The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits

[Jacob Lewis]

Something most people tend to overlook is what happened before 4th Edition happened. It was only a decade before its release that TSR was about to lose everything, and the future of D&D was in serious jeopardy. Wizards of the Coast single-handedly saved the game as an independently-owned company. And they (via Ryan Dancey) created an open license to ensure to preserve its legacy, and its existence.

Then Hasbro showed up.

Hasbro has been doing everything possible to reverse or otherwise circumvent that open license to put D&D back in their pocket. In a lot of ways, 4e was a blatant attempt to cut everyone else out and dislodge those who've made any money off their products or property. Just look at that edition's GSL, which still scares anyone from trying to support this edition with any tools or products, digital or otherwise. It was different enough to effectually eradicate any backwards compatibility, thus making previous products (and companies wanting to produce such products) obsolete. They even went so far as to kill the printed magazines, even when most people were STILL subscribing and enjoying those! And to take things a step further, they attempted to created digital tools specifically to support that edition with only their content.

At least, that was the plan. What they did not expect was the majority to resist and refuse. They banked on the brand name to keep people loyal, regardless of what they did. Hasbro wanted a cash cow and thought the only way to make more money was to sell more stuff. If it was newer and shinier, people will want it. And NOBODY ELSE should have been able to make a dime without paying them, too.

People don't want to think too much about whether the company is inherently good or bad or whatever. As long as they make a product that they want, they're gonna give them money for it and hope they continue putting out products they want to buy. That relationship is only going to last until the nameless consumer is no longer interested in the named product. 4e had a lot of great things I liked. 5e had significantly less. Needless to say, I have not been their customer for a long time despite still being a fan of the game itself. I just prefer a different version that I liked better, and dream of something that could have been greater.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I tried to stick to facts (such as the initial announcement leading people to the false impression that a computer was required to play the game)

I was, of course, there (here? everywhere?) at the time and I have no recollection of this! I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it's weird how my brain refuses to acknowledge this entirely reasonable (for 2007-2008) fear.

a product that was so different and groundbreaking. Which is to say that the same things that made it not work for some people are also the things that made the fans of it so passionate.)

Exactly.

Today's Debate Topic: "4e was as much an indie-game-style Forge-like manifesto about games as Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard."
And... go.

But seriously: whether intentionally or not, 4e is very specific about the kind of gameplay it wants to support. And that gameplay is definitely not meant to appeal to everyone -- for the first time in D&D's history.

It is no accident that 5e started out marketed as "the edition for everyone" and ended up as "the bland edition with absolutely nothing remarkable about it."

 

[Belen]

Frankly?

It's because 5e is now a decade old, and is fundamentally built on the same foundations as a system that is over two decades old. Well, that and we had GSL 2: Electric Boogaloo via WotC's attempt to gut the OGL, which got a LOT of people very eager to not be under WotC's thumb anymore and to question the wisdom of all sorts of choices--including design choices--that were part of 5e. 20+ years of the same fundamental structure means most of the flaws are very well-known, and while 5e tried to fix some of them, it couldn't fix the biggest ones without...y'know...becoming unlike 3e.

I'd also say there's a subtler undercurrent element here. Very subtle, I should say; I don't think it's a strong effect, though perhaps it will grow with time.

That is, 4e is in many ways the edition gamers forgot. Not totally, of course. But both lapsed gamers that returned with 5e and brand-new gamers who've never seen an edition prior to 5e both have a tendency to think that, if 5e does something, 5e was the first place that did it. This is, of course, not true for a variety of things, e.g. "death saves" were lifted straight out of 4e. Even when it is true, there are many 5e structures that are...pretty obviously reinventing the wheel. It's taken a long time, but I've noticed a sort of mildly surprised curiosity arise out of some folks learning that some of the things they've really liked about 5e actually first appeared in 4e.

This seems to be the current culture. The younger crowd discovers something and thinks they invented the concept.

It is an outgrowth of a culture that is becoming more self-centered.

Personally, I detest 4e but not all of it. I think a few rules there were cool but mostly the ones they took from Saga Edition.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Hasbro has been doing everything possible to reverse or otherwise circumvent that open license to put D&D back in their pocket.

Right, because the OGL was absolutely horrible from a "make money and control your product / brand" perspective. And remember, D&D is, was, and always will be a business in addition to a game.

Gygax in some of his later-in-life interviews specifically stated he did not agree with Dancey's approach, would never have done the OGL, and would have instead licensed out the D&D brand to retain more control and more money.

