What is the essence of 4E?

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's an excellent point and it's indeed something that happens quite often. In our 4e games this was always a discussion-starter: "Hmm, so our Ranger is already out of surges again. Shall we continue, nonetheless? How's everyone else doing? Alright, since everybody else is still fine, take good care of our Ranger and make sure to keep him out of trouble. On we go!" This is why sources of healing that don't require the expenditure of healing surges are so important and desirable. It's something all of the players were looking out for. The most common source were Leader Dailies, but there are a few others, as well.

It also reminds me of the 'Healing Standard' our party managed to get hold of in our first adventure. We quickly decided it was the "MIP" of our group: it saved our a**** in countless encounters that might otherwise have resulted in TPKs. In case you don't recall what I'm referring to:

Yeah, I gave BSoH to the first party that I ran 4e for in 2008. It was a great way to kind of smooth out some of the "the fighter is down to 2 surges again, and we're still 15 miles from home..." But you're right, the players just had to learn to either NOT let that happen, OR change up and let someone else take hits for a while.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I still think Mearls, and by extension basically the rest of them, including dmdavid, have missed what I see as a key point. If you deliver the whole package, something that is UNDERSTOOD to be a certain game, then at least people will take it at face value as that game. Mike is right that they ran out of time to do what they set out to, but I don't agree that it is class design that is the problem. CLEARLY Essentials didn't solve any of what players were concerned about. There was a game, which was fundamentally suited to being a narrativist D&D, but clad mostly in the clothing of a different game written by Gary Gygax 30 years before.

People say they were surprised to hear about how we played 4e. They shouldn't have been surprised, it should have been written all over the DMG! I mean, sure, maybe it would have pissed people off, but at the same time, what is it that is REALLY different between MMOs and D&D? Its the fact that D&D is not 'canned', that the GM can react, can adapt, can tell the story YOU want to be part of! That's narrativist, even Story Now, RPG play, not running stock dungeons on a VTT.

Its weird how they managed to sort of almost 'accidentally' create the right game and yet not know they had it and not understand that it was what they needed!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

My ulterior motive is that I'm trying to figure out whether I would enjoy Pathfinder 2, based on what I know about other games it may be drawing from, such as 4E.

So far, this thread is making PF2 sound good to me, because it seems to be drawing from the parts of 4E that I liked and not from the parts that I didn't.

 

[Tallifer]

To me, the essence of 4e is really the structure of character powers, and the universal application of that structure to *all* characters.

Forsooth. And this was my favourite part and the part I miss the most about 5E or Pathfinder. I liked being able to move seamlessly from class to class, and monster to monster. Once I learned the basic rules, I could understand every new option as it came out.

 

[Imaro]

I still think Mearls, and by extension basically the rest of them, including dmdavid, have missed what I see as a key point. If you deliver the whole package, something that is UNDERSTOOD to be a certain game, then at least people will take it at face value as that game. Mike is right that they ran out of time to do what they set out to, but I don't agree that it is class design that is the problem. CLEARLY Essentials didn't solve any of what players were concerned about. There was a game, which was fundamentally suited to being a narrativist D&D, but clad mostly in the clothing of a different game written by Gary Gygax 30 years before.

Couple of points...

1. I think people took it at face value that this was D&D... that the same stories and games they had told and run in previous editions would be playable with the new edition... I think this assumption (especially since it was also part of the 4e marketing, remember... "ze game remains ze same!"... makes me question whether 4e was intended to be this narrativist/story now/etc. game that you and others seem to classify it as. Or whether it was secondary effect. I lean towards a secondary effect of everything listed in that article since I just don't see the designers banking on indie design as carrying the type of numbers 4e needed... When compared to previously sold traditional D&D editions the numbers for indie games sold are a drop of water in a lake... why bet your new edition on that type of design?

2. I'll just say I enjoy Essentials and the essentials classes. While the class change may not have solved everyone's problems they certainly did make the game appeal more to me (along with some of the polish and the concise/compact nature of this sub-branch of the game). IMO, essentials actually delivers on making 4e a game that is good for introducing new people to the hobby, as well as serving casual gamers... in fact I will be starting up a secondary game using 4e essentials because of that fact. Now admittedly I don't discuss essentials much since it seems that many 4e "purist" have a pretty strong bias against essentials so that could contribute to why they aren't discussed (except un a mostly derogatory way) in most of the 4e venues online.

