What is the essence of 4E?

[Imaro]

IMHO several things happened. 4e was really pushed by the D&D group, this was Hasbro politics. They brewed up a design, Orcus, and started playtesting it and it just didn't gel. By that point they had apparently already basically committed to a release timeframe, so they went back and hammered out a rehash of the core system, which produced 4e. However, it was now behind, and they simply ran it through the process at high speed. Playtesting didn't get to the level of getting it out to enough people outside the 'box' of the designers and people they knew, so they never quite saw that people basically weren't playing the game they were writing. Things like the DMG simply weren't properly edited and vetted. MM1 has all sorts of monsters that were clearly designed to some earlier standard and then hastily revised (or not) as the game evolved quickly.

4e should have waited a year and been released at 2009 Gen Con. It also would have been a little better climate overall, considering the economy and other craziness that was going on at the time. Anyway DMG1 seems to be halfway caught between design paradigms. It does have a lot of stuff in it that points to the sort of game you and I and Pemerton and others have played with 4e, but at the same time its not fully coherent. Another factor is I think they may have gotten a bit scared of just how FAR 4e could have gone. Maybe they DID right a DMG that expounded a fully story centered sort of game, and decided it was bridge too far at the last minute.

http://dmdavid.com/tag/why-fourth-edition-seemed-like-the-savior-dungeons-dragons-needed/

Here's some interesting reading on 4e and the driving factors behind it's design.. it seems to suggest that bottling the appeal of mmorpg's as well as ensuring portability to a VT were primary (though not the only) influences on the design of the rules system as opposed to it's primary driver being indie design goals... I'm curious whether you think there necessarily has to be some tension between these sets of design golas (the type of play you ascribe to 4e vs. the type of rules set that would cater to the mmorpg market/VTT users. Also if these were their driving factors it might explain why there is little to no advice and guidance around the play of 4e in the way many with indie experience choose to run 4e.

 

[Ted Serious]

I dont really understand what you are saying? Are you saying that the caster can not cast his spells on anyone in the team?

He can choose not to, because his spells are his resource. He can be a team player or not. When one party member gets hurt more the others can step up or they can not care about him until he is out of HD, then complain he's forcing them to rest.

 

[Ted Serious]

Your opinion is your own. As for myself, you can't tell me that features which were present for literally the entire time I played the game do not reflect anything about the essential nature of 4E. The first two years of releases represent literally everything that I could have possibly used as a basis for forming an opinion, unless you want people to go around forming opinions based on message boards.

If a game is actively played for ten years, then the last two years of that period can only represent at most twenty percent of what the product was all about.

You're more than welcome to ignore transient features when making your own analysis, of course, but that may not lead to a useful analysis. I might have missed if you answered the question, but what is the essential nature of 4E to you? Specifically, if you looked at a different game that you had never heard of before, what features of that game would indicate to you that they were definitely inspired by 4E?

I have, twice. The essence of 4e is that it is a Pencil and Paper Class Based Fantasy RPG.

It is derivative of D&D, just like many other games including Warcraft. A game inspired by a derivative of D&D will appear derivative of D&D.

The only point of saying Pathfinder 2 is like 4e or like 5e is to poison it for potential fans who dislike either of those games.

 

[Aenghus]

As regards running out of healing surges, in later 4e there was a 1st level magic ritual Comrades' Succor, that at the cost of one healing surge from one of the participants allowed up to six participants to trade healing surges between each other.

 

[darkbard]

As regards running out of healing surges, in later 4e there was a 1st level magic ritual Comrades' Succor, that at the cost of one healing surge from one of the participants allowed up to six participants to trade healing surges between each other.

Plus the 7th level wondrous magic item Vistani Buzuq.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have, twice. The essence of 4e is that it is a Pencil and Paper Class Based Fantasy RPG.

It is derivative of D&D, just like many other games including Warcraft. A game inspired by a derivative of D&D will appear derivative of D&D.

That is not a useful analysis. Half of all games in existence are derivative of D&D. Your contribution does nothing to distinguish the nature of 4E from that of Final Fantasy X.

The only point of saying Pathfinder 2 is like 4e or like 5e is to poison it for potential fans who dislike either of those games.

Now you're assuming malicious intent. Some people actually like 4E. Some people like parts of 4E, and their deal-breakers with that game might be in areas that others see as non-essential, but we'll never know unless we actually figure out what is essential in the first place!

 

[Shasarak]

He can choose not to, because his spells are his resource. He can be a team player or not. When one party member gets hurt more the others can step up or they can not care about him until he is out of HD, then complain he's forcing them to rest.

That sounds more like a Player problem then a System problem to me. Maybe you could have a talk with the Player that sounds like it would probably fix that issue up the fastest.

 

[aramis erak]

Indeed. As a hater, here's my summary: if you want to play World of Warcraft, but you don't have a computer, then 4E D&D is the closest approximation.

If you want to play Magic the Gathering, but all your friends would rather play a TRPG, then 4E D&D is the compromise.

WOW RPG was d20 3.5 SRD based, not 4E...
Same for EverQuest.

The core for me for 4E was the uniform application of the same 4 ability chains with different labels for all the classes, coupled to the 1d20 roll high mechanic.

It was a really good rules medium-heavy tactical minis combat system, with a very vague (at least at first) rules light approach to everything else. Exactly the opposite of what I was wanting when it came out.

 

[Emerikol]

I don't think being tactical is really the essence that sets 4e apart from other editions. 3e was tactical too.

To me it's probably the unified structure AEDU, a complete abandonment of rules as physics, and balance.

It was not my cup of tea for sure. I guess I prefer power imbalance to all the measures I've seen to correct that imbalance.

 

[Ted Serious]

That is not a useful analysis. Half of all games in existence are derivative of D&D. Your contribution does nothing to distinguish the nature of 4E from that of Final Fantasy X.
Now you're assuming malicious intent. Some people actually like 4E. Some people like parts of 4E, and their deal-breakers with that game might be in areas that others see as non-essential, but we'll never know unless we actually figure out what is essential in the first place!

Maybe you should rethink your question.

Do you want answer or are you just trying to make Pathfinder 2 look bad by associating it with the controversy surrounding 4e.