With 5e here, what will 4e be remembered for?

[Greg K]

Goodbye, 4E - and HUGE kudos to WotC for the 5E rollout. Everything is better this time around.

To each their own. While neither 4e or 5e is my favorite edition and I think both have some good points, 4e had some classes that I would want to play or run for (based upon the 5e playtest and basic set).

 

[Kannik]

Some of the things I will remember 4e for:

Exciting encounters! To parrot what others have said, many fun amazing moments were had in service of the adventure as we went along: knocking opponents off towers, dazing the big bad and causing his prime buff to fail (and thusly get thoroughly ganked), rituals around the edges of intense combats, dragon-riding knights of Bahamut driving a lance into the body-splitting psionicist, bonus actions that swing the tide of battle, and the controller making the DM (like me!) saying “You do what now?”

Empowering DMs for awesomeness! In one of the first 4e adventures I ran, the big bad wrapped his chain whip around one of the PCs, pulled him in and body slammed him against his spikes, for damage and a knock prone. Rather than the players, as they’d done in 3e, going “Wait, how did he do that? Did he grapple? I get a +4 against that! Etc!” instead there were cheers of wonder for that neat trick. Letting the adversaries be constructed to suit the adventure, separate from any PC rules/etc, made it easy and fun for a DM to prep a game, and also allowed for that nifty creativity.

Empowering PCs for flavourful excellence! Each class was given licence to do cool things (tm), and do them often. Even PCs that did similar things (same roles) did them differently, making it easy to create an interesting story/style to RP alongside the action (and bleeding into the non-encounter portion of the game). Add to this the ease of re-skinning powers/classes, and it’s golden – like my Dwarven Runecaster (reskinned artificer), steeped in the lore of the FR mythos.

Being willing to eat sacred cows! While I don’t think every change turned out to be good ones or necessary, some were quite nifty, and I will remember the 4e team being willing to not be bound by previous editions.

A return to 1e roots: crafting/non adventuring skills! 4e removed most mechanical support for anything that wasn’t part of the adventuring skillset. While this gives great freedom, it wasn’t spelled out that it was intended to have that freedom, and a little mechanical nudge helps, so I wasn't a full fan of this one (hence my Trades & Professions supplement).

A return to 1e roots: Hit Points! If you read what the 1e PHB has to say on hit points on p34 (including the delightful “it is ridiculous to assume” wording), 4e took it to heart in its mechanics, both with the (perhaps poorly named) healing surges, martial “healing”, and more. And while what HP represented also didn’t change in 2e or 3e, 4e was the first to expand and play with what could be done in that framework to bring about new options.

A return to 1e roots: game design! Similarly, reading Gygax’s statements on p9 of the 1e DMG about what the philosophy of the D&D ruleset was, and 4e plied along that path.

A great effort to create balance in the force! Not every character was the same yet there was a great push to allow everyone to be an integral part of the action across the boards and across all levels.

Skill challenges! I lucked out – the first example I read about skill challenges (done at a pre-4e event by Chris Perkins, IIRC) set the tone in my mind on how to use them, which may well have been much better than how they were executed in the DMG and (especially) in the encounters modules. Because of that they worked out very organically and fun in my games, and the players usually didn’t know they were in something called a skill challenge (I used it mostly as a narrative framework rather than a metagame obstacle).

Battles of speed or not speed! In my high level campaign, battles took just as long under 4e as they did under 3e; but low level battles often also took about that long. If the battle was narratively interesting, it wasn’t an issue. If not, it could feel like a schlog and it took some time for me to alter how I ran them to get ‘em moving along more quickly.

Amazing stories and fabulous adventures and sweet RP and tense dungeoneering! Just like every other edition of D&D I’ve played.

Many characters I wanted to play! And still might!