Ultimately I don't think you can definitively say that it's clear Essentials didn't solve any of what players were concerned about... it released 2 years after the core books and I'm sorry but that's a long time to expect people to stick with a game they didn't care for... especially with a popular and readily available alternative in Pathfinder. I think perhaps if the 4e PHB had been a mix of the essentials and core book classes it woud have come of much better overall than it did... I think so, but at the end of the day it's all just speculation.

People say they were surprised to hear about how we played 4e. They shouldn't have been surprised, it should have been written all over the DMG! I mean, sure, maybe it would have pissed people off, but at the same time, what is it that is REALLY different between MMOs and D&D? Its the fact that D&D is not 'canned', that the GM can react, can adapt, can tell the story YOU want to be part of! That's narrativist, even Story Now, RPG play, not running stock dungeons on a VTT.

I disagree here... Story Now is a particular set of techniques/playstyle that while including the traits you mentioned is not specifically necessary for a DM to run a game where he is reacting, adapting and telling a story. {Perhaps you see it that way because it's your preferred style (I also think this is why you and others were able to apply this to 4e) but it most assuredly is not necessary for a DM to include those things in his game.

As for why it wasn't written all over the game... well I would think the designers/developers would have the best handle on the game they designed and I tend to think they didn't necessarily intend for D&D 4e to be run in that specific playstyle and thus why it wasn't promoted as such upon release. I think later they may have figured out it could work that way and tried to push that as a sort of retroactively applied default playstyle (especially since it had little in common with the default Pathfinder style) to try and slow the growing number of dissatisfied players...

Its weird how they managed to sort of almost 'accidentally' create the right game and yet not know they had it and not understand that it was what they needed!

Well I'm not sure it was the "right" game... again banking on indie design (with the available data on it's market ) to make D&D a core brand of Hasbro doesn't feel like what they needed either.

 

[Imaro]

Forsooth. And this was my favourite part and the part I miss the most about 5E or Pathfinder. I liked being able to move seamlessly from class to class, and monster to monster. Once I learned the basic rules, I could understand every new option as it came out.

I always find it a little funny how 4e fans will praise a post like this... basically saying there was enough similarity from class to class that one could play any of them with no problem. But will get mad when someone who doesn't like that aspect of the game claims the classes all felt very homogenized. The only difference I see is one finds it positive while another finds it negative... but it's the same trait in the game.

 

[Aenghus]

I always find it a little funny how 4e fans will praise a post like this... basically saying there was enough similarity from class to class that one could play any of them with no problem. But will get mad when someone who doesn't like that aspect of the game claims the classes all felt very homogenized. The only difference I see is one finds it positive while another finds it negative... but it's the same trait in the game.

I disagree that 4e classes are homogenous and easy to learn after learning one of them.. Learning a 4e class involves more than just reading the individual powers, there's often a particular "flow" to learn to get the best out of a class, and that requires playing them with something of an open mind. The learning curves can be more complex than it seems due to in class synergy, and synergy with other classes.

Trying to force a class to play like it did in a previous edition, when it's been changed significantly is likely to be a sucky experience. Often the answer is to learn to play it differently to gain the desired experience, or play a different class that has taken over that concept.

And it's not as if this hasn't happened every edition change, what with eg. all the assassins dropping dead in the transition from 1e to cuddlier 2e. Sometimes the change is just arbitrary, sometimes it reflects a change in direction and philosophy for the edition. Houseruling the former isn't problematic, houseruling the latter and you begin fighting the edition in a way that might be unproductive for the participants.

 

[Tallifer]

Also, 4th Edition gave us, in my opinion, the best version of the Fighter (and other such like) in the Defender Role. A Fighter who could defend and protects his companions. "Come and Get It" was for some too fantastic, but allowing for such flights of fancy, I really enjoyed the 4E Fighter.

<laughs> I say that, but it looks like Copperleafy failed to protect one of his fellow adventurers:

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Couple of points...

1. I think people took it at face value that this was D&D... that the same stories and games they had told and run in previous editions would be playable with the new edition... I think this assumption (especially since it was also part of the 4e marketing, remember... "ze game remains ze same!"... makes me question whether 4e was intended to be this narrativist/story now/etc. game that you and others seem to classify it as. Or whether it was secondary effect. I lean towards a secondary effect of everything listed in that article since I just don't see the designers banking on indie design as carrying the type of numbers 4e needed... When compared to previously sold traditional D&D editions the numbers for indie games sold are a drop of water in a lake... why bet your new edition on that type of design?

I think 'indie design' vs 'traditional design' is a meaningless distinction when people are having fun playing games. There's nothing inherent about either type of game which makes it more or less popular than the other. So, that part feels wrong to me.

