4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] Let me just say that TO ME the key difference between 4e and 1e (as an example) is not player control of what their character can do. It is character durability and the assurance that your character's story arc can be explained in dramatic terms, and the fact that you can depend on being able to at least attempt to do cool and dramatic things in each scene without it being an insane risk that quickly kills you off, nor that all the cool plot defining action must by rule be reserved for one set of spell-casting archetypes.

As other people have pointed out either here or in the "Pemerton" thread 4e relies a lot on a very open-ended skill system in any case, so it is NOT TRUE that the players can rely on knowing exactly how everything will play out. Their powers certain work that way in general, but powers have very narrow applicability in 4e. Unless your game's action is entirely relegated to tactical combat certainty is in no way shape or form in the hands of the players.

No, it is the certainty that some stray arrow won't gank your character every other encounter, and that taking a chance to try to step up and climb a wall when it is dangerous isn't virtually suicide because you have at most 12 hit points. That's what 4e is offering and where it differs. In my 4e games the PCs slide down log flumes, dive into rivers, run through fires, leap on the backs of giant monsters, etc not because they KNOW what will happen, but because they know what will NOT happen, that rolling a bad check isn't instant death in all those situations, which is almost assured in AD&D (and even if you don't die outright being reduced to a handful of hit points still ends the day's fun right then and there).

 

[S'mon]

I disagree, 1e stops working as soon as you don't have a wizard and a cleric in your party, flat out.

Definitely not, IME. I ran 35 sessions of my online AD&D Yggsburgh campaign last year, it rarely had a Cleric and while there was often a Fighter/M-U elf PC in the group, I don't recall her ever being 'necessary' to play.

3e does seem a lot more spellcaster-dependent though, esp Cleric-dependent.

Edit: Mind you, that AD&D campaign bore as much resemblance to 'Moll Flanders', 'Vanity Fair', or other 18th-century social climbing comedic novels as it did to traditional 'Demons & Dungeoncrawling'. Game blog here if you're interested - http://smonsyggsburgh.blogspot.co.uk/ - some '15'/'R rated' content. The Session 1 log at http://smonsyggsburgh.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/session-1-log.html is a good place to start.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Incidentally, it very much seems that 5e intends to be back in that same tradition of kludgy, broad-based, 'do what you want with our D&D' games that 4e departed from. Which is fine, but I already have lots of games like that which I use and enjoy, so I'm not sure why I'd want yet another.

I'm optimistic that it might not be so kludgy, but I agree that it's going back to that. I imagine that enough folks are interested in D&D being that kind of game that it might work well -- by the time people are looking at Tunnels & Trolls or any of the OSR games they're already pretty deep into the RPG woods. That's just a hypothetical, though - D&D5e does run the real risk of not being enough to lure people away from whatever system they're currently in. 4e faced that problem, too.

In 3e I remember players facing the ultimate BBEG* after a year of play, he casts Finger of Death on the Cleric. Save or Die, basically in narrative terms a big "F you - you thought you were the Hero? Roll 12+ or it turns out you're just a redshirt!" The player was genuinely upset - especially when he saved, then the BBEG did it again!

So we're talking about the elements that make 4e more story-like (it's not easy for PC's or enemies to die arbitrarily, it's not easy for the party to circumvent obstacles, etc) in this case, then? I can definitely see what 4e might offer there over other e's designed more with a game-like Skinner Box focus in mind (Sometimes, you lose the game, and it is sometimes out of your control, and next time your enemy might lose the game, and it will be out of their control).

I'm not sure I'm specifically looking for that personally, but I can totally see how 4e does that better than any edition before.

But I'm not sure that 4e encourages players to define the world in the way you initially indicated, creating a sort of cooperatively-run campaign.

Conversations with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] certainly give me the impression that 4e encourages this. Certain 4e mechanics and rules also give me this impression (Skill Challenges, for instance, allowing players to dictate how their skills work, and the poster-boy Come and Get It allowing the fighter to dictate how eager the orcs are to attack her). I imagine it's possible to avoid that, but that also seems...challenging.

 

[S'mon]

Come and Get It allowing the fighter to dictate how eager the orcs are to attack her). I imagine it's possible to avoid that, but that also seems...challenging.

