4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[I'm A Banana]

I don't know if that's true. I think you could drift 4E into the classic AD&D-style play with 1 rule change (extended rests) and then status-quo-ing the "setting elements": dungeon level = encounter level = treasure parcel level = DC level. Mmmm, maybe you'd want to do something about passive perception as well, though that's probably easy (beat the DC, locate the secret door, now explore in order to find out how to open it). But maybe I'm not in the best position to judge.

Combat would still be pretty long, though.

Knowing from other convos how much you've adapted 4e to suit your own style, LostSoul, I think your threshold for drifting might be higher than others'. You and [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] both seem to have taken 4e out behind the bleachers and had your way with it. Which is awesome! I feel that it's absolutely a continuum, and not a binary thing.

 

[LostSoul]

Oh yeah, I agree with that!

As far as drifting goes, I don't think it'd be too hard to drift 4E, but I'm not sure why you'd want to; with 3E I can see the appeal of playing an AD&D-style game using 3E instead of AD&D. (I haven't so much "drifted" 4E as "hacked" it up into something different.)

 

[Sunseeker]

Then I definitely feel that they should have been upfront about it in both the marketing and the game material (such as adventures and initial advice). It has taken me a long time (and some dissapoointing experiences with my group, including a memeber quitting) to get to the point where I (at least partially) get what type of games 4e is good for running out the box and what type it has minimal to no real support for (and/or has support that came years later for).

Who am I to say what they might have thought. Perhaps they felt they were being as up-front as reasonably possible. I do know that it's wholly bad for business to start saying what a game is or isn't good for before they even launch it. I think 4e is certainly good for a lot of things that fall within the realm of "fantasy tropes" and I'm sure that over it's lifetime players and DMs will find all sorts of uses for it. Plus, it sets an unfair limitation on the game when we all know well that the D&D we get "out of the box" from "Core" or "RAW" from any edition is NOT all it will ever be capable of within a few years.

 

[Imaro]

Who am I to say what they might have thought. Perhaps they felt they were being as up-front as reasonably possible. I do know that it's wholly bad for business to start saying what a game is or isn't good for before they even launch it. I think 4e is certainly good for a lot of things that fall within the realm of "fantasy tropes" and I'm sure that over it's lifetime players and DMs will find all sorts of uses for it. Plus, it sets an unfair limitation on the game when we all know well that the D&D we get "out of the box" from "Core" or "RAW" from any edition is NOT all it will ever be capable of within a few years.

You just presented a hypothesis about what they thought, and I replied to it... If they didn't know then they shouldn't have made the claim that it was the same as previous editions? Why not do what 3.0 did in Dragon magazine and break down the mechanics (also highlighting the differences between it and the previous edition) without telling us whether it was or wasn't the same game... would've led to less dissapointed expectations in the long run.

 

[Ratskinner]

See, Ratskinner, this is what I don't get. If you played a Sim game, why on Earth were you playing D&D in any incarnation? D&D is about as far from Sim as it gets. Gamist? Sure, no problem. Totally buy that. Virtually every element in the game is Gamist in nature.

If you claimed in 2005 that you were a real fan of Simulationist play, and that's why you played 3.5 D&D, everyone would have laughed at you. No one would have remotely taken you seriously. But, for some bizarre reason, since 4e was released, suddenly 3e gets heralded as this golden age Simulationist game. And it's something that has apparently stuck, because now it gets trotted out every time someone wants to claim why they don't like 4e.

I am just astonished that anyone can look at 3e or any version of D&D for that matter, and make any sort of claim to Sim play. Hero? Sure. GURPS? Sure. But D&D? Where are the sim elements? The only thing that D&D simulates is D&D itself.

Generally speaking, I tend to agree. IMO, D&D started pretty Gamist, longed to be Narrative for 2e, but in the process created its own unique style of fantasy, which 3e then tried to simulate and extend. (..to the point where people on the FATE yahoo group are arguing about "generic" magic systems, when they really mean "D&D-like" magic systems.) However, D&D tends to be a mixture of Gamism and Sim in all of its incarnations, its the change in the degree of Sim that's important here.

