Sharkyologists?
When did WotC D&D "Jump the Shark"?
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
TheUltramark
First Post
when they "make" all their novelist advance the storylines 100 years into the future.....
that has leather jacket and water skis written all over it
that has leather jacket and water skis written all over it
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
From my point of view, as a D&D player since 1981, D&D jumped the shark when it became clear 4e was going to be so much of a transformation. It's like when Sam had sex with Diane on Cheers. A central dynamic of the show changed - as had several central dynamics of the game in 4e. And in both cases, the change was made to increase the customer base - ratings for Cheers, players for D&D. But for customers/viewers like me, too much is lost and the game/show enters a decline.
I fully accept that whether or not something has jumped the shark is subjective. You may not agree, but for me 4e's design is what sent D&D over the shark.
I fully accept that whether or not something has jumped the shark is subjective. You may not agree, but for me 4e's design is what sent D&D over the shark.
tuxgeo
Adventurer
IMHO that should be "at terminal velocity," not "with." (But there, I'm grammarNazi'ing. Sorry.)
"If they're amassing, then they can't be singular -- can they?" (Again, sorry.)
< snip >
But snarking is fun!
(Alas, I can't give XP to Keefe the Thief again so soon; but that was a singularly inventive sequence of invective. Or something.
I love such creative and expressive uses of English.)
Droogie128
First Post
Yes. They're the same edition. However, what I was referring to is stuff obviously made for the essentials versions of the classes. For instance, the cleric powers are implement powers. The warpriest doesn't really use implement powers, so those are best used by the laser cleric straight out of the PHB1. It's not all material designed for the warpriest. So, it's got material for the classic 4e classes, and their essentials counterparts.
the Jester
Legend
D&D hasn't jumped the shark, but the recent steep decline in both quality and quantity started (imho) with the decision to pull support for the original CB and MB without adequate replacements, and after months of misleading statements about a forthcoming "update".
That said:
NO.
DDI is better than it has been since the switchover to the online CB and MB but is still total crap compared to where it was a year and a half ago.
That said:
NO.
DDI is better than it has been since the switchover to the online CB and MB but is still total crap compared to where it was a year and a half ago.
If DDI is better than it has ever been, then how on earth did I fail to notice it being absolutely terrible before now? If this is "better" then I can't fathom when it was ever actually good (and once upon a time, I was very happy with DDI). DDI right now is just a total and complete shambles. I'm not going to bother ranting further on that because so many already have.
While I am very disappointed with wizards and am rapidly losing my enthusiasm for 4E, I don't think they have jumped the shark. I thought Heroes of Shadow was a mediocre book filled with poorly thought out elements (Worst race, one of the worst EDs in the entire game by miles, another striker class that barely performs its striker role etc) it's still miles ahead of nearly any 3.5 player option splatbook. It has underpowered or poorly thought out elements in the book, but nothing that just breaks the game badly like many 3.5 splatbooks could do. Most of the content is well balanced or just underpowered and very little seems outright broken. Most of essentials is like this actually, so while I might not like it out of the two available options (broken elements or underpowered elements/trap options) one is better than the other.
There are other decisions that I hate and find plain stupid as well. Epic tier being increasingly ignored, fortune cards ever being released, the cancellation of a book required for their magic item rarity system to work and such forth. The lack of rare magic items to fit with the new expected treasure system is particularly poor from Wizards. It makes this aspect of essentials feel half assed and ill thought out. One would think if you change a core system in DnD then you should actually support it.
At the same time I see real evidence to be positive again, because Wizards are directly asking their community about the mechanical problems in the game and potential solutions. If Wizards listens to their own community, I anticipate great things could be in store.
But only if they actually listen.
While I am very disappointed with wizards and am rapidly losing my enthusiasm for 4E, I don't think they have jumped the shark. I thought Heroes of Shadow was a mediocre book filled with poorly thought out elements (Worst race, one of the worst EDs in the entire game by miles, another striker class that barely performs its striker role etc) it's still miles ahead of nearly any 3.5 player option splatbook. It has underpowered or poorly thought out elements in the book, but nothing that just breaks the game badly like many 3.5 splatbooks could do. Most of the content is well balanced or just underpowered and very little seems outright broken. Most of essentials is like this actually, so while I might not like it out of the two available options (broken elements or underpowered elements/trap options) one is better than the other.
