4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[Remathilis]

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.

I recall many of those articles. One in particular was "10 Ways to start playing 3e today" which was a 2-page spread that gave 10 3e rules adapted for 2e (among them: give clerics spontaneous cure spells, wizards bonus spells, flip AC upwards, and use monks from Scarlet Brotherhood). Additionally, the Bioware games did 2e versions of Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer and Half-orc (along with 3e inspired spells and class features) which allowed people many months of "trying out" some of the changes while still using 2e, which garnered much good will.

4e's changes couldn't have done that. Seriously, how do you write a 2-page spread that explains "remove all spellcasting from casters, give them fixed spells that they can use at varying times per day." Or "Use the Tiefling from the MM and Dragonborn from Races of the Dragon, except completely use different fluff and powers for them." or even "Those of you playing bards, druids, half-orcs, or monks, wait 2-3 years to see what kind of cool stuff we have in store for you!"

4e was radically re-inventing the wheel, to the point that little beyond core concepts were retained. Very little of the mechanics of 3e were retained in their original form, and little of the fluff carried over in its original state as well. I won't debate if it was better or worse, but it was clearly a large jump from what 3.5 was, and they needed to justify why it was such a large change.

The 3e team did a lot to be inclusive (such as the conversion guide, which wasn't great but at least it was attempted) to lure people who had been playing the same game for 10 years in. The 4e team opted for "radical break" and "New, fresh, bold!" to grab the dissatisfied. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but I'm much happier that the Next team is opting for inclusive moreso than fresh start.

 

[Pour]

I don't think everyone hated it, not by a long shot. I craved the changes 4e made as much as the older guard lamented their dissolving. I was burned out at the end of 3.5, to the point of abandoning the game entirely. I hung on every press release, desperate to remain in the hobby (I did not know then just how expansive the hobby really was. Early college, it was pretty much D&D or no gaming.). I've proceeded to have such success with the 4e system I'm in serious doubt 5e can sell me. The idea of all-inclusive still strikes me as a compromise no one is going to be completely happy with, in which case why switch over at all? I still see salvation in new, bold, and most importantly well-supported.

4e was not well-supported (there was a lot of quantity without quality, then we went with less quality and quantity, and now, sporadically but with increasing occurrence, we'll get something good), and who can live without adequate food and water? Nutrition really is a great metaphor for the problems 4e faced, well, besides people slipping poison in everything to the tune of Twisted Nerve with altered lyrics ("This is WoW", "This is a war game with dressing", "This is not D&D", etc etc). The support was all overcooked, lightly-seasoned beef. We needed a much more balanced diet of varied adventure types, more focused and numerous supplements, more voluminous magazines, Epic support, etc. Ironically, just when we were starting to get proper nourishment, 4thers found out it was our last meal. Now we have this IV drip in our last hours, where they're feeding us everything 4e they have left.

I give credit to WotC, though. For 1e-3.5e, there really was no major competitor within their own 'D&D' niche. They lasted, what, 8 years a piece or there abouts? 4e had everything going against it, management issues, tech woes, broken promises, very little 3rd party support, changing staff, up-down quality magazines, venomous naysayers, economic times, major competition, corporate taskmasters (supposedly), and it still lasted four-and-a-half years. And through all that, I still found my favorite edition and ran the best campaign I've ever run, in the process reaching what might be the pinnacle of my DMing skills. I'm actually quite grateful for all that. Plus who doesn't love being the black sheep of the family in the editions to come?

I know this is way off topic, but anyone else hoping 6e returns to 'new, bold, fresh' as the reaction to 5e inclusiveness?

 

[Imaro]

I recall many of those articles. One in particular was "10 Ways to start playing 3e today" which was a 2-page spread that gave 10 3e rules adapted for 2e (among them: give clerics spontaneous cure spells, wizards bonus spells, flip AC upwards, and use monks from Scarlet Brotherhood). Additionally, the Bioware games did 2e versions of Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer and Half-orc (along with 3e inspired spells and class features) which allowed people many months of "trying out" some of the changes while still using 2e, which garnered much good will.

4e's changes couldn't have done that. Seriously, how do you write a 2-page spread that explains "remove all spellcasting from casters, give them fixed spells that they can use at varying times per day." Or "Use the Tiefling from the MM and Dragonborn from Races of the Dragon, except completely use different fluff and powers for them." or even "Those of you playing bards, druids, half-orcs, or monks, wait 2-3 years to see what kind of cool stuff we have in store for you!"

4e was radically re-inventing the wheel, to the point that little beyond core concepts were retained. Very little of the mechanics of 3e were retained in their original form, and little of the fluff carried over in its original state as well. I won't debate if it was better or worse, but it was clearly a large jump from what 3.5 was, and they needed to justify why it was such a large change.

The 3e team did a lot to be inclusive (such as the conversion guide, which wasn't great but at least it was attempted) to lure people who had been playing the same game for 10 years in. The 4e team opted for "radical break" and "New, fresh, bold!" to grab the dissatisfied. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but I'm much happier that the Next team is opting for inclusive moreso than fresh start.

