D&D 4E Presentation vs design... vs philosophy

[Lanefan]

Charisma - it's an innate spellcaster. And yes it was reasonably effective

There were a couple of options to help, especially once you hit tenth level. But yes you'd tried to avoid that.

Sounds cool!

From my perspective they are the same in a way 3.0 and 3.5 aren't because you could play at the same table at the same time without knowing at all what other people (including the DM) were using. Or even what you were.

Both 4e-Essentials and 3e-3.5e(-PF1?) remind me of times past where people took bits of 0e, BX, 1e and even early-era 2e and mashed them together into their own game.

You can similarly mash 3e-3.5e together and probably lob some PF1 in there as well if you want. From what you say here the same holds true for 4e-Essentials.

... are you actually serious? Just saying something is "empowerment"? Especially when it's not a very empowering statement.

And it's not as if "Rulings not rules" is a particularly empowering mantra anyway. It means neither more nor less than "You're on your own bucko." It does precisely jack squat to empower DMs - it is the literal level zero baseline.

'Rulings not rules' is a thunderously empowering statement when put in context: it's a direct reversal of 15 years of WotC's 'rules not rulings' philosophy, and a tacit admission by WotC that D&D works better when you don't try to impose M:tG-grade pickiness on it.

They've still a ways to go to get to 1e-grade empowerment, to be sure, but it's a fine start.

But are you literally incapable of imagining anything more empowering than "You're on your own bucko"?

"You're on your own, bucko" is just different words for saying "Do what you want", which is about as empowering as it gets.

4e meanwhile did actual things to empower the DM that went beyond giving the DM all the power (which they have in 4e as well) and leaving them on their own and telling them to make it up as they went along. 4e provided tools.

Ah - it seems you're conflating 'empowerment' with 'support', and they're not the same thing. 4e gives one, 5e gives the other, neither gives both.

Empowerment doesn't mean 'Here's a really well-made road, you're free to drive along it provided you follow all these many and various rules and regulations which will be enforced by those people in the black and white cars over there', because here the real power rests with the cops in the black-and-whites and not you at all. The only power you have is to choose whether to drive along that road, in what type of vehicle, and in which direction; but you've got lots of support in doing so.

Contrast that with 'Here's a wide open prairie with all the holes filled in, you're free to drive wherever and however you want as long as you don't hit anyone else, but otherwise you're on your own and you have to sort out for yourself how you interact with other drivers out there.' Now you're completely empowered but have virtually no support.

To carry that analogy one step further: in the road model you don't have to worry about where you're going; just stay on the road and it'll take care of the navigation to get you where you're going. But in the open prairie model the greater power also brings greater responsibility: you're now responsible for figuring out where you're going and the navigation required to get there.

What would be the point of making a game like 5e when 5e already exists?

The market share of people who like games like 5e is covered by 5e.

The market share of people who like cars is - or could be - covered by Ford but that doesn't stop a thousand other companies from also building cars, many of which are very similar (as in, nigh-identical other than superficial looks) to the ones Ford makes.

Why would they buy a different game just like it?

Why would they buy a Honda or a VW or a Dodge that's just like the Ford they could buy instead?

The reason Pathfinder sold was that it took a different path to 4e and thus was able to compete by appealing to a specific audience.

It did have the small advantage of having a runway laid down for it by 3e-3.5e, of which it was a more direct successor than 4e.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm sorry a joke feels so offensive to you, but you're right. I don't get it. I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a pickup truck if they just use it to commute to work and back every day.

But that doesn't mean I think any less of my brother-in-law and his oversized tonka truck. Just means I don't get it. People are entitled to their opinions, even when they disagree with me.

Come on man.

1) Of course people are going to get their hackles up when you rearrange the nature of antagonism to frame someone who was under siege for merely trying to enjoy an activity in peace during a very specific period as the antagonist.

2) Here is where your analogy breaks down badly. You left out some pretty key pieces if you're trying to paint the picture accurately.

I'm going to use what you wrote above, but exclude you from it, because I have no idea what your specific behavior was during the edition war.

a) A person doesn't understand why his brother-in-law buys a pickup truck to commute to work and back every day. This is where the similarity ends, because the person does not remotely let bygones be bygones...

b) The person then proceeds to physically protest the dealer where his brother-in-law bought the truck, challenging everyone who attempts to enter, making a hostile environment for a prospective purchaser and for the dealer.

c) The person then mobilizes others to do the exact same to that dealer and protesters come in force routinely.

d) The person then mobilizes people to "review bomb" that pick-up truck.

e) The person, and others like that person, wage aggressive activism over the course of several years (not just at dealerships and review websites, but at factories, at the factory headquarters, at shareholder meetings, and at every truck rally where people mobilize to talk about and collectively share their trucks with each other) to increase the hostility of the buying, using, celebrating, and selling culture.