The edition war that went nuclear! When I started gaming 20+ years ago, the lament of most D&D players was how they were ostracized, ridiculed, harassed, teased, belittled, dismissed, and shunned for their like of this hobby. With the intense dislike by some of 4e and the ensuing edition war sniping and hyperbole, I learned that gamers can be just as petty, mean spirited, and myopic as the “jocks” they decried.

peace,

Kannik

 

[pemerton]

If someone made it to 4e and loved 4e and pretty much thought pre-4e were poor sets of rules and are a long time D&D player, then they've already demonstrated the personality that makes them someone who will play even what they don't like.

This is too simplistic, I think. You are assuming (i) that 4e is a huge departure from earlier versions of D&D, whereas for many of those who like it this is not true, and (ii) that 4e players migrated from a 3E that they didn't like, whereas that is also not universally true.

For instance, I don't think B/X is a poor set of rules. I think it's a great set of rules, though I personally haven't played it very much for a long time. And I think that 4e does a better job of capturing the spirit of B/X than 3E.

Also, I didn't play in any steady D&D campaigns between 1997 and 2009, although I used a lot of D&D material in the Rolemaster campaign that I ran. I started running D&D again in 2009 because 4e looked like a game I really wanted to play. (Whereas 3E didn't - I ran a couple of test sessions just for fun, when it came out, but it was never a game I was going to play in any serious way, because it doesn't provide any sort of play experience that I am looking for.)

A return to 1e roots: crafting/non adventuring skills! 4e removed most mechanical support for anything that wasn’t part of the adventuring skillset. While this gives great freedom, it wasn’t spelled out that it was intended to have that freedom, and a little mechanical nudge helps, so I wasn't a full fan of this one (hence my Trades & Professions supplement).

A return to 1e roots: Hit Points! If you read what the 1e PHB has to say on hit points on p34 (including the delightful “it is ridiculous to assume” wording), 4e took it to heart in its mechanics, both with the (perhaps poorly named) healing surges, martial “healing”, and more. And while what HP represented also didn’t change in 2e or 3e, 4e was the first to expand and play with what could be done in that framework to bring about new options.

A return to 1e roots: game design! Similarly, reading Gygax’s statements on p9 of the 1e DMG about what the philosophy of the D&D ruleset was, and 4e plied along that path.

This is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind when I say that it is too simplistic just to say that 4e departed from what D&D had been up until that point.

 

[sabrinathecat]

What will 4E be remembered for?

Having an excellent system ganked by marketing execs who listened to internet trolls. The consequent redesign and rewrite of basic mechanical principles flubbing and making a mess.

Extremely poor proof-reading. With the errata an post-publishing changes to rules, it was like the video games that you buy only to find that they are so buggy that the company has already released the first major patch. "Close Blurst 3" well, is it a blast or a burst? WTF are we supposed to make of that.

A brilliant system that was abandoned after an inordinately short run.

Some of the most inconsistant and disappointing support. (Some races and classes got support, some were simply abandoned after initial publication).

The shift from an excellent downloadable character builder program to a horrible on-line only builder.

A WotC board reformat that seemed designed to drive people away be being counter-intuitive, difficult to navigate, and just plain ugly.

4E is the Colin Baker of D&D formats: abandoned too soon, unfairly picked on, poorly supported, and overall inconsistent oversight.
I like 4E. I wish it had been recognized by more people for its brilliance, balance, and sterling mechanics.

Almost everyone I've talked to is going to stick with 4E no matter what. There are just so many options left to explore.

 

[pemerton]

not every encounter needs to be a big explosive deal, and not every thing the PCs do needs to be a big explosive encounter.

Agree with this. 4e could have used a way to hand-wave less consequential encounters.

Well, there is a way - say yes. (And perhaps tax them a healing surge on the way through - maybe they get an attack roll against the appropriate DC to see whether or not they lose one.)

A lot of social encounters get handled this way - a single Diplomacy check, or free-form (ie the GM says "yes" or "no" as appropriate). Why not combat?

I'll concede that there is a D&D tradition of not doing it this way. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad tradition, but I am curious as to why D&D does it that way. What point do combat encounters that are not "big, explosive deals", but that are nevertheless resolved using more than a single hand-wave or die roll, serve? The question is not rhetorical - I'm not implying that there is no point. I'm just wondering what exactly the point is.

