Zardnaar
Legend
It's pretty hard. Once you look past 5E I think Pathfinder and OSR eat up a lot of what's left.
The D&D 4th edition Rennaissaince: A look into the history of the edition, its flaws and its merits
- Thread starter the_rpg_gazette
- Start date
It's pretty hard. Once you look past 5E I think Pathfinder and OSR eat up a lot of what's left.
Pedantic
Legend
Oh, I don't think that follows at all, and I don't agree with your characterization of Bulmahn's argument. No one has actually done any real iterative update on the 3e framework. PF1 is the closest, and it was hampered by needing to very literally compatible with existing 3e material. A cleanup edition, focused on taking late 3e, or even later Pathfinder rules innovations in at core has simply never happened.
You're working backwards from people rejecting specific design choices to a general claim that those same people somehow believed the initial product was perfect. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the design choices put forth in both 4e and PF1, and reject them as proposed solutions to 3e's problems, while still acknowledging those problems. It's not that these designers stumbled into an impossibility and were forced to make different games; they chose from the outset to make different games, and that they did so is not proof of that impossibility.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I'm not sure how there's any other way to read the original appeal (which seems to have been taken down, as I cannot find it now). I distinctly remember it coming across as Bulmahn humbly asking for players to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt in the changes.
Edit: It would seem I was thinking of stuff put into the Playtest FAQ. It includes sections such as this:
Sections which pretty clearly are openly saying, "Yes, X thing is a problem, we intend to address that problem, and we need your help to make that happen." There's...really no other way to read the inclusion of things like this and not get from it "3e is too broken to keep working with." Sure, some of it is obfuscated with happy-smiles-and-rainbows corp-speak, but that sort of thing is usually pretty transparent.
As for "a cleanup edition", that's literally what PF1e was. Unless you mean something wildly different by that phrase, I cannot for the life of me understand how at-launch PF1e was not a cleanup of the 3e rules. Any deeper changes would've meant a loss of backwards-compatibility, which would have made it not-3e-anymore in the eyes of fans. The whole point was to preserve continuity while tidying up a few things. And it did pretty much exactly that.
Of course I am, because of the number of times I've seen people openly reject anything that isn't functionally nigh-identical to 3e. 5e is 3.5e with a fresh coat of paint, no iterative attacks, and wiping the 3PP/supplement slate clean, though I will grant that it lacks the pages and pages of DC tables that I know you desire. PF1e was literally just cleaned-up 3.5e, which itself was cleaned-up 3e.
This isn't a fluke. It's an established pattern. People will reject things that are not sufficiently like 3e. You may not be one of those people! But they absolutely exist, and they are LOUD, and they get ANGRY and MEAN when they don't get their way.
For all the (many, many, many, many) times that various people--including @Micah Sweet just recently in this very thread--have claimed that 4e fans will only accept perfect identical carbon-copies of 4e? Yeah, in my experience, 3e fans won't accept anything that isn't 95%+ pure 3e with new paint. Make the power balance more equitable between spellcasting and non-magic characters? People riot. Fix the skills system so it isn't horrendously, painfully broken? How dare you make skills not ORGANIC anymore!!! Give every class a definite and useful area of expertise? OH SO YOU WANT TO STRAIGHTJACKET MY ROLEPLAY HUH???
Over and over and over, I have seen this. The arguments never end, and by the time you're done appeasing the 3e fans, you're left with "sure, you can clean things up, but you can't touch skills or skill points, spellcasting and all spellcasting classes (especially Wizard), non-magical classes, or monsters being built by identical rules to PCs." At which point...there's nothing left to change.
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
I mean, that's been my experience. It's not an "argument" so much as a lived fact. PF1e let all of the 3e fans keep playing 3e and reject WotC. 5e let all of them switch back to D&D with less cruft, while still preserving the fundamental core, the nucleus of 3e. (Even the 5e designers explicitly referred to it as "3e mechanics with 4e streamlining"--the latter of which was a pretty blatant fudge to excuse their repeated exclusion, or total subversion, of 4e mechanics and content.)
Actually, these days it's mostly Call of Cthulhu in 2nd place. Even both PFs combined don't add up to more than 4% of Roll20's playerbase, for example--and have never been more than like 10% since 5e landed on the scene. PF2e has never been a meaningful threat to 5e and almost surely never will. Paizo's star has fallen, and it probably won't ever recover, because they could only catch the "you wanna keep playing what you love? we can do that!" lightning in a bottle once.