There are other decisions that I hate and find plain stupid as well. Epic tier being increasingly ignored, fortune cards ever being released, the cancellation of a book required for their magic item rarity system to work and such forth. The lack of rare magic items to fit with the new expected treasure system is particularly poor from Wizards. It makes this aspect of essentials feel half assed and ill thought out. One would think if you change a core system in DnD then you should actually support it.
At the same time I see real evidence to be positive again, because Wizards are directly asking their community about the mechanical problems in the game and potential solutions. If Wizards listens to their own community, I anticipate great things could be in store.
But only if they actually listen.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I think the HoS material is pretty good. Remember, there are already plenty of options for players who simply want to optimize their characters. You want to be a Vampire? Well, there are some pluses and minuses... Not every option has to be clearly some kind of mechanical optimum, especially not if that compromises other considerations. It is a game of fantasy and imagination more than it is a wargame, and it was time that 4e design reflected that. It isn't like the options people have been complaining about are terrible, they are limited in some ways. Being a shade creates some issues, but it should also be interesting.
Not that there's any reason an option should be weaker if it doesn't add something to it and the 4e devs do slightly miss the mark sometimes, but all of the stuff in HoS works and is perfectly usable. If you just want to min/max, then skip it.
Not that there's any reason an option should be weaker if it doesn't add something to it and the 4e devs do slightly miss the mark sometimes, but all of the stuff in HoS works and is perfectly usable. If you just want to min/max, then skip it.
1/3 races was basically a waste of page space, it added probably the worst ED in 4E (and there was some fair competition here), plus a class that is a giant trap for new players unless they have a (albeit minor) degree of system mastery and then a very strong concept of how to play 4E tactically. At the same time I didn't really care for more options for wizards and clerics, but in saying that one has to be fair. Wizards and Clerics are nowhere near as saturated as the 4E fighter (who has 414 powers! Yikes).
So I found very little of value in this book myself. Most of the PPs and other EDs were simply underwhelming to just a "Okay, but there are better" options. Personally HoS is the most disappointing book that Wizards have released, especially because it was so important for steadying the ship post-essentials. It failed at that on every level and has only succeeded at making me less optimistic about 4E in future.
I'll grant I did like things from the book: Despite the vampire being a trap if you can play 4E well and take durable, it's a fun and interesting class. It's just the two conditions "Knows how to play 4E" and "Takes durable" that are the trick. The necromancer was pretty cool and I think making it a mage school was probably the best choice in the end. But in the end I'm sick of wizard builds (and fighters, before anyone mentions that) and I'm really not liking the racial penalties coming back. Vryloka are a pretty neat new race, but why saddle them with a crippling -2 penalty to surge value that becomes irrelevant beyond heroic anyway? It's an insult to injury feature after level 10, but level 1-4ish Vryloka's really feel it.
It's also trivially removed with a feat, just adding more weight to the ever increasing "Feat tax" arguments that get thrown around. If anyone follows the char op feedback thread, the most common complaint that nearly every poster brings up are feat taxes. I don't see why wizards continues to add these to 4E (Vampires needing durable, Vryloka needing the +2 surge feat and such forth from this book).
The shade has absolutely no redeeming features whatsoever, it didn't even get feats to save it from being pretty much the bottom of the barrel in 4E. If you include monster manual races, it's competing with the bullywug in terms of who is actually worse.
I really disagree with that. I feel most of it is functional, but there is a fair amount of stuff that really doesn't sell itself on a usable manner whatsoever.
I just hope Wizards returns to form with a bang come Heroes of the Feywild. If Heroes of the Feywild is as disappointing as Heroes of Shadow, it's probable that I will lose interest in buying any new 4E products and just stick to everything from Heroes of Shadow backwards. HoS only sneaks in because I do actually kind of like some of the things in it - especially after I houserule the easy to fix errors: Vampires simply get durable for free and Vryloka have no -2 penalty to surge value. But again, Wizards has a long time before Heroes of the Feywild and if they listen to their community I have zero doubt of HoF avoiding the problems that HoS has had (and maybe recent books in general, even going back pre-essentials!). If HoF shows that Wizards basically didn't listen to their own community and just repeats all the same silly errors again - then I think "Jumping the shark" may have happened. I did hear that Mike has a speedboat and some water skis.