In that regard, I think 3e was significantly more Sim than 4e. At its base, Stats and mechanics attempted to directly reflect character knowledge or ability. Various classes had mechanics and rules that were supposed to (loosely) simulate the functioning of one type of ability or another, rather than rely on Narration/fluff with a unified underlying mechanic as 4e did. So, if you wanted to change the way something worked, you could (in fact, needed to) directly change the relevant rules and mechanics in 3e. That's very different from the 4e method, where you could "refluff" a set of powers to create a whole new feel or theme for it (or so I'm told, never got around to trying it). Consider the complaints regarding Fighter Dailies in reverse.

 

[Sunseeker]

You just presented a hypothesis about what they thought, and I replied to it... If they didn't know then they shouldn't have made the claim that it was the same as previous editions? Why not do what 3.0 did in Dragon magazine and break down the mechanics (also highlighting the differences between it and the previous edition) without telling us whether it was or wasn't the same game... would've led to less dissapointed expectations in the long run.

Possibly, though I never underestimate the power of gamers to be as fickle as possible. I'm certain that if 4e had been 3.X Revised(totally reworked and cleaned up etc..) we'd have people complaining that it wasn't different enough!

 

[Imaro]

Possibly, though I never underestimate the power of gamers to be as fickle as possible. I'm certain that if 4e had been 3.X Revised(totally reworked and cleaned up etc..) we'd have people complaining that it wasn't different enough!

Eh, Pathfinder seems to be doing well enough...

 

[Ahnehnois]

Possibly, though I never underestimate the power of gamers to be as fickle as possible. I'm certain that if 4e had been 3.X Revised(totally reworked and cleaned up etc..) we'd have people complaining that it wasn't different enough!

Oh, indeed. Pathfinder wouldn't be outselling it though.

And if it was, indeed, "totally reworked" (not just tweaked like 3.0-3.5 or 3.5-PF) that group would be about as small as it could conceivably be. There will (and should) always be some dissent.

 

[billd91]

Possibly, though I never underestimate the power of gamers to be as fickle as possible. I'm certain that if 4e had been 3.X Revised(totally reworked and cleaned up etc..) we'd have people complaining that it wasn't different enough!

But they'd probably be different people. It's not the people that are necessarily fickle even if, collectively, we aren't united.

 

[Sunseeker]

Eh, Pathfinder seems to be doing well enough...

Oh, indeed. Pathfinder wouldn't be outselling it though.

Sure, but Pathfinder's success is less from it's refinement of the game and more from it's support for the system with adventures and creative new additions. Pathfinder's corrections to 3.X's flaws are largely contained to a handful of books. Clearly Pathfinder produces a lot more than this and isn't hemorrhaging money so those other things must be doing quite well. The fact that any given Pathfinder adventure is fully compatible with 3.X and with a little tweaks, almost any other system lends credibility to the idea that the market is more interested in support than errata.

And if it was, indeed, "totally reworked" (not just tweaked like 3.0-3.5 or 3.5-PF) that group would be about as small as it could conceivably be. There will (and should) always be some dissent.

People change, tastes change. The old-schoolers would still whine it's too new-school, people who want something fresh would complain it's stale, people who don't like D&D would complain it's too D&D for them(which is a complaint I've seriously seen here).

Dissent is healthy, I totally agree. But to be fair, as much as I started with 3.5, enjoyed 3.5 and play a lot of 3.5...I wouldn't trade 4e for a more fixed 3.5.

But they'd probably be different people. It's not the people that are necessarily fickle even if, collectively, we aren't united.

No of course not. But sometimes I swear in discussions even here you could give someone the perfect D&D, made exactly to their specifications, and they'd complain it wasn't the right shade of chartreuse.