Zardnaar
Legend
4% was what 3.5 was at before 5E landed.
Any way to compare total numbers? Markets a lot bigger now do even 4% might be a reasonable number of player.
.Any 3.5 players left? I haven't looked at the numbers in years.
Hussar
Legend
Ok, I'm way behind catching up on this thread, but, I just have to say that this is probably one of the best run downs of the history of 4e. Gonna bookmark this one.
Given the topic, I guess I will post what I have previously posted when I attempted to do a deep dive to try and understand this topic and the history. I will also add that apparently Ben Riggs is releasing a history that I am sure will cause this website to explode in frumious commentary when it was released.
TLDR- I think 4e's "failure" was due to a number of issues- from the economy to the marketing to the corporate expectations that could not be matched to the 3PP issues (OGL etc.) to the choices of the design team that prioritized design over the brand despite warning signs. I also think that it, like the Apple Newton, made design choices that continue to be debated, yet also influence the game today. I think that 4e did interesting things, and has passionate fans, and while it is not my favorite, I am very glad it existed.
I look forward to the time when we can talk about 4e without all the hurt and pain and anger people have on all sides. But given it's a decade later and this hasn't happened yet, I am not holding my breath.
-----
A not-very-brief history of 4e's issues and why it wasn't a success and was killed off:
A. At GenCon in August 2007, WoTC botched the rollout of 4e, causing many in the audience to (incorrectly) believe that a computer was required to play the game. This was the start of misconceptions about this edition that the powers that be never really addressed.
B. June 6, 2008- the release of 4e. Do you know what else happened between the announcement of the product and the release? The Great Recession. Not the best time to release a new product (especially when you were hoping for sweet recurring subscriber revenue).
C. It was hoped that 4e would have MMO licensing, computer games, and more. But the timeframe was not favorable. Moreover, we can forget how ambitious this was for the time; the idea of "always on" internet was still novel, and services such as Roll20, twitch, and so on weren't around yet. Heck, the original (very slow!) iPhone had just been released. Yes, the D&D audience was more tech-savvy than regular consumers, but the rosy projections did not match the reality.
D. Building on (C), there exist players who view D&D as a mostly tech-free time. A respite from screens and technology. Sure, they might be luddites, and they might be a very small part of the market now, but they exist. Which also goes back to B, and the botched rollout- computers weren't required, but WoTC chose to emphasize it.
E. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? Yeah, sure, the announcement was botched, and the timing was horrible, but they also had terrible, terrible luck! The 4e designers acknowledged that the final push was rushed by directives from the top, which caused them to make the classes too "samey" and left further differentiation on the cutting-room floor. So many parts that could go wrong, did go wrong- key parts of the computer component that was supposed to be rolled out were entrusted to a developer, and that person was unstable and it ended in a horrific tragedy (and also meant no product). The projections for the product, which were too optimistic, combined with the lack of immediate success, resulted in Hasbro immediately slashing funding. But the time Essentials was rolled out in 2010, 4e was already dead internally and they were debating what to do.
F. Within the 4e community, there has been some debate about whether Essentials was a necessary correction that would have appealed to the mass market, or a betrayal of the essential ethos of 4e.
G. Going back to (B), the concept of subscription services and "Everything is Core" (repeated releases of core books each year) is an idea that was, at best, ahead of its time- we are all about subscriptions now, but it wasn't that common then. At that time, it came off as more of a cash grab, especially given the economy.
H. The design team was too insular and wasn't aware that the reception wouldn't be great, and therefore didn't do enough to "sell" the product. When they had 3PP come and playtest 4e, Jason Buhlman of Paizo saw what was going on and that provided Paizo the confidence to continue on with Pathfinder. In other words, outside playtesters realized it would be divisive to some of the core consumers.
I. Building on (H), we now know that there were issues flagged by members of the design team, but were ignored. In addition, there were some inexplicable errors (such as the monster hit points).
J. One more thing- while the internet wasn't "always on" enough for the ambitions of some aspects of 4e, this was the first edition launch that had many D&D players (I assume, I don't have stats for this) have easy access to some form of the internet, which enabled extreme and intense opinions to both form, spread, and become much more noticeable and toxic.