Last edited:
ThatGuyThere
Explorer
As a non-4th-Edition person, listening to the 4th-Edition people talking recently, I'd say, "Now".
But I'd also say, "Well, maybe."
I think the analogy to "jump the shark" is actually apt. The "Jump the Shark" episode was when the creative center of Happy Days shifted - the moment the work went from Being About What It Was When It Started to Being About Something More Than That. And I think 4th Edition is doing that, right now.
And yes, that can fail. Dismally. And has, often, in popular culture. But someone earlier (1st page) said something telling - Happy Days <literally> "jumped the shark" in it's fifth season, out of eleven seasons total, and is remembered as one of the finest shows on television. All in the Family became Archie Bunker's Place. Smallville went from "meteor freaks and a subdued superhero tone" to Doomsday, Major Zod and Darkseid.
(I'm specifically aiming for ones that are generally considered a "mixed bag" of preferring before-and-after the 'direction change'.)
4th Edition is maturing - and most definitely changing - as a game. Essentials - and remember, I'm only talking from arm's length, here - changed the way the game worked (how classes were set up), without actually changing how the game worked (ie, math). They're beginning to work with the engine in new and interesting ways; I'd fully expect at least some "speculative" works, similar to Magic of Incarnum, Book of 9 Swords, and so forth, testing the edges and limits of the engine, and trying to use it's strengths (and there are many) to cover it's weaknesses (and there are some).
Yes, there's a chance - a good chance, I'd say - 4th Edition will not be "the same game" two years from now, in the same way sitting at a 3.5 table 2/3rds of the way through and seeing a Warlock, a Scout, a Warmage, and a Healer instead of any "core" classes made it "not the same game". That doesn't mean it's a bad thing (although it might be bad for one given person, personally).
I'd say we're too early on Wizard's direction-change and development vector to decide the game's a failure. There's still hundreds of directions it could go (including backwards).
So, again, I answer the OP with, "Right now - but that may turn out to be a good thing".
Edited to note - That 3.5 table badly needs a tank. I'd have probably rolled a Lawful Incarnate.
But I'd also say, "Well, maybe."
I think the analogy to "jump the shark" is actually apt. The "Jump the Shark" episode was when the creative center of Happy Days shifted - the moment the work went from Being About What It Was When It Started to Being About Something More Than That. And I think 4th Edition is doing that, right now.
And yes, that can fail. Dismally. And has, often, in popular culture. But someone earlier (1st page) said something telling - Happy Days <literally> "jumped the shark" in it's fifth season, out of eleven seasons total, and is remembered as one of the finest shows on television. All in the Family became Archie Bunker's Place. Smallville went from "meteor freaks and a subdued superhero tone" to Doomsday, Major Zod and Darkseid.
(I'm specifically aiming for ones that are generally considered a "mixed bag" of preferring before-and-after the 'direction change'.)
4th Edition is maturing - and most definitely changing - as a game. Essentials - and remember, I'm only talking from arm's length, here - changed the way the game worked (how classes were set up), without actually changing how the game worked (ie, math). They're beginning to work with the engine in new and interesting ways; I'd fully expect at least some "speculative" works, similar to Magic of Incarnum, Book of 9 Swords, and so forth, testing the edges and limits of the engine, and trying to use it's strengths (and there are many) to cover it's weaknesses (and there are some).
Yes, there's a chance - a good chance, I'd say - 4th Edition will not be "the same game" two years from now, in the same way sitting at a 3.5 table 2/3rds of the way through and seeing a Warlock, a Scout, a Warmage, and a Healer instead of any "core" classes made it "not the same game". That doesn't mean it's a bad thing (although it might be bad for one given person, personally).
I'd say we're too early on Wizard's direction-change and development vector to decide the game's a failure. There's still hundreds of directions it could go (including backwards).
So, again, I answer the OP with, "Right now - but that may turn out to be a good thing".
Edited to note - That 3.5 table badly needs a tank. I'd have probably rolled a Lawful Incarnate.
Similar Threads