And yes, the maker of the truck didn't do themselves any favors with some really poor branding and marketing and some issues with their original owner's manual (which was resolved 9 months in)

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm seeing the makings of the above start for PF2 players (of which I am not one). I would HATE for history to repeat itself for those PF2 players and for the hobby at large (as we have a pretty hospitable gaming environment right now...nothing like 10 years ago).

 

[Umbran]

Given the aparently common attitude toward narrative-ish games (PbtA, for instance) among D&D players, is it really any surprise that at least some D&D players loudly rejected 4E as "not D&D"?

D&D 4e came out in 2008. Apocalypse World didn't come out until 2010, so not the best example to use.

Though, honestly, I think this is rather reductive of the issues of the time, and what led to that description.

 

[Umbran]

1) Of course people are going to get their hackles up when you rearrange the nature of antagonism to frame someone who was under siege for merely trying to enjoy an activity in peace during a very specific period as the antagonist.

With respect, given the number of people on both sides of that nonsense that we had to ban, I have to question this description.

 

[prabe]

D&D 4e came out in 2008. Apocalypse World didn't come out until 2010, so not the best example to use.

Though, honestly, I think this is rather reductive of the issues of the time, and what led to that description.

I'm having a minor vocabulary-fail, here. Does "reductive" here mean "accurate" (or something along those lines)? I mentioned I never played 4E, and I mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I wasn't nerding out on TRPGs much around that time.

 

[Don Durito]

So how would you compare and rank these four options (from the 4e PHB) for a 10th level Warlock:

Ambassador Imp
Daily * Arcane, Conjuration
Standard Action, Ranged 100 miles
Effect: You whisper a message into the air, and an implike presence appears next to the creature you wish to speak to and delivers your message. If the creature has a reply, the imp appears adjacent to you at the end of your next turn to utter it. If the creature has no reply or is not within range, the imp appears adjacent to you at the end of your next turn to tell you so. The imp then disappears.

Shadow Form
Daily * Arcane, Polymorph
Minor Action, Personal
Effect: You assume a shadowy form until the end of the encounter or for 5 minutes. In this form you are insubstantial, gain fly 6, and can’t take standard actions. Reverting to your normal form is a minor action.

Shielding Shades
Daily * Arcane
Immediate Reaction, Personal
Trigger: You are hit by an attack
Effect: Reduce the attack’s damage to 0. If the attack targets other creatures, they take damage as normal.

Warlock's Leap
Daily * Arcane, Teleportation
Move Action, Personal
Effect: You teleport 6 squares. You do not need line of sight to the destination, but if you attempt to teleport to a space you can’t occupy, you don’t move.

If you have a point to make - how about you just make it?

Not intersted in wasting my time playing games.

 

[Oofta]

Come on man.

1) Of course people are going to get their hackles up when you rearrange the nature of antagonism to frame someone who was under siege for merely trying to enjoy an activity in peace during a very specific period as the antagonist.

2) Here is where your analogy breaks down badly. You left out some pretty key pieces if you're trying to paint the picture accurately.

I'm going to use what you wrote above, but exclude you from it, because I have no idea what your specific behavior was during the edition war.

a) A person doesn't understand why his brother-in-law buys a pickup truck to commute to work and back every day. This is where the similarity ends, because the person does not remotely let bygones be bygones...

b) The person then proceeds to physically protest the dealer where his brother-in-law bought the truck, challenging everyone who attempts to enter, making a hostile environment for a prospective purchaser and for the dealer.

c) The person then mobilizes others to do the exact same to that dealer and protesters come in force routinely.

d) The person then mobilizes people to "review bomb" that pick-up truck.

e) The person, and others like that person, wage aggressive activism over the course of several years (not just at dealerships and review websites, but at factories, at the factory headquarters, at shareholder meetings, and at every truck rally where people mobilize to talk about and collectively share their trucks with each other) to increase the hostility of the buying, using, celebrating, and selling culture.


And yes, the maker of the truck didn't do themselves any favors with some really poor branding and marketing and some issues with their original owner's manual (which was resolved 9 months in)

I think there's a blame game that goes on whenever we get into edition wars. In my experience 4E did not fail because of bad publicity, antagonism from old grognards or any other external source. It simply wasn't a particularly popular game.

There was no anti-4E cabal.

But I don't see a point in continuing. Have a good one.

 

[Manbearcat]

With respect, given the number of people on both sides of that nonsense that we had to ban, I have to question this description.

I was trying to convey the position of the person who felt under siege and why they would get their hackles up (given the context of the post I responded to).

But if someone is trying to capture the overall arc of the hostility in that period, absolutely, 100 % things became enormously reciprocal as time progressed with an escalation of hostilities where both sides dug in with angry invective and aggression.

 

[Umbran]

I'm having a minor vocabulary-fail, here. Does "reductive" here mean "accurate" (or something along those lines)?

In this context: Oversimplified. Leaving out important aspects. So no, not 'accurate'.