I'd narrate it more like: "The orcs lurch towards me, seeing their death in my eyes..." - Lemme tell you, I was not eager to engage that herd of bullocks I mentioned upthread! It was more that my brain seized up - "Must get to destination..agh....must go this direction.... agh...ignore herd of large annoyed looking male bovines...agh...."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Edit: Mind you, that AD&D campaign bore as much resemblance to 'Moll Flanders', 'Vanity Fair', or other 18th-century social climbing comedic novels as it did to traditional 'Demons & Dungeoncrawling'. Game blog here if you're interested - http://smonsyggsburgh.blogspot.co.uk/ - some '15'/'R rated' content. The Session 1 log at http://smonsyggsburgh.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/session-1-log.html is a good place to start.

The Moll Flanders/Social Climbing could quite happily be done in 4e as well is the issue here. I don't believe AD&D is any narrower a game than 4e - I believe AD&D does Fantasy F***ing Vietnam/Murderhobos leading to By this Axe I Rule natively and can be drfted into other styles. 4e does cinematic heroes drifting to mythic heroes natively and can be drifted into other styles. And despite a lot of effort put into it and a lot of promises, pre-4e was never good at mythic heroes whereas 4e's approach to FFV (as opposed to merely Game of Thrones which it can do with a simple tweak to extended rests and some class restrictions) is "find another game". And this centers around one shot kills and the death spiral being integral against no one shot kills and the death spiral being rare.

Anything that doesn't involve combat the biggest difference between the games is that AD&D has a pretty sharp magic/mundane divide and 4e doesn't.

I'm optimistic that it might not be so kludgy, but I agree that it's going back to that. I imagine that enough folks are interested in D&D being that kind of game that it might work well -- by the time people are looking at Tunnels & Trolls or any of the OSR games they're already pretty deep into the RPG woods. That's just a hypothetical, though - D&D5e does run the real risk of not being enough to lure people away from whatever system they're currently in. 4e faced that problem, too.

Yup. My honest belief is that if no one hates 5e, the game is going to fail. Most people have a version of D&D that suits their needs and they are going to need some reason to switch. 3e was mechanically cleaned up and in print - a good reason. 4e handled what it handled much better than 3e does - a good reason. D&D Next? They aren't offering me a playstyle I can't get with existing books, they aren't offering me cleaner rules. What are they offering?

So we're talking about the elements that make 4e more story-like (it's not easy for PC's or enemies to die arbitrarily, it's not easy for the party to circumvent obstacles, etc) in this case, then? I can definitely see what 4e might offer there over other e's designed more with a game-like Skinner Box focus in mind (Sometimes, you lose the game, and it is sometimes out of your control, and next time your enemy might lose the game, and it will be out of their control).

I'm not sure I'm specifically looking for that personally, but I can totally see how 4e does that better than any edition before.

Yup. On both.

Conversations with @Balesir certainly give me the impression that 4e encourages this. Certain 4e mechanics and rules also give me this impression (Skill Challenges, for instance, allowing players to dictate how their skills work, and the poster-boy Come and Get It allowing the fighter to dictate how eager the orcs are to attack her). I imagine it's possible to avoid that, but that also seems...challenging.

4e provides some encouragement here. Many many games from 13th Age to almost anything Storygameish provide much more.

 

[Remathilis]

No, it is the certainty that some stray arrow won't gank your character every other encounter, and that taking a chance to try to step up and climb a wall when it is dangerous isn't virtually suicide because you have at most 12 hit points. That's what 4e is offering and where it differs. In my 4e games the PCs slide down log flumes, dive into rivers, run through fires, leap on the backs of giant monsters, etc not because they KNOW what will happen, but because they know what will NOT happen, that rolling a bad check isn't instant death in all those situations, which is almost assured in AD&D (and even if you don't die outright being reduced to a handful of hit points still ends the day's fun right then and there).

You know, for years of AD&D and 3e play, I recall many a player or DM complain about the nature of high level play. A fighter who can't miss. A thief with over 100% chance to use his skill. D&D is riddled with stories of fighters taking 200 foot falls and surviving, taking lava baths, being pelted with over 100 arrows, and still being golden enough at the end of the day to enter the tavern and sleep with all the barmaids (save vs. disease, fail only on a 1). These were all considered BAD things and a giant reason high-level play broke down.

Yet in 4e, having PCs defy the laws of physics and nature (at low levels, to boot) are good things?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's its blessing and its curse; it tried too hard to be something new and still claim the D&D name.

