D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Manbearcat]

If any of my questions trigger memories of frustrating times then that's not what I'm going for. I guess I'm more curious about reading a bit of a forensic breakdown of how the whole thing played out. Just for my own curiosity. Thanks in advance for anyone who indulges me.

I see you're getting quite a few replies from folks who aren't fans of the edition. I'm try to give you a different perspective.

A stupidly abridged version of a postmortem by an RPG historian might say that 4e's:

1) prolific indie design elements (there are tons, from system elements to GMing role and GMing principles)

2) transparency and focus of its architecture (outcome-based design rather than process-base)

3) unified class resource scheduling which focused on the "genre tropes and the tactical resolution of the conflict-charged scene (see 1)" rather than the "strategic murderhoboing of a sandbox setting/dungeon crawl"

4) presentation including actual formatting, the artwork, and the facepalm editorializing in the initial DMG and PHB - "skip the guards and get to the fun (!)"

5) lack of fealty to canon and aggressively establishing its own backstory

6) aggressively coherent design framework that pushes play toward consistently churning out high-octane action for mythical fantasy as default (rather than - say - FFV or GoT)

7) aggressively taking a stand on historically polarizing elements such as HP

8) 4e "basic" (the initial core books) didn't include the Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk. The prior 3 only had to wait 7 months for PHB2 but Monk had to wait 19 months (ouch) for PHB3

brought out the worst tribal instincts in the D&D fanbase. It was the only edition of D&D that gained a better sense of itself and improved from its beginning to end. I say that as a big fan who thinks it is the best version of D&D to date.

Amusing anecdote. 2 months ago I ran a game for a 50 year old and his newbie (not to life) wife. Good guy. Long term D&D player (since boy scouts) but hadn't played much in the last 6 years due to schedule, work, couldn't find a group, etc. He had all of the edition warring ire and jilted lover stuff pointed at 4e down pat and he had never cracked open a book. I taught him Dogs in the Vineyard. Its my favorite indie game, written in 2004 by the esteemed Vincent Baker. Its a scene-based game, with a system and thematics that pushes play toward resolving the conflicts of an order of gun toting paladins, set in a (fantasy) wild west, who focus on saving their towns from their own sin. We're talking demonic exorcisms, taking down gangs, and more mundane stuff like overseeing religious ceremonies and arbitrating disputes/matters of the faith.

I ran he and his (newbie) wife through 4 hours of Dogs. They were riveted. He loved the mechanics and the GMing principles which push play towards conflict. I did that purposely to ready him for 4e. I taught them the basics and I helped them make Dogs-inspired divine characters; an Avenger and a Priest who were excommunicated from a cult, reformed, and working for a divine, cult-slaying order. They had relevant backgrounds, themes, and we played out a seminal conflict from their past as a prologue to play (same as Dogs and is advice in DMG2). After that, we came up with a minor quest for each character and a major quest for both of them. We then proceed to play a pulpy, action adventure session where they spent much of their time in Skill Challenges; social conflicts (that may escalate to combat), an overarching investigation, and the final confrontation which included fighting the cultists and the exorcism of an inanimate, demon-possessed doll that "led the cult". He was shocked at how much fun he had, how much it felt like the Dogs game we playing, and how well the system and deft GMing worked at producing high fantasy awesome even if the mechanics and focus of play were a bit different than he remembered. Of course she had none of the baggage that comes with being a tribal D&D player so all she knew was how much fun she had.

You can take home whatever you wish from that anecdote.

 

[BryonD]

... "handling" that is somehow considered a strength.

I'd say the ability to handle a situation when needed is always a strength.

 

[Manbearcat]

Addendum to the above. I also don't think the impacts of:

1) Going with GSL with a culture expecting/demanding OGL

2) Failure to deliver on the promised digital tools and its fallout (due to a most unfortunate murder-suicide)

3) Implying (ok, maybe outright telling) to folks that things they find fun in play (such as talking to guards) are, indeed, not fun

can be underestimated. I think the sense of bad faith from a decent cross-section of WotC's former/potential customer base is difficult to measure (but quite large).

 

[Jester David]

... yes? Absolutely? In your example, you have the normal parts of building a 21st level character, with class, build, theme, paragon path, and epic destiny. For 5e, you have race, subrace, class, subclass, background by 3rd level - Hill dwarf folk hero champion great weapon fighter - and maybe multiclassing down the road (which is too bad).

The 3e example showcases, to me, the worst excesses and conceits of the system, along with the awfulness of the 3.x approach to classes and Buffet-style multiclassing (aka "broken point buy").

(I mean, did I mention this was a villain? as in a DM put that together, rooting through how many books just to make the bad guy work like he was supposed to? and then presumably remember all that nonsense to run him? Never again.)

And the worst part to me is that 5e could very easily end up bringing all of this back in exactly the same way. Structurally it's almost identical to 3e, and there's nothing preventing the return of prestige classes. Or multiclassing abominations.

Now, clearly, a lot of folks find that fun. And to them this is a plus of both 3e and 5e. And bully for you if your are! To each their own! But I'm not among them.

