D&D General How would you redo 4e?

[Vaalingrade]

I wonder how much more positive the reception would have been if 4e had just kept the faux parchment background of 3e instead of clean white backgrounds?

The war was already on way, way, waaaay before the books came out. The moment they previewed the Golden Wyvern feats. At the point, the books could have shipped with crisp $20 bills between every page.

 

[Red Castle]

I wonder how much more positive the reception would have been if 4e had just kept the faux parchment background of 3e instead of clean white backgrounds?

While it might have helped, I don’t think it would have changed much. It was not just the visual but the language too… and I don’t remember the presentation being the main reason why people had a problem with the edition. There was a lot of factors going on.

 

[Voadam]

A LOT that was said about 4e was undeserved, but I still have reservations about the presentation. But since I don’t know much about 4e content, I’ll leave it at that.

Tastes vary.

I liked a lot of 4e presentation. I thought the art was very good. There was a lot of layout design that was clean and helpful. I liked having a color guide to powers so you could see at a glance which utility powers were encounter based versus daily or at will.

The double digits of pages of powers from level 1 to 29 with each class in the PH were very dry if you were reading straight through, but very useful for actually picking a power for your character when they leveled up as well as for referencing in the middle of a fight for specifics.

I could have enjoyed more textual descriptions of monsters in the 4e MM in general, but the art was great and the text that was there was interesting and conveyed some themes of the engaging Dawn War pretty well.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

The double digits of pages of powers from level 1 to 29 with each class in the PH were very dry if you were reading straight through, but very useful for actually picking a power for your character when they leveled up as well as for referencing in the middle of a fight for specifics.

This. I found the 4e books very useful in play and well laid out by in large

 

[Undrave]

The double digits of pages of powers from level 1 to 29 with each class in the PH were very dry if you were reading straight through, but very useful for actually picking a power for your character when they leveled up as well as for referencing in the middle of a fight for specifics.

I don’t know why anyone would want to ready through all 29 levels of powers in one go though, even if I like 4e I wouldn’t recommend it. Leaf through? Yeah… but read them ALL?! Yikes.

This. I found the 4e books very useful in play and well laid out by in large

Same here! Very crisp, very clean. Very 21st Century.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I don’t know why anyone would want to ready through all 29 levels of powers in one go though

Nerds

 

[Voadam]

I don’t know why anyone would want to ready through all 29 levels of powers in one go though, even if I like 4e I wouldn’t recommend it. Leaf through? Yeah… but read them ALL?! Yikes.

Its like reading through the spells sections in any other editions of D&D, but included with the section on class description itself. In 3.5 spells went from page 197 to 303, so 107 pages.

Not a perfect analogy as rituals are broken out separately in their own chapter the way spells used to be.

Most classes in the 4e PH have about 10-11 pages of powers. That is still a bit much to read through straight in a go. Then replicate that for the seven other classes. Still less than reading straight through the 3.5 PH spells.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Nerds

(said with )

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, it seems like there are multiple uses for rulebooks:

1) the (often initial or first few times) read of players rulebook that gives you inspiration for different kinds of characters you might want to play, a sense of the rules, etc. Once this read is done, it is often internalized and never read "cover to cover" again.

2) a reference manual to create characters and reference rules. -- ongoing use .

3) purely to read -- for various reasons the person will never play the game and just reads the book to gain ideas, make characters in their head, because they like to see new game mechanics, etc. (I often wonder if this is a pretty big audience? Not for D&D, but I am this person for many other systems.)

Game book designers are writing for all three purposes and some games emphasize one over the other. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes because it is hard to balance all three.

4e PHB defintely leaned 2 but I don't think completely ignored 1. It probably wasn't as good for 3 as you wouldn't get the ongoing benefit of the conciseness of powers, etc.

PF adventure paths actually lean 3 I think but of course are also played by many.

You are right, and I personally HATE games that are crappy references. Sadly modern RPG designers don't seem to care if their rules are actually playable or not. I think its largely a result of how most of these games are funded. They write some nice prose, but it is a disaster as an actual set of rules, but people are kickstarting you before they've discovered that... Even games I rather like are like this. Blades in the Dark is actually one of the best recent games on this front, its only BAD. Torchbearer2 is ghastly, the game is almost unplayable simply due to the craptastical rules organization and layout. 4e OTOH is a dream, particularly for a GM. Dungeon World, a slightly older game at this point, is pretty decent as well, definitely good enough.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Concerns around actually communicating information aside, I think 3e had the most aesthetically pleasing layout of any edition, though I wouldn't say it had the best art pieces.

I really never read a 3e book. 3.5e's problem is its an eye killer. I mean, I'm kinda old! That sucker was harder than heck to read! The fonts are too small, the contrast with the non-white page is less, etc. 4e again takes the cake here, it uses larger/easier to read fonts, and doesn't try to play games with colors where it shouldn't.