4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[pemerton]

Many of the criticisms of 4e are not directed at the tactical combat aspect. They tend to focus around: lack of simulation (disassociative mechanics), length of combat (grind), table norms such as "wish lists"

I can't stand this whole passive wish-list thing where the players are trained to expect to follow the linear adventure and collect the wish-list treasure drops.

I use the treasure parcel rules in conjunction with the Adventurer's Vault rules for levelling up items (this is a halfway house between traditional D&D items and inherent bonuses).

About half of the items in my game are wishlist-based; the others are come up with by me, generally to fit the build/inclinations of a PC whose player hasn't bothered to lodge a wishlist.

I don't find any connection between wishlists, treasure parcels and "linear adventures". And only a minority of treasure in my game comes from "treasure drops". More of it is gifts, from NPCs and/or the gods.

 

[billd91]

The "Illusionist" only appeared as Core in 1st edition AD&D. What is defined as "worthwhile" is a matter of opinion I'm afraid. Gnomes certainly seem to get very little love elsewhere when people talk about having them in DDN, so I can't imagine their loss being that grievous. If this is just a "but this new thing isn't exactly like that old thing!" whine, well, hey, stuff changes. Yes yes I'm aware people think that D&D ought to be carved in stone and never changed no matter what never ever but I think you can agree that's a rather unrealistic position to hold.

But we can agree that these "gaps" still represent a minor portion of the whole yes? Two classes, two races? FIVE were included of each, that's still the vast majority.

It may also be an unrealistic notion that you can change D&D so significantly and still hold its market.

As far as gaps vs majority of content, it depends on what you find important. Being able to bring previous campaigns forward to the new rules is a big one. For me, that sort of continuity is important. Gnomes, illusionists (present in 2e and 3e via school specializations - see, some change is fine), bards, druids, and half-orcs all come up a lot in my game groups. Usually at least 2 from that set each campaign.

An RPG even more focused on combat tactics was NOT what I wanted out of D&D. I already had Fung Shui for that sort of diversion.

 

[LostSoul]

Charm spells that are worthwhile
Illusion spells that are worthwhile

Yeah, I think you have a point. What I try to do to give these aspects of spells a little more punch is to really pay attention to the "fluff" that we come up with for the power. The other night the PC warlock hit 7th level and she picked "Mire the Mind". She's pacted with Baalzebul, who, as Lord of Lies and Flies, has an obsession with the truth. So we decided that someone affected by Mire the Mind sees only their lies, buzzing around them like flies. (Which is close enough to "you and all your allies in range are invisible" for us.) Since it deals psychic damage, anyone reduced to 0 HP slips into madness and can only see their lies.

She made a deal with a cleric of Lolth who can speak a Word of Power to force people to believe her lies. That's her "Lance of Faith". So instead of shooting a beam of light, she says something like, "We are your friends, lower your weapon [WORD OF POWER]". The target's hesitation grants a +2 bonus to-hit. Characters reduced to 0 HP believe the lie completely and without question until you cast "Remove Affliction" on them. That's how we deal with "radiant" damage - it's a manifestation of the cleric's will on the world. Only clerics of Pelor shoot beams of light. (The gods don't have anything to do with it - they just try to make sure that mortals carry out their will through religion.)

 

[Sunseeker]

It may also be an unrealistic notion that you can change D&D so significantly and still hold its market.

As far as gaps vs majority of content, it depends on what you find important. Being able to bring previous campaigns forward to the new rules is a big one. For me, that sort of continuity is important. Gnomes, illusionists (present in 2e and 3e via school specializations - see, some change is fine), bards, druids, and half-orcs all come up a lot in my game groups. Usually at least 2 from that set each campaign.

An RPG even more focused on combat tactics was NOT what I wanted out of D&D. I already had Fung Shui for that sort of diversion.

Now we're talking about personal perceptions, wants and desires from the game, previously we were talking about inclusion or exclusion which is merely mathematics, the former is subjective, the latter is objective. One can be reasonably discussed, the other cannot.

 

[Evenglare]

One could make the counter-point that having D&D's name attached to it is the only reason 4e sold as well as it did. Left on its own without the branding of D&D, 4e could've languished, unplayed, collecting dust on bookshelves.

Hypotheticals are like that.

Yeah, but my post comes from the very real fact that "D&D doesn't feel like 4th edition" is one of the biggest complaints about the game. Everything else usually stims from that. No RPG does as well as D&D (pathfinder excluded of course). I'd bet money that if 4th edition D&D was produced by an indie dev it would be highly praised. But again, hypotheticals, I'm just basing my statements on the most common real arguments I have seen.

 

[Raith5]

I really like 4th edition. While I think there were some problems with the way the game was marketed, explained and playtested, it has changed what I want from D&D. In particular:

- I like the idea that all players roll their attacks versus static defences - it is elegant compared to a system which has attacks for martial attacks and saving throws for magic.

- I think 4th ed had a greater array but sometimes obscured non-combat options. Rituals, utility powers and skill challenges all demonstrated a real attempt to have mechanics for social and exploration situations. The idea that 4th was only a tactical game is just rubbish.