So for everyone who wants to cast Hasbro as the villain here? Gary would've done the same thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, because the OGL was absolutely horrible from a "make money and control your product / brand" perspective. And remember, D&D is, was, and always will be a business in addition to a game.

Gygax in some of his later-in-life interviews specifically stated he did not agree with Dancey's approach, would never have done the OGL, and would have instead licensed out the D&D brand to retain more control and more money.

So for everyone who wants to cast Hasbro as the villain here? Gary would've done the same thing.

Business concerns about maximizing profits whenever you can get away with it are the villains here IMO, no matter who states those concerns.

 

[Zardnaar]

This seems to be the current culture. The younger crowd discovers something and thinks they invented the concept.

It is an outgrowth of a culture that is becoming more self-centered.

Personally, I detest 4e but not all of it. I think a few rules there were cool but mostly the ones they took from Saga Edition.

Saga edition is a sneak peak at a potentially fixed 3.5.

One good thing about 4E was it's engine. You could use it for a 3.5 style game or B/X and go in a different direction on class design for example like SWSE.

I used the 4E engine in my homebrew until recently. I replaced it with 5E so I wouldn't gave to retrain 5E players to my homebrew.

5.5 going a bit further probably should gave added proficiency bonus to all saves. Class choice gives a bonus to certain saves a'la 3.5.

Currently my honebrew is a blend of the 4E and 5E engines, SWSE talent trees and 4E type feats. But the playstyle is a mix of 3.5 and B/X. Well hopefully. Basic skill system, micro feats.

.3.0,3.5, 4E,5E are all guilty of bloating hit points. 3.0 or 3.5 was probably the sweet spot for modern mechanics vs hp.

My homebrew has some 4E mechanics as options via talents. Eg the defender mechanic is there in a fighter talent tree iirc. A few feats are copy and pasted 4E phb. Key difference is opt in build a striker or archer fighter if you like. Or tank.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Business concerns about maximizing profits

We are able to waste our time posting on a message board while living our comfortable existence because of the societal gains made by a variety of businesses, including small businesses and sole-proprietorships, maximizing profits.

 

[payn]

We are able to waste our time posting on a message board while living our comfortable existence because of the societal gains made by a variety of businesses, including small businesses and sole-proprietorships, maximizing profits.

This, or;

 

[TwoSix]

Something most people tend to overlook is what happened before 4th Edition happened. It was only a decade before its release that TSR was about to lose everything, and the future of D&D was in serious jeopardy. Wizards of the Coast single-handedly saved the game as an independently-owned company. And they (via Ryan Dancey) created an open license to ensure to preserve its legacy, and its existence.

Then Hasbro showed up.

Hasbro has been doing everything possible to reverse or otherwise circumvent that open license to put D&D back in their pocket. In a lot of ways, 4e was a blatant attempt to cut everyone else out and dislodge those who've made any money off their products or property. Just look at that edition's GSL, which still scares anyone from trying to support this edition with any tools or products, digital or otherwise. It was different enough to effectually eradicate any backwards compatibility, thus making previous products (and companies wanting to produce such products) obsolete. They even went so far as to kill the printed magazines, even when most people were STILL subscribing and enjoying those! And to take things a step further, they attempted to created digital tools specifically to support that edition with only their content.

I think historical context plays a role here, as well. Making something open-source seemed like the smart, cool thing to do in 2000, the year of peak techno-optimism and pre-dotcom crash. Trying to repeal that and make some more money in the significantly more grim economic setting of 2008 makes a bit more sense in that context.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Today's Debate Topic: "4e was as much an indie-game-style Forge-like manifesto about games as Sorcerer or Dogs in the Vineyard."
And... go.

But seriously: whether intentionally or not, 4e is very specific about the kind of gameplay it wants to support. And that gameplay is definitely not meant to appeal to everyone -- for the first time in D&D's history.

Agreed.

I often wonder why the 4e debates get so heated.

The very reason it wasn't successful in terms of the overall "mass market" is the same reason that people love it.

In effect, if you love it, you should be happy that the designers chose to make a D&D that wasn't beholden to the brand! Some times, it is good to love something for the very reasons that other people don't. There are so many things in the world that are awesome precisely because they aren't trying to appear to a lot of people, but are trying to be truly great for fewer people.

Now, Ima go drive my stick shift car and eat some salmiak licorice.