Warlord non-magical healing. Fun class, but the narrative had to be changed to match the mechanics, when the mechanics should support the narrative.

The mechanics do support the narrative.

The narrative is that of an inspiring friend and ally, who speaks a word of encouragement that enable the hero to go on. The mechanic is that the player spends a healing surge, increases the number in the "hit points" column, and hence is able to have his/her PC go on.

I'm not seeing the problem.

 

[pemerton]

I do think one hidden barrier to indie games (lumping in 4e as a game with indie aims, despite some conflicts in the rules) as opposed to trad games is that indie games require a greater amount of player buy-in to generate an enjoyable session. Players who aren't quite on board or have opposing aims often bring indie games to a screeching halt. Trad rpgs can usually gloss over these distinctions by brunt of DM rulings.

4e matched its transparency of rules with a call for more transparency within individual gaming groups. It encouraged players to take more of a stake in the games they play and to communicate what they want out of play. It also encouraged all players to take responsibility for the collective experience of the group.

I agree with these two comments. I think there is a further dimension to this.

My experience may be atypical, but back in the days when I used to play with a wider range of groups and gamers (mid-to-late 80s and even moreso through the 90s), I frequently encountered a new player who had come into the hobby ready to really engage - to build and play a PC to the hilt, to push the game forward, to play out this guy's heroic destiny. But then the player was crushed. Sometimes by 1st level hit points. Sometimes by domineering GMing, whether exercising control over PC build, or action resolution, or via GM PCs, or any of the hundreds of other devices that seemed to be irrationally popular at least at that point in time. Sometimes by mechanics that left them unable to make their mark on the game, either because the PC they built wasn't the hero they had hoped to build, but instead semi-effectual at best, or because the action resolution mechanics weren't up to the job, or because the GM fudged to override the player's input in favour of his/her own conception of "what's good for the story".

4e takes those approaches to RPGing and stops them dead in their tracks. Players' PCs are competent from the get go. The action resolution rules work, and they give the players a clear role in deciding what happens. The GM is told what his/her role is, and both the rules and the guidelines of the game reinforce that role. (Essentials backpedalled in some of its wording here - a retrograde step in my opinion.)

It's not just that it makes transparent demands on players. It expressly sets out to establish circumstances of play in which the players can meet those demands. Which, at least in my experience, most are very eager to do.

I think the legacy of 4e can already be seen in games like Marvel Heroic Role Play, Edge of the Empire, Post God Machine World of Darkness games, 13th Age, and even Numenera. 4e took the indie movement's most important idea to traditional RPGs - that games should be designed for a particular focused experience and that the mechanics should encourage the sort of play you are looking for - and brought it to the mainstream for a time.

I agree with this. It's what I had in mind when, on another thread something like 6 months to a year ago, I posted that the Forge had largely succeeded as a cultural movement.

 

[Emerikol]

This is too simplistic, I think. You are assuming (i) that 4e is a huge departure from earlier versions of D&D, whereas for many of those who like it this is not true, and (ii) that 4e players migrated from a 3E that they didn't like, whereas that is also not universally true.

For instance, I don't think B/X is a poor set of rules. I think it's a great set of rules, though I personally haven't played it very much for a long time. And I think that 4e does a better job of capturing the spirit of B/X than 3E.

Also, I didn't play in any steady D&D campaigns between 1997 and 2009, although I used a lot of D&D material in the Rolemaster campaign that I ran. I started running D&D again in 2009 because 4e looked like a game I really wanted to play. (Whereas 3E didn't - I ran a couple of test sessions just for fun, when it came out, but it was never a game I was going to play in any serious way, because it doesn't provide any sort of play experience that I am looking for.)

This is exactly the sort of thing I have in mind when I say that it is too simplistic just to say that 4e departed from what D&D had been up until that point.