- I love the synergies between players. 4th eds really rewards tactical cooperation in combat and using your powers and abilities with precise timing compared to buffs that are always on. I really like the ability of martial types to do cinematic things like force movement, mark targets etc

- I liked the way that held back some types of powers, like flight, to mid levels.

I cant imagine playing D&D without these elements. Sure not all of these underlying ideas was perfectly expressed in 4th ed. And sure I think the game has imperfections: monsters have to many hps and combats can take a one paced nature, but the innovations of 4th were significant and I hope to see some of these underlying ideas in DDN in some form.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll try to be as neutral in my language as possible:

I like 4Ed as a FRPG, but not as D&D. As I've said before, its kind of like New Coke: for all of its strengths and how it addressed the well-researched concerns many voiced online, it was too big a departure for many of the market's core from what came before to mesh with the product identity of prior editions. We got a good foreshadowing of that from the developers' prerelease comments about why there would be no conversion guide for 4Ed, and they were not kidding.

What this did, functionally, was turn off a lot of players from even trying it because it lacked that continuity.

I personally have the rare perspective of playing in a campaign that dates back to 1985, and has been converted through each edition of D&D up to and including 3.5Ed. But we couldn't do that with 4Ed- too much had changed. Those few PCs we tried to convert played radically differently than they had over the prior decades. Some PCs were not supported until later supplements- not surprising- and still others remain unsupported to this day.

The thing is, when I look at the marketing tools and market share that Hasbro/WotC had in 2006-8, I really think 4Ed could have succeeded as a distinct FRPG from WotC as opposed to the fate suffered by Everway. I also think that it would have fared better as a distinct game without the encumbrance of trying to handle all those legacy issues & sacred cows like Vancian Casting or even being a class-based RPG. Despite my love of many of D&D's sacred cows, I honestly think they weighed down 4Ed's pretty good mechanical engine.

Hell- stripped of classes, alignments, and other D&D legacy mechanics, it might have been perfect for the launch of a M:tG RPG...

 

[billd91]

Now we're talking about personal perceptions, wants and desires from the game, previously we were talking about inclusion or exclusion which is merely mathematics, the former is subjective, the latter is objective. One can be reasonably discussed, the other cannot.

That is utterly baloney. There's no objective standard what all should or shouldn't be in an edition. It's all about preferences. But even if it were about the math of excluding stuff, I just told you that the stuff missing was stuff WE used. If we were to consider that objective, then 4e was objectively lacking. Period.

 

[Obryn]

Two things.

(1) 4e is my favorite edition of D&D, and I've played them all in my nearly-40 years. I started with Moldvay Basic in the early 80's, got the Expert Set (with Isle of Dread), and then the C, M, and I box sets. We mixed and matched it freely with AD&D, as did so many others of my generation . We migrated to 2e when it came out, and it largely was a better fit for us at the time; did some Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, and Ravenloft. I went away from D&D for a while, playing all kinds of games (but especially Mythus and Earthdawn) until D&D 3e came out, and started a bunch of games in that. Migrated to 3.5 when it was released, and ran a few variants like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and a full-on Wilderlands campaign. Then ... 4e. (I should note if it matters that, along the way, I played/ran a ton of different games, from MERP to d6 Star Wars to Mythus, Earthdawn, Paranoia, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, Marvel FASERIP, Mage, DC Heroes, WFRP 2e, Star Wars Saga, FATE, the list goes on and on...) So what I'm saying is, I know what I personally want from D&D, and have a host of other games I keep in my back pocket for stuff that would be better suited to another system.

4e provides that D&D experience I'm looking for really, really well. It's beautiful from the DM side, my players enjoy their side, and this Dark Sun game I'm running now is among the best campaigns I've run. (And I'll pull out 1e/OSRIC for the stuff 4e doesn't handle well, like when I want to run Temple of Elemental Evil.) So yep, it's a good game, and saying that it's not D&D is, putting it mildly, rank nonsense.

(2) I predict this thread will end in flames.

-O

 

[Raith5]

What this did, functionally, was turn off a lot of players from even trying it because it lacked that continuity.

I personally have the rare perspective of playing in a campaign that dates back to 1985, and has been converted through each edition of D&D up to and including 3.5Ed. But we couldn't do that with 4Ed- too much had changed. Those few PCs we tried to convert played radically differently than they had over the prior decades. Some PCs were not supported until later supplements- not surprising- and still others remain unsupported to this day.

Yeah I can see this as an issue but I was personally looking for something new, bold and modern by the end of 3.5. I was hoping for some sacred cows to turned into burgers! 4th ed was revolutionary and though I think it still clearly fits within what D&D is all about, I can see how the edition tried so hard to be new and different. I clearly remember the first time I saw the cover of 4th ed PHB and the pretty damn ugly picture of the dragonborn and I thought gee they are not being subtle about this at all.

While 4th ed has been the best play experience for me, and was hoping for some new ways of thinking about the game I can fully see how it annoyed some people.