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

[Umbran]

I, personally, have decided my response is to embrace the bitterness and that I will never accept anyone's claims that some anti-4e thing was done out of ignorance. I will assume everything anti-4e was done out of willful malice and hatred.

No, I'm not joking.

Mod Note:
Just to be clear: we don't care about how you feel about 4e, or how bitter you are.

You will treat other posters on this site with a modicum of respect. That is not negotiable.

For example: Browbeating or badgering people or threads for content you don't like is not acceptable behavior. Nor will you be allowed to treat people as if they are discussing in bad faith just for disagreeing with you.

And making threats about how you will behave if someone posts something that you disagree with? Basically telling us that when this topic comes up, we don't really need to discuss with you before acting.

I strongly suggest you get a handle on yourself, before you do something you regret.

I'm not joking, either.

 

[Joshua Randall]

the main issue is, if anyone is even passably familiar with 4E and they only know a couple of things about it, by word of mouth, it'll be that:
1. "It's just pen and paper WoW." and 2. "You need a character builder because of all the powers, books and errata."

Now, I don't think either is particularly true but again, there's your friction between playing this and something else which doesn't have that preconceived baggage.

Replying again to the same post, in a less flippant way. Because... this is actually deeply, deeply sad.

4e is a game. It is (IMO) a pretty well designed game that absolutely nails its design goals and, if you enjoy it, is really enjoyable at what it does.

Unfortunately, thanks to a decade-and-a-half of concentrated hatred towards 4e often aided and abetted by certain people at HasbrWOTC, the word of mouth about 4e has created friction that doesn't need to exist. All the preconceived baggage is based on willfully malicious misreadings of the game foisted off on otherwise innocent bystanders some subset of whom would end up loving 4e if they just gave it a chance.

That is deeply sad. For everyone.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Three reasons.

1. This argument, "it would've been great if it wasn't called D&D", is just a more subtle and sophisticated way of excluding 4e from being D&D. It's the urbane, genteel way to redefine D&D so that 4e can be excluded as never having actually been D&D in the first place. I thus reject it for the same reasons I reject the to-the-point version.
2. The fact is, name matters. Names always mattered, of course--words have meaning and names have power--but this pretty well proves it. PF2e had everything a game could want for a new version: a large and engaged fanbase, lore that would give a reason for that fanbase to stay, and 10-15 years' experience with various iterations of the same rules system (3.0, 3.5, PF1). It should have been the perfect ground for demonstrating that a 4e-like game could succeed if it were simply allowed to exist without the D&D name. This demonstrably did not happen. Pathfinder 2nd edition was completely obliterated by 5e in terms of measurable numbers of games played.
3. Your question is flawed, because it's asking the wrong kind of thing. The thing I replied to was quite clearly indicating that EVERYTHING D&D-like, including the thematics, had to be removed so 4e could soar. I couldn't possibly disagree more: concepts like the Paladin (whose Lay on Hands was FOR THE FIRST TIME actually a personal sacrifice!), the Warlord as a whole, the Full Disciplines of Monk? None of those could have existed if this system had to cut out both the label and any thematics that smell too much like D&D. I'm very much of the opinion that the chassis is a good chassis for a game system--regardless of the label applied. I am, however, never going to accept that 4e could have succeeded anywhere near as much as it did if you had to carve out all the fantasy trappings and fantasy-CRPG-defining concepts that come from being an edition of D&D.

It sounds to me like 4e being a good game that you enjoy isn't enough for you, it also has to be generally acknowledged and validated by the community at large. I just don't see why that's so important to you. None of the games I enjoy the most are the most popular, or indeed official D&D by any means. Why do you need other people to give 4e the gold star?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Three reasons.

1. This argument, "it would've been great if it wasn't called D&D", is just a more subtle and sophisticated way of excluding 4e from being D&D. It's the urbane, genteel way to redefine D&D so that 4e can be excluded as never having actually been D&D in the first place. I thus reject it for the same reasons I reject the to-the-point version.
2. The fact is, name matters. Names always mattered, of course--words have meaning and names have power--but this pretty well proves it. PF2e had everything a game could want for a new version: a large and engaged fanbase, lore that would give a reason for that fanbase to stay, and 10-15 years' experience with various iterations of the same rules system (3.0, 3.5, PF1). It should have been the perfect ground for demonstrating that a 4e-like game could succeed if it were simply allowed to exist without the D&D name. This demonstrably did not happen. Pathfinder 2nd edition was completely obliterated by 5e in terms of measurable numbers of games played.
3. Your question is flawed, because it's asking the wrong kind of thing. The thing I replied to was quite clearly indicating that EVERYTHING D&D-like, including the thematics, had to be removed so 4e could soar. I couldn't possibly disagree more: concepts like the Paladin (whose Lay on Hands was FOR THE FIRST TIME actually a personal sacrifice!), the Warlord as a whole, the Full Disciplines of Monk? None of those could have existed if this system had to cut out both the label and any thematics that smell too much like D&D. I'm very much of the opinion that the chassis is a good chassis for a game system--regardless of the label applied. I am, however, never going to accept that 4e could have succeeded anywhere near as much as it did if you had to carve out all the fantasy trappings and fantasy-CRPG-defining concepts that come from being an edition of D&D.

Let me try this another way.

