D&D 4E The "4E Crowd" - where will they go? What will they play?

[Balesir]

According to the first post's split I would probably rate as a "hardcore" RPGer, but I would emphasise the "RPGer" rather than "D&Der". I don't really have a single game that is "my game"; it's more like I have a portfolio of games I will play, GMs I will play with and games I am interested in running/keen to run. Each game in my portfolio I value for specific properties; if, in my view, a game comes along that does specific things better than one already in my portfolio - or does something nothing in my current portfolio already does - then it will get added to the portfolio. Games that don't do something well I might play - in particular if a GM I know to be capable is running it - but won't be on the list for me to run.

The upshot of this is that 4e will remain on my list of "to run" games until DDN (seems unlikely) or some other game comes along that does what 4e does, only better. DDN itself will be added to the portfolio if it does something well - either something no other game in my portfolio does or something DDN just does better than the current portfolio candidate. If DDN doesn't do anything I want in a game better than what I already have, then it won't make my list of "to run" games, but I might play it (if someone capable is offering to run it when it fits my diary for me to play).

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, that's my impression as well - and even on these forums, the "4E Crowd" seems less diehard about it than the 3.x/[notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] Crowd or the OSR Crowd.

My experience as an unashamed 4e fan is that walking onto the ENWorld boards is walking into hostile territory. Not enemy territory - I'd not accuse it of being The RPG Site or Dragonsfoot - but definitely hostile territory. (Friendly territory would be the D20 board on rpg.net if you ignore the WotC forums). And the crowd won't turn diehard anyway until after D&D Next is finalised.

But as for where we will go? Some of us will move on to D&D Next - but I think based on current status that's a minor group. A lot will stay with 4e - it works and we've almost all the material we could want for it. And the situation is almost the opposite of the 2e fans - the 2e strength was settings and those work under other systems whereas 4e fans import other settings to use under 4e rules.

13th Age, for what it's worth, has a crippling flaw compared to 4e. In 4e a fighter can declare that they are trying to do something specific then roll to see whether it happened. In 13th Age the fighter declares an attack then rolls to see how they did it. Massive deprotagonisation from 4e. This cuts against one of the key strengths of 4e.

To date D&D Next offers me nothing I couldn't do better with another system, which was emphatically not the case with 4e. It also offers [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] players literally nothing that would encourage them to move so far as I can tell. It isn't appealing to the Trailblazer crowd and offers nothing to the Fantasy Craft set. I just don't see many people switching at all. I can't think of a single thing that Next offers me other than a game with a marketing budget that continuing to play 4e wouldn't.

And for 4e players, some of us are going to stick with 4e. Some of us are going to switch to other systems. (I'm currently running MHRP and my in-the-works campaign uses the Leverage rules).

I'm also predicting D&D Next will bomb because I can't see where it gets any players from. 4e fans don't get what they want at all. [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] fans are happy with Paizo and are unlikely to switch. 3e fans who haven't switched to PF will gain very little. 2e and 1e fans haven't bothered keeping up to date in over a decade. And so far as I can tell D&D Next does nothing significantly better than previous editions - say what you like about both 3.0 and 4e but both opened up new ways of playing.

 

[Obryn]

The upshot of this is that 4e will remain on my list of "to run" games until DDN (seems unlikely) or some other game comes along that does what 4e does, only better. DDN itself will be added to the portfolio if it does something well - either something no other game in my portfolio does or something DDN just does better than the current portfolio candidate. If DDN doesn't do anything I want in a game better than what I already have, then it won't make my list of "to run" games, but I might play it (if someone capable is offering to run it when it fits my diary for me to play).

That's exactly where I am. I prefer to keep a good collection of RPGs that are laser-focused at being good at something. If Next isn't the best at something, I won't get heavily invested in it.

13th Age, for what it's worth, has a crippling flaw compared to 4e. In 4e a fighter can declare that they are trying to do something specific then roll to see whether it happened. In 13th Age the fighter declares an attack then rolls to see how they did it. Massive deprotagonisation from 4e. This cuts against one of the key strengths of 4e.