K. Finally, this history has to be measured in terms of what is a "flagship" product. It's not enough for a D&D product to be "good" or "better" than other editions or other products- it's not sufficient or even necessary that it has great design. It has to be broadly and widely popular so that it continues to dominate the TTRPG marketplace. That is the raison d'être for D&D. People can, and do, argue endlessly about what makes D&D better or worse or good or not, but in terms of a product, D&D must always be #1. Starbucks coffee might not taste the best, but they have to careful changing it ... if you know what I mean.
Now, why write this history? Certainly not to rubbish 4e. I think it's an interesting, but essentially unanswerable, question as to whether or not it would have succeeded if the stars had not been aligned against it. The product was already essentially dead internally two years after the launch, yet aspects of the system itself were incorporated into 5e, and it was never as unpopular as its detractors say - just not popular enough given expectations and the brand.
Please remember that people have very strong opinions about the transitions in D&D that occurred from oe to 1e, 1e to 2e, 2e to 3e, 3e to 4e, and 4e to 5e, and you are unlikely to change those opinions. You are, however, likely to anger the blood of other people on all sides- especially w/r/t 4e. No matter how good or clever your point is, it has definitely been said before and it will not change any opinions. But what you choose to write is up to you, your God(s) (or lack thereof), and the forum rules and the moderators that enforce those rules.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Unfortunately, the Orr Report hasn't been published for like 3-4 years now, so it's hard to get useful data anymore. But at least as of the last ones? Yeah, there were still enough 3.5e players to warrant inclusion on Roll20's reports. Q4 2019 had 1.21% of played campaigns being 3.5e, 1.24% of accounts. Q1 2021 seems to be the very last report, released April 15 of that year, and has grossly similar numbers.
Other sources, which don't look at whether someone actively uses stuff (Roll20 required at least an hour's active playtime during the previous quarter), indicate that PF2e has at most 30.8% play-rate, compared to 5e's 66.7%. These numbers are "live" however, so they update rather more frequently than the now-defunct Orr Reports and other similar things.
TL;DR: At least as far as digital games go, 5e rules the roost, Call of Cthulhu is in second place, and everyone else is nibbling at between 1% and 3% of the market share. 3.5e clings to a small share of the market even today.
Hussar
Legend
Going toss my hat into the ring here.
On the question of MMO inspiration for 4e.
I get what people are saying when they talk about this, but, I think the approach - that 4e was inspired by MMO play misses a couple of very fundamental elements regarding WHY you would look to MMO's for inspiration for a tabletop RPG. I mean, it doesn't make much sense, does it? To try to pull in MMO elements into a tabletop game? Why would you do that? And, of course, this becomes edition war fodder.
But, let me frame the question differently.
4e D&D, at its inception, was attempting to make the game much, much more accessible to a much broader range of people. The idea that you could onramp into the hobby more easily than you could in earlier games. And the primary vehicle for that onramp was meant to be the virtual tabletop and things like Gleemax and the various online tools.
Now, that doesn't mean that they're trying to turn D&D into an MMO. But, instead, they're trying to make 4e D&D into a system where the primary point of play is convention style play - you boot up your computer, see what games are available, take 5 minutes to stop in and say hi to everyone and then play for the next three or four hours and play out that scenario. Finish that session, then, at your convenience, log on to the system again at some point in the future, find another game, totally different group of people, bring your character along, and play in that group. It's the Organized Play model writ large.
Had the VTT and various tools come to fruition, the idea would be that a large group of players would be playing in this sort of never ending Organized Play convention that ran 24/7.
And that's where the MMO model comes in. If you are constantly playing with strangers, you want to minimize house rules. You want to standardize play across groups and give every group a shared language for talking about the game. You want to know that if Player X creates a character using book Y, and joins DM Z's game, no one is going to have any real problems, even if the DM has never seen that book before and has no idea what Player X's character actually is.
So, you create a stunningly transparent system. Everyone can clearly see how the sausage is being made. There are no surprises. There are very, very few opaque mechanics or vague wordings that require constant DM supervision to make sure the game runs smoothly. And that's exactly what 4e is.
Of course, all these great ideas run smack into the wall of reality. The VTT never gets off the ground. There is a very vocal segment of the fandom that takes one look at the transparency of the game and loses their collective minds. Add to that all the really, just awful number of hits that 4e takes that @Snarf Zagyg highlights so clearly above and it's no wonder that the game never manages to hit the ground running.
