have no reason to grok what else it can do, because they are already enjoying it some other way. Their not infrequent misleading statements about their play--confusing what they do with what 4E can do--has caused a lot of friendly fire in the edition wars.

I feel another food analogy coming along. So I think I'll just go to lunch before the ads here switch over to Pizza Hut entirely.