Yeah, 13A is not what I thought it would become. Which is fine, but it doesn't look like it'll be my "PF 4e"

-O

 

[the Jester]

My group and I had the opposite, the more we played it the faster we got burnt out on it. My friend bought most of the APs that were out at the time and we decided to get 'dug in' and go through them all. Well we made it to the second one before we quit because it became extremely boring very fast. We even tried homebrew thinking it was the AP but we found out it was the system that bored us to death. Balance is great but fun is better and we just weren't having fun.

(Emphasis mine.) And there you have the biggest, bestest, strongest, most convincing argument for switching systems.

 

[S'mon]

My group and I had the opposite, the more we played it the faster we got burnt out on it. My friend bought most of the APs that were out at the time and we decided to get 'dug in' and go through them all. Well we made it to the second one before we quit because it became extremely boring very fast. We even tried homebrew thinking it was the AP but we found out it was the system that bored us to death. Balance is great but fun is better and we just weren't having fun.

The game as written runs too slowly - avoiding WotC adventure paths and using post-MM3 damage both help, but the thing that really fixed 4e for me was halving all monster hit points. I can always use more monsters, which ups the threat level and gives more XP - 4e default progression is also too slow, I find.
I've not seen an issue with it being 'too balanced'; there's nothing to stop me using higher or lower level monsters, any more than in 3e.
PCs are relatively balanced vs each other, no more useless Fighters or God Mode Wizards, but I think that's a good thing.

 

[Quickleaf]

The game as written runs too slowly - avoiding WotC adventure paths and using post-MM3 damage both help, but the thing that really fixed 4e for me was halving all monster hit points.

I did an experiment recently which turned out great, and I think would make an interesting addition to any edition of D&D. The party faced a large group of trolls occupying a keep, and went thru three back-to-back encounters with trolls. What I did different was I changed the trolls' hit points as the adventure progressed:

So in the first encounter I used default troll HP, which got the players thinking strategically about how to handle regenerating sacks of Hit Points.

In the second encounter, once the players were playing smart, I halved the troll's HP and sometimes even dropped it to 2/3, and I fudged damage a bit when it seemed obvious they had the upper hand.

In the third encounter their tactics (combined with some artfully placed terrain) mostly bypassed the troll's HP, allowing for a very swift victory.

What was cool about this is that it didn't break anyone's versilimitude because the trolls' HP responded to the strategies of the players. This also let my non-optimized players feel like major bad-asses and learn how to handle a certain type of foe. And it let us get a bit more accomplished in a combat-heavy session than we normally would if I had just halved HP.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

But as for where we will go? Some of us will move on to D&D Next - but I think based on current status that's a minor group. A lot will stay with 4e - it works and we've almost all the material we could want for it. And the situation is almost the opposite of the 2e fans - the 2e strength was settings and those work under other systems whereas 4e fans import other settings to use under 4e rules.

Yup, as a matter of fact I've grafted Sigil into my 4e homebrew. The original PS Sigil -- not the sad, post-Faction War Sigil. Put me down as another "Don't need to go anywhere" 4e fan.

 

[pemerton]

if 5E really is modular with this so-called complexity dial, then most of the folks who want the mechanics of 4E (which, in terms of differences from other editions, boils down to AEDU - at least in terms of what makes it really distinct) will just play 5E with the "AEDU option."

Based on the info to date, it doesn't look to me like there will be an "AEDU module" in D&Dnext.

 

[FireLance]

Based on the info to date, it doesn't look to me like there will be an "AEDU module" in D&Dnext.

I'm sure they'll get round to it eventually - in the last PH before the mid-edition mini-reboot, which fails to build on the AEDU module and flounders aimlessly for a bit before they start talking about 6e.

 

[Obryn]

Based on the info to date, it doesn't look to me like there will be an "AEDU module" in D&Dnext.

I would concur with this assessment. I don't think they every said specifically that there would be, and a "tactical combat" module is not at all what I'm looking for. That's not the entirety of why I prefer 4e, merely a component.

And like I said either here or elsewhere, without a capacity for player fiat for all classes that goes beyond HP damage, I'm generally not going to be interested.

-O