The problem is that it changed much of the crunch AND the fluff at the same time. Old players had little to latch onto. It didn't play like old D&D (with its emphasis on tactical combat and power-based abilities) and it didn't share much of the same world (with the new cosmology, the changes to monsters, Eladrin/Elf split, and the new interpretations of Realms and Eberron). Sure, it had elves, dwarves, halflings, warriors, wizards, priests and rogues; but so does hundreds of D&D clones in both Table Top and Video game. Changing the mechanics is one thing. Changing the fluff and setting is another. For many, changing both so radically so quickly was more than they wished to bear.

Yeah, I'm just not sure I buy the "they hit us with all of this by surprise, it was promised to be 'the same old D&D'" as was proposed.

I can only really project my own and to some extent the experience of the people I play with. All the FR, 2e/3e canon, etc never meant beans to us. I started DMing in 1975, you made up your own world. I haven't ever read FR, played in FR, owned anything to do with FR, nor could I give a crud about FR. I could BARELY give a crud about all but the most broad outlines of D&D Cosmology (that there are other planes of existence and they embody various ideals and conditions and that travel to them is both difficult and presents various kinds of adventures). The existence of demons, devils, dragons, and other familiar monsters is pretty useful, but to a first approximation all that exists in 4e. Honestly, where stuff did change, it seemed easier to use and incorporate in stories.

Where with previous editions I basically utterly ignored lore beyond monster books basically and maybe some very passing lip service to 1e MotP 4e's lore is really useful and gets incorporated in some fashion fairly often. I spin a lot of stories off riffing on it (though I do have my own spin on a lot of it).

So, none of that disturbed me at all. In fact it was highly welcome IMHO. I don't recall hearing any complaints in the groups I play/run games in either. Some local DMs have a bit more invested in older lore, but it seems to me you can just ignore the newer stuff without it being a big issue, and they've done that to the extent I know about. I guess if you are a big FR fan or whatever then maybe there's an issue, clearly it IS an issue to some people.

I'm divided about it. Frankly I appreciate the new lore and I think its an improvement and a breath of fresh air. OTOH it probably could have been skipped and maybe there'd have been one less dimension of bloody screaming about 4e. Its all moot now. I am entirely certain I'll keep referring to the new lore in my play and while its possible I'll adopt 5e I don't see it as some needed or even welcome change.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I'm just not sure I buy the "they hit us with all of this by surprise, it was promised to be 'the same old D&D'" as was proposed.

I can only really project my own and to some extent the experience of the people I play with. All the FR, 2e/3e canon, etc never meant beans to us. I started DMing in 1975, you made up your own world. I haven't ever read FR, played in FR, owned anything to do with FR, nor could I give a crud about FR. I could BARELY give a crud about all but the most broad outlines of D&D Cosmology (that there are other planes of existence and they embody various ideals and conditions and that travel to them is both difficult and presents various kinds of adventures). The existence of demons, devils, dragons, and other familiar monsters is pretty useful, but to a first approximation all that exists in 4e. Honestly, where stuff did change, it seemed easier to use and incorporate in stories.
Where with previous editions I basically utterly ignored lore beyond monster books basically and maybe some very passing lip service to 1e MotP 4e's lore is really useful and gets incorporated in some fashion fairly often. I spin a lot of stories off riffing on it (though I do have my own spin on a lot of it).
So, none of that disturbed me at all. In fact it was highly welcome IMHO. I don't recall hearing any complaints in the groups I play/run games in either. Some local DMs have a bit more invested in older lore, but it seems to me you can just ignore the newer stuff without it being a big issue, and they've done that to the extent I know about. I guess if you are a big FR fan or whatever then maybe there's an issue, clearly it IS an issue to some people.
I'm divided about it. Frankly I appreciate the new lore and I think its an improvement and a breath of fresh air. OTOH it probably could have been skipped and maybe there'd have been one less dimension of bloody screaming about 4e. Its all moot now. I am entirely certain I'll keep referring to the new lore in my play and while its possible I'll adopt 5e I don't see it as some needed or even welcome change.

There were a lot of pills to swallow. Archons replaced elementals. Deva filled the aasimar slot despite being nothing like them. Three of Eberron's unique races were made core (one killed the doppelganger in the process). Blue Dragons lived seaside, not in the desert. Metallic dragons weren't good, and two of them were different metals. Most fey was inhuman and no longer beautiful. Titans and giant's were kin. Succubi were devils. Daemon's weren't they're own thing. Eladrin were a PC race. Elves were all sylvan* elves and rarely mages (those were eladrin). Tieflings had a universal origin and look. Halflings ended up swampfolk. These were no small changes. These were radical shifts to a long-time player who liked and was happy with the D&D lore up to that point. Even if most of those changes were for the better (and honestly, I like about 80% of them) many of them feel far too much of change for change's sake.