I'm just teasing.
It's hard to escape long character descriptors in D&D.

 

[TerraDave]

I actually have a clear memory of the announcement and first few days thereafter.
I was at a condo in FLA when it was announced.
I do recall a lot of excitement. But I also recall a whole lot of the "too soon". I was in the Day 0 minority of excitement.
By the end of Day 1 I recall being at odds with several groups of people proposing hoped changes and a lot of references to Star Wars.
I told them they were nuts to think WotC would go that way.
I was wrong.

So, yeah, you nailed this.

Actually, SAGA was just a half-way step. That would have been much more "3.75".

They had dropped hints it was coming, but not really what was coming. I did like a lot of their goals--though they had so many changes that I also couldn't agree with all of them.

Anyways, its all history now. Ebay and pdfs and clones should keep the remaining fans covered. The rest of us can move on.

 

[BryonD]

Agreed. And I don't actually recall all the details. But I do clearly recall the Star Wars talk as a baseline and being shocked by the suggestions people were making.

I don't doubt that nothing discussed those first days actually came to be as a final exact rule. But in regard to the spirit of the conversation, it turned out my position was not aligned with WotC's plan.

 

[Ratskinner]

It was the only edition of D&D that gained a better sense of itself and improved from its beginning to end.

I think you're understating this a bit. ☺To me, this is one of the great tragedies of the whole 4e saga. The first set of books give very little cogent advice or direction on how to effectively use the mechanics beyond setting up AWESOME! encounters. I personally didn't even see it as all that much of a mechanical evolution and totally whiffed on running it "indie" style. I was out of 4e before DMG2 even came out (why buy if no one is playing it?). And Fate is my system of choice! So you'd think I'd be catching that. When I came here after the 5e announcement, I was flabbergasted by the way folks like you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] described your games. (Still am, to some extent.)

I don't know what kind of failure it is (writing, editing, design, marketing...), but honestly (between the DMG2 and various articles online) I sometimes feel like WotC didn't know what they had or how to play it when they released 4e.

Water under the bridge, now, I guess.

 

[Remathilis]

I always tell the anecdote of how (in 2010) when essentials came out that we were looking at proto-5e: by that point the flavor of the game started to make a trip back towards the traditional (with thief and mage making appearances) and they began to dial back ADEU. I assumed that would be the starting point for 5e, and I guess it kinda was. There are a lot of essentials-inspired concepts in 5e, mixed deep in the brew of 2e and 3e elements.

Still, if there was a "break point" for 4e, Essentials seemed it. It felt like an admission the the 4e model of 08-09 didn't work as planned and some new ideas needed injecting. It began some mechanical revisions (such as item rarity and variable stat bonus) and changed/outdated the core books enough that parts needed revision to make the "essential compatible". I recall a few 4e posters refusing to allow essentials at their table (becoming early 4e grognards, I guess) while others wanted more essential style revised stuff.

Still, if you follow the progress of D&D, 4e sticks out. It alone will be a special snowflake in terms of world, mechanics, tone, and design. 1e and 2e and identical, 3e and 5e are kissing cousins, 4e will stand alone.

 

[Remathilis]

Agreed. And I don't actually recall all the details. But I do clearly recall the Star Wars talk as a baseline and being shocked by the suggestions people were making.

I don't doubt that nothing discussed those first days actually came to be as a final exact rule. But in regard to the spirit of the conversation, it turned out my position was not aligned with WotC's plan.

I was one of those 4e=Saga people.

I was assuming that ideas like triple HP at first level, the clear linear progression of saves, skills being trained/untrained, removal of multiple-attacks, "powers" that refreshed more than once a day, and static "save" defenses were all going to be part of the plan. They were, but NOT as Saga defined them, making Saga less of a practice run but more of a "similar if you squint".

Its funny how if you read the list above, you'd think "4e had that" but the execution was so very far away that despite having similar revisions to the d20 mechanics, they were nothing alike.

 

[Nagol]

I think you're understating this a bit. ☺To me, this is one of the great tragedies of the whole 4e saga. The first set of books give very little cogent advice or direction on how to effectively use the mechanics beyond setting up AWESOME! encounters. I personally didn't even see it as all that much of a mechanical evolution and totally whiffed on running it "indie" style. I was out of 4e before DMG2 even came out (why buy if no one is playing it?). And Fate is my system of choice! So you'd think I'd be catching that. When I came here after the 5e announcement, I was flabbergasted by the way folks like you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] described your games. (Still am, to some extent.)

I don't know what kind of failure it is (writing, editing, design, marketing...), but honestly (between the DMG2 and various articles online) I sometimes feel like WotC didn't know what they had or how to play it when they released 4e.

Water under the bridge, now, I guess.

My suspicion is Manbearcat and pemerton fell into a mode of play the designers didn't understand existed in their game. I certainly never saw strong indie advice or any offerings of that sort of play in any published material produced by WotC -- certainly not in the first set of iterations (I stopped paying attention during the ***2 releases).