Well I can't argue with someone who doesn't see what I see. Obviously whatever it is about D&D you like it's not the same thing as what I identify as D&D.

Since you are self-identifying as someone who really didn't play D&D most of that time my original point did not include you. There are though many 4e people who despise pre-4e who were still playing it.

Personally, and this is probably because I consider the game the mechanics and not the fluff, I see tons of things all versions of D&D but 4e have in common. The Vancian wizard was pretty darn close all the way through. AEDU was a huge departure. The simple fighter as an option was possible all the way through though in 3e it was possible to expand beyond that concept you didn't have to do so. There were many passive feats you could take and pretty much play the simple fighter. With 4e you only had a fighter that used a resource mechanic. A resource mechanic that I could have seen as viable for some classes but not for martial classes. Maybe Paladins and Rangers could have used it. That would have been an incremental change. They turned the entire healing system upside down. Surges, martial healing, magic that couldn't heal beyond your surges, and so forth. Those are major changes. The healing system for the most part had not changed prior to 4e. The quantity of healing perhaps but not the fundamental system.

So those things are what I consider a games identity. The actual mechanical structures. I realize some of you have some other viewpoint on what makes D&D D&D. For me the rules are always what make a game.

 

[BryonD]

This is too simplistic, I think. You are assuming (i) that 4e is a huge departure from earlier versions of D&D, whereas for many of those who like it this is not true, and (ii) that 4e players migrated from a 3E that they didn't like, whereas that is also not universally true.

This is where, IMO, you fail to recognize and respect the diversity of play styles that other prior editions supported.

Your statements regarding "for many" are completely fair and accurate. But the point you are calling "too simplistic" is equally fair and accurate. Based on how the market played out, one could easily argue that the "many" who see it the other way is much larger than the "many" you are hanging your argument on.

These things don't need to be remotely "universally" true to be a critically important factor for a very large number of people.

I would tend to agree that in the big picture 4E was not a "a huge huge departure". But in key areas it was a big enough departure to be devastating to the value. I don't see respect for the idea that other people found things very important that were different than your tastes.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Well, there is a way - say yes. (And perhaps tax them a healing surge on the way through - maybe they get an attack roll against the appropriate DC to see whether or not they lose one.)

A lot of social encounters get handled this way - a single Diplomacy check, or free-form (ie the GM says "yes" or "no" as appropriate). Why not combat?

I'll concede that there is a D&D tradition of not doing it this way. I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad tradition, but I am curious as to why D&D does it that way. What point do combat encounters that are not "big, explosive deals", but that are nevertheless resolved using more than a single hand-wave or die roll, serve? The question is not rhetorical - I'm not implying that there is no point. I'm just wondering what exactly the point is.

I'm thinking of, yes, 13th Age's approach. You can sketch out a 13th Age battlefield on the back of a napkin, or use salt shakers and spoons. You could have a combat where one player is chasing a monster several blocks away from where other players are battling some thugs. All this is possible not because 13th Age has some crazy voodoo ruleset but because it gives you the option to NOT use a grid. Relative positioning is good enough to run an encounter.

I just think a 'lite' version of the combat rules that let you not use a grid and abstract forced movement would have been an extremely useful tool.

 

[Gargoyle]

The mechanics do support the narrative.

The narrative is that of an inspiring friend and ally, who speaks a word of encouragement that enable the hero to go on. The mechanic is that the player spends a healing surge, increases the number in the "hit points" column, and hence is able to have his/her PC go on.

I'm not seeing the problem.

DMs narrative: "The orc cuts you across the chest with his black blade. At the sight of your blood, the horde howls with excitement."
Warlord's mechanic: "Buck up camper!" (hit points return to max)
DM's narrative: "Uh..you feel better, turns out it was just a scratch...again."

This has been debated a great deal, and I know there are other ways to rationalize the warlord's powers, but my issue is that it IS a rationalization.

When you are magically healed, the narrative continues, it isn't retconned.

Like I said though, all IMO. I know many people have no problem with it, and there are other ways to handle the narrative.