Even worse, it made settings like Realms or Eberron conform to these metaplot elements; which created huge chunks of incompatible lore (while the Spellplague retcons were notorious, Eberron lost its unique cosmology, had to adapt tieflings and dragonborn into more prominent roles, and wrecked holy-hell on the Dragonmarked houses to the point they barely resembled they're original intent.) I'm kinda glad we never saw a full setting book for Dragonlance or Ravenloft; I could only imagine the barrel those setting's cannons would have be bent over to fit runepriests, iron dragons, and shardminds into them.

 

[Argyle King]

Very much. 4e delivered. There are several dimensions to that even. 4e presents heroes that are equipped to BE heroes, they won't slip on a banana peel and end their careers if you have happen to roll a 1. You can use the rules to have them do pretty close to anything or everything, depending on how extreme you want to stretch the tone of the game. But also ALL THE ARCHETYPES work as heroes.

I quoted this one because it reminded me of something I was going to say elsewhere, but forgot...

To some extent, I agree that 4E equipped the characters to be heroes. However, one problem I found was that it didn't really equip the opposition to be worthy adversaries in conflict with those same heroes. From reading most of these threads, I've come to realize that I must be in the minority or perhaps it's possible that the group I game with is a little more skilled than average; whatever the case, there was rarely a time -as a player- that I took the 4E world around my character very seriously.

I was reminded of this by a conversation I had last night with the same DM who was usually the 4E DM for the group. He was/is in love with a lot of how 4E handles things, but he's also the guy who made the comment about having difficulty running non-combat encounters because of the PCs seeking to turn things toward combat when possible. The conversation we had centered around the last 4E game he had DMed, and the difficulties he had trying to challenge the party. He commented that he doesn't think he's ever seen an adventuring party who was so proficient at working together. (To the credit of the players, we did make some effort to synergize because there were three of us who had a backstory of being a team.) Breaking out his old notebook, he still had some of the data from that campaign; after somewhere around level 16, it was rare for the party's opposition to survive past 2 rounds, and it wasn't uncommon for that to happen with minimal (if any) damage to the party. The campaign ended after we killed the 1st boss of the campaign finale so quickly and easily that he (the DM) didn't see the point of going through the motions of the 2nd part of the encounter.

In defense of 4E, I'll say that (in spite of my other complaints) I've actually had pretty good luck at running games. Though, to fair, I'll also say that the way I build solos and elites is a somewhat drastic departure from the RAW way of doing it. The fact that I do build them differently is actually part of why I said previously (I think in this thread) that rewrote the XP budgets for encounters for games I run. I had to rewrite those tables because I build creatures differently and needed a different way of measuring them.

 

[Pour]

Even worse, it made settings like Realms or Eberron conform to these metaplot elements; which created huge chunks of incompatible lore (while the Spellplague retcons were notorious, Eberron lost its unique cosmology, had to adapt tieflings and dragonborn into more prominent roles, and wrecked holy-hell on the Dragonmarked houses to the point they barely resembled they're original intent.) I'm kinda glad we never saw a full setting book for Dragonlance or Ravenloft; I could only imagine the barrel those setting's cannons would have be bent over to fit runepriests, iron dragons, and shardminds into them.

I don't disagree. If they were going to break from what came before, I wholeheartedly believe they should have left the immediate 3e settings behind in order to establish unique, 4e settings in alternating release of some old favorites (I love me some 4e Dark Sun, and would have cherished a 4e Birthright with mass combat and more elaborate stronghold rules). Yes, there would have been a risk of initial release alienation ("Whoa, whoa, new rules AND a new setting!") but look at the alienation from including them. Could it have really been worse? They also had the auto-buy buzz going for them, which would have sold some people, at least, in the early months on setting X.

I think X, Y, and Z new settings would have generated excitement and formed a united fan base ready to explore and develop, certainly not all-inclusive amongst D&Ders, but stronger than what exists now. Encounters could have supported these new settings even further, and gotten more people to play and enjoy what 4e did well. My gosh, it might have even attracted non-4thers from a world standpoint alone, allowed them to experience D&D in a new way. Then WotC might have gone one for one, something new, then something obscure and 2e which would have tickled the nostalgia itch. Instead of offending the loremasters and boring the rest of us with revamps, I think we would have all been happy and still talking about X, Y, and Z original settings. We might even have been anticipating 4.5 instead of this monstrous 5e.

But Nentir Vale was as close as we got..........