I can't XP you... but these are good points.

 

[S'mon]

I agree... the problem is how hard it can be for some to discover what type that is... before either getting frustrated with the sysytem, realizing their playstyle doesn't jive with what the rules emphasize or realizing the style it supports could already be done with some other game that they already have the invested knowledge and time in.

It was definitely hard for me to grok 4e; I still don't think I fully understand it, but I'm a lot closer than I was 3 years ago. Why do I persevere? Well, I don't know of another game that does what 4e can do. What is it that 4e does that other games don't? Well, I think it offers a promise to the player - "You can be the Protagonist. You can be the Hero" - and this is a promise that other editions of D&D have made, but are not actually set up to fulfil. The actuality of 0e-3e is much more "If you Step On Up... If You Get Lucky... If you make the right choices in Chargen (3e)... then Maybe You Can Be The Protagonist-Hero". Which is ok, I like that style (maybe not so much the chargen), I like the Gamist challenge. But not for every game; not all the time. 3e ruleset worked terribly in Midnight, for intance; 4e Midnight would have been Kick-Ass.
Unlike all other D&D editions, unlike all the traditional Gamist (T&T) & Simulationist (Runequest) RPGs, unlike even '90s Storyteller type stuff (Exalted), the 4e ruleset is actually set up to support follow-through on that promise. For me that's a great thing, and a big deal. Are there other games that do this? I expect so. Feng Shui sounds like it may well do; I'm not familiar with that ruleset though. But it is not something that a lot of games do, and 4e does it for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I craved the changes 4e made as much as the older guard lamented their dissolving.

I think this is a key point that sometimes gets lost.

4e, like any edition, was designed in part as a reaction against the excesses of the edition that came before.

What this meant in practice was that 4e took the most popular edition of D&D to date...and designed a game to satisfy people who didn't like it all that much.

That in itself wouldn't necessarily be a Big Deal, if 4e had reached back across the aisle, if 4e would've taken the changes and improvements and woven them back into the fabric of the game as it was known. But in the pursuit of goals that we can only guess at (my guess is "brand identity," "balance," and "elegance," with perhaps "we need a sales boost!" time sensitivity thrown in and "ooh, shiny indie game conceits!" icing on the cake), 4e told you, in Mearls' words, that the right way to play guitar was to play thrash metal. They took a guitar manufacturer that made many types of guitars, and limited them only to the "right" type of guitar.

Yeah, some people "drifted" it pretty ably to play the kind of music they wanted to play. And others didn't want to play anything other than thrash metal, anyway. But the music fans were told to start playing thrash metal, or to find a different guitar shop.

Fortunately, Paizo opened a shop down the corner for them. Sure, it mostly sold sheet music, and its models could often use some tuning, but at least they recognized that people could not like Slayer and still be music fans.

I mean, I like Slayer just fine. But I also like Neutral Milk Hotel, Jimmy Hendrix, The Ramones, The Pixies, and Iron & Wine (among others). A guitar shop that tells me that the only way to REALLY enjoy music is to play thrash metal isn't going to do much more than alienate me, as awesome as Slayer is.

And now:

[video=youtube;K6_zsJ8KPP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_zsJ8KPP0[/video]

 

[Imaro]

It was definitely hard for me to grok 4e; I still don't think I fully understand it, but I'm a lot closer than I was 3 years ago. Why do I persevere? Well, I don't know of another game that does what 4e can do. What is it that 4e does that other games don't? Well, I think it offers a promise to the player - "You can be the Protagonist. You can be the Hero" - and this is a promise that other editions of D&D have made, but are not actually set up to fulfil. The actuality of 0e-3e is much more "If you Step On Up... If You Get Lucky... If you make the right choices in Chargen (3e)... then Maybe You Can Be The Protagonist-Hero". Which is ok, I like that style (maybe not so much the chargen), I like the Gamist challenge. But not for every game; not all the time. 3e ruleset worked terribly in Midnight, for intance; 4e Midnight would have been Kick-Ass.
Unlike all other D&D editions, unlike all the traditional Gamist (T&T) & Simulationist (Runequest) RPGs, unlike even '90s Storyteller type stuff (Exalted), the 4e ruleset is actually set up to support follow-through on that promise. For me that's a great thing, and a big deal. Are there other games that do this? I expect so. Feng Shui sounds like it may well do; I'm not familiar with that ruleset though. But it is not something that a lot of games do, and 4e does it for me.

Emphasis mine: This is exactly how I feel presently... the thing is it irritates me that we are headed into a new edition and I still don't feel as comfortable getting the results I want with 4e as I did in half the time with 3e...

OAN: I know this is only tangentially connected to your wider point, but I am curious why you felt Exalted didn't follow through on the promise of "being (tragic) heroes"?

 

[S'mon]

OAN: I know this is only tangentially connected to your wider point, but I am curious why you felt Exalted didn't follow through on the promise of "being (tragic) heroes"?