This was absolutely a Dungeons & Dragons game. No question about it, even for those who argue in the manner that you describe. We know who they are, and why we reserve a grain of salt for everything they say after. It is, in fact, my favorite expression of that game to date.

But would it have done better if it were "D&D the Adventure Game" instead of "D&D the Roleplaying Game (version 4.x)"? Plain and simple, I think it would've been better if it wasn't "Fourth Edition" of a game that had a lot of baked-in expectations and prerequisites to be called the next iteration of said "roleplaying game, known as Dungeons & Dragons".

Clearly, there is room now for alternate expressions of D&D now that we have everything from cookbooks, to themes of other popular board games, to unique board and card games, and meat sticks!

 

[payn]

Don't forget "well, that stuff will be in the tactical combat module."

Like the Christmas present we will never ever get

 

[billd91]

So the complaint that 4e requires a character builder to work -- to me that's like complaining about nothing in particular, or complaining about an entire genre of games which, sure, OK, but then how is this specifically 4e's fault?

While that may be common among a number of other RPGs (I know I'm not making a Shadowrun character without a builder), WotC's licensing shenanigans with 4e does make it a particularly problematic issue with 4e in the D&D family.

The 3e family (3.5 and PF1, mainly) have so many WotC-published options alone (even more with 3rd party) that it's probably the edition where a builder helps the most (particularly if it can adjust calculated stats for selected buffs) - but the openness of the licensing gave us a number of persistent options that are readily available. The pace of 4e's publication schedule makes it easily the edition next most in need of a builder, but good luck finding one.

 

[Kannik]

Yeah, I know it's still around if you look hard enough. It's just kinda sketch to sell people on, just more friction, you know?

Understandable; I've installed the builder on a few machines at home and there's a bit of a learning curve to do so (I've now got those steps in a text file for easy reference). It's smooth once that's done fortunately.

 

[Kannik]

Of course, soccer players don't normally kill their opponents....

Not yet, anyway... (Now I'm thinking of a Blood-Bowl-esque tabletop soccer game, hmm)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Let me try this another way.

This was absolutely a Dungeons & Dragons game. No question about it, even for those who argue in the manner that you describe. We know who they are, and why we reserve a grain of salt for everything they say after. It is, in fact, my favorite expression of that game to date.

But would it have done better if it were "D&D the Adventure Game" instead of "D&D the Roleplaying Game (version 4.x)"? Plain and simple, I think it would've been better if it wasn't "Fourth Edition" of a game that had a lot of baked-in expectations and prerequisites to be called the next iteration of said "roleplaying game, known as Dungeons & Dragons".

I'll just note that I saw this same argument made when D&D 3e came out. It didn't get as much traction because a lot of people who left D&D years before returned (at least transiently) to the fold so the people who's expectations it violated didn't get to control the narrative, but their take on it was very much the same.

 

[Mannahnin]

A fair complaint. However, not one that is unique to Wizards. In fact, perennial mismanagement of digital projects affects every business way, way, WAY outside the elfgaming niche.

Source: ... just read any book about software development written in the last 30 years, and probably for decades before that. (I mean heck, "The Mythical Man-Month" dates back to 1975! and was describing problems that were already old at that point.)

I'm not saying it's unique. Or that losing key people doesn't hurt any software project.

I'm saying WotC's failure on the VTT was particularly noteworthy in that it not only was hurt by the loss of those people, but the VTT never happened at all. Which seems indicative that WotC never gave it enough resources/people to create it in the first place.

Which is kind of incredible given that it (as I recall) was supposed to be the centerpiece of the new edition. One of the guys I played with at the time was very well-off, and talked about buying laptops for the whole group when 4E came out so that we could use them to play, both in-person and remote, so as to take advantage of dynamic lighting and limiting sightlines to what our own characters could see. Supplanting our then-standard 4x8 Chessex Mondomat and hundreds of miniatures the group had collected for use.

So the complaint that 4e requires a character builder to work -- to me that's like complaining about nothing in particular, or complaining about an entire genre of games which, sure, OK, but then how is this specifically 4e's fault?

4E does not require a character builder to work. Like every other RPG I've ever played, I have done and can make characters just using paper books. In the last 4E campaign I played in a few years ago, none of us were particularly techie or motivated enough to dig up and get a character builder functioning, so all four players (two experienced, two complete newbies) and the DM just worked from physical books and PDFs.

4E does have such a large variety of options, and gives you so many opportunities to make choices and add new feats and powers, that this compounds and exacerbates the cumbersomeness of digging through the various books to find the feats and powers you want. 4E also, like 3E, published an absolute firehose of hardcover books full of options. Most other games, even complex ones, have nowhere near as many books full of character options.

I think @billd91 is correct that 3.x is arguably even more difficult in terms of having more published options. But games with a really good character builder are rare, and basically everyone who regularly played 4E got used to using and relying on the character builder. So going without it feels like more of a PITA.

It sounds to me like 4e being a good game that you enjoy isn't enough for you, it also has to be generally acknowledged and validated by the community at large. I just don't see why that's so important to you. None of the games I enjoy the most are the most popular, or indeed official D&D by any means. Why do you need other people to give 4e the gold star?

No.

He's not asking for anyone to praise it.

He's asking for people to stop repeating derogatory canards about it, and coming into discussions of it JUST to crap on it.