Every Edition is a Failure

[Hussar]

((Heh, can I get IBTL on my own thread ))

Ok, hang on a second and put down that keyboard. Let me explain.

There's been a pretty persistent meme going around that 4e is a failure. That might be true, it might not. Honestly, I don't care. It doesn't matter. However, what is the issue is that people are using that to brush aside any features of 4e that 4e fans might want to see in 5e.

For example, someone might like 4e healing surges and speak positively about bringing them into 5e. The response often is, "Well, 4e failed, therefore anything 4e shouldn't be in 5e because we don't want 5e to fail". There's two problems with this response.

The first is, it shuts down conversation. People get to stop discussion without actually having to analyze anything. You don't have to show that one version of the mechanics is better or worse. All you have to do is play the "fail" card and there's nothing more that can really be said. And thus, the conversation dives down the rabbit hole of whether or not 4e actually was a failure, something which no one can prove.

The second problem is that it ignores the history of the game. Every single edition of D&D has been replaced by a newer edition. Every one. The time between editions might be different, but, the existence of new editions is without question. And the reason for a new edition is also the same, every time:

The previous edition wasn't making enough money anymore.

And that's the long and the short of it. 4e didn't come about because people hated 3e. 4e came out because 3e wasn't making enough money. 3e came out because 2e wasn't making enough money (something of an understatement there). Same with 2e and same with 1e. The reason for a new edition is exactly the same, every single time.

Every single edition in the end, failed. None of them are "evergreen" products. None of them managed to stay in print.

Trying to brush off conversation by playing the "fail" card is pointless. It adds nothing to the conversation, only serves to annoy the crap out of people and doesn't actually move anything forward in any meaningful way. If you don't like a mechanic, that's fine. Show me why your mechanic works better. Not just for you, but for everyone. Show me why Basic rules Racial Classes are the greatest thing ever and we should all use them.

Don't just close off conversation by stating, "well, 4e failed." because, guess what, your favourite edition?

It failed.

 

[Libramarian]

I've said this here. I certainly don't mean to shut down conversation, my context was just...I'm not sure anyone can look at RPG design and just know a priori what is good and will make people's gaming more fun. I have developed an acute suspicion of those who claim to be able to do this.

I feel that 4e in particular was developed very "theoretically" with not enough playtesting and not enough respect for historical RPG design wisdom, and this is why it has had such a poor reception.

I say 4e was a failure when I'm talking to somebody who is looking at the reception 4e has had, and instead of saying to themselves "hmm, what happened here, maybe 4e made some mistakes", just dismisses this evidence in an elitist way, like people are too stupid to appreciate it.

I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have a better metric for how well-designed a game is than public perception of said game. This is what I mean when I say,somewhat hyperbolically and unfairly, that 4e was a failure.

 

[FireLance]

Well, the context of the OP is that 4e's success or failure is irrelevant when looking at the details of individual mechanics. Certain people may not like the 4e system as a whole, but may appreciate some of its individual mechanics, such as rituals, healing that is proportional to the hit points of the recepient, or at-will powers for spellcasters.

"Daily martial powers are bad because there is no sensible way to explain why a character can only pull off a maneuver once per day" is a useful criticism because it tells the 5e design team that if they want to include daily martial powers in 5e, they had better provide a good explanation for why they can only be used once per day or ensure that they are optional and that martial characers who do not have daily powers are as viable as those who do.

"Daily martial powers are bad because 4e is a failure" is neither useful information nor sound logic.

 

[Libramarian]

Well, the context of the OP is that 4e's success or failure is irrelevant when looking at the details of individual mechanics. Certain people may not like the 4e system as a whole, but may appreciate some of its individual mechanics, such as rituals, healing that is proportional to the hit points of the recepient, or at-will powers for spellcasters.

"Daily martial powers are bad because there is no sensible way to explain why a character can only pull off a maneuver once per day" is a useful criticism because it tells the 5e design team that if they want to include daily martial powers in 5e, they had better provide a good explanation for why they can only be used once per day or ensure that they are optional and that martial characers who do not have daily powers are as viable as those who do.

"Daily martial powers are bad because 4e is a failure" is neither useful information nor sound logic.

Of course a particular feature of 4e is not necessarily bad because the whole was not well-liked, but it is more likely to be bad than a feature from a game that on the whole was well-liked. It's a probabilistic inference.

It's not completely unreasonable to say "let's not do this the 4e way because 4e on the whole is not well-liked". It's just feeble.

I mean yeah the comments from the average gamer who didn't like 4e are very vague. And I can see how this can be frustrating.

But I don't think they can be dismissed. Even if they can't really articulate anything more than "just didn't like something about it".

That's still somewhat useful information.

 

[MortalPlague]

Hussar brings up a good point. I've been a little ticked at seeing this behaviour too.

4E, just like every edition before it, has some valuable ideas that can be taken from it. The casual bashing of anything 4E-shaped is getting tired.