Bearing in mind that my actual play experience of Exalted is very limited (1 session!), but I got the impression that it is set up to function much the same as Vampire, Werewolf, and the other WW Storyteller games - it's great for posing as the tragic hero (which posing is maybe why it was so popular on RPGnet) - but within a tight linear framework created by (mostly) WW & (to a lesser extent) the GM. You the player shuttle through the adventure/metaplot/campaign, experiencing the train ride and maybe getting to 'add a little local colour', as I think Pemerton put it. But you're not really the protagonist. You're not really Dr Drake Remoray - you play Dr Drake Remoray on TV. And you don't even get to write your own script.
Maybe I'm wrong, and Neonchameleon has said as Vampire GM he ignored the WW straitjacket and did something much more open. But that's my impression. Of course some people enjoy the train ride approach and prefer it to having to make actual choices, with their risk of failure (Gamist-challenge or Dramatic-tragic failure). But personally I find this approach unsatisfying.

 

[Imaro]

Bearing in mind that my actual play experience of Exalted is very limited (1 session!), but I got the impression that it is set up to function much the same as Vampire, Werewolf, and the other WW Storyteller games - it's great for posing as the tragic hero (which posing is maybe why it was so popular on RPGnet) - but within a tight linear framework created by (mostly) WW & (to a lesser extent) the GM. You the player shuttle through the adventure/metaplot/campaign, experiencing the train ride and maybe getting to 'add a little local colour', as I think Pemerton put it. But you're not really the protagonist. You're not really Dr Drake Remoray - you play Dr Drake Remoray on TV. And you don't even get to write your own script.
Maybe I'm wrong, and Neonchameleon has said as Vampire GM he ignored the WW straitjacket and did something much more open. But that's my impression. Of course some people enjoy the train ride approach and prefer it to having to make actual choices, with their risk of failure (Gamist-challenge or Dramatic-tragic failure). But personally I find this approach unsatisfying.

See I thought the opposite about Exalted... there really wasn't much of an advancing metaplot going on, at least not in 1st edition. I also felt like it was one of the games (along with Earthdawn) I already had that gives me the experience I believe 4e was going for, but both, IMO had much cooler setting concepts and rationales for the reason these "heroes" could do the amazing things they did. In Earthdawn you are one of a rare group known as adepts who either consciously or unconsciously uses magic to perform super-human feats... While in Exalted you are justified by being the reincarnation of a demi-god. In contrast to 4e where a martial character can do amazing things because... well I'm not sure why they can do some of the things they can do since no rationale is really given fiction-wise... it just is. This creates further dissonance in me because there are the classes like Warlocks, Mages, Paladins, Clerics, etc. where fiction-wise we know why they are able to do things normal people can't.

 

[Argyle King]

I recall many of those articles. One in particular was "10 Ways to start playing 3e today" which was a 2-page spread that gave 10 3e rules adapted for 2e (among them: give clerics spontaneous cure spells, wizards bonus spells, flip AC upwards, and use monks from Scarlet Brotherhood). Additionally, the Bioware games did 2e versions of Barbarian, Monk, Sorcerer and Half-orc (along with 3e inspired spells and class features) which allowed people many months of "trying out" some of the changes while still using 2e, which garnered much good will.

4e's changes couldn't have done that. Seriously, how do you write a 2-page spread that explains "remove all spellcasting from casters, give them fixed spells that they can use at varying times per day." Or "Use the Tiefling from the MM and Dragonborn from Races of the Dragon, except completely use different fluff and powers for them." or even "Those of you playing bards, druids, half-orcs, or monks, wait 2-3 years to see what kind of cool stuff we have in store for you!"

4e was radically re-inventing the wheel, to the point that little beyond core concepts were retained. Very little of the mechanics of 3e were retained in their original form, and little of the fluff carried over in its original state as well. I won't debate if it was better or worse, but it was clearly a large jump from what 3.5 was, and they needed to justify why it was such a large change.

The 3e team did a lot to be inclusive (such as the conversion guide, which wasn't great but at least it was attempted) to lure people who had been playing the same game for 10 years in. The 4e team opted for "radical break" and "New, fresh, bold!" to grab the dissatisfied. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages, but I'm much happier that the Next team is opting for inclusive moreso than fresh start.

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than to say that 4E actually did do that; they just didn't openly announce it.

A lot of concepts introduced in late 3rd Edition books were 4th Edition concepts. Take a look at the knight from PHB2 and see if you notice some of the similarities to the 4E fighter and the 4E warlord.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than to say that 4E actually did do that; they just didn't openly announce it.

A lot of concepts introduced in late 3rd Edition books were 4th Edition concepts. Take a look at the knight from PHB2 and see if you notice some of the similarities to the 4E fighter and the 4E warlord.

I disagree... these are examples of two different things. In one the differences and what they are are for the new edition are being called out in a specific and transparent manner letting the consumer know both what they are and that they will be a part of the new edition. In the other no mention of knight mechanics being in the new edition is made and the new mechanics are not being called out or expounded upon... in other words not transparent at all, especially since there's a ton of stuff in that book that didn't end up in 4e.