It may be that there were differences of opinion on the 4e team about exactly what game they were writing, that's possible and even likely. There may have been differences between the designers and the marketers, also likely. There may have been some thought of not wanting to go completely over into 'story now' without leaving the game capable of working in more traditional ways. We don't really know what exact discussions happened in that vein. I know that it IS a narrativistic game design, and a good game. I don't need to speculate on that!

I think a lot of what we did in previous editions CAN be done in 4e. Its done a little bit differently is all. I ran plenty of scenarios that I had outlined as possibilities in my old 2e games using 4e. Its still D&D in many fundamental ways.

2. I'll just say I enjoy Essentials and the essentials classes. While the class change may not have solved everyone's problems they certainly did make the game appeal more to me (along with some of the polish and the concise/compact nature of this sub-branch of the game). IMO, essentials actually delivers on making 4e a game that is good for introducing new people to the hobby, as well as serving casual gamers... in fact I will be starting up a secondary game using 4e essentials because of that fact. Now admittedly I don't discuss essentials much since it seems that many 4e "purist" have a pretty strong bias against essentials so that could contribute to why they aren't discussed (except un a mostly derogatory way) in most of the 4e venues online.

I just thought Essentials was kind of a waste of time and resources that could have been better spent on other things. The guy harps on the VTT not materializing, but couldn't they have spent the money that went into Essentials on making it a reality? I mean, what people call 'flaws in 4e' seems more like just basic business mistakes that came back to bite WotC.

Ultimately I don't think you can definitively say that it's clear Essentials didn't solve any of what players were concerned about... it released 2 years after the core books and I'm sorry but that's a long time to expect people to stick with a game they didn't care for... especially with a popular and readily available alternative in Pathfinder. I think perhaps if the 4e PHB had been a mix of the essentials and core book classes it woud have come of much better overall than it did... I think so, but at the end of the day it's all just speculation.

Yeah, I think Essentials missed some key things about 4e and it wouldn't have worked out. They needed to go FURTHER with it if it was going to succeed, not try to regress, which is what Essentials is really about.

I disagree here... Story Now is a particular set of techniques/playstyle that while including the traits you mentioned is not specifically necessary for a DM to run a game where he is reacting, adapting and telling a story. {Perhaps you see it that way because it's your preferred style (I also think this is why you and others were able to apply this to 4e) but it most assuredly is not necessary for a DM to include those things in his game.

Well, we had a LONG discussion of this in another thread, and I never saw anyone draw up a convincing picture for me as to how you would do that.

As for why it wasn't written all over the game... well I would think the designers/developers would have the best handle on the game they designed and I tend to think they didn't necessarily intend for D&D 4e to be run in that specific playstyle and thus why it wasn't promoted as such upon release. I think later they may have figured out it could work that way and tried to push that as a sort of retroactively applied default playstyle (especially since it had little in common with the default Pathfinder style) to try and slow the growing number of dissatisfied players...

I don't see where they did anything like that 'retroactively'. There's a lot of stuff in DMG1 which comes right out of classic narrativist game design and play toolbox. Its just not consistent and all clearly spelled out ABC there. DMG2 seems more reactive to me. It includes a lot of good advice for how to run the sort of weird 3-legged-dog that is the game you get when you take DMG1 literally. It makes that a MORE workable game, but the MOST workable configuration is, and thus would be, a story oriented one.

Well I'm not sure it was the "right" game... again banking on indie design (with the available data on it's market ) to make D&D a core brand of Hasbro doesn't feel like what they needed either.

I think there are reasons to doubt that 'story now' games will sustain robust product lines of adventures. OTOH 4e didn't feature a huge line of modules. It seemed like their strategy was more to make it easy for GMs to cook up stories. I'm not sure how that all fits together in the end. I do believe that some of what the article stated makes sense. The lack of a VTT hurt DDI and that was certainly meant to be a big part of their money strategy.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I disagree that 4e classes are homogenous and easy to learn after learning one of them.. Learning a 4e class involves more than just reading the individual powers, there's often a particular "flow" to learn to get the best out of a class, and that requires playing them with something of an open mind. The learning curves can be more complex than it seems due to in class synergy, and synergy with other classes.

It's like the difference between Street Fighter and Smash Bros. There is a lot of hidden depth and complexity that you need to learn if you really want to make the most of Samus (most of it involving frame data), but at a more basic level, everyone still utilizes the same inputs.

If every class in AD&D used the same mechanics as the wizard and priest, then you would still need to learn the subtleties of their unique spells and spell lists, but you wouldn't need to re-learn the mechanics of how spells work. You could make a decent showing of it, right out of the gate.