 

[Yora]

So all editions fail. But at least WotC considers 4th Edition a greater failure than the others.
Just two years after release, they tried to redefine the game with Essentials and less then one year after Essentials hits the market, rumors of a new Edition spread, which is officially announced a few months later. Even third edition, which at that time was the shortest running edition, had been on the shelves for 8 years before a new edition was announced. AD&D 1st and 2nd Edition ran even longer.
So what are we supposed to think? It doesn't matter if 4th Edition is good or bad, does commercially well or bad, or what parts of the game rules or the marketing were the cause of it. The undisputed fact remains, that WotC announced a new edition just 3 years after the first release of 4th Edition. And they wouldn't do that if they would consider the game a success.

 

[FireLance]

Of course a particular feature of 4e is not necessarily bad because the whole was not well-liked, but it is more likely to be bad than a feature from a game that on the whole was well-liked. It's a probabilistic inference.

Correct, but it is usually not presented as a probabalistic inference, and even if we use Hanlon's Razor to eliminate malice, the alternative is still unflattering.

But I don't think they can be dismissed. Even if they can't really articulate anything more than "just didn't like something about it".

Well, more information would be useful, but I certainly wouldn't attribute a response like that to malice.

 

[Pentius]

.I'm not sure anyone can look at RPG design and just know a priori what is good and will make people's gaming more fun. I have developed an acute suspicion of those who claim to be able to do this.

Certainly. Especially with all the different expectations and playstyles floating about, holding any one specific thing up and calling it good tends to end in crap raining on the declarer.

I feel that 4e in particular was developed very "theoretically" with not enough playtesting and not enough respect for historical RPG design wisdom, and this is why it has had such a poor reception.

You say lack of respect, I say lack of adherence. Maybe I have a flawed notion of respect, as a human being, this is entirely possible, but I don't think that deviating from an established idea, even wildly so, is the same as disrespecting it. At the very least, the trying of different ideas gives each individual player experience in knowing what they like and what they want.

Furthermore, as a 4e fan, I have found that most things that are considered "4e theories" work very well in actual play.

I say 4e was a failure when I'm talking to somebody who is looking at the reception 4e has had, and instead of saying to themselves "hmm, what happened here, maybe 4e made some mistakes", just dismisses this evidence in an elitist way, like people are too stupid to appreciate it.

Not everyone is going to think 4e sucked exactly as you think. Sorry. I have my own issues with 4e, but I'll be damned if I take what people say on the internet without a grain of salt.

I am suspicious of anyone who claims to have a better metric for how well-designed a game is than public perception of said game.

I'm suspicious of anyone who is willing to claim that any game whatsoever was failure. In my experience, such a statement is absolutely always code for "I didn't like it". I'm also highly suspicious of anyone who claims to know the entire public's perception to a game. Mainly because such a claim is always falsified.

This is what I mean when I say,somewhat hyperbolically and unfairly, that 4e was a failure.

It's good to know that you are aware you're being hyberbolic and unfair when you decry 4e. That lets me know not to spend any more energy listening than you did criticizing.

 

[groklynn]

Your point about money is just the sweetest spot of my own simple theory - WotC is not interested in balanced, open, editable and true-modular system. Since 3e they've been doing all stuff in a way of trials and errors. But let's see - 3e was complex enough, mechanics were different for all the classes so before 3.5 that way of "update to core in every book" was kinda ok. But 3.5 was exactly the same - psionic, prestige classes and all the stuff was built in a way, you've never build it yourself using core books... Same with 4e - if you want 2e experience you need at least two player's handbooks, otherwise you'll never build your own bard. Powers are the MTG equivalent of endless consumer happiness. You just want more. Couple weeks ago one of the forum members just count some basic stuff from DDI, like number of available classes and paragons and etc. So it's a lot more than 50. And know what? You've never could do your own. Cause you don't have a system but a game.
And that's why newer edition will be next, but not last. It's not a business, if you make a finished, simple and open-ended product with lots of content and guidelines how to make this content by your own. It sounds a little bit more like gurps or savage worlds, but some sort of this core lies beneath all the editions of D&D - otherwise it couldn't be balanced from the beginning and all the authors could break each other's ideas by new books.
If 5e will finish this cash-race and become more like a wikipedia once again (since the times of AD&D with endless homerules and open D20 platform) WotC will win. If they will make once again closed but "glossy and shiny" half-broken "product" I'll switch to something that is not broken. Cause I've been waiting for too long.

 

[Libramarian]

Eh, I'm not really trying to justify using "4e was a failure" rhetorically, so much as explaining my (I think single) use of it.

I will agree that it is questionable and vague and should be probably be avoided, at least in favor of referring to the polarizing reception of 4e instead.

now polarization IS a negative, in itself.

i.e. even if the fans enjoyment cancels out the haters hate, you still have a factious, bitchy community, which is a drag.