But, when people talk about MMO design in 4e, they are usually missing the point. It's not so much that 4e was inspired by World of Warcraft or whatnot. It's more about parallel evolution. Both MMO's and Organized Play share so many priorities that they do start to look very similar. Their end goals are very similar - make sure that everyone who is playing can have a good time with that game, regardless of where they are, who they are or who they are playing with.
On the question of MMO inspiration for 4e.
I get what people are saying when they talk about this, but, I think the approach - that 4e was inspired by MMO play misses a couple of very fundamental elements regarding WHY you would look to MMO's for inspiration for a tabletop RPG. I mean, it doesn't make much sense, does it? To try to pull in MMO elements into a tabletop game? Why would you do that? And, of course, this becomes edition war fodder.
But, let me frame the question differently.
4e D&D, at its inception, was attempting to make the game much, much more accessible to a much broader range of people. The idea that you could onramp into the hobby more easily than you could in earlier games. And the primary vehicle for that onramp was meant to be the virtual tabletop and things like Gleemax and the various online tools.
Now, that doesn't mean that they're trying to turn D&D into an MMO. But, instead, they're trying to make 4e D&D into a system where the primary point of play is convention style play - you boot up your computer, see what games are available, take 5 minutes to stop in and say hi to everyone and then play for the next three or four hours and play out that scenario. Finish that session, then, at your convenience, log on to the system again at some point in the future, find another game, totally different group of people, bring your character along, and play in that group. It's the Organized Play model writ large.
Had the VTT and various tools come to fruition, the idea would be that a large group of players would be playing in this sort of never ending Organized Play convention that ran 24/7.
And that's where the MMO model comes in. If you are constantly playing with strangers, you want to minimize house rules. You want to standardize play across groups and give every group a shared language for talking about the game. You want to know that if Player X creates a character using book Y, and joins DM Z's game, no one is going to have any real problems, even if the DM has never seen that book before and has no idea what Player X's character actually is.
So, you create a stunningly transparent system. Everyone can clearly see how the sausage is being made. There are no surprises. There are very, very few opaque mechanics or vague wordings that require constant DM supervision to make sure the game runs smoothly. And that's exactly what 4e is.
Of course, all these great ideas run smack into the wall of reality. The VTT never gets off the ground. There is a very vocal segment of the fandom that takes one look at the transparency of the game and loses their collective minds. Add to that all the really, just awful number of hits that 4e takes that @Snarf Zagyg highlights so clearly above and it's no wonder that the game never manages to hit the ground running.
But, when people talk about MMO design in 4e, they are usually missing the point. It's not so much that 4e was inspired by World of Warcraft or whatnot. It's more about parallel evolution. Both MMO's and Organized Play share so many priorities that they do start to look very similar. Their end goals are very similar - make sure that everyone who is playing can have a good time with that game, regardless of where they are, who they are or who they are playing with.
payn
Glory to Marik
Roll20 is the last place to look for a PF2 game because frankly Roll20 sucks. Folks use Foundry for it.
Paizo folks are saying that PF2 is selling better than PF1 and I don’t have reason to not believe them. They split their base and are doing better that’s how many more folks are playing now.
Joshua Randall
Legend
I’m sorry, E.R., but unless you have receipts that were witnessed by two independent observers and audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers, I’m going to have to ask you to [citation needed].
Brought to you by the usual demand made upon 4e.
Which is the exact goal people have when they say, “Well 4e could’ve been a sort-of D&D but not really D&D.” Of course they want it dead! That was always what they wanted.
It’s the insult dating back to the “real roleplayers” arguments of the 1980s that only faded away (temporarily) when they were mocked into submission.
I swapped out one abbreviation in your paragraph and it perfectly encapsulates that sadness and anger that 4e fans feel.
Are we allowed to feel empathy towards 3e fans disappointed by PF2e’s changes or by 5e’s changes?
Are we allowed to feel empathy towards 4e fans disappointed by its utter erasure by WOTC?
Are we allowed to feel empathy towards 5e.2014 fans disappointed by whatever changed in 5e.2024?
We should be.
(Again, this is not directed specifically at Ezekiel; I’m just quoting him because he always makes good points.)
Yes, exactly. 4e was a savvy business attempt to make a product that could compete with things that were eating D&D’s lunch at the time, and a product that fit the (then) state of the world better than a product invented in the 1970s when the world was entirely different.
But, again: we’re not allowed to give 4e / WOTC / whomever any credit for this attempt. No, we are only allowed to mock the attempt and hate the people who bought the product and enjoyed it.
Similar Threads
